My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/02/1999 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1999
>
1999 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
09/02/1999 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:07 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:00:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1999
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/2/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />2. Robert & Margaret Clark JR: 6052 Pebblebrook Rd; <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of adding a 3-season room. <br />The following variance is required: ? <br />1) A 12 foot variance for rear yard, (code requires SOft, applicant shows 38ft), (1135.08 A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02) and (1135.08 A). <br />Acting Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance being requested. <br />Mr. Schwark, the contractor and Mrs. Clark, the applicant came forward to review their proposal. Mr. <br />Maloney asked the applicant to review her request. Mrs. Clark indicated that they would like to convert <br />the e.sisting deck into a 3-season room. Mr. Maloney reviewed that after viewing the properiy he felt the <br />variance request was warranted. The other board members voiced their approval and no further comments <br />were made. <br />W. Kremzar motioned to approve Robert & Margaret Clark JR of 6052 Pebblebrook Rd their request for <br />variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of adding a 3 season room and that the following variance be <br />granted: A 12 foot variance for rear yard, (code requires 5 Oft, applicant shows 38ft), (1135.08 A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02) and (1135.08 A). The motion was seconded by, <br />T. Koberna and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. <br />3. Geoffrev Movse; 5571 Burns Road: <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of building a new house. <br />The following variances are required: <br />1) A 7 foot sideyard variance for north sideyard setback, (code requires lOft, applicant shows 3ft), <br />(1135.07 A). <br />2) A 7 foot variance for distance between adjacent dwellings, (code requires 15ft, applicant shows 8ft), <br />(1135.07 A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.07 A). <br />Acting Chairman 1Vlaloney called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being <br />requested. Mr. Moyse, the applicant, and the following neighbors; Ms. Hopson, Mrs. Zavasnik, Ms. <br />Yelko, Ms. Lamier, Mr. Czuchran, Mr. Moran, and Councilman Nashar came forward to review the <br />proposal. Mr. Maloney indicated that he would first let Mr. Moyse review his proposal and then give <br />each resident a chance to speak. Mr. Moyse indicated that the proposed house was not for him, but <br />would be built for his aging mother, who became a widow a year ago. Most of the lots in this area are <br />40foot wide lots. He reviewed that the flood zone runs through Burns Road, under the street. He <br />suggested he looked into using galvanized pipes but, found that there was more involved then he first <br />thought. Mr. Moyse indicated that he would like to place a bridge over the existing ditch that would not <br />interfere with the flood way and act as an access or driveway to his property, which is 247 feet deep by <br />40feet wide. Many single level home designs were reviewed to make sure it would meet the Cities Zoning <br />Code of 1,300 square feet. Due to the ditch in the front of the lot the proposed home has to be set back <br />farther than the required SOfeet. As the home will be set back further than the abutting homes he felt that <br />the sideyard setback would be less intnzsive to his neighbors. Mr. Koberna inquired as to why the home <br />would be set so far back. He further suggested that even though the proposed home is a custom design <br />home he is not comfortable with the house being set 3feet off the property line. He suggested that the <br />great room, which on the planes show 17.7 feet by 19.3 feet, be reduced in width and extended in the rear <br />of the home. Mr. 1Vloyse indicated that he was willing to reduce the width of the great room, but as far as <br />the house being moved forward the rise would have to be higher. Mr. Koberna suggested he did not <br />understand what Mr. Moyse meant by rise. Mr. Conway commented that as the applicant is developing <br />in a flood plane area, the further back the house is set off the road, the further it takes it out of the flood <br />plane. A home built in the flood zone has to have a finished floor elevation above the flood levels. The <br />further back the house is from the flood zone the better as it effects his floor level as well as his home <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.