Mater Plan Workshop Minutes

Mayfield Village Civic Hall -Mayfield Village Civic Center
6622 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield Village, Ohio
Monday, August 20, 2018 – 6:30 p.m.

The Master Plan Workshop was called to order at 6:30 p.m.


Present from Council: Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Meyers, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Schutt, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Saponaro

Present from P/Z: Mr. Syracuse, Mr. Fikaris, and Mr. Farmer

Present from Cuyahoga County Planning Commission: Jim Sonnhalter (Manager of Planning Services), Micah Stryker (EICP Planner),  Rachel Novak (Planner), and Jennifer Chandler (Intern)

Also Present: Mayor Bodnar, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Coyne, Chief Edelman, Mr. Metzung, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. McAvinew, Ms. Garbo, and Mrs. Betsa

Mayor Bodnar welcomed everyone to the Village Council and Planning Commission session on the Master Plan.  We have a Master Plan called the 2020 Vision Plan that we enacted several years ago.  Most of it has been accomplished or at some point along the way it has been decided we no longer wanted to do that.  It’s time to plan for our future again. We are here tonight with members of the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission to work on it.  I would like to quote very briefly from Jim Sonnhalter:  “What are presented in the Master Plan are policy recommendations that the Village can choose to act upon over the next 10 years.”  That’s basically what we are here to talk about tonight.

Introduction by Jim Sonnhalter

We inform and provide services in support of short and long-term planning.  We get into quality of life issues, economic development and environmental issues. We serve all 59 communities throughout the County.  We have been doing a number of Master Plans since we formalized our program in 2015.  We are making good progress in working with communities in adopting their Master Plans.  We have done a number of studies, one involving teaming up with Cleveland State with regard to housing and putting housing and jobs closer together.  We have also engaged a County-wide Greenway Plan funded by NOACA.   We have been working with consultants to develop using the Metroparks and looking at ways to better connect communities to the system of reservations and to each other.  We are looking at over 800 miles of trails and greenspace.  We are meeting on Wednesday, September 5th to provide information.

  • Planning Process

We look out about 10 years which is a good window for developing policy and implementing actions. We did an inventory of what exists today with housing, zoning and transportation systems.  We have been working with Mayfield Village to develop a vision for the future.  You had the 2020 Plan.  It’s time to revisit it and see what we missed; see what’s been done and what needs to be updated and improved upon.  It’s all about future development.  With listed goals and actions, you are able to apply to ODOT or NOACA or the State Capital Improvement Plan for funding.  Your chances for getting that funding are even better if you have a plan.

The Master Plan process was divided into 6 steps.  The first was a community survey sent out to residents.  We produced the results on that and have taken them to work on current conditions in the community vision policy process.  We have held public meetings and worked with the steering and project team to flesh out ideas to turn them into action steps the Village can work on with us.  We then put a timeline on it and prioritize it.  We work with the administration, departments, residents and committees to wrap it all together into the draft Master Plan.  We have been making good positive progress through this to have it done by October of this year.

The public has been good with providing comments and responses to follow-up surveys.  A plan needs the endorsement of the entire community to move forward.  We have held many meetings and presentations to committees.  We have had good responses with surveys, not just from residents but from businesses as well.

Our third and final presentation is on September 25th at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center.  The presentation will also be available on the website.

The Steering Committee consists of residents, business owners, civic leaders and other groups in the Village.  Each representative brings his or her own experiences to the process.  We also count on their knowledge of the community to endorse the Plan. They have a chance to review everything before it goes public.

We have worked with the Mayor, Directors and Chiefs.  They help us with providing information we need to have available to us, letting us know what we have right and what we need to refine a bit.  We have held a lot of meetings with them.

We are County Planning.  It is our job to facilitate this process.  We are here to listen, react, respond and bring our planning expertise to this process.  We are with you every step of the way to bring all of the phases of the Master Plan into one document.

