02/13/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r tenants, Mr. Herbster questioned if the 15 parking spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Cerney responded that they have tried to size their parking based on past experience and what other similar developments have since they are not sure who their tenants will be. These types of businesses have few employees, frequently just an owner. Each bay has a 12 by 14 foot overhead door to service it. This will be a one story structure which will start at 18 feet high at the back and will increase to about 20 feet high at the road. He clarified that the u.neven front of the building is to attempt to conform to the cul-de-sac and to give some individuality to the tenants' entrances. Mr. Brennau would like some landscaping around the fenced-in area to conceal the contents. Mr. Cerney responded that they were concentrating on the front landscaping and that the 8 foot fence will be opaque and would conceal most of the items inside. The site is wooded and they would try to leave it natural. The members discussed the proposal and the variances required among themselves. Chairmau Tallon advised that if they wou.ld remove on parking space, they would not need a variance for the curb length of the parking spaces. Mr. Cerney responded that they do have necessary 12 foot, 7 inches in the center of the space, and it would be 13 feet at the drive since he was trying to balance the parking with the curve. There would be room to open car doors. Since they have not sized the building for a specific use, Mr. Tallon questioned why they are asking for variances and they have a large parcel of vacant land. Mr. Cerney responded that the building was sized so the owner could make a fair return on the btulding and the owner established the square footage needed. Mr. Tallon explained that since they only needed to reduce it by 5.5 feet, he would find it difficult to recommend that a variance for 5.5 feet be granted on a mammoth piece of property that has no physical barriers. Mr. Cerney pointed out that the lot is unusually shaped property because it is on an exceptionally large cul-de-sac, but since they must conform to that they must give up additional space between the set backs. They are try'mg to make a project that is financially realistic for the owner, and offset the lack of a 25 foot buffer with additional landscaping and mounding, if they had to go back 5 feet, they would have to reduce the landscaping. Mr. Wagner, Forest City Enterprises, owner of the Industrial Park, asked the commission to consider that the radius of the cul-de-sac is 93 feet, 33 feet bigger than a typical radius, which was a consideration when they approved the plans. Mr. Mauniug has a problem with requesting variances on a vacant parcel because of a dollar factor. He thought possibly the front entrances which were designed to give mdividual tenants an identity could be elimiuated in order to cut back on cost, since an industrial warehouse building would not need a fancy front. Mr. Cerney believed that the additional landscaping in the front would compensate for the smaller set back. He noted that the lot coverage was not excessive. Mr. Brennan stated that there were no specific tenants, and no one made him buy the property, but after he bought it, he is trying to over build on it. Mr. Hammerschmidt advised that he only has a paper agreement, and if he is not able to build a building which can justify the cost of the land, he will have to go elsewhere. He preferred to build in North Olmsted , and would like a nice facility that would attract tenants who would stay and be a benefit to North Olmsted. Mr. Cerney advised that they would lose about 1,500 square foot in the building, if they conformed to the code. Mr. Manniug stated that this was not much on the overall building. Mr. Hammerschmidt responded that it becomes an issue to him because he is approaching the point where it would be non-feasible. Mr. _Manning figured that they would lose 5 foot of depth for the 270 foot width. Mr. Tallon reviewed the variances: a 5 foot, 6 inch variance for the front for parking that encroaches into the front setback, a 9 inch variance for the length of the curb in the 45 degree parking stalls, and a 7 foot variance at the narrowest point for the drive and parking in the rear setback. He cautioned the developers that this type of building would lend itself to retail development and that no retail would be allowed in the Industrial Park. Mr. Cerney did not agree that this would lend itself to a retail building and the occupancy would have to be similar to the owners, office/warehouse. Mr. Tallon decided to make a motion of the variances individually. R Tallon moved to refer High Tech PooLs, Sublot 11, North Olmsted Industrial Park, a proposal to construct office/ warehouse facility, to the board of zoning appeals with the recommendation that a variance be granted for approximately 9 3