11/14/2012 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wenger reviewed an email from Mr. Rerlco which voiced his concern of EIFS being used so close to grade and possibly setting a precedence of its use in other areas. Ms. Meredith questioned previous approvals and Ms. Wenger briefly reviewed past changes to the building. Mr. Bohlmann requested the existing asphalt curbing along the rear of the two sites being joined be brought into code with continuous concrete curbing. Mr. Brooker said all curbing installed would meet code. Mr. Bohlmaiul noted the east and west sides of the building are briclc and suggested painting the briclc in lieu of installing EIFS. Mr. Broolcer said the design intent is to give the building a inonolithic loolc. Mr. Bohlinann agreed with Mr. Rerlco that the EIFS should be no lower than 8 inches above grade. A brief discussion pertaining to the use of EIFS within the city and not being properly maintained ensued. Mr. Mahoney said being such a high-end dealership he believes the owner will maintain the building. Ms. Meredith suggested along the sides and rear of the building the EIFS be no lower then 8 or 7 inches above grade. Mr. Brooker said to achieve the architectural design it would need to be consistent around the entire building. Ms. Wallcer asked what materials would be used froin grade to the bottom of the EIFS and Mr. Brooker said the exposed brick would be painted to match. Ms. Wallcer suggested taking the EIFS no lower than the bottom of the window sill. Mr. Bohlmann asked if there was a drainage system or air tight barrier between the brick exterior and EIFS system and Mr. Broolcer said no. The EIFS system will be installed in accordance to the manufacturer's recommendations. Ms. Nader voiced a concern that snow and salt will be piled along the east and west elevations and suggested extending the briclc outward to be flush with the bottom of the EIFS. Ms. Meredith questioned variances required and Ms. Wenger said rear parking spaces 1 thru 8 require a variance as does the 4 additional wall signs. Mr. Broolcer said that although there are five wall signs the total square footage does not exceed allowable square footage for the site. Ms. Wengez• said the rear setbaclc shown is 5 feet which requires a 10 foot variance. Mr. Broolcer said the east overhead door is an eritrance for showroom vehicles only. Mr. and Mrs. Green, neighUors, voiced their concerns regarding existing and potential firture lighting. Extending the parking closer to the rear lot line may result in increased light intrusion. They aslced that the 10 ft fence be extended to the end of their property line to buffer the lights. Mr. Green had concerns about noise related to servicing vehicles. Mr. Brooker said the rear fence runs the entire length of the rear property line and there are no service bays along the east side of the building. Mr. McReynolds said he would have a property maintenance inspection completed. Mr. Green questioned if the east wall sign would be illuminated and Mr. Brooker saici yes. The neighbors aslced that the existing fence be replaced with a l Oft high fence and no lights be allowed on the rear of the building. Ms. Meredith moved, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, to recommend BZA grant CMS12-26 Aston Mai•tin c& Maserati of 28300 Lorain Road vai•iances as written, which passed 5-0. The commission's recommendation is based on the total square footage allowed for signage is not exceeded and the parlcing is storage only. Ms. Meredith moved seconded by Mr. Mahoney to approve CMS12-26 Aston Martin & Masei•ati of 28300 Lorain Road with the following conditions: 1. The rear fencing is to be updated to be consistent throughout the rear property line. 2. Continuous concrete curbing as to be installed along the entire rear parking lot from 2