02/13/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w inches for the length of the curb in a 45 degree parking stall be granted. The motion was seconded by A. Manning and unanunously approved. 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 the 7 foot variance needed for the drive and parking in the 10 foot rear setback be granted. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan. Roll call on motion Tallon, Cameron Alston, Koeth, and O'Rourke, yes. Brennan, Herbster, and Mauuing, no. Motion carried. 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 of 5 foot, 6 inches for parking in the 25 foot front setback be granted based on the plan that the front setback be heavily landscaped and mounded. The motion was seconded by T. Herbster. Roll call on motion: Tallon, Cameron Alston, and O'Rourke, yes. Herbster, Brennan, Koeth, and Mauuin.g, no. Motion failed to pass. Proposal was referred to board of zoning appeals. 4) Seaman's Furniture, 24869 Lorain Road. Proposal to construct addition to existing building. Referral to board of zoning appeals will be required. Mr. Baker, partner in the association that owns the building, and architects, R. Mongello and Ms. Kemp-Kopco, and, attorney, Mr. Coyne,represented the developers. Mr. Baker e}cplained that they had owned the Thomasville store in this location for many years and recently obtained the adjacent property to expand the building. They have entered into a lease agreement with Seaman's Furniture which requires them to get a timely approval and build.ing schedule. These plans have been redrawn from the former Baker's proposal to comply with all the bu.ild.ing codes, setback, parking requirements, and also show a landscape bu.ffer. Mr. Mongello, architect, e}cplained that the plans now included a landscape buffer next to the adjacent property owners and also sent a booklet out to all those owners. Assistant Building Commissioner Ryinarczyk advised that a special permit would be required since the existing building encroaches seven feet into the setback and that variances would be needed for the maximuin width of the drive and one for the 25 foot radius intathe property. Mr. Mongello advised that the drive width can be reduced and the radius can be changed to conform to code. Mr. Mongello did not realize that the building encroached that much into the setback, and noted that they have two different surveys on the property which they combined and found that there was a discrepancy. They would go to the board of zoning appeals for the special permit. He presented a photo board showing the adjacent properties, the elevations of the building, and a landscape plan for the buffering. Mr. Manning asked if the corner of the building could be cut off. Ms. Kemp-Kopco did not believe that it would be feasible. It was clarified that the concern is not with the special permit, it is with the appearance of the building. Mr. Mongello suggested enhancing the corner with glass or something that would blend the two portions of the building together. Mr. Tallon believed that this might be more acceptable. In reference to the retention, Mr. Mongello advised that previously the retention system was to be located on the southern portion of the property, but that would necessitate removing the trees in the rear. They will now locate the retention system below the paved parking lot. Also a mou.nd at the southerly line could kill the trees, so they intend to intersperse evergreen trees among those trees to enhance the buffer. They pointed out the pictures of this area. Mr. Brennan noted that there were areas that could be mounded. The neighbors came forward to view the plans and were advised that they could speak later. Mr. Tallon asked that the pole lights on the rear and west side of the property be shielded from the rear and that one light be shielded from the front, since the lens on the fixture was below the can aud would glare. He would like zero foot candles at the property line. Mr. Mongello will bring a cut of the fixture to the architectural review board meeting. The lighting will be on a timer and there will be minimal security lighting. W. Tallon advised that since the roof line is 20 feet and the fascia line is 18 feet, the 4