Laserfiche WebLink
4b <br />CITY OF NORTH OLNZTED, OHIU <br />PLANVI1`1G COM@lISPION <br />April 11, 1972 <br />I. Rol1 Call <br />The meeting was called to order by Chairman Davis at 8:05 p.m. Those <br />present were Messrs. Davis, J. Fdward Brewer, Kurt Richards, Donald <br />G. Ledvina, Secretary and James Leonard, Edward Byers, and Robert El- <br />liott. <br />Also present: NLr. Dave Ransbury, assistant to City Engineer9 and Mrso <br />Virginia Hodgins, recording secretary. <br />II. Minutes <br />lli:i.nutes were corrected, on Page 1 to omit the word "zoningT" before the <br />word "prior" in minute correction of March 28 meetingo Also Mr< El- <br />liott's and Mr. Byers ' absences at the N`arch 28 meeting were excused. <br />III. Building Department Requests <br />There were no Build.ing Department requestso <br />IV. Old t3usiness <br />? <br />(a ) iMastick v oods Subdivision <br />Mr. Sayler, rngineer for the development9 presented plans for the <br />rear area as requested at the last meeting, P2re Ransbury said <br />plans meet requirements for cul de sac and that the lots are of <br />adequate size; but this -plan as presented is not a form for county <br />records --- it cannot be recorded. Mr. Ransbur,y further stated <br />that drawing for the original 8 lots as presented at last meeting <br />is in iorm that can be recordedo The ozie presented this evening <br />is a separate plot plan, a separatz subdivision. N1r. Ledvina <br />moved to table to a11oVa petitioner to revise the drawings suit- <br />able for recording. Mr. Leonard seconded the motion. There en- <br />sued considerable discussion as to cost of improvements9 -when the <br />lots will be builtg the city's position as to improving the proper- <br />ty and assessing the owner; and the fact that the deve].oper does <br />not want to be forced into making improvements at present. Mr. <br />Ledvina withdrew his -iiotion. Tqr. Leonard withdre-TA, his second to <br />the motione The discussion then reverted to the original 8 lots <br />as presented last week. Several area residents werepreEent an3 <br />entered this discussion. iiore discussion concerning traffic pat- <br />tern and outlet on Clague Road was held. Mr. Frindt9 1?856 Clague <br />Rd. stated that homeowners on Mastick Road are against a single <br />opening onto C].ague Rd. and z•aould not object to another road from <br />the proposed development on.to P'iastick Road. Mr. Leonard moved <br />that the proposal be placed back in committee until the developer <br />can present plans that can be ever_tually recorded. Mr. Richards <br />seconded the motion. I'Zessrs. Brewer, Richards, Ledvina, ulliott, <br />and Leor.ard voted in favor with Mr. Davis voting against. The <br />motion passed.