  • Goals and Actions – Rachel Novak

Connectivity and sidewalks are one of the main topics which have come up during the planning process.   The majority of residents desire increased pedestrian safety and easier access to the Greenway Trail directly from residential neighborhoods.   From responses to the community-wide survey, 72% responded that improving the ease and safety of getting around by walking was very high priority for the Village to pursue.  56.2% stated that improving the ease and safety of getting around by biking was very high priority.  During a previous meeting, a small group of residents expressed concern about losing the rural feel if sidewalks get installed and that the sidewalks would promote walkers to cut through their neighborhood to parks.

Referring to the map everyone was provided with in their packets within the goals and actions, we have community sidewalk connections and primary study corridors.  Those are areas where sidewalks don’t exist on either side of the street. We wanted to identify those as perhaps these are the areas where we should first focus our studies if sidewalks are indeed a priority for the Village and if Council wants to pursue this enhancement, where should we start first?  Certainly the streets with no sidewalks may be a good place to look first.  We have community sidewalk connections and secondary study corridors.  Those are areas that have trails of sidewalks at least on one side of the street. We also have bicycle enhancement improvements along Wilson Mills Road and Beta Drive.  We also have key pedestrian enhancement improvements along the Wilson Mills/SOM Center intersection, Beta Drive/Wilson Mills intersection and along the road by Progressive Insurance.  I want to go ahead and open it up for discussion on this particular topic.  We want to make sure that we are not missing anything.  We have addressed these concerns within the Plan.  We did do some rewording on how some of the goals and actions read within the document.  These community sidewalk connections are primary study corridors.  This doesn’t necessarily mean that sidewalks are going in tomorrow and sidewalks are going everywhere.  That isn’t what the main focus of this Plan is.  It’s just to say perhaps if sidewalk connectivity is desired by the community, how do we prioritize it and where do we look first.  We wanted to make sure that was emphasized; that no reads this and says, I am getting a sidewalk tomorrow.  I didn’t get to voice my opinion.  There will be an extensive public involvement process if the Village wants to pursue that route after adoption of the Plan.  Any comments on this particular subject?

Council President Saponaro stated, I know we have concerns about connectivity on our main roads, Wilson Mills and SOM Center being the two main roads. Why are we not just focusing on them?  Why are we getting involved in the neighborhoods at this point? From the results, people aren’t saying I want sidewalks in my neighborhoods by and large.  I know they want connectivity to trails.  I don’t want a sidewalk on my street.  If I wanted one, I would have moved into a neighborhood that had it.

Ms. Novak replied, absolutely.  You know we really tried to bring it as primary studies.  We need to study it first before we start deciding where sidewalks are going.  Certainly within the survey results, the written comments, there are several appendices in the back of the residential survey.  We wrote them verbatim as we received them.  There are ample comments in the back appendix that discuss we want sidewalks in my neighborhood, we feel unsafe.

Council President Saponaro asked, do we know what percentage of the surveys talk about sidewalks?

Ms. Novak replied, the survey itself didn’t necessarily specifically say, do you want a sidewalk on your street or do you not want a sidewalk on your street?  It’s hard to say an exact percentage, but we do have it here with us.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, the sidewalks and lighting were hot topics. There are people who said, no, I don’t want any at all.  There are others that said, I really would like to see sidewalks Village-wide.  There were similar comments with lighting.  There were areas where some thought there wasn’t enough, others felt they don’t want it at all.  What we did was framing this under the topic of just general walkability and connectivity, we took these comments in context with street crossings.  It’s one thing to be able to walk along SOM Center, but there were a  lot of comments very specifically saying, I can get there, but crossing it in any place under the underpass was really hazardous.  There just aren’t facilities for that.  We looked at that.  Residents living on streets that didn’t have sidewalks were concerned that walking in the street isn’t so bad but the traffic can be really inconsiderate. Couple that with lighting deficiencies.  Those concerns started to flesh responses.

Council President Saponaro stated, some of our neighborhoods have deep restrictions.  We have to have split-rail fences.  They have to be replaced at certain times.  We have to have lighting that’s replaced.  Now you are giving people information that possibly there could be sidewalks and it’s not as easy as that could be.  Let’s say everyone is in agreement.  Now you are dealing with deed restrictions that have to be dealt with.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, that’s understood.

Council President Saponaro stated, it’s understood by you.  I don’t know if it’s understood by the general public when they look at something like this.  That’s my concern.  Your point is well taken Rachel when you said, hey, this doesn’t mean we are doing this, it doesn’t mean we’re not.  We are just doing a study on it. Unfortunately, people missed that part.  They just see the sidewalk and say, oh, we are doing this.  My street’s been targeted, or good, I am getting them on my street.  There’s a lot of communication that has to be made in terms of what it really means.  This is what you do every time you do a study in any community.  You look at connectivity.  You look at sidewalks. You look at accessibility.  That’s all a part of the process.  That’s helpful to make sure we communicate that message.

Ms. Novak replied, absolutely.  We can certainly add some language better describing just because it’s identified as a primary study corridor or secondary study corridor doesn’t mean that sidewalks will definitely for sure be installed in the future.

Council President Saponaro added, or will be able to be based on limitations.

Ms. Novak stated, right.  Like you said, deed restrictions, significant infrastructure.  It may take longer or more money.  It’s just not feasible within the next 10 years.  There’s certainly a number of reasons and examples we can include to give readers a clearer image of what the study actually means.

Council President Saponaro stated, and better context, that would be good.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, we can take a step back and reiterate that this is what a Master Plan is.  This is zoning.  There’s a vast difference.  A Master Plan is simply a guidebook.  The goals and actions are there for community-wide discussion.

Mrs. Mills stated, when Mr. Kaplan designed Hanover Woods that was a big thing for him, not to have sidewalks. He wanted no sidewalks.  That’s one of the deed restrictions you are probably referring to.

Council President Saponaro stated, on my street you have to have gas lights, you have to have a split rail fence.  It has to be two rails.  It’s written in our deeds.  I agree with you Patsy.

Mr. Fikaris stated, I would hope there might be additional study with regard to connectivity.  Say I live on a street with no sidewalks, that doesn’t mean there’s zero connectivity.  Is there a percentage you can put on it to say this is how we can better connect it without an all or nothing? Some of the talk is yeah or nay and that’s all we have.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, I think we would look at in context where every existing street is already a connection, but we would look at things like what are the Village’s goals for active transportation?  If someone doesn’t want to drive to the main park, how do they get there without a car and is it safe to do that?  If there’s no room for a sidewalk, is there a way the roadway can even be visually striped, cars here/people here, improved lighting, a couple signs-caution/pedestrian.  To make it a safer environment for everybody.

Mr. Williams asked, is there a difference between a pathway and a sidewalk?

Ms. Novak replied, not necessarily.  A multi-use path is generally a bit wider.  We are talking a 10-12 foot trail whereas sidewalks are generally 6-feet wide.

Mr. Williams stated, if I can make another recommendation with regard to the map.  Use more distinct colors.  These are running together for me.  Make it more distinctive from each other.

Ms. Novak stated, the existing multi-use path is a fairly thin line.  I apologize.  It didn’t come out very well here.  That’s essentially the Greenway and the multi-use paths that run through the Metroparks.

Mr. Williams asked, so to get to the Greenway pathway from across 271, would it be sidewalk or pathway?

Ms. Novak replied, potentially a sidewalk.  Highland Road is identified as a secondary study corridor which means there’s at least a sidewalk on one side of the street.  Certainly that can be an option to look at.  Then north of the city there’s White Road.

Council President Saponaro stated, there’s not sidewalks on both sides of White Road.

Ms. Novak stated, there’s a multi-use trail that runs east into the Metroparks.

Council President Saponaro asked, so you are not necessarily saying sidewalks on Highland Road, but because they have the pathway, that’s the connectivity?

Ms. Novak replied, yes.

