02/11/2015 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He asked if the building would be heated. Mr. Dixon said the building wouldn't be heated. Mr. Bohlmann asked about drainage in the garage for when the equipment is cleaned. Ms. Magyar said none of the vehicles would be cleaned on the property. Mr. Bohlmann said he is familiar with landscaping business and questioned that vehicles wouldn't be repaired or cleaned on site. Mr. Bohlmann said continuous concrete cubing is required but the plan shows railroad ties being used. The location to the residential homes is too close and the amount of noise from the business will have a negative impact on the residents. He felt the matter should be tabled to allow the applicant time to address the issues noted. Mr. Schumann said he would not support the proposal as shown as there is sufficient property to construct a garage for the business. Even if the applicant returned with detailed plans showing all that is required the garage is too close to the residents. Ms. Nader said the technical drawings are lacking, the architectural drawings are not legible and what is legible doesn't malce sense. She questioned the height and length of the building. She aslced if the addition would be the same height as the existing garage. A full set of detailed drawings needs to be submitted including color and material charts, building details including the base of the building, type and style of the metal roof and siding. There are no detailed drawings pertaining to the retaining wall, curbing, landscaping, irrigation, utilities, parking, lighting, or drainage; the plans are too inadequate to properly review. Mr. Bohlmann asked if snow plowing was also offered by their company and Ms. Magyar said yes. Mr. Dixon said if there were inconsistencies between the engineering package and architectural drawings he would coordinate them. He said their asking if the board is open to the concept; if it is approved they would return with engineering and architectural drawings. The existing garage is a pole barn with a simple frame structure which is what they are trying to maintain with the addition. The existing eaves are 7' 10" and they are raising the roof an additional4 feet. There will be a new black roof and the inetal siding color will match the residential siding on the home. If the city requires 18 foot drives they will do that however it will be used'as one side in one side out for convenience and traffic flow. There is a 30 amp box shown at the baclc of the garage which will be connected and if they have to provide a lavatory they will. Mr. Dixon said his clients will only be at the site 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening picking and dropping off equipment. Mr. O'Malley said whether or not a lavatory is required or if the structure is a utility building is not up for debate, the building official ruled on the application of the zoning code. Ms. Nader said with the amount of pavement shown is the intent to house all the company's vehicles and equipment inside and outside the garage and Ms. Magyar said yes the vehicles will be stored outdoors and equipment inside. Mr. Bohlmann said the structure should be constructed to code and meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Dixson said the structure will only be a one and half story structure not a two story structure. Ms. Wenger recommended the commission forward the applicant to the Board of Zoning Appeals. She understands more information is needed for the development however the variances as noted for the rear setback, curbing and driveway width are clear. Mr. DiFranco asked if the applicants would be willing to make an 18 foot width driveway and install the continuous curbing to eliminate the variance and Ms. Magyar said yes. Ms.lVader moved, seconded by Mr. Anderson to recommend Boar of Zoning Appeals grant CMS15-2638 - Pro Care We Care of 29420 Lorain Road a 36 foot rear yard setback variance which abuts resiclential property. Itoll call: liTadea-, Rerko, Bohlmann, Schumann