08/04/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. An 8 foot 8 inch variance for front yard setback requirements, (code requires 50', applicant shows 41' 4"). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.06 (A)). Mr. Mowchan the owner and Mr. Webber, the architect each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Webber indicated that the interior stairs would be reworked to accommodate an elderly father that is being looked after. The entrance stairs need to be reworked to accommodate the first floor modifications. Due to the reconfiguration of the entrance stairs the new step needed to be extended outward which is why the variance is needed. T. Kelly moved to grant Joe Mowchan of 5790 Park Ridge Drive his request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a residential addition and that the following variance is granted: An 8 foot 8 inch variance for front yard setback requirements, (code requires 501, applicant shows 41' 4"). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.06 (A)). M. Diver seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. "Variance Granted" 6. Brandon & Cassie Lundgard; 5574 Rever Drive: (WRD 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new privacy fence. The following variances are requested: 1. A 44 foot variance for a 6-foot privacy fence within neighbor's setback on a corner lot, (code requires 50', applicant shows 6'), section (1135.02 (F2)). • 2. A 42 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot, (code permits 30", applicant shows 72"), section (1135.02 (F1)). 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open on a corner lot, (code requires 50% open, applicant shows 0% open), section (1135.02 (F1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; (1135.02 (F2)) and (1135.02 (171)). Mr. & Mrs. Lundgard each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Lundgard indicated that due to being located on a corner lot their hardship is that the neighbor's setback dictates the placement of a fence iri their yard. The fence would not block the view of any neighbors as the home is located on a cul-de-sac. The fence will not be 50% open so they can have some privacy. They have spoken to the neighbors who indicated that they had no objections to what they are doing. Without a fence all the neighbors have a direct view into their yard and home. Mr. Kremzar questioned why the applicants were adamant about asking for no opening and a 6 foot height instead of a lower height. Mr. O'Malley indicated that code requires a 30 inch high 50% open fence and the setback is driven by the front of the neighbor's house. The fence along the rear property is not an issue. The applicant was correct that placement of the fence would be a hardship and there should be some relief. However how much relief is the issue. Mrs. Jundgard stated that the fence was not going to be around the entire house it is only a strip from the side of the garage to the other end of the wall to have some form of privacy. Mr. Kremzar repeatedly questioned if the applicant would be willing to use a 5 foot height fence. The applicants felt that due to the fact there is no privacy and their grade is slightly higher than their neighbors they really need a 0% open 6-foot high fence for any type of privacy. N. Sergi moved to grant Brandon & Cassie Lundgard of 5574 Revere Drive their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new privacy fence and that the following variances are granted: 1. A 44 foot variance for a 6-foot privacy fence within neighbor's setback on a corner lot, (code requires 501, applicant shows 61), section (1135.02 (F2)). 2. A 42 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot, (code permits 30", applicant shows 72"), section (1135.02 (Fl)). 11 of 16