Council President Saponaro asked, what about the corridor that is south where it says Highland Heights and it’s across Wilson Mills Road, passing over 271, where’s the connectivity?

Ms. Novak replied, the gold arrows are bicycle enhancement improvements. In the Goals and Actions document, it touches on anything from a completely separate facility meaning a separate off-road, basically an extension of the Greenway Trail to even on-road facilities with better signage, striping, bike lanes.  We put in different options.

Council President Saponaro stated, in order to connect people from a walking standpoint from that corridor of the Village, they would have to do that through either a multi-use path or use sidewalks.

Ms. Novak stated, there are sidewalks that exist there currently on Wilson Mills. It would be a widening of that sidewalk or making sure that sidewalk continues through to the High School.

Mr. Williams stated, in this document we received in our packets, I thought I read a path from the high school through the Progressive campus. Do I see that on here?

Ms. Novak replied, this is the overview map from that document.  You are really just seeing the arrows that extend beyond that.  Once you are in Highland Heights, maybe that can be a partnership with Highland Heights to make sure the trail continues.  This is just an overview map.  It doesn’t get into the details that the actual Goals and Actions document does.

Ms. Novak continued, another topic that has come up quite a few times are the environment and street lighting.  Most residents want the option of utilizing sidewalks in the Greenway Trail during night hours or in the winter as it gets darker earlier.  Most residents also support consistent Village branding and light styles community-wide.  They would like consistency throughout the Village.  Nearly 70% of respondents from the community survey either strongly agree or agree that neighborhood streets should have decorative elements including signs and posts and decorative sidewalks.  While it did not directly ask about street lighting, the one thing respondents would like to see changed, enhanced or improved yielded a large number of responses requesting more neighborhood lighting.

During the second public meeting, a small group of residents expressed a little bit of concern about losing the rural feel if street lights get installed.  The document you have before you show just a couple of examples of what already exists.  The nice monument-style sign here at the Civic Center.  Residents like the brick-style.   The renderings we have prepared could maybe extend to plantings, the lighting look, bike racks with the Village-wide logo and consistent street light posts and signage directing people to parking, to Village Hall, the Community Room, a business district, the pool, the Grove.  On the bottom, you can see the picture of the Grove which is an example of downcast lighting.  The Village is already starting to implement some more energy-efficient and downcast lighting so you are not getting as much of a glare at night. On the left are other lighting samples.  The bright yellow is our area of interest.  Some of the people who have discussed concerns about street lighting in residential areas really talked about the glare, some of the light that penetrates their window.  That’s a concern. Lighting technology has become advanced over the years.  It’s not that incandescent glare or the glow we are used to seeing.  We can get LED’s where you can change it to a warmer or cooler color so it does not strain your eyes.  You can make it brighter or dimmer.  On the very bottom of the document, you can we what a full cut-off light looks like, meaning the light source is completely shielded within some sort of coloring around the light bulb to reduce the glare and reflective light from penetrating anywhere else.

Ms. Novak asked, are there any questions or comments on this particular subject? We did address it within the plan by adding these specific graphics to better depict what we mean by that directed light.  People who want the street lights are very very happy with these graphics and are in support of it.  They are concerned about safety.  They want to walk at night.  They are concerned about cars going a little too fast, especially when people want to take night walks and there’s not enough street lighting.

There were no questions with regarding to lighting.

Ms. Novak stated, our last subject before going into the implementation document is multi-generational housing.  A majority of residents are in support of homes that support seniors that want to age in place.  They want to start their families here, get that first home, move into a second or third home here or stay in the same home and do updates and renovations.  They want to live here and stay here as long as they possibly can.  56.2% stated that more housing options for seniors looking to remain in the Village was a very high priority.  40% said that more types of housing for young professionals and more housing options within walking distance to amenities were very high priorities.  Most want to keep the look and feel of single family homes but are open to mixed-use options or higher density housing near the Village center, the intersection of Wilson Mills and SOM.  These comments were brought up during the steering committee meetings.  We had some renderings.  They liked the slightly higher density renderings, exmaples which have been successful within our region and other examples from other communities they had brought up.  They liked the concentration of Central Ohio in town center.

