11/17/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v- • for other retailers in the area. The board believed that items could be stored off site and brought to the store as needed. Councilman Orlowski reviewed that although the applicants are requesting 2 storage containers there are currently 3 containers at the site. The containers which are currently being used are not being adequately kept, as he has started receiving complaints from the residents along Columbia Road that the shrink-wrap and other packing materials are blowing into their trees and yards. Targets loading dock area is an enclosed area along Brookpark Road which keeps paclcing materials from becoming uncontrollable. He believes that allowing the cargo trailers would prompt smaller retailers to seek trailers for their stores as well. Mrs. Diver from Mitchell Drive also found it hard to believe that the new 125,000 square foot building was not large enough to handle any storage needs the store could have and voiced that the metal containers being accessed at 6:00 am would be quite noisy to the abutting neighbors. Mr. Schulz from Mitchell Drive reviewed passed issues of the site and other retailers storing merchandise at other locations. He voiced his concerns over the noisy cranes used to deliver and remove the containers from the site as well as the equipment needed to maneuver the stored items to and from the store. The applicants say that there would be no motors used for moving the merchandise in and out of the building but there are already signs that the storage containers are not being properly maintained and there are 3 not 2 containers at the site now. D. Sabo moved to grant Target of 24646 Srookpark I2oad their request which consisted of 2 storage containers being positioned in back of building for the period of November 18, 2005 - January 15, 2006 which is in violation of section (1363.07 (b) (2 E)). M. Conway seconded the motion which was unanimously denied. Variance Denied Mark H. Knevel, 27864 Edgepark Dr, (WRD 1): Applicant requests a variance to install a fence along another fence. This is in violation of section 1369.03 (a) (3). Mr. Knevel the homeowner came forward to review his request. Mr. Knevel reviewed that the rear neighbors land offset his property by about 2/3 the distance of his rear yard. He has spoken to the neighbors regarding allowing him to replace their section of chain-link fence but as they have quite a bit of landscaping along the fence and there are utility easements involved they do not want their fence removed. There is currently a CEI easement as well as a swell for drainage along the rear property so he would place his fence a minimum of 4-feet off the rear property line and would include an 8-foot lockable gate so the area could be maintained. He advised that the rear neighbor's son has a metal illness and there have been issues with the son involving domestic assault charges involving guns as well as felonious assault charges and in both incidents court records indicated that psychological care was required. He reviewed that the son 4 months earlier came into his backyard and assaulted one of his sons and a visiting friend and is currently pending charges. He was advised by the officers who responded that they were quite familiar with the perpetrator and strongly suggested erecting a fence. He has also had issues of being woken up in the middle of the night to find trespassers exiting his hot-tub. He would like to allow his Labs to have full run of the backyard instead of a short dog-run. The chain-link fence located to the west of his property would not be removed, nor would his fence be attached to the chain-link fence. Board members felt there was plenty of room to maintain the area behind the fence. 2