10/28/1975 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission 10-28-75 _ 2 _ Mr. McDermott explained study was made regarding relocating Elm Rd., but no actual plans were made by the State. The State would entertain proposal or request for releasing the acquired right of way for development of Elm Rd. by the City. Proposed subdivision and relocated EIm Rd. can be accommodated together in drainage plan. State will tie this added drainage into the I-480 storm line on Brookpark Rd. and then south to Rocky River. This is feasible but there is no formal p].an. Mr. McDermott further exp].ained the elevation of 1-480 - the old maps show approximately plus 10 ft. elevation at western end of the proposed subdivision and maximum of 20 ft. at eastern end. Regarding vacating part of existing Elm Rd., it is recommended th3.s be done only to I-480. It is up to the developer to procure the official vacating recommendation. Mr. Prokasy stated Elm Rd. is dedicated right of way; the State acquired the right of way for purpose of the highway and provided alternate access. The state is not going to put in Elm Rd. The City ean choose to develop it or the developer can propose a plan and develop same. The City can replace the right of way taken by the State. Possibilities of development of Elm Rd. or portion of E1.m Rd. were explored. There was suggestion that curve onto E1m Rd. (as shown in proposed plan) be made into Cul de sac. Mr. Prokasy asked if anyone in the room is in favor of the plan. No one answered. Approximately 24 persons were present to objeet. Mr. Tischler asked if there is one parcel, or are there three parcels. Mr. McDermott said there are three parcels which need to be subdivided into 13 sub lots. t'rs. Shank, 4665 lichael spoke of hauses facing embanknento Mr. CZingman said it is the best plan for use of the land. Mr. Tisch- ler mentioned desirability of different placement of homes - two sub lots have ditches - basically it is esthetics situation: There were further comments from neighbors. Previous plans for the subdivision were scanned. There was question of safety regu- lation: is it necessary to have cul de sac required for turning of emergency equipment. Chairman Prokasy asked Mr. Clingman to have his engineer look at plan again and perhaps design cul de sac. The first layout seems to be preferred. There was question about sidewalk along vacant lot on Margo. After further discussion Nfr. Tisehler said Deerpath Subdivision #6 does not meet requirements and he therefore moved to reject proposal because it is not in conformance with the ordinance. Mrs. Eian seconded and motion passed unanimously.