Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />PLANNING & DESIGN COMMISSION <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2024 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Mr. David called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. <br />Present: Tom David, Humberto Olivos, Jose Leon, Cary Peeples, Paul Shymske, Matt-Marrie <br />Staff: Director Max Upton, City Engineer Don Sheehy, Assistant Director of Law Bryan <br />O'Malley, Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson <br />MEETING MINUTES <br />The meeting minutes of July 24, 2024 were approved. All in favor; none opposed. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />85-2024; Dale Schmidt; Industrial Parkway <br />The proposal consists of new construction at the location. <br />A developer with prior projects in North Olmsted proposed a new 11,970 square foot <br />building in the city's industrial park. The zoning and adjacent parcels are designated for <br />industrial use. The property has a single driveway, 15 parking spaces, and existing storm <br />detention. The building materials will include concrete, masonry, and metal. A fire <br />suppression system is not required, but a rapid entry system per Ohio Fire Code will be <br />included. The preliminary development plans met the city's engineering requirements. <br />The developer proposed an 11,970 square foot speculative building in the industrial park, <br />differing from previous projects by having a rectangular design with office space to be <br />added later based on tenant needs. The building was designed with loading docks, vehicle <br />access, and road exposure in mind. The project started on the far west side of the 4.93 -acre <br />property, meeting frontage and sideline requirements. The design included metal and <br />masonry, with a detention system at the back. The developer considered future flexibility <br />and potential expansion but made no commitments. <br />A resident, living adjacent to the proposed building site, expressed concerns about the <br />retention pond, potential water drainage issues, and the absence of a berm similar to one <br />on a nearby property. He questioned the environmental impact and the change in property <br />zoning from residential to industrial. He also criticized the area's development, noting that it <br />was originally intended for housing, not industrial use, and suggested tabling the project for <br />further review. <br />Questions were raised about the property's prior review for tree clearance, which was <br />approved under a different design late last year. Concerns were also expressed regarding <br />the existing pond and whether it met regulations. It was noted that the pond, currently <br />unmodified, has an outlet pipe, and further calculations would be required if the project <br />were approved. Buffering requirements were discussed, with the existing 300 -foot distance <br />meeting code, though additional landscaping was suggested. Clarifications were provided on <br />