Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the northwest corner of Country Club and Coltunbia Road. The members discussed at <br />length exactly what was needed in this area, how much more commercial development <br />should be built and how far it shou3d extend, how to plan a campus like <br />atmosphere, how to build senior housing with pedestrian access, how to increase <br />mass transit to link the airport, N.A.S.A. ~and the Great Northern area with as <br />little impact on the residents as possible, and how to plan for the good of the <br />? City as a whole. Mr. Thomas would.like County Planning to come up with an access <br />plan for all of these areas, and once that is done, the Commission can determine- <br />criteria for various appropriate zoning classifications. Mr. Skoulis believed <br />that this area should remain residentiale Mr. Schultz suggested that` they <br />formulate a concept plan, following the general recommendations presented <br />tonight, showing the areas that lack sidewalks, crosswalks, and mass transit <br />links, etc. Mr. Skoulis was concerned that no decisions have been made and tne <br />plan was to be finished by June. It was agreed that the plans should be done <br />right, even if it is not finished by June. Councilman McKay pointed out that this <br />area already has multi-family developments and the area east of Columbia Road <br />would be best suited for Multi-family. In reference to the extension of the <br />rapid, he believed that this area had enough noise with I-480, Brookpark Road, <br />and the airport without adding to it. fne members wi.ll review the options <br />presented for other parcels in focus area A-2 independently. Inforr,iation for <br />Focus Area "B" was distributed this evening, Chairman Gorris preferred to review <br />it at a later meeting and suggested having extra meetings on the first ATonday of <br />the month. Mre Skoulis suggested that the Commission make general recommendations <br />at the end of the discussion of each foctts area instead of waiting until the end <br />of the discussion. It was decided at this time to discuss the County Planning <br />Commission's ideas pertaining to Chili's Restaurant.and Romano's Macaroni Grill <br />(Section III.) <br />BUILDING DEPARTMIIQT REQUESTS: (Heard at this point) <br />; <br />Chili's Restaurant and R mano's Macaroni Grill, Sublot 1 of Parcel B, south side <br />of Country Club Blvd. and the east side of Great Northern Boulevard. <br />Detailed Development Plans, proposal to construct two restaurants. <br />Continued from meeting of May 12, 1992. <br />Previously County Planning Commission had made some recommendations which the <br />Conunission had agreed to di-cuss at this meeting. Mr. Smith, represent-ng the <br />owners of Chili's and Romano's, Mr. Papandreas, representing the owner of the <br />property, and Mr. Gavin, attorney, were present. Mr. Smi.th presented a revised <br />plan which had been re-configlared in keeping with the recommendations of the <br />C.P.C. and which will necessitate eliminating 12 parking spaces (parking will <br />still conform to code. He maintains that the reduced visibility will decrease <br />their revenue by 3 to 5 percent but they are going to attempt to proceed with the <br />proposals anyway. The Ohio Department of Transportation does have some plans for <br />sidewalks on Great Northern and they will work with them. The revised plans also <br />show an internal access from•Country C1ub and Great Northern. Mr. Schultz agreed <br />that the revised plan conforms to their recomendations and includes a future <br />pedestrian link. He has further suggested a combination crosswalk and pedestrian <br />walkway between the two restaurants but they would loose 2 additional parking <br />spaces; if the rnIInber of spaces is a problem, they could consider shared parking <br />with the vacant parcel or reduce the size of some spaces for compact cars. Mr. <br />Gorris pointed out that the access between the two builclings would probably not <br />be needed until the eastern lots are developed. Mr. Schultz believed that these <br />provisions should be required at the time of the site plan approval, not after <br />the parcels have been developed. Mr. Skoulis questioned why the sidewalk going <br />4