8/23/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Hemann made a motion to recommend approval 23-25057, permanent parcel number 234- 11 - 140 34- 11-140 conditioned upon the satisfactory approval by the City Engineer. All permits would be required to be obtained before any clearing took place on the property. Seconded by Mr. Leon. Motion Passed 4-0 2023-88; Amend Section 1126.06 Development Plan Requirements An ordinance Amending Section 1126.06 Entitled "Development Plan Requirements' of chapter 1126 of the Planning and Zoning Code of the Codified Ordinances of the City of North Olmsted entitled "Development Plan Review" Director Upton outlined the goals of the department was to streamline processes for a quicker project commencement. He proposed legislation by removing specific requirements related to site access, circulation, parking. and utilities. He stated that these requirements were deemed onerous for applicants to address upfront and were better suited for final permitting reviewed by the city engineer. He expressed that the focus was on obtaining conceptual approval. trusting the engineer to handle technical details during the final approval process. He explained that any questions about the technical aspects could be addressed by the city engineer. Mr. Filarski explained the current burdensome requirements for applicants. who must hire an engineer to perform detailed design work before presenting to the Planning and Design Commission. The proposed revamp aimed to streamline by requiring applicants to submit a plan outlining major site elements. utility layouts. parking. water sources. sanitary sewer plans. and storm water management intentions without extensive upfront design. He stated the he and Mr. Upton believed this approach aliened with practices in other cities and offered a more reasonable and efficient process. Mr. O'Malley addressed the board and explained that Article 7. Section 2, Subsection D. which mandated the Planning and Design Commission"s review of zoning legislation affecting property use and development. He went on and stated the proposed change aimed to alleviate the burden of extensive engineering details in the initial development review process. The City acknowledged the necessity of engineering work but suggested separating it into a distinct category. This would allow the Board to focus on aspects like traffic circulation. building positioning. buffering" and landscaping without being overly concerned with detailed engineering aspects. He emphasized the streamlining in Chapter 1 126 and noted that administrative approval changes have already occurred. He recommended the proposed changed and assured the necessary engineering requirements would still be addressed in due course. Ms. Hemann raised her concern about the lack of Exhibit A in their packets, which prevented the board members to review specific language changes. She inquired about the project scope, and emphasized her understanding of potential burdens on smaller projects due to engineering costs. The concern was whether detailed engineering plans were required early in the development process or later. Mr. Dale Schmidt offered his opinion during public comment. He shared his experience with a previous project and the challenges he faced during the permit process. He highlighted the need for clarity on whether an open or enclosed detentions system was preferred early in the development stage. Mr. Schmidt expressed gratitude for the consideration and thoughtfulness