April 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as to an appropriate solution to the lighting problem. Mr. Oxian stated that the original motion in March was tabled to allow Mr. Talley to find an appropriate poles for his yard; the COA submitted went beyond the original COA; the HPC should • decide whether to approve Mr. Talley's pole or not. Mr. Hoiycross stated that his understanding in March was that the COA submitted by Mr. Talley was disapproved; this COA was separate from it. Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Murphy if he had an idea of the neighborhood's opinion as to how to obtain additional light. He responded that the neighborhood in general simply wanted more fixtures. Mrs. Sporleder stated that she had researched the matter and found that the areas of lawn in question were actually public right-of-way under the jurisdiction of the city; lights installed in that area by private individuals would therefore not be possible. It would be inappropriate for the HPC to give permission for the plan as submitted. Ms. DeRose suggested that the HPC make a determination whether or not the plan was historically appropriate and leave such questions to the "peril and risk" of the homeowner who might be required to remove the poles by another agency. Mrs. Murphy asked the HPC for advice as to an appropriate manner in which to use and save the poles in their possession and how the matter might be resolved with the city and I&M. Mr. Oxian stated that he had met with the Carl Littrell, John Lyszynzski and Steve Luecke about streetlights; it was decided that Mr. Oxian would serve as the intermediary between the historic district and city to make decisions about streetlights in general. He said that the HPC had been involved in trying to find a solution and a means to preserve the lights for ten years; for the time being, the two lights in question should remain as the topic of conversation. • Mr. Littrell (city engineer) stated that the city would require that they be indemnified against any responsibility if these lights were allowed to be erected in the public right of way. The neighborhood or property owners would also have to carry insurance against losses in case of accident. The poles in question have been declared unfit for use in the public right of way. The Board of Public Works would probably not object to the poles if the city's legal responsibilities were transferred to the property owners. The city would object to anything other than incandescent lighting fixtures. He stated that the poles are a precious resource; the city was doing its best to save them but IN was "out every day taking them down around the city" making it difficult to trace every historic pole. The poles could not be repaired for use at any reasonable cost; there is a limited supply of poles that are available and usable. There is not much hope of additional poles becoming available. Mr. Littrell concluded by saying that the additional lights could not be introduced into the neighborhood because of federal regulations beyond the city's control. The city had offered "full-scale replacement" to address the safety concerns in the neighborhood. Ms. Crumlish stated that "the neighborhood agreed that it needed more light" and to pay for additional lights out of its pocket; "why was [the city] kicking [sic] a gift horse in the mouth?" Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Littrell how the city would address the safety issue in other than a historic district. Mr. Littrell replied that they would install the standard overhead sodium lights on wood poles with overhead wiring. Discussion ensued as to the possible cost differentials between different types of fixtures, and the tariff system mandated by the regulatory commission. F_ I LJ