My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/26/1992 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1992
>
1992 Planning Commission
>
05/26/1992 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:07 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 6:14:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1992
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/26/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. ? <br />in the vicinity of Great Northern Mall. The detriments (for both ramps) included <br />the cost, both for the justification studies and the construction, and the <br />devaluation of some of the surrounding properties. He also presented a list of <br />pros and cons for t'he rapid extension and explaining that R.T.A. would not be <br />using the existing rapid cars for thi.s extension, but would possibly use a <br />trolley or a people mover, something smaller and less intrusive than the rapid <br />* cars, but nothi.ng is defini:te. He believed that this would facilitate development <br />along both sides of Brookpark Road, both in North Olmsted and Fairvirw Park. Cost- <br />and disruption during construction would be detriments; and there could be a <br />problem with construction over the valley. It was pointed out that riderstiip of <br />the rapid and the the bus line was dimi:nishing. He concluded discussion of Focus <br />Area "A"-2 with the suggestion that:the City sliould explore with Metro Parks the <br />possibility of extending the all purpose trail up to Mastick Road and that <br />sidewalks should be installed on both sides of Ms,stick. Crosswalks should also be <br />instal-led at the intersection of Clague and Brookpark Roads. He concluded with a <br />list of suggestions for focus Area "A", one of which was pedestrian crosswalks, <br />specifically in the area of Great Northern Mall. A7r. Papandreas, Biski.nd <br />Development Company was present and was asked to participate in this phase of the <br />discussion. In reference to the bike path (which ends across from the mall) it <br />was pointed out there was no safe way to cross over to the ma.ll. N1r. Papandreas <br />explained that they, too, had the same concerns, and suggested that the bike path <br />should end west of this location on Couritry Club Boulevard where there is less <br />traffic and traffic lights have fewer cycles so pedestrian activated crosswalk <br />signalization could be added. He has concerns about any pedestrian crossWalks at <br />the Great Northern Boulevard/Country Club intersection. As an example of <br />pedestrian links to various aress withui the Great Northern complex, Mr. Tressler <br />suggested a walkway between Chester's Restaurant and the hotel. Construction of <br />senior housing within focus area "A" has been suggested because of its proximity <br />to Great Northern, but this should not be considered tmless pedestrian links.are <br />installed to the mall. He also suggested that the plan should allow flexibility <br />in the remaining Biskind parcels, but retail use should be limited to those which <br />would serve residents and workers in the area. The pockets of spot zoning that <br />rema.ined after I-480 was constructed, should be rezoned to conform to similar <br />uses. Justification studies shonld be made for the both ramps, but these studies <br />should be made prior the re-construction of Clague, and after the Puritas Road <br />Hill is opened for traffic. Mr. Schuitz presented.the impact studies for focus <br />area "A"-2 located south of I-4$0, north of Mastiek, and west of Clague Road <br />(parcels are shown on map 3), but clarified that the east bound exit ramp would <br />go through much of this land. He explained the impact ana.lysis tables which <br />compared various uses for these focus areas. He again stated tha.t they used <br />maxi_mm standards for each classification. In reference to the maximums for <br />senior housing, he believed that the present aensities should be lowered in order <br />to be compatible with adjacent residential districts. Mr. Orlowski stated that he <br />understood that such a density was necessary to make development feasible, and <br />cited the development in Olmsted Township.• Mr. Schultz thought it might be <br />helpful to study this complex since it had a variety of living styles. Mr. Norgan <br />questioned exactly what are they asking the members to do, where is the plan <br />going. Mr. Schultz responded that they needed feedback from the members, they <br />need to luiow what the mst important factors are in each of the area. Mra Thomas <br />recapped what had been discussed and stated that mass transit, pedestrian access, <br />etc., should be discussed;at this time. Nir. Skoulis suggested that the Conunission <br />must look at what is going to be constructed- within the next 5 or 10 years and <br />consider the traffic that will be generated by the offices and access to the <br />area. He mentioned that Biskind Development is donating land for a small park on <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.