Ms. Novak went through the maps provided, together with locations vetted out with the public, the steering committee and project team as potential multi-generational housing opportunities, meaning housing that can be used by anyone, the single young professional, couples, young families, seniors.  We are looking for the multi-generational design that can accommodate anyone through any walk of life at an affordable price.  I will now open it up to any questions or comments

Mr. Williams asked, you mentioned under potential multi-generational housing, these areas were somewhat vetted.  Are these properties owned by the Village?

Ms. Novak replied, not necessarily.  They were just identified as areas for potential if property were to change ownership or if they wanted to pursue a rezoning, this could be their argument for that rezoning.  In the example we have there with the green boxes on top, that image, that’s the purple circle just to the east of I-271.  It’s walkable, it’s by Progressive, it’s by Beta Drive, it’s by the high school certainly within walking distance for kids trying to get to school, young professionals, parents trying to get to work. So there is potential there that if those properties do become available and someone does acquire them, perhaps a townhome or at least a higher density development would be a good option for that there. We are not saying this is going to absolutely go there. We are just saying this could be an opportunity explored in the future because conditions are right for that particular area.  Any other comments?

There were none.

Ms. Novak stated, if there are any additional questions or comments that were not addressed or that you might think of, we will open it up at the end.

  • Implementation Document – Micah Stryker

Mr. Stryker stated, I am going to introduce implementation for the next phase of the plan.  We have looked at this and broken it down into these principles as part of the community vision and then broke it down into goals and actions to achieve that vision.  We now have a framework, one more specific to areas and one Village-wide.  We broke it down into smaller and smaller chunks.  At the end, it comes back together in the implementation.  We broke it into tables.  I will run through how they are setup.

We have the Village-wide goals.  They are set up the same. As Jim said earlier, we look at priorities.  There’s a priority level for each action.  You can think of the highest priority as something that as soon as this is adopted, we will move on it and get the particular departments and groups together that need to work on this issue.  Middle priority would be something that is secondary.  It’s not the main thing to reach the community vision or maybe it has something that needs to be done first before it can be done.  Something like the sidewalks, maybe it needs to be studied first further before you actually move on it.  The study is the higher priority, the implementation of that study.  The results would be a medium priority, maybe a few years down the road after that study is taken.  The lowest priority could be something that’s a great thing to have but it is not essential to the community.  Something where if the funding might become available down the line, it would be something that the priority level would change.

We have estimated time required to complete the action.  This is a general timeline of how long it will take to complete that action once it began.  You might see 1-2 years, but if it is a lower priority, it might not start until year 5 of the Plan.

Next to that is responsible parties and partners.  First we looked at the Village and are there any departments that will lead it or be in charge of that or seriously involved.  Obviously with a lot of these, every department might be involved with something, especially with law and finance and things you have to pay for.  We also looked at the regional and local partners.  Maybe if you are looking at bike paths, there can be avenues for possible funding.  We look at the regional transportation people like NOACA, Salt and Water District, ODOT, who are going to have the expertise and investment to bring that to fruition.  It would be great to include them in that process.  They are the stakeholders in getting the action implemented.  In the implementation document, it links to a symbol of groups that you can reach out to.

Finally, we have a relative cost of an action, low, medium, high.  We set up the framework here.  A low cost would be up to $100,000.  A medium cost would be between $100,000 and $500,000.  A high cost would be over $500,000.  That’s something we can recalibrate depending on feedback, but when you look at some costs of studies and smaller things like that, those are going to be a lot smaller than say a giant infrastructure project.  There is some play there.

Finally, we have a space to describe whether that status is completed or in progress or no longer being taken in consideration.  As the Mayor said in the beginning, with the 2020 Plan, a lot of those things have been completed or you decided to go in a different direction or do something else or not do it at all.   This whole table is meant to be updated over the life of the Plan so you can say, these are our priorities now or we looked at this and studied it and did not want to do it.  For whatever reason it was appropriate at the time, but now this is no longer a priority.  Something else will take its place.

