04/14/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b necessary, he would hire an off duty policeman to control traffic onto and off of this parcel at peak times. It is also suggested that the light poles be limited to 16 to 18 feet high max;rrnm,. This plans should be referred to the Engineering Department for their input, seconded by A. Skoulis, and unanimously approved. 5) Barlo Plaza, 30572 Lorain Road Proposal to construct storage building in rear of plaza. Originally proposed with plans to construct an addition on April 10, 1990 and withdrawn on June 8, 1990. Continued from P1arLn;ng Commission meeting on March 10, 1992. Mr. Draeger, architect, and Mr. Hayden, owner, presented the revised site plan showing landbanked parking spaces for the storage building in the event this building tvould be changed to a retail use. Mr. Draeger advised tha.t three parking spaces would be lost (for access into the rear parking lot ) and 10 spaces have been added, two of.which are parallel, so there is a net gain of 9 spaces which are 3 over code requirement. Al1 setbacks have been maintained. Building Commissioner Conway advised that if this were a mercantile building, 8 parking spaces would be required, so there will be ane surplus space, however, he ha.s a concern with space #2, which is adjacent to a 13 foot wide drive. Mr. Orlowski asked why this proposal is being brought back, considering that the Commission had not been in favor of it previously. He further questioned if there had not been another building on the property at one time. Mr. Draeger explained there had been a garage which was torn down when the addition was built and there is a ma.intenance building on the property now. He explained that a storage building had been proposed originally with the addition, but the storage building was dropped. The members studied the minutes of previous meetings. It was clarified that there is a residence to the west of this propertye Mr. Skoulis questioned if the concerns of the residents to the rear have been addressed. Mr. Conway advised that a portion of the fence had never been completed, and he will not issue a permit for a new building tmtil the fence is completed. He claxified that this fence is actually 6 feet high, not 8 as stated by the residents. He also stated that the dumpster, which is enclosed, was supposed to ha.ve been moved, but this request was brought before the Commission as a minor change since moving it would have caused problems with picknps. Mrm Gorris agreed that the proposed location of the dtmipster could ha.ve been a problem. Mr. Skoulis questioned the height of the building since the residents are concerned about.buffering and beeause the grade of the land slopes down from the building to their property. Mr. Draeger responded that the building at the center.is 15.5 feet high and the property drops down about 7 feet fram the pavement to the rear property linee Mr. Tallon pointed out that the entire building would be visible from the neighbors property. Mr. Draeger responded that there are 60 feet from the building to neighbors' property and this is a.wood.bu.ilding, not a commercial structure, with no doors or access around the reax: He maintained it would be no diff¢rent than looking at a fence and.trees would have to be 25 feet high to screen the building. Mr. Skoulis suggested some plantings be installed behind the fence, not 25 feet high trees, but possibly biue spruce or pines, something that will grow. Mr. Hayden stated that there axe some trees in back now and a board on board fence. Neighbors, Ms. Wiersma and Ms. Ficker; were present. Ms. Wiersma stated that a storage building was voted down previously and it.was suggested that they add anto the.building instead, but they chose not too. She maintained there is a problem with security, juveniles congregate baek there and police have been called. They are concerned that a bar could be put in this building. She wanted. complete.screening from the building and is concerned because the developer had 4