03/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17 A ? .. ...,-1 ,;+1..;,. i1.,, 2G F „+ . ? o • Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; (1135.01), (1139.07 table), (1161.13 (d)), (1161.12 (c)), (1161.12 (e)), (1163.27 (A)), (1163.26 (A)), (1163.26 (B)), and (1136.17 (A)). Note: A). Above variances are based on lot being consolidated. If lots are not consolidated other variances will be required. B). Luminaries mounting height guideline is used only for full cut off luminaries. Several luminaries are on poles that are 11' & 16' high which are only 24 feet from residential lot lines. The following individuals came forward to be sworn in and address the Halleen KIA request: Mr. Kula the Manager, Mr. Suhayda the Architect, Mr. Eric Halleen, son of the owner; the following residents: Mr. Holter, Mr. Trapp, Ms. Wright, Mr. Hudak, Mr. Maxim, Ms. Kellar, Mr. Hebebrand, Mr. Felleisen, and Ms. Hatton. Law Department comments: Mr. O'Malley advised the Board that the applicant is asking for a use vaxiance, which is to use a residential property as commercial. In order to be entitled to receive the variance, all three requirements should be shown. The applicant requires a special permit to add to a non- conforming building. The existing buxlding which is to be expanded does not meet today's zoning code requirements. The remaining area variances are subject to seven different factors which are somewhat flexible. However, it is the applicant's burden to show practical difficulty and justification for straying from the code. It is up to the applicant to show that following the code would place an_ undue burden on them and that refusal of the variance would deprive the owner. The opposing parties may address the standards that are in the code to contest the applicant's requests. The Board of Zoning Appeals does not address any adverse impacts that the overall proposal may or may not have. Those items are addressed by Planning Commission. Applicant's presentation: Mr. Suhayda reviewed that they attended Landmarks, Architectural Review, and Planning Commission meetings and the current plans reflect what, those, Boards & Commissions requested. A certificate of appropriateness, was granted for the building addition with the condition that the three oak trees along Porter Road are to be saved and three honeylocust trees are to be added along Porter Road. Mr. Kula reviewed each variance: 1). The use variance is for a vacant lot along Dewey Road, the lot in front of the vacant lot was granted a use variance for storage of cars and that is' -the intent of the lot in question. The existing mound would be moved to the outer edge of the vacant lot and the fence put back on top of the mound. 2) and 3). The variances for building setback are needed as the Landmarks Commission and Architectural Review Board requested the new addition be moved forward to buffer the rear residents. 5). A variance fo'r parlcing cars 5 feet from northern property line instead of 20 feet is needed as he felt he needed all the room he could get for parking cars. 7).The variance for illumination levels is due to the existing pole lights along Lorain Road. The levels are pre-existing and the applicant is not sure why a variance is required. He suggested that the illumination' levels 'on the i site are below the required readings. 8).He was not sure what the 32-foot variance for minimum distance from residential property line was for. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that the variance is required as the proposed light poles along the northern property lines are too close to the property line. Mr. Suhayda indicated that the light poles have always been attached to the mounds and they will continue to be attached to the mound when it is moved further north. 9). A variance for a wall sign on the building. The 2