As far as costs go, most people ask, how much is this going to cost?  It’s hard for us with this general overview Master Plan to give a specific answer.  It depends on the condition of the site, how much engineering needs to be done, if the project is phased.  Each goal may not necessitate every action, so while we may say in this action look at these several options, you might say, we only need this one option rather than the three different ones.  Say if you are looking at an intersection and you only need to repaint the crosswalk, that’s going to be less expensive than say, we need to replace curbs and things like that.  Many times they recommend adding percentages for overrun.  We have a table that gives just a general idea of some project cost.  Looking at different sources, we found general costs for common identifying projects.

Council President Saponaro asked, is this something that we have?

Mr. Stryker replied, currently you don’t have it.  We will have it up on-line tomorrow.  This is to give you some ideas of cost estimate.  When people ask how much it’s going to cost, our answer is, it’s going to depend.  We will talk about funding sources in a second.  This is to give people a general idea of how much these things costs so if they see a low or a medium or a high estimate, they can look at the project.  NOACA and the Department of Transportation have a lot of studies and resources on this.

Finally, we have a potential funding sources table.  We keep a running list of grant opportunities.  The first line is the name of the grant, the second is who it is through and then there’s a brief description of it, a link to the website, with keywords, like “transportation” or “parks and recreation”, whatever different types of funding that may be available for it, like a NatureWorks grant or Cuyahoga County Arts and Culture for recreational programs.  That’s only a few.  It is always updated.  We try to keep ours updated as well based on that.  It’s important for you to continue to look for those to keep it updated in the Village.

Looking at possible implementation strategies, once this is adopted, we encourage communities to be intentional about implementing the plan and setting up the framework to have it implemented.  Village personnel should be assigned for actions.  An implementation table should be created saying who are the Village Department Heads or staff that can be responsible for this?  You should form an Implementation Committee that meets regularly to review progress with Village staff or Department Heads and citizens to annually or bi-annually review and update actions.  Regularly report it out to the public in some way to make the progress known to be proactive.

With regard to next steps, we will have a draft of the Master Plan ready for the final public meeting, having it out so people can look at it beforehand so when they come and listen they can ask questions.

Council President Saponaro asked, when do you think that will be out?

Mr. Stryker replied, at least a week before the meeting itself.  The draft is taking those four phases and melding it into one document.  There’s nothing in the draft that’s new.  The final public meeting is September 25th.   The time and location will be announced.  Any questions?

Mr. Syracuse, Chairman of Planning and Zoning, asked how do you determine whether or not a goal or action is in an implementation table?  Let me give you a couple examples. Under the multi-generational housing goals and actions document in the feedback, it says nearly 40% of all community survey responders said that more types of housing for young professionals and more housing options within walking distance to amenities was a very high priority for the Village to pursue.  What’s the cut-off?  For 40%, to me that sounds rather low.  Does that mean it goes down to low priority?  Or do you take some of those and say, we are not going to even include those?  I am just curious.

Mr. Stryker replied, it’s really a collaborative process with the steering committee going through and first identifying those issues and then through the process filtering out what stays and what goes.  There’s no hard cut-off as far as numbers go, but it is a collaborative process with the steering committee.

Mr. Syracuse asked, are there some goals and actions that you may have had in a table or somewhere that ended up getting left off based on the discussion you had with the public and with the steering committee?

Mr. Stryker replied, occasionally, yes.  Most times it’s due to redundancy, having it in a different section and it overlaps, creating a lot of confusion.  We try to streamline it unless it’s something very important.  For example, with the sidewalks, originally we just had people want sidewalks, but with feedback we had, we split this.

Mr. Stryker stated, in one of the key issues is getting the word out and being able to tell the story of the Master Plan.

