08/27/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ineets required rear yard setbaclc however parlcing behind the Saab building violates rear yard setbaclc requirements. Stamped concrete pavers will be extended across the ROW, consistent with previously approved pavers. A water quality landscape swale is proposed for the front of the service write up building which eliminates a curb cut. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the variances required which included rear yard parlcing, total square footage of wall sign, the nuinber of ground signs proposed and the distance of ground sign from one another and questioned display versus customer parking along the front of the lot. Mr. Collins said the applicant's engineer had been worlcing with hiin to meet water quality requirements. However as part of the parcels assembly the applicant will need to clean up the plat to show the proper right of way boundary. Mr. O'Malley said the area mentioned was already a part of the street and just a matter of cleaning up the plat map legal description. Mr. Laslco questioned if all the parcels being consolidated were shown on the plat. Ms. Wenger Uelieved the plat was created prior to the last parcel purchase. Mr. Laslco said the commission would forgo the review of the plat map at this point and only address the development to allow a new plat to be submitted. Mr. Moreno reviewed the lot consolidation and noted one of the parcels may or may not be part of the consolidation. To address the proposed wall sign, they loolc at the wall sign as two separate signs the logo and word Saab as one sign and North Olmsted as a separate sign. They are adding the North Olmsted signs to both the Porsche and Saab buildings. Mr. Conway said if the darlc panel was just an architectural panel behind the signs, if so the applicants would require a variance for an additional wall sign for each building. Mr. Mitchell noted that the Saab building canopy extended beyond the building and would require a variance. Mr. Moreno said the canopy would extend 6 feet 10 inches. He said only the concrete areas along the front of the lot woltld display vehicles and the remaining asphalt areas were for customer parking. Mr. Rerlco liked the architectural design of the building but did not thinlc the dryvit should be extended to the base of the building and requested the first foot of the building be masonry or split-face bloclc. Mr. Broolcer said the dryvit system they will be installing would not be a problem and would be properly installed. Mr. Rerlco believed that the first foot of the building being next to a wallcway would not withstand the salt and shoveling which is needed in the winter months. Ms. Wenger noted city council had not approved any buildings using EIFS or dryvit along the base of a building for many years. Mr. Rerko said it would be acceptable to have the base as masonry covered with stucco to match the EIF'S. Mr. Malone aslced the depth of the swale along the front and suggested using a bio-retention system other than that the landscaping matched what was already approved for the Porsche area. Mr. Brooker said the maximuin depth would be 21 inches and he was not sure how a bio- retention system would worlc as there are two underground systems tied to the front basin which coinUined has to tie into the storm system. He is not sure a bio-system would be sufficient enough to meet the needs of what is required of the combined systems. Mrs. Meredith questioned the 10 foot rear parlcing variance requested. Mr. Broolcer clarified that the variance was for only the seven spaces being added, the remaining spaces are preexisting. Mrs. Meredith is concerned that the rear parlcing would be disruptive to the neighbors and