07/14/1981 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1981 PAGE 4 understanding that the Commission is not approving phase development, and that this is one lot and the only way to utilize it by submitting it this way is with zoning code changes or if a variance is granted. Obviously, if there is a hardship here it would be self created. Mr. Clingman stated that he had an easement for access from Clague Rd. to block "C". Mr. Gareau advised that this would have to be de- dicated as public right-of-way since all lots must have front- age on a public street, and that there is a limit of 500' for any cul-de-sac, so that in order for Mre Clingman to cut down the size of the cul-de-sac he would have to have access on to a public street, not an easement. Mr. Clingman again claimed that the Block "C" remainder is not landlocked because he does have access to Clague Road by easement, and that he owns block "C" and this easement is for his own particular purposes. Mr. Clingman proposed to withdraw the present plan and resubmit it the way it was (proposal heard on June 23rd), and rely on his easement for access to block "C". This would still landlock block "C" according to the Code. J. Prokasy advised Mr. Clingman that he would then again have a land-locked parcel be- .cause he must have access to public right-of-way, not an ease- ment. Law Director Gareau asked that the record show that there was a full discussion of the fact that this is one lot and there is an understanding that this is not a phase devel- opment and it does not meet the code. Mr. Clingman was asked to decide which plan he was now presenting to the Commission. Chairman Gorris stated that this plan looks like it could be the first phase of a previous plan submitted and rejected with a 700' cul-de-sac which is in violation of the code and that Mr. Clingman should be aware that if it is approved this- way, he cannot come back and request approval for the subdi- vision of land contrary to the code on a hardship basis. Mr. Clingman decided not to withdraw..the current subtuittal. D. McDermott advised that the lots appear to conform to code on this preliminary plat and will be checked further on submis- sion of the final plat. There is no code violation pertaining to having an oversized lot that does not conform to the other lots in the development. Mr. Bugala stated that this is not a valid lot and that he cannot accept that this lot is going to be used as it is platted now. Mr. Clingman stated that there were six parcels that he did now own, and he is unable to develop the entire area but want to develop what he can. Assistant City Engineer D. McDermott advised that the State of Ohio owns the right-of-way, which they will release to the City if the City so requests. At this point the City has not requested it nor has Mr. Clingman obtained a commitment from the City that they will request it. Mr. Clingman believes that he should have a subdivision approved before r.equesting the City to ask the State to release the right-of-waya J. Prokasy moved to put the Clingman Deerpath Subdivision #6 in committee .-? .