04/05/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.` ? the assumption because it does say State of Ohio. Mr. Gareau suggested that the highway is also zoned residential, so he wouldn't give a whole lot of credence to these issues dealing with variances relating to how close it is to residential when in fact it's part of the right of way owned by the O.D.O.T. Mr. Konold agreed. Mr. Cerny commented that item 6 was the setback for the building. Once again that deals with that parcel owned by the State. Number 7 and 8 deal with the parking and landscape strip along this common property line between the two parcels, where as if they had joined parcels it wouldn't even have been an issue. The two parcels butt against each other which causes these variances. Number 9 refers to the fenced in triangular equipment yard. As part of this expansion they are making that yard wider and larger. They are storing construction vehicles and some re-bar. Everything at the time was approved. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested they had inentioned storing trucks and equipment, but any other materials would be stored inside the building. Nobody ever came in to apply for a variance to store material outside the building. Mr. Cerny thought he had notes that had indicated re-bar would be able to be stored out there. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that he had mentioned it durbng the Planning Commission meeting, but then he said you never did come in to appYy for a variance to store that type of material. Mr. Hammerschmidt replied that is correct, we tried to make it work on the inside of the building. Mr. Cerny commented that they do have a list of materials that they plan on storing out there. The materials will be concealed behind the fence. The fence is a 6 ft. high chain link fence that is slanted so it is opaque. Number 15, 16, and 17 on the following page all relate to two parcels in this particular area. Mr. Konold questioned if they plan to use this for storage for a permanent home base. Mr. Cerny suggested that Mr. Hammerschmidt has a separate business. Fieldstone Development is the construction of these buildings, but he operates High-Tech Pools which constructs pools in different areas. So he stores his equipment for the High-Tech I'ools business not for Fieldstone. Mr. Kremzar questioned if in variance number 17 of the second set of requested variances they are asking to store materials outside of that storage area. Mr. Hammerschmidt replied no, everything would be stored inside of that storage area. Mr. Cerny commented that variance 10, under the code, a building of the size of 55,000 sq. ft. would be required to have two truck docks, but they are saying they are taking both buildings as one project. Combining the square footage of the two buildings they are roughly 75,000 sq. ft. would require two truck docks, which they do show on either location. They are working on an easerrnent package that would a11ow cross access from both properties to rriake use of the tn.tck docks. Instead of putting bn three on a, project the City would really call for two. ldls-. Kremzar questioned how the tracks would maneuver where the parking areas are. Mr. Cerny suggested they would have to circle the building and then back into the space. Number 11 is a new one to him. Their second drive is on the existing parcel, they're sharing an egress point between the two buildings. Mr. Gareau questioned if there was the saine ownership. Mr. Hammerschmidt replied yes. Mr. Gareau questioned how they could give themselves an easement if they own both parcels. Mr. Cerny replied that whoever represented the Law Department at the Planning Cornmission meeting thought about it for a few minutes and thought well, maybe it would be a good idea to get a variance on that. Mr. Crareau implied that as a matter of law, generally you would not give yourself an easement. Mr. Cerny commented that he didn°t realize 12 and 13 were issues either. He indicated that he could re-graph the site plan to eliminate these two variances. Mr. Maloney questioned if variances 12 & 13 were to be scratched. Mr. Cerny replied yes, he would eliminate them. Number 14 sounds bad, but it is really not. They are putting 1 ground sign at the front of the property in the landscape barrier. In leu of actually putting signs on the building, instead they put small identification signs adjacent to the entrances. They are more like individual tenant plaques than signage up on the building. It is what they did on the existing Fieldstone building. Mr. CJareau questioned if they had no problem with the board granting these variances with the condition that they are not allowed to put signage on the building. Mr. Cerny 6