Laserfiche WebLink
response to the appeal case. Mr. Grusenmeyer said the hardest part of the property maintenance <br />process is opening up dialogue with the property owners. <br />Mra Raig moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to table the appeal of Notice of Violation for 18- <br />12632; James & Shannon Lazarus; 5806 Gareau Drive for a hazardous, damaged and <br />deteriorated driveway and apron per Section 1363.302.8 in accordance with the appeal <br />process outlined in Section 1363.111.1. Motion passed 4-0. <br />18-12638; Bruce Bluell; 4716 Lansins! I)rive <br />Representatives: Bruce & Theresa Bluell <br />Proposal consists of a new garage. Property is zoned B-One Family Residence. <br />1. A 70 sq. ft. variance for a private garage floor area; code permits 770 sq. ft., applicant shows <br />840 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(B)(1)(a). See note. <br />2. A 2 ft. variance for side setbaclc; code requires 5 ft., applicant shows 3 ft., Section <br />1135.02(B)(1)(c). <br />Note: A zoning variance was granted on August 1, 1984 for a 22 ft. x 35 ft. 770 sq. ft. garage. A <br />variance of 20 sq. ft. was granted over the allowable 750 sq. ft. <br />Mr. Aspery said the applicant is proposing to construct a new 24 by 35 foot detached garage to <br />the rear of their existing home. The applicant was previously granted a variance permitting a 22 <br />by 35 foot garage on the same concrete slab, therefore requiring an additiona140 square feet for <br />the garage currently proposed. The garage would be located three feet off the northern property <br />line, requiring a two foot variance. <br />Mr. Bluell said they have two cars and a truck that they want to fit in one building, along with <br />the work space. The setbaclc would allow the building to line up with the driveway making it <br />easier to maneuver vehicles. There would be three feet between the garage and the property line <br />and there is plenty of space to maintain the property. The garage would be next to the neighbor's <br />garage so there would not be a detriment to their property. Ms. Bluell pointed out that the <br />previous garage was damaged by a tree. A permit was pulled to demolish the previous garage <br />and the new garage would be built in the same location. Mr. Grusenmeyer said a variance was <br />granted in 1984 but the garage was not built in accordance with those variances. NIr. Bluell said <br />the original request in 1984 was for a garage that would have been bigger than the home at the <br />time. Since then, the home has been upgraded and improved. He did not think the extra square <br />footage would be a detriment to the neighbors. Mr. Aspery said he agreed with Mr. <br />Grusenmeyer. Mr. Rahm asked if the garage would be the same footprint as the previous garage. <br />Mr. Bluell would use the same footprint but put in an eight-foot door. Mr. Papotto noted that the <br />initial garage was built two feet wider than what was approved. Mr. Mackey believed the smaller <br />square footage would be a hardship on the owner since they already had the garage of the larger <br />size. <br />Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by 1VIr. Mackey, to approve the following wariances for 18- <br />12638; Bruce Bluell; 4716 Lansing Drive: <br />1. A 70 sq. ft. variance for a private garage f7oor area; code permits 770 sq. ft., applicant <br />shows 840 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(B)(1)(a). See note.