10/14/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' that change has already taken affect. Mr. Gareau said the Architectural Review Board takes a look at a proposal at the front end and the Planning Commission will work froin a more logistic point of view. Mr. Koeth said he does not disagree with that but, when it comes to dealing with neighbors, he does not think the Architectural Review Board will be ready for that. Mrs. Hoff-Smith said she would prefer to see proposals before the Architectural Review Board does. She believes it was changed because if the Architectural Review Board made substantial changes to a proposal, it would have to go back to the Planning Commission and it was an attempt to avoid that step. She said the addition of a Planner would eliminate the need for that extra step. Mr. Gareau said because it has already been changed, they need to work within the confines of how it is step up now. He said it is a new process in many ways. They could give the role to the Director of Planning and work it and see what happens. Mr. Koeth asked if Ms. Wenger has seen the ordinance. Mr. Gareau replied she did see the ordinance and she made recommendations. He then read Ms. Wenger's memo and submitted a copy to the assistant clerk (see attached). Mr. O'Malley asked Mr. Gareau if Ms. Wenger is suggesting a concurrent review with the Building Department. Mr. Gareau said her suggestion was concurrent review in a 30-day time frame. Mr. Rymarczyk said Mr. Conway will have to review a proposal first for zoning issues. Mr. Koeth asked if 14 days is enough time for the review. Mr. Rymarczyk replied, yes, it is. He said the other issue is the minor change process. Mr. Rymarczyk asked Mr. Gareau how that will be handled. Mr. Gareau said he thinks that goes beyond the first shot at getting the Planner involved in the process. They have a good minor change format right now. Mr. Koeth said he believes the Planning Director should have a role in that process. Mr. O'Malley said they may be getting ahead of themselves. The request is to start to adopt a"Westlake model." He then reviewed the process in place in Westlake. He said a compliant developer may be able to get on the first available agenda. The developer that is reluctant to accommodate the recommendations of the Planning Director might be sitting around for 90 days. He said the Planning Commission could have something before them for 60 days, but that really does not happen. He said they need to let the Planner get in the door and play a role in designing how the system will be set up in the future. Mr. Yager said as long as they follow the concept of a preliminary review with the Planner, that is key. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that approximately 85% of development packages do come in for a preliminary, at which time it would be great for both the Planning Director and the Building Commissioner to review. Mr. Gareau asked if Mr. O'Malley sees any legal issue with respect to the 30-day window. Mr. O'Malley said he does not see a problem. They are trying to maintain the current system that allows for the developers to make their submissions to the Building Department, in light of the fact that the Building Commissioner has a staff and the Planning Director does not. He said the focus of the Planner will hopefully be on the Master Plan and other major economic development opportunities. He said without a staff, she may not be in a position to take all the incoining proposals and review them to the extent that the Building Department does right now. She will need the current system to stay in place at least for a little while. Mr. Rymarczyk said the only problem is the Building Department looks at a set of plans to determine what variances are needed and the Planning Director may make changes, perhaps moving a building, and that may change the variances. Mr. Yager commented that should happen. It is part of the role of a planner. Mr. Koeth commented that after a preliminary review, the developer can have the choice of requesting a variance or going along with the recoinmendations made. He asked if the issue of sending proposals to the Architectural Review Board can be changed. Mr. O'Malley said it cannot be changed. The ordinance has been signed but has not taken affect yet. He said some people have suggested merging the Architectural Review Board into the Planning Commission altogether. Mr. Yager said he would highly recommend that. W. Allan said to send a proposal to the Architectural Review Board before the Planning Commission is putting the cart in front of the horse. Mr. Gareau said the ordinance is there now and they have to try it. Mr. Yager mentioned the ordinance in Fairview Park that combined the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission. He said it works really well. All the issues and ideas are out at the first ineeting. He also mentioned Mr. Zergott's interest in serving on the Planning Coininission provided that the Law Director gives him an understanding of what he can 7