|
• ?.?
<br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mrs.
<br />Chalkwater, and her son, David. The members had no problem with the request. M. Boyle moved to
<br />grant the request of Gerald Chalkwater, 4199 Danberry Drive, for a 81.18 square foot variance for area
<br />of shed which exceeds the 2% maximum of the rear yard area. Also, request 3 foot rear yard variance for
<br />location of shed which will replace and enlaxge existing shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section
<br />1135.02(dl-4). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and unanimously approved. Variances granted.
<br />10) A Stone's Throw Complex (Shore West Construction), properry south of I-480, fronting on
<br />Brookpark Rd. and abutting the rear propertv lines of lots on the north side of Mastic Road, west of
<br />Clague Road. (Heard at this point.)
<br />Request for variance (1123.12). 1) Request front setback variances (minimum of 100 foot required) for
<br />structu.res facing Clague and Brookpark Roads. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1137.07(b).
<br />2) Request rear yard_variances for homes abutting the rear property line of the homes facing Clague
<br />Road (minimu.m 50 foot requ.ired) Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1137.02(a) {1136.06(b)1.3)
<br />Request variances in four areas for structures that are not located 40 feet the property line. 4) Request
<br />variance to have more than 68 units. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1137.06. 5) Request variance to
<br />.coiistruct' ;duplex units on properiy that is not contiguous to a two Family District. Violation of Ord. 90-
<br />125, Section 1137.02 (a). 6) Request variance to have units below the 660 square foot minimum livable
<br />floor area. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1137.2(a) {1135.03(d)} 7) Request variance for
<br />structures that are not a minimum of 25 feet from street or sidewalk pavement. Violation of Ord. 90-125,
<br />Section 1137.02(a) {1136.06(a)}. Note: Some of these rulings are due to the fact" that the multiple
<br />residence district is not ciear on set backs for two family development. These are basically cluster
<br />requirements except for the setback from right of ways. ,
<br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr.
<br />Bower, developer, and neighbors, Mr. Dusek, Mh and Mrs. Lynn, W. and Mrs. Barlik Mr. Schmetzer,
<br />Ms. Toyama, Mr. and Mrs. Troibner, Mr. Vannoy, Mr. and Mrs. Reale, Mr. Patton, Ms. Foney, Mr.
<br />and Mrs. Harrison, Mr. Hollish, Mr. and Mrs. Nicola, Mr. E. Durkin, Mr. Wasmer, Mr. Geiger, Mr.
<br />Mino, and Councilman 1VIcKay. Chairman Gomersall asked if Mr. Clingman was present and since he
<br />was not, Mr. Gomersall advised that the record is to show that a copy of Mr. Clingman's letter to
<br />planning coinmission's Chairman Tallon is in the file. (See attached). Mr. Bower explained the proposal.
<br />The development will be on 14 acres of land, 11 of which are zoned Multi Family. The proposal is to
<br />build duplex houses in a Multi-Family zone, and he noted that the zoning code will allow the
<br />development of single family, single family cluster, or duplex units in a Multi-family zone only if is
<br />contiguous to a district that permits those uses. This Mu1ri-Family property is not touching property
<br />zoned for two family housing. He explained that variance request number 5 is the main issue and what
<br />he has been alluding to. Granting a variance to build two family will allow what the zoning code purports
<br />to permit; that is, one can build two family in Multi Family if it is contiguous to a Two Family District. In
<br />fact, there is only one such situation in North Olmsted and that area is developed. He explained that
<br />most suirounding suburbs have a type of pyramidal use in their codes, in other words, a Multi-Family
<br />District can be developed for two family, and Multi-Family can be built in a commercial zone. He
<br />believed that this would allow a diversity of uses within a Mu1ti Family zone. Regarding the first
<br />variance, the code requires 100 feet from the right of way, but this is specified for larger apartment
<br />buildings, the bigger the building the deeper the setback. They are not proposing big buildings, they are
<br />building houses, and the 40 feet is what the old zoning code required. They are proposing 40 feet from
<br />Brookpark Road, but this will be about 100 feet from the pavement of Brookpark, the variance would be
<br />to build 40 feet from the right of way line. Regarding request number 2 and 3, there are a number of 15
<br />foot side setback lines, some of which are setback 15 feet from the rear property lines of property zoned
<br />6
|