|
CITY 4F NORTH 0-114STED, OHIO
<br />PL!!n1NING C0, i? 1IccI0AT
<br />August 21:9 1971
<br />I,
<br />II,
<br />III,
<br />Roll Ca11
<br />The meeting called to ord.er ?.t $ 0 0/4 P.I.H. bJ
<br />Those 1)xe-gent zrere Mssrs, Ledvina, James Davis9
<br />Richards, James Zeonard, Edt-rard Byerso Absente
<br />Richards moved to excuse A'!r. IITelSon,° seconded by
<br />passed. .Also nresenta Mr. Ransbusy9 Assistant
<br />Mra Gundy, Bui?ding Commissioner; SaIly Fienkle,
<br />Reading and Correction or i+2inutes
<br />Chairma,n Dona.ld Lecvina.,
<br />J , Edz,Tard Brewer., Kurt
<br />Richard Nelson, Mr,
<br />Mr. Brewer Pnd un animou sIy
<br />to Acting Cit,y Engineer;
<br />Secretary,
<br />Mr. Da.vi.s moved to d.isnense -v*ith the re-ac?ing of the minutes a#' 8/3/71 and
<br />to a.nnrove as written; seconded b,y i??r, ByerG ^nd un^nimouslsT p2ssed.
<br />Building DepRrtment Rerruests
<br />(a) 7-11 Gtore - Cl-ague & Lorain Roads - Mr. Terlach ?:)ointed. out that the
<br />develo?oer has met with Council's Fla,nning Cammittee a.nd th€t this iS
<br />a resubmission incornorating suggested changes in Dlpn, There ^re
<br />not tiro means of egress instead of one, Mr. GundJ stated that the
<br />pronosa.l ineets aI1 zoning and building rec!Liirements, Mr. Zeonard
<br />stated tha.t he felt the proposal still belonged in Council. The
<br />develoner stated that the Council Pla.nning Co.^.imittee told them to
<br />bring it back -to the Planning Commission fcr approva.l. A'!r. Leonard
<br />pointeci out that over a. year ?.go this sasne prop-erty was under study
<br />for a. similar t-,?rpe business a.nd tha.t many resid.ents of the area came
<br />up about the severe traffic probl.em in the exea.e A surve5* was made
<br />bf inembers of the Planning Cor.vnission at that time and it was felt
<br />that the traffic was a critical prablem and that nothing has been
<br />clone to chc-Lnge this situation. Mr. Davis moved to pla.ce the nroposal
<br />i.n a colnmittee-of-the -Trhole for the purpose of re-surveying9 seconc?ed
<br />by Mr. Brewer and unanimously p:^,ssedo
<br />IVo Old Business
<br />(a) Sand.v RidF?e #9, 10, lI - I'1^.n "B" - Mr, Ledvine stated that he had a
<br />di--cussion i•rith the Lai•r Director as iDer the Planning Comrnission's
<br />Resolu-tian of 8`3/71, He st»ted that the ?oxoblem has been recolved.
<br />A revised p1an was presented sho-veLng a_ street onening onto Edgenark
<br />^.nd with a difi Arent street 1ay out, Discussion was held. Mr.
<br />Leon-,_rd moved that the resubdivision of Sandf R.id.ge T 9, 10, 11 Pla.n
<br />"B" be rejected on the T--rimar??r concern of the Pl?.nning Co?nmission th2.t
<br />recreation 1pnd acreage has not been set aside bij the developer an.d
<br />that if a.nd when the Dz'onOSal is in accoxdance i•rith the ord.inrnce, it
<br />be returned to the Planning Commission for f?,irthur stuc?y; seconce(3. 17y
<br />Mr. Richard.s and unaxiimotisly passed,
<br />(b) HcCrone Subdivision - Recuest for cluster zoning as Sandy R.idge ;;'12,
<br />Mr. AZcCrone Gtp.ted that he uants this to be nr.rt of S^nd.,yr Ftidge #9,
<br />109 r.nc 11 and that the other Oevelo.pers have a.gree(.',. to this, Mr.
<br />Ledvina nointer' out that Sandy R.id.ge 7419, 10 and 11 h^.ve not been
<br />?:pnroved rnd that therefore #12 cannot be considered. He furthur
<br />stated that tnis is not -., nro.-)er nrorosal -nd z-rould not be a.cce-!?ted
<br />because it doesi.'t com??].?T t-rith lega1 statutes.
|