10/14/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' would docket it with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Gareau indicated that is a correct summary of the process. Mr. Rymarczyk said there are often pre-submittal meetings with the Building Commissioner that can now involve the Planning Director. Mr. Gareau said the idea for him to introduce this ordinance was to give the Planning Director a role. She does not have one right now under our current code. He said it would go from the Planner, with her recommendations, suggestions, and whatever she worked out with the developer, to the Architectural Review Board. From there to Planning, the Board of Zoning Appeals, to the Board of Zoning and Development. He said one question was whether they would use that 30-day period of time that the Planning Director would have for review as an opportunity for the Building Commissioner to have a designated period for review. He said the Building Commissioner has requested 14 days but the question is do you give him 14 days and then the Planning Director 30 days, then the Architectural Review Board has a review period of 30 days. The Planning Commission has a 60-day review. He said there was a question of whether to give that first 30-day review period to both the Building Commissioner and the Director of Planning. He said there would be almost an overlap so the review would be going on at the same time. It fits into the idea that Mr. Rymarczyk mentioned that if there is a pre-submittal conference or a conference that Mr. Conway is working on with an applicant, the Planning Director will be there. He said Mr. Conway can look to see things meet code but the Director of Planning can work on aesthetics, do a work up for the Architectural Review Board, and make recommendations. He asked if Mr. O'Malley believes they need to define the time period with which Mr. Conway has. He believes 10 days used to be the review period. Mr. Rymarczyk confirmed it used to be 10 working days, or 14 consecutive days. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if on day 1, the clock starts ticking and the first 14 days is for the Building Department but on the same day 1, the 30 days for the Planning Director begins. Mr. Gareau said that could be a fair way to do it. The 14 days is not currently in the code and would have to be a recommended change. Mr. Spalding commented on getting plans earlier so there would be time for commissioners to go out to the various sites. Mr. Yager said the role of the Planning Director is to help guide the applicant in getting to the Planning Commission with things that are important to the board and to the Architectural Review Board. He mentioned the Westlake planner who does not have a time frame. It is whatever the planner and the applicant agree to before the planner says it is ok to send on to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director is a watchdog for the Planning Coinmission so that applicants come in with a more prepared, refined, and defined plan that already carries most of the thinking of the boards. He said his issue is does it make sense to go from applicant to the Building Cominissioner and Planner, then to the Architectural Review Board and then Planning Commission. He said he thought he was added to the Planning Commission to try to make the board stronger in catching some of the Architectural Review Board issues before they leave Planning Commission. He said he thinks the existing process works well and he would recommend as an architect in the field that if they want more businesses to try to work their way through North Olmsted, they do the best they can to streamline the process. If an applicant sees the process taking 4-5 months, they may not choose North Olmsted as a developinent site. He said they need to make every attempt to be business supportive and business friendly, which does not mean they have to be weak about decisions. They need to give applicants the least amount of time to work a project through. He added that most of the time, applicants are already behind when they start the submission. Mr. Gareau agreed with Mr. Yager and said this is the first attempt at giving the Planning Director a role. He has no doubts that once Ms. Wenger is in place and she starts to do her job, they will find another role or an expanded role. She will be able to spot the issues and work through them before proposals even get to the Planning Commission. He also hopes that she can work out those differences and not need the 30 days. She can work with the applicant to set schedules and a deadline that works for everyone. He said that right now an applicant has no idea when the whole process will end. He said if the Planner is able to guide applicants through the process, he has every reason to believe it will become a more streamlined process. Mr. Koeth commented that the process should make things easier for the Planning Commission. He agreed with Mr. Yager about the Planning Commission seeing proposals before the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Rymarczyk said 6