06/15/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. Dale & 5hei1a Sc?imnait; 31399 Iaadustrial P!M: (WIRD # 3) Proposal consists of development plans for pads to park recreation vehicles at Exit 2 Storage and the following variance is requested: 1. A variance from being required to store boats and recreational vehicles in rear yard only, which is in violation of section: 41363.07 (b) (2) (E). Mr. Kondzer tiie applicant's attorney and Mr. Schmidt the owner were present to review the request. l0iir. Kondzer voiced that they believe that the Building Commissioners' interpretation of chapteP (1363.07) is inaccurate. However if the board votes to uphold the Commissioners raaYYing his client vvould then request the board grant a variance for paaking the recreational vehicles as shown on the site plan. It was reviewed that there were currently three rows of storage units on the site and the parking of the recreational vehicles would be located west of the existing storage unitse Mr. Schmidt reviewed that when he frst constnucted the stora.ge facility he receiverl nuanerous reqtaests for outside recreational vehicle storage as the enclosed units were not long or high enougli for most recreational vehicles. Therefore he went before the Planning & Design Commission to seelc approval to modify a section of phase 2 to allovv the storage of recreatioaial wehielese The location of the storage would run north to south and would not be visible from I-480 or from the front of the site. The next phase which will be constructed sometime in the finture will be 3 rows of storage units. He reviewed that he incorporated the Planning & Design commissions request to plant 7-foot trees along the entire rear property line to make sure the vehicles vvere not seen from I-480. Mr. Engoglia asked if the area in question would be visible from the west of the proposed fence. Mr. Kondzer advised that the parked vehicles would not be seen from the Industrial Parkway entrance, or from heyond the rear of the site or east of the parking area due to the existing units: Mr. 5chmidt advised that the vehicles would not be visible from the west as there will be slats placed withi.n the chainlink fence to buffer the vehicles from view. Once the second phase is completed the fence will be moved to the furthest west property line and the new bbaildings would then bloclc the vetaicles froan view. Mrs. Sabo questioned the m.aximum height of the recreationa.l vehicles which would be stored at the site. Mr. 5chmidt advised that state codes regulate how high recreational vehicles can be. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's responsibility in addressing the request. He suggested the board rule on the Commissioner's interpretation first then if needed proceed to address the applicants request for a varianee from the eode. Chairman Maloney gave both Mr. Kondzer and Mr. Conway the opportunity to present their interpreta.tions of chapter (1363.07). Board members voiced that if they followed the applicant's interpretation of the code the anajoraty of the lot dvould be considered a rear yard due to a section of the west property line being angled arnd not sft-aight. Once Mr. Kondzer and Mr. Conway inished presenting their interpretations of the code the board proceeded to make a ruling on the applicant's request. P. Engogfia moved to grant 1)ale & Sheila Sclnmndt of 31399 Industrial I'kvy their request to appeal the Building Comnnssioners interpretation of chapter (1363007 (b) (2) (E)? as at applies to saiel property. M. Convvay seeonded the motion, which was eananiaffiously denied. Motion Failed 2