02/28/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ y noted that the elevations were the same, the changes were only minor. Mr. Dunlap explained that the gable across the front of one garage will be recessed back to show shingles across the front; that he may change the top window; and the front doors and the colors ofthe siding and roofing be different.. Mrs. Tolowitzki, who lives to the north, objected because a 40 foot lot is too narrow to have a house with a double attached garage. She will see two double driveways, which will look like a highway; and noted that the front of the house is only 9 feet, the rest is the double garage. She had driven up and down the streets in the neighborhood and did not see any houses with attached garages on 40 foot lots and objected because there would be two right next to her. Mr. Dunlap advised that he built one of the homes with a detached garage that she mentioned, but he did not believe that it would not sell in today's market. He noted that the street has both attached and detached garages and pointed that cluster homes usually had garages in front and they were very appealing. Mrs. Tolowitzki was concerned about the sale of her home. Mr. Britton had pictures of homes in the area and believed that the houses with the detached garages had sold fairly quickly. Mr. Gomski, 6001 Decker, had a major problem with the setback since he would be in the shadow of the house and would not be able to see past it. He had no problem with the variance for a 45 foot setback on the other side of his house, because only a porch was encroaching in frout. It was clarified that the house would be 5 feet offthe driveway and his driveway was 11 or 12 feet wide. The 2 foot variance for distance between dwellings was on the other side of the lot. W. Gomersall suggested that Mr. Dunlap move that house back to 50 feet and request a rear yard variance. Mr. Dunlap believed that a perspective buyer would prefer a larger back yard, since most people wanted the back yard for their children. Mr. Dunlap stated that if Mr. Grooms could not see past this house, he would not be able see past the existing house with a 40 foot setback. Mr. Maloney suggested that both houses be placed at a 45 foot front setback, and a rear yard variance could be granted for the one. Mrs. Tolowitzki, who was concemed about her property values, did not like the design of the house and questioned why he could not put the lots together and build a bigger home. She was advised that these houses might raise her property values and that this board caunot discuss design. Mr. Crrooms had no problem with a variance in the backyard. Mr. Dunlap agreed to 5 foot front setbacks and would request 3 foot rear yard variances. J. Maloney moved to grant the request of Curt Dunlap, sublots 401 and 402 Decker, property located between 5963 and 6001 Decker Road, PP# 235-14-74 and 75, Sublot 401: for a 5 foot frout setback variance and a 3 foot rear yard variance; a 2 foot total side yard variances; a 2 foot variauce for distance between dwellings on both north and south side; and a 145 square foot variance for minimum livable floor area on first floor. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.06(a); 1135.07(a) and 1135.03(b). Sublot 402: Request 5 foot front setback variance and 3 foot rear yard variance; a 2 foot variance for total side yards; a 2 foot variance for distance between dwellings on north side; and request 145 square foot variance for minimum livable floor area on first floor. Violations of Ord. 90- 125, Sections 1135.06(a); 1135.07(a) and 1135.03(b). This is a modified request as agreed to by the applicant. The motion was seconded by W. Purper, and unauimously approved. Variances granted 6. High Tech Pools, S/L 11 Industrial Park. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 5 foot 6 inch variance to have parking encroaching in landscape buffer and also request 9 inch variance for length of curb in a 45 degree parking stall. Request 7 foot rear setback variance at narrowest point for encroachment of drive. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1145.07. Heard by planning commission February 13, 1996. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. Mr. Cerney, architect, and Mr. Hammerschmidt, developer, presented the plans. Mr. Gomersall stated that Building Commissioner Conway had advised that the owner had reduced the size of the lot, thus creating his own hardship. 4