Laserfiche WebLink
street plan could be incorporated into the subdivision and zoning regulations. He <br />will research where this has been done in other comnunities in Cuyahoga County. <br />Mr. Schultz advised that a survey has been developed for property owners along <br />the western section of Lorain Road. He has met with the representatives of the <br />home owners adjacent to Stearns/Crocker Extension; and also with the property <br />owners of Parcel A, and hopes to meet with the home owners in the Coliunbia Road <br />area. However, they have no way of getting input from the Lorain Road owners <br />other than by using the survey. Mr. Gorris stated only once has anyone requested <br />any re-zoning from retail on Lorain Road. Mr. Thomas stated he did not see much <br />value in this, because most Lorain Road property owners either received the <br />property through inheritance or bought it for speculation. There would be no <br />additional cost. Mr. Gorris advised that, if they thought it would help, they <br />should go ahead with it. Mr. Schultz suggested that another meeting might be <br />needed since only half of one focus area has been discussed and there are the <br />other focus areas and other issues whi.ch must be covered. The members agreed it <br />might take several more meetings. Mr. Gorris asked Assistant Law Director Dubelko <br />to find out if an extension could be granted. In reference to Parcel "B", the <br />planners had been asked to study the proposal to construct two restaurants, Mr. <br />Morgan stated that from their report, he concluded that no mare than two <br />restaurants could be supported by the demographics tha,t were presented or the <br />true spirit of the Mixed Use District Mr. Schultz agreed, stating that a line <br />would have to be drawn somewhere. He explained that they studied the plans, the <br />preliminary plan that implied office, the revision which presented something <br />other than offices on the western end, but would keep the balance of the paxcel <br />for office use, and the detailed development plan that showed two restaurants. He <br />presented slides of these plans and stated that there should.be some integrated <br />access for both pedestrian or vehicular traffic to the balance of the parcel. The <br />preliminary plan did show an access and was more physically integrated. There <br />also should be sidewalks, either along Country Club or within the property. He <br />pointed out that with the detailed plan, pedestrians would have to cross over the <br />mound to get to the other side of the parcel. Members discussed ways of <br />re-positioning the restaurants. He stated that the developers wanted both of <br />these orientated toward Great Northern Boulevard, since this is where most of the <br />traffic will be. But with any of the positions shown, it would be a prime parcel. <br />By moving the buildings over, and ineorporating the pedestrian access and <br />driveways to the rest of the parcel, it would be more functionally tied in as a <br />M;xed Use parcel should be. 5ince eventually this parcel will be developed and if <br />pedestrian and vehicular traffic are to be encouraged, either one or even both of <br />them should be moved closer to the property line. He stated that one of the <br />problems with Great Northern Shopping Center and Mall and other sections of <br />Country Club is that there are long distances to travel from one building to <br />another. He believed that if the buildings were clustered along parcel "B" more <br />pedestrian traffic and wonld be encouraged and it would be more physically <br />integrated with the rest of what goes in. He could foresee that, if the-office <br />market is slow, the developers might continue to cut off other 150 to 200 foot <br />sections for more restaurants and the Planning Commission should put the <br />developer on notice that, while this corner may lend itself to this type of <br />retail or commercial development, the intent and spirit of the next use should <br />not be commercial/retail, and beyond this it should allow for offices, hotels, or <br />service uses other than restaurants. Mr. Morgan wanted to clarify the paragraph <br />on page 2 where it is indicated that the demographics might not support these <br />restaurants. Mr. Schultz responded that he did not think that they were saying <br />that there were too many restaurants, what they were saying was that a line <br />should be drawn somewhere. The City could not support these restaurants, but this <br />6