02/04/2013 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

code. Ms. Rudolph questioned if any other work requiring permits had been done and Ms. Caushi said no only the fence permit. Mr. Raig noted that the permit issued showed the fence extending to the edge of the sidewalk and questioned why it was moved inward to the edge of the home. Ms. Caushi said it was moved inward due to cost and to limit the open area due to her mobility constraints. The board questioned who installed the fence and why the style of fencing was not consistent throughout. Ms. Caushi said her husband installed the fence section by section as they could purchase them. Ms. Rudolph questioned how much further into the neighbors' front setback the fence extends. Mr. Raig said it appeared the fence was 25ft past the neighbor's house as is the applicants' home. Ms. Rudolph questioned when the permit was issued. Ms. Caushi said due to her hip replacement the fence wasn't installed until the latter part of 2012. Mr. Lopez felt the height and location of the fence changed the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Raig noted that although the address of the home is Lynhaven the home fronts Park Ridge and whether there is a fence or not the home itself extends into the neighbors front setback. The fence installed doesn't extend any further into the neighbors front setback then their home does. The neighbor's line of sight is not impeded anymore than it already is therefore he has not objections. Mr. Lopez moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Mr. & Mrs. Caushi of 28646 Lynhaveaa the followitng varaances: 1. A 3 foot height varaance for privacy fence beyond front building line; code permits 3ft, applicant shows 6ft, Section 1135.02 (fl). 2. A variance for privacy fence beyond front bualding line; code requires 50% open, applicant shows 0%, section 1135.02 (fl). Roll call: Raig, Bellido - yes, I.opez, Diver, Rudolph - no; motion failed 3-2. COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS CMS12-29 Ganley; 25796 Lorain 12oad Proposal consists of building demolition and site improvements. The following variances are requested: 1. A 65 foot variance for front (all uses) setback; code requires building (and any display merchandise) to be set back 75 feet from the right-of-way, applicant shows display (4) and inventory (12) vehicles within the required setback, Section 1139.07 table. 2. A 10 foot variance for front parking setback; code requires 20 feet, applicant shows 10 feet, Section 1139.07 table. Note: Lot consolidation is required. Mr. Joel Copley, Janotta and Herner was administered the oath. Mr. Copley said the current building is unoccupied and they would like to remove the building and replace it with pavement for inventory parking, this is the first step to improving the site. Mr. McReynolds said the most positive item is having the building removed. Mr. Raig asked if there was a master plan for the site and Mr. Copley said no. Ms. Diver asked what lots would be consolidated and Mr. Copley said all but the AT&T building lot would be consolidated. Ms. Diver said the variance is excessive and questioned why the landscaping islands couldn't meet code as the lot will be vacant. Ms. Rudolph questioned why the vehicles couldn't be set back further and an additional row be added to the west. Mr. Copley said uneven elevations along the west can't accommodate 2