Council President Saponaro stated, people get scared Micah.  They don’t want the Village to change.  That’s why they live here.  They get scared when they feel like you are trying to turn this community into a different community.  We have to do the good work of waylaying any concerns and fears.  That’s part of that.  I like the way it is.  If it’s not broken, don’t fix it or what if?  We go down those roads.  You are dealing with fear.  You have done this countless times, so you know.

Mr. Stryker stated, that’s where we are. We need to give the best context and the best information so they can see that and they are not taken aback.  That’s where we are moving with this.  That’s why we wanted to come here today and get this out.

Mayor Bodnar stated, to follow up on Joe’s point, some of the things that you, Micah, Rachel and Jim told us right from the get-go when the surveys come back is that people like what they have here in Mayfield Village.  They don’t want you to change it.  It’s not a matter of making huge changes.  It’s a matter of improving and tweaking what we’ve got.  Maybe if we put that up front too as Joe suggested in the Plan document so people don’t become frightened.

Mr. Stryker stated, our biggest point is this is the Village’s Plan.  It’s all about Mayfield Village.  If it makes people feel any better, we are County planning, we have no authority, but our job is to establish a process with you that you are comfortable with and work with you to guide the conversation and bring out what is the most important to you and show you ways to get there.  Your involvement in the day-to-day operations in the Village-you don’t do plans that often. That’s where we step in to help and guide you through it.  We never lose sight of the fact that it’s up to you when it’s all said and done.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, we never want you to feel like you can’t say no down the line.  We don’t want you to take anything out though because there are a lot of good ideas that do need further study.  We are giving you a tool so you can get there.

Mr. Coyne stated, the survey response was very good, 544 out of 1500, that’s a pretty good response rate.  The community survey response about more housing options for seniors looking to remain in the Village was very high or high priority.  I look at your land use plan for future land use.  I don’t see, and again this is either going to be recommendations for locations, I see senior residential in the northern part of the Village off of SOM but I don’t see any other suggested locations?

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, there’s a distinction between the senior living centers in the purple and the single family.  Assisted living is more of an institutional business.  The single family is a little more open.  As Rachel said, multi-generational is for seniors, for families.

Mr. Coyne stated, multi-generational is what it is.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, there’s also a concern with overbuilding senior assisted living facilities.  We recommend you having a senior living zoning district.

Mr. Coyne asked, 55 and older?

Mr. Sonnhalter replied, yes, or specifically for senior assisted living facilities.  You are also looking at a commercial interest as well and not just a residential interest.  They both address a similar issue.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, we did look at the Village center as an option for more mixed use housing options.  Assisted living is one thing, but if you are ambulatory, why not live closer to the Village amenities, the commercial area in the center of the Village or the ability to get easy access to the trail system and into North Chagrin.

Mr. Stryker stated, that map is a more recent survey of land use.  That’s a first effort of summarizing it.  It’s still going through the review process.

Mr. Coyne stated, Planning Commission and Council should look at these uses to see where they want them in the Village.  You can guide them, but it’s up to the Planning Commission and Council.

Mr. Stryker stated, it’s definitely more of a framework of character areas. It’s not a rezoning recommendation.  It’s suggestions of what could be appropriate in that area pending review and approval of the recommendations.

Mr. Williams stated, I was thinking about Vetus’ question about what gets in and what doesn’t get in.  I appreciate your answer.  But we might want to think about how we solidify that answer, that we make decisions based on a process, Planning and then Council.  That maybe needs to be more defined in the area of implementation.  How are priorities set to make a final decision?  It’s not based on the 40% or the 70%, it’s based on going through a methodology.

Mr. Stryker stated, it’s something we can try to do to make it clear to the public.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, we do have examples in other presentations to walk through the process of how it’s done.

Any other questions or comments?

There were none.

Mr. Sonnhalter stated, our contact information is there.  You can reach out to us or contact us with any questions, comments or concerns about anything.  We appreciate it.  If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.

Council President Saponaro stated, thank you so much.  We really appreciate all the work you have done.

The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.  There is a public hearing scheduled for September 25, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Community Room.