My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/12/1971 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1971
>
1971 Planning Commission
>
01/12/1971 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:37:07 PM
Creation date
2/1/2019 6:32:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1971
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/12/1971
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
? <br />, <br />PLANqTIn?G CO?I•'IIS'SION - (1/12/71) - Page 2 <br />(?) Mr. Ge2sser' 25118 Carey Lane stated that since the power <br />is strictly for North Olnsted., this clearly shows that the CitJ <br />`' can ferce CFI to go underground. He also stated tha.t he feels <br />the sub-station should be considered along Vrith the power line a <br />(3) Mr. Chilcl.s, 5903 Columbia P?oad aSkP.d a.Y]OUt ex2ct location <br />of sub-station a.nd was told no plan had been submitted for this. <br />He stated that he feels the Sub-sta.tion in a residential a.rea <br />would eontam4 Lnate the entire area. He aclded that they are not <br />asking for speeial consideration but that they can't see this <br />type of installation in an establisized resid.entia1 area. They <br />want CEI to either go underground or get the voltage down and run <br />the lines on conventional -roles. (4) Mr. Addy, 5984 Columbia <br />Road citecl an East Ohio Gas Co. report on a Total Energy Pla.nt <br />such a.s supplies the ChaUel Hi11 Mall in ?lkron. He stated that <br />this has been proven economical and suggested that r:erhaps North <br />Olmsted wouldn't need the additional lines if something of tlzis <br />nature could be ti:orkecl out. (5) Mr. 1,1Iarruis, 4603 ??Testview Drive <br />also Snoke x'P,gB.?'ding thE Chapel Hill plant. (6) Mr. Hess, 25427 <br />Butternut Ridge P4oac? wsked if inembers of the Pla.nning Commission <br />planned to attend a meeting to 'pe held in Brecksville on 1/14/71 <br />rega.rr_;ing similar -oroblems. Mr. Ledvina sta.ted that mea-I'Ders would <br />discuss this later but cited another meeting to be held on tha.t <br />same evening. (7) Mr. Snowden, 25635 Butternut Ridge voiced his <br />objection -to installation of the lines. (8) Mrs. CTosciewskiy <br />-25417 Butternut Ridge Road asked what happened to the idea of <br />running the line through the park. She wa.s advised that Planning <br />COII1Tt1.1SS1011 considers submissions onl-NT and, is not a creative body, <br />(9) Mr. Heil, 2614cq Kennedy Ridge Road cilued similar poles that <br />have collapsed e,nd stated that either the 7.ine should be put <br />underground or a.way from resid.ential area, (10) Mr. Rumbaugh, <br />25687 Butternut nidge Road stated that he is an ar???raisor of real <br />estate and cited deprecia.tion of proi-.)erty and o ther adverse effects. <br />VI. <br />VII. <br />VTII. <br />IX. <br />1Vew Develo-nments and Subdivisions - P1one <br />Communications <br />(a) Builc?ing Department Reports <br />(b) Letter (copy) from Mayor to Fegional Fl.nnning Caimnis:ion reo fiscal study <br />New Business <br />held on 1/14/71 in Brecksville and aske <br />the tim.e and ;?lacea <br />Mr. Ledvina ?.nno1?nced -that he ??nd i?'[r. Davis will a.ttend all o <br />of the Citizens Cominittee on Lanc? Use. He also ?.nnounced the <br />11d j ourrunent <br />d that a.nyone wlzo could <br />f the meetings <br />meeting to he <br />attend9 note <br />Mr. Byers moved to ?:djourn the meeting9 secondled by 11r. Richards and <br />un2nimously passed. The meetine w?.s ?.djourned at 9e30 P.M. <br />ames Leonaxd, Chairman <br />Byers, Secre
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.