01/12/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1? D) KJIVIC Incorporated- 31269 Bradlev Road: Proposal consist of adding a 4,224' square foot two story addition to an e;cisting two story office building. Note: All fmishes & exterior treatments are to match eYisting. Variances may be required. Chairman Tallon reviewed KJMC Incorporated request and called all interested parties forward to present their proposal. Mr. Allen, the project manager and Mr. Weygandt, the architect came forward to present their proposal. Mr. Allen indicated the present building was constructed 2 years ago, and as their business has grown to the point of out grorving the facility, they would like to add an addition to the building. The new addition will not impact the front of the lot. The addition will be added to the back of the lot along with additional parking spaces to accommodate the new offices. They intend to maintain the architect by matching the existing building. Mr. Allen suggested the building department indicated there were some concerns regarding exterior parking lights, which as the plans show there are no pole mounted lights that would effect the neighboring parcels. There are two wall mounted lights on the existing building , they intend to move one of the eYisting lights to the back of the new addition. There was also a concern about the landscaping. They have submitted a new set of drawings which show that over 30% of the lot would remain as improved landscaped area. The final concern the Building Department voiced was a loading and unloading zone for the building. There is currently a storage building that is used at the rear of the parcel, which has a concrete apron that we will continue to use as the loading and unloading zone. There has also been mention of a continuous concrete curbing that is needed for a building that has more then 10 parking spaces. Currently there is not a continuous curbing in place as when the building was built it was nota requirement. They would like to seek a variance for the continuous concrete curbing. Ms. 0'Rourke asked about the four trees that the plans show being removed for additional parking. Mr. Allen indicated she was correct and they would add new trees to replace the trees being taken out. Ms. 0'Rourke questioned what abutted the back of their parcel. Mr. Allen suggested there was an irrigation ditch and beyond that it is undeveloped land. Mr. Brennan questioned how the new addition would effect the retention basin. Mr. Deichmann suggested the new addition will need to accommodate the parking lot expansion in regards to drainage. Most developers provide sufficient retention volume based on the idea of future eYpansion. Mr. Weygandt suggested they had anticipated the addition when the building was first planed. There is a 72" inch dianieter storm sewer pipe mmuiing down the westerly side of the entire building rvith a sump pump condition at the very back of the property. Ms. 0'Rourke asked if Space Age was located on one side of the site and residents on the other. Mr. Allen suggested she was correct. Mr. Spalding asked if there was any type of fencing around the property. NIr. Allen indicated the site did not have any type of fencing. Mr. Spalding asked if the lot behind their site was zoned residential. Mr. Deichmann indicated it was limited industry. Mr. Spalding asked what variance was needed. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated one variance is needed for the contiuuous curbing. Mr. Spalding questioned if that was a standard requirement. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated any place that has more than 10 car parking it is a requirement that you have continuous curbing. Mr. Tallon asked if there were any further questions from audience members. No further questions were asked. R. Tallon moved to asked the Board of Zoning Appeals to not grant the variance for the continuous concrete curbing as it should be put in place. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding, and Unanimously approved. Motion Carried. In the framing of the motion Mr. Allen questioned if the concrete curbing was a requirement for the entire building or just for the new addition. Mr. Dubelko indicated this issue has been addressed ui the past, and he believes the Law Director has ruled it is for the new parking only. R. Tallon moved to eYCept the proposal that consist of adding a 4,224' square foot two story addition to an existing two story office building. Note: All finishes & exterior treatments are to match e,cisting. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, and Unanimously approved. Motion Carried. The clerk informed the applicants the next Architectural Review Board meeting would be held Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. and the ne;ct Board of Zoning Appeals meeting would be Thursday, February, 4, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. The clerk also announced there would be no further notices sent out regarding this case. 5