08/04/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. -v- ` -r ' Mr. Conway advised that they probably would not have to tear it down, but at least the situation would be on record for the future. Mr. Gareau agreed that it should be done to facilitate the construction. There is a possibility that the lots were combined but not properly filed, but the representative of the title company believed that they had just described it as ane lot. T. Koberna moved to grant to Rick and Sandy Pelger, 24059 Mapleridge Road, the two 7.5 foot variance for side yards (house and addition will split 2 lots). Also to grant a 49 foot rear yard variance (adjacent rear lot also belongs to owners). Also to grant a special permit to add to a non=conforming dwelling, with the condition that the three lots are combined within one year from today, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variances and special permit granted. 7. Quint Holda, 5973 Stearns Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request 290 square foot variance to construct detached garage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sectian 1135.02(c)1. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Holda who presented aelditional plans and an aeriai view of his property. He has relocated the garage so that after Stearns Road is widened, there will be a turn around to avoid backing out of the drive. He explained that they have 2 cars and two motorcycles. He clarified that.the garage doors would be 9 foot wide and 7 foot high. W. Purper moved to grant a variance to Quint Holda, 5973 Stearns Road, for a 290 square foot variance to construct a detached garage, seconded by R. Gomersall and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 8.. Ice Cream Parlor/Sandwich Shop, 27045 Lorain.R.oad. Request for variance (1123.12). Request two 7 foot variances for landscape buffer on side yards; request 5 foot varianee for rear yard landscape buffer; request 10 foot variance for front landscape buffer; request 36 foot front setback variance for building; and request variance to have both driveways within 100 foot of an intersection. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.08(e)(3), 1139.07 (table) and 1161.10(a). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to W. & R. Benik, owners, L. Orlowski, Vice Chairman of Planning Comnission, T. Lima, C. Scarl, and Mr. Binggeli, friends of the developers. Mr. Gomersall read the request and advised that the board recognized that this is an odd lot and that he did read the Planning Commission minutes. W. Benik presented a scale drawing of the Dubelko planwhich was suggested at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Orlowski clarified that the Planning Conunission •recommended approval of the variance for the side yard landscape buffers, the 36 foot front setback variance for the buildirig and the variance to have both driveways within 100 foot of an intersection; however, they did not recomnend the vaxiance for the front landscape bu.ffer because they believed that the intent of the zoning code for safety, aesthetics, and landbanking of parking spaces would not be met with this variance. He believed that this plan was presented by City Engineer Deichmann, not Assistant Law Direetor Dubelko. He does not believe this plan was supposed to be accurate, it was merel.y a suggestion that there could be alternative ways of placing the building on the lot. Mr. Benik believed that what is being called the Dubelko plan was drawn up by Mr. DubElko and Mr. Deichmann during the second Planning Commission meeting of June 23rd and was diseussed after the close of that meeting. Mr. Benik explained the "Dubelko" plan placed the drive behind the 20 foot setback line and had some landbanked parking, but there would only be a 13 foot two way traffic flow drive which is not feasible. Mr. Orlowski pointed out that there was one parking space on that plan which would never be allowed. Mr. Gomersall agreed that this was just a rough sketch. 4