My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/02/2001 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
10/02/2001 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:45:36 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 10:25:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
10/2/2001
Year
2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Minutes of 10/2/2001 <br />:, road was not shown. It would have cost about $1 million. The Lorain Road and Claque <br />~~ Road four-lane intersection will be completed by the county next year. He feels the Wazd <br />2 residents have been punished for rejecting the "monstrosity" plan, but they were never <br />shown the second plan. And Howard Needles Company, one of the most respected <br />engineering firms in the state, said that this is a good quality, safe solution. Cost for .53 <br />miles of four-lane highway with curbs and grass, less than $2 million. His question is <br />why the people of North Olmsted were never shown this plan? Councilman Limpert <br />said he recalled a meeting at the Community Cabin where there were several proposals <br />presented. Service Director Bohlmann said first and foremost, he did not design this. <br />Howard Needles Company designed all these plans, and that goes back to the early <br />1990's. There had been several meetings between the Council and the staff of the County <br />Engineer's office. All three of these proposals were submitted and looked at back in the <br />early 1990's. There was a meeting at the Cabin at one time. There had been a number of <br />meetings. It was the belief of the County Engineer's office at that time that this <br />"monstrosity," as Mr. Bouman calls it, was the best way to go. That was their opinion at <br />that time. At that time, our engineering division concurred with that. Yes, it took some <br />homes out, but that was the best way to go to straighten the road out. The lazgest <br />objection he heard back in 1996 was that the homes were going to be taken and that the <br />road was going to be four lanes. Nobody wanrted a four-lane road over there, and nobody <br />wanted to take the houses away. So, consequently, the whole thing was put back to bed <br />and Council basically told the county, no thanks. But this was not an Issue 2 project. <br />'t'his is a separate project that was 80/20 funded by the county at that point in time. The <br />legislation was initially passed in 1987 or 1988 to accept the grant from the county, but it <br />was in 1996 that the project was proposed. The residems who lived on Claque Road <br />objected to it, and Council decided it would not be done. He did not design the project, <br />and he did not hide anything. All these plans have been laying in the City Engineer's <br />office for the better part of 10 years. He has not looked at these plans since 1996. He <br />explained to Council last time why we didn't want to submit it, and he stands on that. <br />We are going to do the intersection first, then we aze going to take a look at the rest of the <br />road. We felt the intersection was the best way to start--e~cactly what Westlake did on <br />Center Ridge Road and Detroit Road. We felt that was the best way of going about that, <br />and then taking another look at these drawings or something similar to it and trying to <br />accommodate what the residents wishes were and in turn trying to accommodate the <br />traffic flow down Claque Road. President Saringer said she recalled the residents did not <br />want afour-lane road. At the time, she asked if the road could be three lanes and was <br />told that it could not because the funds were federal funds and we had to do what the <br />federal government wacrted. Mr. Bohlmann said he believ~l that was correct. As far as <br />the deadline on Issue 2, it has always been his understanding that we have adrop-dead <br />date, and last Friday was that day. If that is not held firm, then he was wrong in saying it. <br />However, it has been his understanding for years that we have a certain date by which the <br />application must be submitted and it cannot be modified or changed after that date. He <br />will find out tomorrow. Councilwoman Kasler said she was concerned at the procedure <br />that took place and the administrative action that took place to submit a proposal without <br />having the approval of Council. If the deadline is not firm, she would like to know that. <br />She asked why the second Claque Road proposal could not have been part of the Issue 2 <br />`'~ application as it adds to a project that we are already doing. Mr. Bohlmann said it was <br />8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.