Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED J <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />,MINUTES - NOi1EMBER 13, 1979 <br />I. ROLL CALL: Vice-Chairman B. Gorris called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. <br />Present: B. Gorris, R. Perla, J. Prokasy, J. Roberts, and J. Brown. <br />Absent: R. Bugala <br />Also Present: Assistant Law Director D. Ryan, Assistant City Engineer <br />D. McDermott, and Councilwoman J. Saringer. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MLNUTES:/ <br />J. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of October 23, 1979 as submitted, <br />seconded by R. Perla, and Lmanimously approved. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />No Items <br />IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIOIIS: <br />1. Westmark Development Co. Resub division of Sublots No. 2, 3, and 4 <br />of the Westmark Development Co., Subdivision No. 1, located east <br />off jdalter Rd, at Florence Ave. Mr. Bower of Shore iaest Construction <br />Company explained that this.realignment of property lines was neces- <br />sary in order to b uild a wider model homeo D. McDermott, Assistant <br />City En;ineer explained that the lots would still conform to the <br />Ordinance and that -the exis ting bui.ldings would be conforming. J. <br />Prokasy moved to approve the Wes tmark Developmen t Co. Resub division <br />of lots 2, 3, and 4, seconded by R. Perla, and tmanimously approved. <br />2. Deerpath Subdivi.sion No. 6 Preliminary Plan. Located north of I-480, <br />west of Clague Road and east of eastern end of Elm Road. Ztaenty (20) <br />sublots proposed from existing Permanent Parcels Nos. 237-22-13, 14, <br />15, 16, 29, 75, and 327-23-26. <br />2a. Elm Road (East end segment) Vacation Proposalo Proposed vacation is <br />actually part of Item No. Z above (Deerpath Subdivision No. 6) and <br />is to be discussed concurrently. Mr. Roger Clingman, Developer, was <br />not present for the discussion of these items. Assistant City <br />Engineer D. McDermott introduced both proposals and distributed a <br />memo from City Engineer R. Zurawski advising that: "Regarding <br />Agenda Items 2 and 2a, I would like to recommend that you refer these <br />items to the committee for further study. Future problems may de- <br />velop by violating right-of-way where there is an existing inter- <br />ceptor sanitary sewer. The proposed subdivision would make one lot, <br />with the sewer running almost diagonally across it. Building over this <br />sewer should never be permitted." D. McDermott advised that the <br />Engineering Department had other objections to the plan since the road <br />as shown makes no provision for a cul-de-sac and does not have enough <br />property for access dedicated to Clague Rd. J. Prokasy observed that