My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/10/1970 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1970
>
1970 Planning Commission
>
12/10/1970 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:37:04 PM
Creation date
2/1/2019 4:06:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1970
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/10/1970
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
CTTY OF A10RTH OLMSTED, OHIO <br />PLANNIn1G COivHISLOION <br />December 10, 1970 <br />I. Roll Call <br />The meeting was called to crder at 8010 P.M. by Chairman James Leonard. <br />Those nresent were Mssrs. Leona.rd., James Davis, Richard Nelson, Kurt <br />Richards, Ed.wa.rd Byers, J. Edward Lrewer, Donal.d Led.vina.. .Also present: <br />Mr. Ransbury, Assistant to Acting City Engineere <br />II. Reading and Correction af 17in.utes <br />Mr, Davis moved to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the 11/24/70 <br />meeting and to approve as written9 seconded by Mr. Brewer cqnd unanimously <br />passed. <br />II2. Building Department R.equests - None <br />29, Old Business <br />(a) Hen Roc Investment Co. R.ezoning - The develorer rer.uested a contin- <br />uation. However, as 32 people were nresent irom the a.rea adjacent <br />to the land in nuestion, Mr. Moss, attorney £or the developer, agreed <br />to discuss the pronosed (?evelopment and answer questionso The <br />objections w'zich were voiced and other comrilents were, in generalo <br />(1) The pronosed 7-story buildings a.re too high for the a.rea, (2) <br />Additional traffic would flow through the residential areao (3) There <br />would be an additional burden created for the schaol svstem, fire <br />denartment, poliee department, etc. (4) There are over 100 children <br />on Mitchell Drive to whom the additional traffic would be a ha.zard. <br />(5) Mr, Ken Burdick, 45 i 5Westview Drive stated that pians for gard.en <br />type anartments had been presented to Council 2 years agoa (6) It <br />was asked if revised plans could be seen by intereated persons prior <br />to the next meeting. Mr. Leon«rd replied that the Dlans zaould net be <br />available even -to the i'lnnning Commission prior to the meeting, (7) <br />The developers agreed to notify a representative of the group when he <br />is prenared to present the -revised plans to Planning Commission. (g) <br />It was ouestioned if anotner street opening would_ be permitted on <br />re7_ocated 252e <br />V. New Develorments ?.nd Subdivisions <br />(a) Bernadine Subdivision - loca'ted at the corner of North Park Drive and <br />Mitchell P_rive. Mr, R.?nsbury said the subdivision of the property <br />hsd been .recorded at the county courthouse rut there was no record of <br />approval by Planning Ccmmission ana eounc2i. It was decided that <br />:?ppT'OVai wa.s not possible since the lot in queGtion does not front <br />on a dedicated street. North Park Drive a.t this location is not <br />improved or dedicated. Mr. Ledvina moved to table the request; <br />seconded by Mr. Davis. However, the motion and tlze second were with- <br />drawn before a vote could. be taken. Mr. Led.vina moved to reject the <br />rec+uest for subdivision on the basiG that the iot which irould be <br />crea.ted wou1d not be a builda.ble lot. Mr. Davis second.ed the motion. <br />The motion -passed with Mro Nelson voting no.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.