Laserfiche WebLink
•?_-- ? <br />4 <br />Qllt#? ?f cwllrth (0-Imstrb, Mhiv <br />eAblla <br />ON <br />PI,_aNNIIv'G C0I,1MISH <br />July 23, 1968 <br />I:. <br />YY o <br />ITIo <br />Roll Call <br />TriE meeting timc cal].ed t.o orcler at 8°05 P.M. by ChaiYman Ja.ck Esgar, <br />ThoGe present were T•tosrs. ?.-_ck Esgar9 J?:uaes Leonarc', rdward. Bvers9 Kux°t <br />Fichard:,, Norman Musial. Absent: Thomas Fa.bek. Also preEente Carl <br />BoYmi and Bob rvoboda, Fegior.al Plfinning Commission, Mr, Karna.han, Engineering <br />Department; Sally i-ionkle, Secretary. <br />Readinp, enrI Correction of Minutes <br />Mr. Byers read the Tr:ir.utes of the July 9, 1968 meeti::?o The folTnwIng <br />correeticns here made: Uncier III. (b) ??leine Fhould be ClynEa Under <br />VIm (P) Puzsa shoula be Ruzsa. Mr. Richards moveZ that the Minutes be <br />?pproved ? s corrc>cted.; secon??e^ L?y t?[r, Byers. ?iyes: Fsgar9 I?eon?±.rii., ?er?:, <br />Richardsm <br />Old Business <br />(a) I{leine - DiBenedetto ??rookpark Fxtension) - Rir, DiBenQdetto presented <br />plans showing the Pcre«ge in each parcel involved ir: the proposa3a The <br />eommittee stated that the priraxy objection to the plan is the va.st incre4se <br />in commercia.lly zoned area that the plan would enta.il o Mr a Bohn st,?l.ted <br />. that according to studies on the rotentiel busaness neqds of the community, <br />rTorth Olmsted already has e.n excess of 340 acres zoned commereaal. The <br />proposal xould add still more retail_ zoning which Regionel P7anning <br />Commission does not feel that the city needs. Mro Leonard moeed to reject <br />the pronosal; sc°c0nded by Mr. Pryers. Mr. Richards stated that he wa.nted <br />t,o ga on record as believir.g that this was a good pxoposa1 and pointed <br />out that in his opinion it wou].d be an egress ot$er than LGrain Reaei for <br />m?ny homeowners to the west9 was a road.that wqnt someplace and tha.t <br />flzrthurmore he felt that the excess of conunercial zoning has na bearimg <br />on the subject when this appears to be a praper we2l-p].a.nned emunercial <br />area. In his opinion, the road would. be beneficiaYo There being n• <br />flarthur discuFSion, avote was takea on the mot3,on macle by Mr, ?onard <br />te rejeet the proposal. Ayes; Leonard, Byers, Esgarq NQe Richardsm <br />ldIr. Esgar pointed eut that there being enlp four meanbers in atteradance, <br />a majority vo'te had not been created and that therefare the proposal <br />was neither rejected nor accepted. <br />(b) Lament Vacation - Mr. Karnahan questioned the devegoper about a depaait <br />tha.t sh0uld have been made at the tinae their application was f ilede Mrm <br />Piermara stated that he ha.d given a check to Mr. Iutton Si? ?eeks ago. <br />Mr. F,sgar ste.ted that the committee feels that apartments in the area in <br />c;uestimn Would be a reasonable use mf the lasd and that in their opinian9 <br />it weauld be desireble te ha.ve epenings onto Westview e?? Great Northern <br />Bauleaard and that i. this arrangement is propesele the cwm3tt?e would <br />favor the proposa7.. Mra Bohm pointed out that Linda Drive ceuld be extendea <br />fi,g provide through accesso Mr. Richarci.s moveei to accept the vacatioa? of <br />I,amont Drive and portion of Westview Drive as slown on .Amendnent Noo2 <br />Celumbia Land Devr,l.opment Cor*'aay Subdj.vision Ne0 3with the rocoarnanda$i(&x