10/13/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Building Department. Their design will house four additional containers. Eighty-five percent of their clients are North Olmsted residents. The business has gone beyond their expectations and they are trying to accommodate the volume they are experiencing. They require a 200 foot variance for the setbaclc however they abut a school playground. Mr. Rerlco said the commission was clear at the first approval about activities staying within the building therefore he would not support the outdoor storage; the applicants should look to expanding the building. Mr. Parry said what is shown is not indoors, but an enclosure with no roof. Mr. Bohlmann said he felt the City was misled when they first appeared as they talce in cars aiid disinantles them in the parking lot and there are a minimum of four large storage containers outside daily with commercial size vehicles moving outside storage around. What is talcing place is more like a junlc yard in a retail area which should not be allowed. He questioned the revocation process for the conditional use permit. Mr. O'Malley said it was within the Building Official's authority to initiate however it was not a function of the Planning and Design Commission to address. Mrs. Meredith was troubled that the applicant continued to receive and store material outside the building and would not support the request as it clearly violated the code. Mr. Bohlmann suggested the business be moved to the light industry area where such a use is pei-mitted by code. Mr. Ivancic said he believed that by enclosing the storage units they would meet zoning code requirements. Items have to come in and out of the building to be removed from the site but all purchases are conducted within the building. Mr. Bohlmann said the storage area is a dumpster enclosure, not a building. Mr. Ivancic said they have altered their process since receiving the violations and have removed the Freon removal side of the business and altered other things. He said they want to do the right thing and can't help that their business has flourished. Mr. Cotner said the commission does not want to discourage the business but perhaps the business has outgrown the site and it should be relocated to the light industry district. In visiting the site there were no parking spaces available and there were storage units blocking the drive. Mrs. Ekstrand said there was a need for the business in North Olmsted. The location on Lorain is visible and they are providing a service for residents and the city. Mr. Elcstrand said he has used the site and understands the concern about the drives being bloclced but they should be allowed to expand. Mrs. Herbster said she worlcs at the school behind the recycle center and the only buffering that is provided is overgrown bushes and weeds. There is also garbage in the buffer area and during winter months the baclc of the site is clearly visible to the school. Mr. Hoelter suggested the city worlc with the applicants as the use is needed and find an outcome that would benefit both the applicant and city. Mr. Scheman said he has used the facility in North Olmsted and the noise levels are very high and questioned what is allowed by code. Mr. Parry aslced if the outdoor dumpster enclosure met city codes for the conditional use and Mr. Laslco said they did not that is why a variance is required. Ms. Wenger asked if the applicants would be open to expanding the building rather than having outdoor storage. Mr. Ivancic said they thought the dumpster enclosure would bring them to code which is not the case so they would be willing to table their request and try to worlc with the city. Ms. Wenger asked if they would table their variance request as well and Mr. Ivancic said they would withdraw their variance request. Mr. Lasko noted that when first approved the applicants were unsure as to the