My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/09/1979 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1979
>
1979 Planning Commission
>
01/09/1979 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:35:11 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 9:03:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1979
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/9/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />r? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />V. C01,1PN2dICATIONS • <br />11o I tems <br />VI. NEW BUSIIQESS- <br />P-age 2 <br />Subdivision No. 4-East side of Bentley Drive between Lorain Rd. <br />and Curtis Drive. This is a re-subdivision of Sublot No. 2 of the <br />Groveland Garden Subdivision No. 3(formerly Permanent Parcel <br />Nos.237-4- 34, 237-4-35, 237-4-36) into three (3) sublots. This <br />property had orginally been 3 lots, but had been assembled into one. <br />The request is now to redivide it back to the origianl 3 lots. <br />Mr. McDermott explained that there was a slight variation in size <br />between s/1 1& 2 in order for them to conform to square foot area <br />for a C residential lot. Martin Listen, representing Trans-Con <br />Builders explained that these lots have no frontage on Lorain Rd. <br />and that the only use that they can put them to will be for single <br />family homes. The proposal was explained to the adjacent property <br />owners. Mr. Prokasy moved to approve the preliminary Groveland <br />Subdivision No. 4 proposal to divide one existing lot into 3 lots, <br />seconded : by Mr. Ohman and unani-mously approved. <br />Proposed Ordinance No. 78-179 was discussed. This ordinance states <br />in part "tnat all signs should be located no closer than ten (10) <br />feet from the public right of way". There was discussion about <br />puttinb the ordinance in committee for study, h.owever since the <br />Planning Gommission had had the ordinance for over thirty days it <br />was decided that it should be voted on and sent back to council with <br />recommendations, if any. Law Director Gareau pointed out that the <br />city now required a 7 foot buffer strip and this could mean that the <br />pole signs mbght have to be located in the parking lot in some in- <br />stances. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bugala made a r.iotion that the <br />Planning Commission disapproves Ordinance 78-179 in that this <br />ordinance violates the efficient operation of the 7 foot buffer <br />ordinance and that the Planning Commission as well as the Council <br />Committee are currently reviewing the Signage Ordinances and that <br />these should be handled as a package. Secon ded by J. Brown and <br />unanimously approved. <br />JANUARY 9, 1979 <br />VII. OLD BUSINESS: <br />No Items. <br />VII. <br />COrQi1TTEE REPORTS: The Sign Cor:unittee has not met but ?•ir. Buaala <br />reported that <br />Mr. Gundy will <br />explaining his <br />? <br />e has reviewed the ordinances. It was decided that <br />meet with the Sign Committee to review the Ordinances, <br />interpretations of them and his problems with enforcement. <br />Election of Officers: <br />Chairman Roberts declared nominations were in order to elect officers <br />of the Planning Commission for the year 1979 as prescribed in Rules
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.