05/11/1965 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of meetilzg of 1vIay 11, 1965 -2- with Bretton Ridge Subdivision. Discu.ssion ensued relative to this proposed subdivision and it was moved by Mr. Spalding, seconded by Mr. LaFonza, to have a report from the Service llirector to the Planning Commission, in ?.rriting, at the-next meeting on his meetinc, with the Township Trustee relative to the sErvice Problems, if any, on the access Road to Stearns Road or the joint boundary. These would include snow removal, street lighting, street maintenance and tree planting and the problem of 1 access. YEAS Spalding, LaPonza, Prokasy, Fcrd, Fabek-, Esgar. COTTONWOOD TRAIL SUBI)IVISION ELAT The City Lngineer reported that sublot 26 did not meet the platting requirement of an 80 foot frontage or 80 feet at zhe building line. Discussion ensued and it t,ras pointed out by the developer that the builclina line was 80 f eet. Af ter a recommendation of the law Director as to the meaning of this part of Ordinance 64-95 it was moved by NIr. Fabelc, seconded by Mr. Esgar, that this plat be approved. YEAS Fabek, Esgar, Spaldincr, LaPonza, 1'rokasy, Ford. It was recommended that this section on frontage be studied in compar- ison with the Walnut Creelc Subdivision Regulations to clarify this groblem. COTTONWOOD TRAIL SUBDIVIS ION IMPROVL-MEINTT PL-ANS It was reported by the City F??'ngineer that he had not s•tudied these plans as yet so they wi11 stay in the izands of the City Enginper for a report at the riext meeting. It zaas reported also that the City Engineer had apnroved the togograPhic map. EAST PARK IN11'POVL"c-1L?T PLANS It s•Tas reported by the City Engineer that these proposed plans do n.ot meet.the requirements of the Platting Ordinance. UPon this report, it -vaas moved. Uy Mr. LaPonza, seconcied b> Mr. Esgar, to reject East Park Improvement Dra4ain?s as gre;?ented as they do not conf orm to the tlatting ordinance. YEAAS LaPonza, Esgar, Fabek, Sra lding, Prolcasy, Ford. SOUTHERN A:isL,NUE - HUWARD LINK lliscussion ensued relative to this groposal and it was moved by Mr. Ford, seconcled by NIr. LaPonza, to reject this proposal Uecause the 6 lots do not conform with the lot frontage of the other lots cahich have bePn laid out on Southern Avenue and they are also belota the require- ments of the ordinance. YLE1S Ford, LaPonza, Pi olcasy, Lsgar, Fabek, 5paldin?. C OLUMB IA LAND # 1 and 3 REV T S I0NS Mr. Kanareff presented this progosal on behalf of Mr. L1oyd. I'ierman, d.eveloper. , This was a plat showin€ the vacation of Lamont and Linca