Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 94 square foot variance to construct deck for pool will <br />wluch exceed 20% coverage of the rear yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(d)(2). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to <br />Mr. and Mrs. Cooney. The members believed that tlus would look very nice. W. Puiper moved to <br />grant the request to Edwin aud Jean Cooney, 4347 Coe Avenue, 94 square foot variance to <br />construct deck for pool will which exceed 20% coverage of the rear yard. Violation of Ord. 90- <br />125, Section 1135.02(d)(2). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and unanimously <br />approved. Variance granted. <br />11. William Demars 27855 Marquette Drive. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 8.5 foot rear yard variance to construct patio enclosure. <br />Violation ofOrd. 90-125, Section 1135.08(2). <br />The represeutative was still not present. R. Gomersall moved to continue the request of William <br />Demars, 27855 Marquette Drive until the ueat meeting. The motion was seconded by J. Maloney <br />and iuiauimously approved. Request continued. <br />Chairmau Gomersall would like to see the 75 foot front setback requirement reduced. Building <br />Cominissiouer Couway stated that tlus requirement has made 90% of the properties in the city <br />non-confonning and in effect puts two rows of parking iu fiont of the building. Law Director <br />Gareau believed that tlus requirement pushed the commercial properties back closer to the <br />residential area. He suggested a variable setback from 35 feet of all green area to 70 feet wluch <br />could be detennined by planuing commission. He pointed out that the Olive Garden had originally <br />planned to take out all the trees and set the building back further, and tlus board granted a 35 foot <br />setback based on having all green area in the front setback and the result is a good looking <br />building. The 35 foot landscaped setback was allowed in the previous code. W. Conway stated <br />that uow you can have a 50 foot front setback if it is all grass, but no developer will do that. It was <br />also stated that it was inconsistent to allow parking in the 75 foot frout setback, but the display of <br />uew cars. A letter will be drafted suggestiug to couucil that the front set back requiremeut be <br />chauged. <br />Mr. Purper will not be at the next meeting on July 6, 1995, and neither will Mr. Conway who will <br />be on vacation. <br />The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. <br />Gomersall, Chairmau <br />B. Oring, Clerk of <br />7