Laserfiche WebLink
<br />consensus as far 'as the Commission is <br />experience in planning for cluster family <br />North Olmsted, and they ha.ve not had thE <br />previous ones, so there are a lot of i <br />Commission ha.s 60 days to act on this prop <br />decent consensus among everybody, developer <br />that period of time. There is a consensu <br />type of home is probably not going to fit w: <br />deems as proper for a cluster home definit <br />the members of the Commission. We would lil <br />the design of the triplex, to take a look <br />with having one unit joined at the ceiling <br />square footage, secondly, between this meE <br />point he explained that normally this wou <br />Review Board, but on developments like th <br />tha rnmmiini tv_ i t nftPn takeS mtil t1 nle r <br />concerned is that they have zero <br />development since there is none in <br />luxury of making mistakes on any <br />3sues that must be addressed. The <br />>sal and he hoped to come up with a <br />residents, and Commissioners, in <br />> on the Commission that the triplex <br />thin what the Conunission or the City <br />_on, it is not palatable to most of <br />e to ask the developer to reconsider <br />at the configuration, particularly <br />to the other units, as well as the <br />ting and the next meeting, (At this <br />_d be referred to the Architectural <br />s that would have a major impact on <br />eetings to comDromise on difficult <br />points with a developer and to come up with some decent consensus). There are a <br />number of important issues that would have to be addressed between this meeting <br />and the next, he suggested that the Commission retain the services of Mr. Hill; <br />a City Planner, who helped develop the new zoni v codes and who has much <br />experience with cluster family developments, and the Commission would like the <br />benefit of his experience and his suggestions relati.ng to the following issues: <br />1) an additional access to the residential area which could be a very important <br />development down the road; 2) the effect on traffic throughout which can be done <br />by a traffic study, but also the effect on traffic throughout that area <br />including 480 including all the intersections including Columbia Road; the <br />effect on this development of continued development around Columbia and <br />Butternut Ridge, and so on; 3) the effect on Canterbury Road itself, the <br />changing nature of that road, whether or not it needs to be widened or changed <br />and what the residents on that road would need in order to satisfy their <br />concerns; 4) we would like the city planner's input as far as the effect of <br />additional development like this on the population, the developer has his <br />studies and lmows who they will be appealing to, but as mentioned before, there <br />are always changes in those marketing profiles, I would like to get the planners <br />ideas on exactly what changes that will have on that specific conmiunity, and <br />what we need to address as far as schools are concerned as far as sidewalks or <br />access to the area and traffic signalization, crosswalks, and lighting on the <br />road, lighting on Butternut, all of these as well as others tha.t we probably <br />have not even thought of as yet. We could make quite a bit of headway in the <br />meeting between the Commission and the city planner in order to come up with <br />some focused suggestions and any ideas that we believe could have a constructive <br />effect on both the development and the real concerns of the residents of the <br />area. Mr< Thomas clarified that a traffic study should be subject to the <br />suggestions that are made during the meeting with the city planner, he may note <br />specific areas where a traffic study should be looked at which might not be in <br />the contiguous area around this development. Mr. Skoulis suggested that the <br />developer come up with a plan for street lighting. Mr. Thomas thought that it <br />might be best to delay those specifics until after the meeting so that the plans <br />would not have to be done several times. This proposal will be tabled tmtil the <br />next meeting. Mr. Gorris advised the audience that the committee meeting with <br />the city planner will be open to the public, but there will be no participation <br />by the audience. This proposal will be returned to the next regulax meeting on <br />the fourth Tuesday of the month. The motion was seconded by M. Hughes, and <br />unanimously approved. <br />6