01/22/1985 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? PLANNING COMISSION JANUARY 22, 1985 PAGE 3 rather abandoned./ On November 29, 1984, the B.Z.D. committee was re- contacted and the developer was advised to submit plans to Planning Commission to be properly heard. The plan before the Commission to- night is a result of this advice and the same as the 1981 revised plan. Please understand that the remaining issues are: /(1) Vacation of part of Elms Rd. and .../ (2) Acceptance of all or part of the State of Ohio right-of-way./ The Planning Commission is empowered by the charter, Article VII, sec. 2(b), third paragraph to consider "....the location, relocation, widening, extension and vacation of streets..." "All plans, recommendations and regulations made by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to council for approval before the same shall be considered as official." Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that he had re- viewed the proposal with City Engineer Schaller and that the cul-de-sac as measured from the center line.of Brendan Lane to the Center of the cul-de-sac was 673.63' (Maximum allowed is 500') and that the cul-de- sac is illegal. Mr. Dubelko also advised that the Commission is not bound by the Planning Commission minutes of 1981 because the legality of the cul-de-sac was not a question at that time (Assistant City Engineer McDermott stated "The cul-de-sac on the preliminary plan appears to con- form to code.") and that the plan had been rejected and must be reviewed again. Vacation of the right-of-way is not germain at this time since plan is not conforming. The developer must submit a conforming plan. Neighbors again complained that Mr. Clingman does not own all property involved, and that by continuing to submit plans, he is in effect harrassing them; and is trying to use property that they were forced to sell to the State. Engineer Schaller stated that the State owned land could only be released for street purposes. Mr. Dubelko advised that these issues cannot be considered at this time since proposal is not conforming. T. Morgan moved that Deerpath Subdivision No. 6, located north of I-480 and east of the existing eastern end of Elm Road be dis- approved because the proposed cul-de-sac does not meet the existing ordi- nance and that the line from the street to the cul-de-sac must not exceed 500', seconded by B. Gorris, and unanimously approved. - V. COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Regional Planning Commission explaining services and request- ing that the city become a member. The Commission concurs and will look ,., into the possibility of rejoining. Mr. Gorris submitted an article from the January 2nd issue of Westlife re- garding a tennis school proposed to be placed in a residential area on Canterbury Rd. The article states that proposal will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gorris would like a legal opinion as to whether this should be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals or by the Planning Commission. Commission questioned when Self Service Maxi-Wash proposal (heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 2nd) would be on the Planning Commission agenda. This has not been submitted to the Engineering Department as yet. _ VI. NEW BUSINESS: