Laserfiche WebLink
more about giving voice to the body's priorities and what its members would like to see <br /> accomplished. <br /> Chair Litten asked about the feasibility/cost of elevators being installed in every building, which <br /> could add accessibility very quickly. Director Leininger stated that the city's building code <br /> requires any building 3 stories or more to have an elevator. He outlined in what buildings <br /> elevators would fit and stated his team has taken note of Council's emphasis on increasing <br /> residential density. <br /> Chair Litten estimated that 50-75% of the buildings would be accessible by elevator, while <br /> Councilmember Kepple noted that having an elevator is just one part of accessibility. It's <br /> important to intentionally design, such as have showers without barriers, as much as possible to <br /> be truly accessible. Ms. Kepple also suggested adding more opportunities for homeownership. <br /> Director Leininger clarified that 77% of all units have access to an elevator as currently planned <br /> and that all units must be accommodated with the city's code in terms of accessibility, with room <br /> for more ADA designed units to be added in the future. <br /> Chair Litten asked if the affordable housing units would be intermingled or confined to one <br /> space on the site. Director Leininger stated that the units are required to be intermingled and <br /> made affordable throughout all unit types, with them being portioned between studios, 1-, 2-, and <br /> 3-bedroom types. <br /> Councilmember Rader asked why the city wouldn't aim for 100% of the units to be fully ADA <br /> accessible and whether that was unrealistic. Mr. Leininger stated that the different unit types may <br /> require some multi-level living. 100% accessibility is possible, but the variety of unit types <br /> throughout the projects would be sacrificed. Councilmember Kepple suggested having different <br /> types of opportunities for ownership across unit types. <br /> Councilmember Bullock stated that traffic surrounding the project is a concern but added that <br /> traffic management is a strength of the Planning Commission. <br /> Councilmember Bullock continued to say that he wants to be detailed in enumerating Council's <br /> priorities so members can be successful in achieving them. He added his support for the <br /> sustainability, density, accessibility, and affordability issues raised by his colleagues. He asked <br /> the committee whether it had agreed to put together a Council term sheet, report, or resolution. <br /> He concluded by stating a desire for the city to find another location for the 75 parking spots the <br /> Cleveland Clinic needs in the new development garage. <br /> In speaking to the issue of specificity, Chair Litten suggested proposed ranges for items like <br /> accessibility in order to be more nuanced and realistic with expectations for the project. He <br /> added that committee members now know a great deal more about the project's components than <br /> they did a month ago, and their thoughts should consider the information provided by the <br /> developer, administration, realtor, etc. <br /> A dialogue took place among Councilmembers on the process for the development and how City <br /> Council should exert its influence in it. Councilmember Baker volunteered to compile notes into <br /> 3 <br />