Laserfiche WebLink
• f ° f3Z? m', NU+?s at? <br /> <br />of the City and could be proseeuted and put under an injunction to stop him from <br />using it. Mr. Creadon stated that he did understand this. Mr. Anost did not <br />believe that anyone would put up a steel structure that big for the uses he <br />mentioned. He stated that this is not a garage, it is a barn. He stated that when <br />the Bradley Oaks development is completed, those residents will see this <br />structure, and he will be able to see it in the w-inter. Mr. Creadon stated that <br />Mr. Anost was 72 feet away from the building. It was clarified that a stipulation <br />could be made that this variance would only apply if Mr. Creadon purchased the <br />property. Mr. Grace advised tha,t the 500 feet of property between his property <br />and the Bradley Oaks property line cannot be.developed, since he looked into <br />buying it. It was clarified that the request had to be in the name of the owner, <br />and the owners did receive a notice of this meeting. Mr. Gomersall stated that <br />this building is 78 feet from the back of his own house, 72 feet from the <br />property line, probably at least 75 to 80 feet from Mr. Anost's house, and is <br />right next to the Metro Parks, so this should not be a problem in this area. The <br />existing shed on the property would have to be removed. J. Maloney moved to grant <br />John and Mary Dee, 5670 Bradley Road, the request for an 1137 square foot <br />variance for garage area, a 3 foot height variance and a 1 foot side yard <br />variance to construct detached garage, there is an attached garage on the <br />dwelling, subject to the removal of the moveable barn currently on the property, <br />and subject to the property being purehased by Mr. Roc R. Creadon, seconded by B. <br />Grace, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. <br />11. Velvet Touch Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain.Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 42 foot front set back variance and <br />variance for no landscape buffer in frorit set back. Violations of Ord. 90-125, <br />Sections 1139.07. <br />Chairman Gomersall ca.lled all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Barnett, owner, and Mr. Ulissee, designer, and to Mr. <br />Klemkowitz, T. 0'Conke, Ms.Comber, W. Snith, Ms. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, Ms. <br />Laszlo, Ms. R. and Ms. J. Ennemoser, and Ms. Carnecke, interested parties. Mr. <br />Gomersall explai.ned that this Board is bei.ng asked to grant a 42 foot front <br />setback variance for the buildi.ng and it was clarified that there was an 8 foot <br />buffer and 20 is required so they need a 12 foot variance for the landscape <br />buffer. This proposal Yias been to the Plaming Commission and the members have <br />read the minutes. Mr. Ulisse explained that they intend to renovate the existing <br />structure by adding a new roof, canopy, resurfacing the building;and will be <br />installing landscaping, etc. They have received approvals from the Plaming <br />Conunission and the Architectural Review Board and the traffic engineer. The <br />canopy will not hinder anyone's view, it is merely to give the building some curb <br />appeal.. It was explained to the people present that the traffic situation had <br />been a primary concern of the Planning Commission and that it had been decided <br />that only right hand turns would be allowed in and out of both the Lorain and <br />Dover Center driveways. Mr. Gomersall did not believe this could be enforced <br />without a traffic officer. Mrs. Comber, who owns an adjacent shopping center is <br />concerned that her.drive will be blocked. Law Director Gareau stated that this <br />subject was discussed at length by the Plann_ing Commission and a traffic study <br />was presented. He advised that this is not a Plaming Commission, this is a Board <br />of Zoning Appeals to determine whether or not a variance is to be grantede Most <br />of the people present did not receive notice of the Plaming Commission meetings, <br />some of them were owners of business, not property ownerq or owners of property <br />not adjacent to this proposal. All those present were concerned with traffico it <br />would back up in front of the adjacent drives; customers could not get into their <br />businesses; drivers could not turn left out of Lucydale now, this wi11 make the <br />5