My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/03/2006 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
10/03/2006 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:49:51 AM
Creation date
1/6/2014 9:43:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
10/3/2006
Year
2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Minutes of 10/3/2006 <br />~,, the permitted uses would be residential uses which would include single family <br />,~: dwellings, two-family dwellings and home professional office and home occupations <br />operated in accordance with 1135.02 (a) and (b). There is also a public and semi-public <br />use which would include governmental buildings, public parks and playgrounds. 1Vlost <br />importantly, there is an office use since the area mast usually has to do with an office use <br />as opposed to an industrial use. Permitted office uses include professional services, <br />physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, and administrative and business offices not <br />carrying on retail trade with the public. There are also some conditional uses in 1142.04. <br />The BZD Committee did make several changes to the legislation as a result of residents' <br />comments at the public hearing. Residents questioned exactly why a conditional use <br />would be a research laboratory. Nobody could quite put their finger on what appropriate <br />use would be a research laboratory, and the committee unanimously recommended that <br />the legislation be amended to remove research laboratories as a conditional use. <br />Secondly, there was a development standard section of 1142. 06 (d) which included the <br />word "nuisance" and it sought to control nuisance conditions as a development standard. <br />It was a very light definition of nuisance and because of what's taken place in other areas <br />of the city, the committee asked the Director of Law to draft a mare comprehensive <br />definition of nuisance. That has also been included in the amended. legislation. <br />Following significant discussion, the committee felt the legislation protected the potential <br />uses that are currently in place. The committee voted unanimously to recornrt~cnd <br />approval of Ordinance 2006-135 as amended. Councilman Gareau made a motion to <br />amend Ordinance 2006-135 to include the amendment at 1142.04 to remove research <br />laboratories and to amend 1142.06 (d} to include the more comprehensive definition of <br />nuisance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed unanimously. <br />Ordinance 2006-135 amended. <br />• Ordinance 2006-130, .,:. ordinance amending Section 1126.09 of the Zoning Code in <br />order to change the procedure for reviewing proposed minor changes to approved <br />development proposals as amended. This piece of legislation came about as a result of <br />the changes that took place with the boards and commissions. In the farmer minor <br />change procedure format, the chairpersons of Architectural Review Board, Planning <br />Commission and BZD Committee would be involved in the minor change process. With <br />the reorganization of the Planning Commission to the Planning & Design Commission, <br />the ARB has been eliminated, and the procedure had to be changai. It was also deemed <br />appropriate to more clearly define what exactly is a minor change, which was discussed <br />by the committee through the proposal brought forward and presented by Planning <br />Director Wenger. As an example, added to the definition was the requirement that. safety <br />forces determination also be given consideration. The process itself was broken dawn in <br />the ordinance to include a definition section, application section, and review and approval <br />procedure section. The proposal brought forward by the Planning Director would involve <br />the Planning Director more in the process to be able to play a role in determining and <br />approving the minor changes that are brought forward to the city. 'There were several <br />changes that were made in addition to a restructuring from the original version that was <br />brought forward in the ordinance, specifically there was an inclusion of a safety forces <br />provision in 1126.09 (a) (2) and there was also a provision that suggested there be an <br />appropriate application and fee included when one mares a minor change format request <br />to an approved submittal from Planning & Design. A change in 1126.09 (c) (2) (b} which <br />7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.