Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />. <br />p?1ANNING COMMISSION DRCEMBER 11, 1979 PAGE 4 <br />the State of Ohio to be retunied to the City for access to <br />Clague Rd, after I-480 was built. A sideyard variance (25' <br />sideyard are required on corner lots) would be required if this <br />street is to be developed. It was estimated that one of tlie <br />houses was only 8 feet from the right-of-way. At this point <br />Mr. Clingman requested to present an alternate plan that might be <br />more acceptable to the residents. Chairman Bugala advised him he <br />could not accept an alternate proposal unless it meets all re- <br />quirements of the City Ordinances. * PZr. Clingman with.drew this <br />request. The adjacent property otaners were asked to comment. It <br />was clarified for the residents that the State of Ohio owmed the <br />right-of-way but they would return it to the City if the City <br />proposed a road. At this time the Developer is proposing the <br />road, however, the proposal is that the abutting property owners <br />will be assessed for •the improvements. As, an abutting _property owner <br />he can legally petition the City to develop the road and assess <br />the other _ab.utting property owners. r1rs. Brown, a neighbor, _stated <br />that propertv oianers had been forced to sell to the State of Ohio <br />supposedly for the purpose of building a road to be used during <br />the construction of 1430, but the right-of-way had never been <br />used for. this purpose. Mr. Ralph, a resident of Brendaa Lane, <br />stated that since Elm Road has been opened up to Brendan Lane <br />there have been many traffic problems, and if this road is de- <br />veloped to Clague Road and 1480 it will increase these problems. <br />Mr. Clingman stated that he felt that some way tnis landlocked <br />property has to be opened up for property owmers who taere forced to <br />sell their frontage. Mrs. Cepec and other neighbors claimed that <br />Mr. Clingman has frequently called them trying to urge some <br />owners to sell their property to him. Councilwoman Sarringer <br />asked that the Board disapprove this proposal. R. Perla moved <br />to reject this proposal based upon the advice of the Law Director <br />and upon other advice that the 50' roadway and the corner lot set- <br />back does not meet City requirements, seconded by B. Gorris, and <br />unanimously approved. 4. North Olmsted Rosewood Estates Subdivision, Improvement Plans <br />(Final Plat of Subdivision approved by Planning Commission on <br />Pdovember 13, 1979). Realignment of 3 parcels (231-19-11, 231- <br />19-12, and 231-32-1) located between Colunbia Road and Root Road <br />. and includes proposed Gessner Road extension west beyond Root Road. <br />Assistant City Engineer D. McDermott presented the Iruprovement <br />Plans which have been approved by the Engineering Department. J. <br />Roberts moved to accept the North 0lmsted Rosewood Estates Sub-- <br />division Improvement Plans, seconded by J. Brown and unanimously ? <br />app rove d. <br />V. Communications: <br />-I1o I tetas .