Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Diver, to grant Mohomed Ali of 5464 Jacqueline <br />Lane a 15 foot rear yard setback variance for a residence too close to the rear property <br />line; code requires 50', applicant shows 351, section 1135.08 (a), which passed 5-0. <br />Thomas & Pamela Ua-banek; 6150 Stearns Road: <br />Request for variance (1123.12); proposal consists of a garage. The following variances are <br />requested: <br />1. An 825 square foot variance for a detached garage larger than code allows; code permits 750 <br />sq ft, applicant shows 1575 sq ft, section 1135.02 (C)(1). <br />2. An 11 inch variance for a detached garage higher than code allows; code permits 15 ft, <br />applicant shows 15 ft 11", section 1135.02 (C)(1). <br />Mr. Thomas Urbanelc the owner was sworn in. Mr. Urbanek said they will demolish the existing <br />shed and garage to build a new garage which will meet all setback requirements however the <br />square footage exceeds the maximum square footage allowed. He will use the garage for <br />vehicles, yard tools/equipment and personal storage. He submitted 5 letters from neighbors who <br />signed a letter pre-typed stating they had no objections. <br />Mr. Mitchell noted that the plans did not state the existing garage and shed would be demolished <br />and questioned why the applicant required a garage larger than his existing home. Mr. Urbanelc <br />said the size is needed to house his vehicles and personal belongings. A brief discussion <br />depicting the size of the existing garage and shed found the current total square footage to be 644 <br />square feet and the new garage to be over 1500 square feet which is more than twice the square <br />footage. Mr. Urbanelc said currently he has to house some of his vehicles off site which he <br />would like to eliminate. Mr. Mitchell said that although there are large garages/storage units <br />along Stearns Road the size of the garage compared to the 1200 square foot home is substantial. <br />Mrs. Sergi read aloud the letters the neighbors signed and noted that the letter states the <br />neighbors agree provided the structure meets standard building requirements which is not the <br />case. <br />Mrs. Bellido felt that although the property was large she objected to the garage as it is <br />overwhelming and the request is substantial. Ms. Rudolph noted that the garage size was more <br />than twice the size code allows and would alter the character of not only the owner's lot but <br />those of the abutting neighbors as well. Mr. Lopez said he object to the size of the garage which <br />would be larger than the owner's home. The variance is substantial and storage is not a hardship <br />for granting a variance. Mrs. Diver said the owner's predicament can be addressed with a <br />smaller garage and outdoor parking. The property can continue to yield a reasonable return <br />without the garage. She also questioned if the rear overhead door would require a driveway out <br />the back and Mr. Mitchell said it would not. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the area above the garage <br />was for living space as the plans show plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling. Mr. Urbanek <br />said the upper floor was for storage only. Mr. Lopez felt the garage would depreciate not only <br />the owner's home and those of his neighbors as well. <br />Mr. Lopez moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Thomas & Pamela Urbanek of 6150 <br />Stearns Itoad the following variances: