|
,
<br />Council Monutes 5-8-68
<br />-3-
<br />The Clerk read a letter from E. J Gundy, Buildang Commissioner9 dated
<br />April 26th9 in regard to demolition of an unsafe structure, located on
<br />Permanent Parcel #232-3-16, hlartin Drive.
<br />Mro Dewey Limpert requested that Ordinance No. 68-31 be held from third
<br />readeng tecnporarily °fhis ordinance would amend Zone Map9 rezoneng lanrl
<br />in vicinity of Grace, Elm, Columbia and Brookpark from residence to
<br />apartment use, Mr. Limpert feels that the driveway to Jamestown Apart-
<br />ments es too close to Kosicky's property. This condition probably came
<br />about through no fault of the developer, or CouncilP but perhaps ori-
<br />ginally was an oversight. The driveway could have been placed further
<br />north. h1r. Limpert said in talking to both parties that through difm
<br />ference of opinson it has been impossible to agree on proper*_y, but that
<br />now is a good time to see if we can resolve this problem before we go
<br />ahead. He suggests that the property owner, or his representative, and
<br />the developer, and then possibly a third disinterested party could come
<br />to an agreement, and come up with a resonable price for the property.
<br />Mr. Prokasy said that there definitely is not a violation of Code in
<br />this case and that considerable negotiations between developer and home
<br />owner have ensued, without any decision resulting. Nlr. Miller, who is
<br />Councilman for Ward 4, said there had been 57 petitions against this re-
<br />zoning ordinance, but upon thorough investigation, he feels that the only
<br />reasonable complaint against it is that the driveway should not be that
<br />close to any house Otherwise, he feels it is a good development. Mr.
<br />West said that while he can see the problem here, by interferring he
<br />feels that Council is getting into an area that legally is not their
<br />business. The Mayor reviewed what has happened in regard to this whole
<br />problem to dateo Mre Prokasy said the ordinance which Council has before
<br />them is for rezoning and does not include this driveway and area, and this
<br />should not hold us upe Mr. Limpert then went on record by saying if ordin-
<br />ance is given third reading at this meeting, he will vote "noe" Mra 0'Neill
<br />asked if we could come to a decision by May 21st. Mr, Limpert moved, sec-
<br />onded by hlro Miller that third reading of Ordinance No. 68-31 be postponed
<br />until May 21st, Affirmative vote Caster, Hodgins, Limpert and Millera
<br />Negative vote Prokasy and Weste The third reading of this ordfnance will
<br />be May 21sto
<br />Ord°anance No, 68-54, introduced by Mr. Limpert, was given its third readinga
<br />An Ordinance authorizing the Building Commissioner to proceed with the de-
<br />molition or removal of the dwelling on Permanent Parcel No,232-6-24-25-26
<br />Lorain Road, Morth Olmsted, Ohio. Mr. Limpert moved for adoption, seconded
<br />by Mr. Miller, Affirmative vote Caster, Hodgins, Limpert, Miller, Prokasy,
<br />West.
<br />Resolution No. 68-55, introduced by Mr. Caster, was given its third reading.
<br />A Resolution authorizing the City Engineer to accept a bond for $17,000a00
<br />in lieu of a bond for $32,000,00. Mr. Caster moved for adoption, seconded
<br />by Mr. Prokasy. Affirmative vote Caster, Hodgins, Limpert, Miller, Prokasy,
<br />Mles t .
<br />Ordinance Noo 68-62 was given its second reading. An Ordinance repealing
<br />Chapter 731, Section 713.01 to 713•99, Part 7, of the Codified Ordinances
<br />of the City of North Olmsted, Ohio, entitled, "Motels and Motor Courts."
<br />Ordinance No> 68-64, which was introduced by Mr. Caster on April 16th, was
<br />requested to be amended by Mayor Christman. Primary change i, in Section
<br />29 where the last sentence would read "In the event that the 01msted
<br />Historocai Society should be disbanded, the vehicles are to be returned
<br />to the Gegy of Ncrth Qlmsted." The other change involved
|