06/24/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? • A V. COMMUNICATIONS: Cuyahoga County Planning Commissions Proposed worlc program packet receivecl. VI. COMIVIITTEE REPORTS: VII. NffNOR CHANGES: VIII. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance 1Vo. 2003-47 An ordinance to establish a new revised procedure for development plan review and to authorize the assessment of costs for expert consultation by amending sections 1126.02, 126.03, and 1126.04 (d) of chapter 1126 of the Planning and Zoning Code entitled "Commercial and Other Building Permits", as ainended. Mr. O'Malley said the board members received an original and an amended version was so it would be clear how it was originally drafted, and then as a result of a committee review and some comments by Mr. Conway, there were some amendments made. He said the board can make recommendations that it likes the original or the amended version. It suggests going to the Architectural Review Board first" since it is a recommending body to the Planning Commission. It also allows for, in some instances, rule making authority to the Planning Commission. There are plans that are required by the building commission and by rule of the Planning Commission. If the board is not satisfied with the plans that are being submitted, the board can make rules to direct the building department on what plans are expected and when they are expected. It recommends the building department circulate a set of plans to have official comment and reports made. If the building department anticipates a fire review is in order or that the Planning Commission may want one or need one, rather than wait for the Planning Commission to direct that, they can anticipate it. The other feature of the ordinance allows the Planning Commission to recommend that a traffic consultation take place and to negotiate to some extent the identification of an expert and the payment to be made by the developer. How much is paid and who is selected has been the subject of negotiation. Mr. Koeth asked if the board has seen this ordinance before. Mr. O'Malley said it may have been on a previous agenda but this is the first time it is being discussed. Mr. Koeth asked if the board needs to make a recommendation on the ordinances. Mr. O'Malley said the board should make a recommendation but it is not required immediately. Mr. Koeth indicated he would like the board members to have time to review them. 2. Orclinance No. 2003-48 An ordinance creating new section 1126.09 of chapter 1126 of the Planning and Zoning Code to establish a requirement that certain commercial building permit applications submit a master plan sign plan in compliance with the sign code (chapter 1163), as amended. Mr. O'Malley said Ordinance 2003-48 caine about as a result of a request by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The board felt there were multiple tenant facilities with signage plans where the main tenant was using up all the available square footage. The board would then see one unit owner after another asking for a variance and claiming a hardship because the big tenant used up all the square footage. He said a master sign plan is designed to throw another wrinkle into the process and provide the Planning Commission with some greater authority over signage. The board can request a sign plan from a multiple tenant facility that shows some uniformity, that shows that the landlord has tried to map out the square footage available and parcel it out. The tenants would have to go to the landlord to ask permission to vary from or modify the master sign plan. This puts the burden on the landlord to police the square footage of the tenants and to maintain some integrity on the entire multiple tenant facility and they would have to go back to the Planning Commission and Council to vary from or modify the master sign plan. It is a bit like a variance but it keeps it on the planning side as opposed to the Board of Zoning Appeals side. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if it would keep overall signage down. Mr. O'Malley 9