04/01/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have to meet the standard sideyard requirements. The owners of the lot, Timberview homes are taking the nsk because they are asking to put the house so close to the setback. Mr. Gomersall suggested the homes in this area are all like this. P W. Kremzar motioned to approve Timberview Homes (Curt Dunlop) of Porter Road their proposal to build a home. The request for variance (1123.12), and that the following variances be granted: 1) A 20'foot front setback variance (Code requires residence district A,B, and C minimum front setback 50'feet, applicant proposes 30'foot front setback), (1105.06). 2) A 2'foot side yard variance (code requires dwelling with attached garage to have the sum of the two sides to be not less than 15'feet, applicant proposes 13'feet), (1135.07 a). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, sections (1105.06, and 1135.07 a). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 5. Marty's Living Rooms Plus; 23786 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a banner package. The following variance is requested: A variance to display 2(two) sets of "Going out of Business" Banners, one set to face south, and one to face west. Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section (1163.04 G). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. O'Callaghan, the owner of Living Rooms Plus came forward to present his proposal. Mr. Gomersall indicated Marty's Living Rooms Plus has signs all over town that read going out of business. Mr. 0'Callaghan suggested the banner on the mansard is just covering the existing sign. The other banner will be on the side of the building. Mr. Gomersall suggested he understood why the banners were needed but felt there should be a time limit as to how long they could remain in place. Mr. Koberna asked the applicant how long he would need the banners as they had already been in place for the past month. Mr. O'Callaghan indicated he would only need a month. J. Konold motioned to approve Marty's Living Rooms Plus of 23786 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12). Their Proposal which consists of a banner package, and that the following variance be granted: A variance to display 2(two) sets of "Going out of Business" Banners, one set to face south,. and one to face west, and that the banners will be removed by May 31, 1999. Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section (1163.04 G). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 6. Hania Stadtler: 24057 Ambour Drive: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of fence. The following variance is requested: A 6"inch variance for excess height, and 17% less open face than required. (Code permits not more than 30"inches in fence height and at least 50% face open between front building line and street right of way line. applicant request 36"inch height in front setback, with picket's 3.5"inches wide spaced 1-3/4" inches apart, making face of fence 33% opens). Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, section (1135.02 f-1). Note: The fence will incorporate an arbor 7' foot 6"inches high X 6'feet wide X 2' feet deep which is allowable as a landscape featiire. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mrs. Stadtler, owner of the properiy , Mrs. Canty, and Mr. Thomas, concerned neighbors came forward. Mr. Gomersall asked to have the fenced reviewed. Mrs. Stadtler suggested the architect suggested the size of the fence. The proportions of the 7'foot arbor, which would be added, would not look well with a 2'foot fence. The closer pattern of the fence is to give it a more textured look and to accentuate the pattern at the top of the fence. Mrs. Canty suggested her yard meets the applicant's back yard, there was sonne mix up with a drain in the back of her yard. She suggested she didn't have a problem with the proposed fence. She indicated when her fence was put up in the back of her property it was brought in 15'feet from the drain, which is also on her property. She would like to make sure the eYisting trees on her property remain and that the fence isn't placed on her property. Mr. Gomersall suggested the fence will be in the front of Mrs. Stadtler's property not the back. Mrs. Canty apologized for thinking it would be placed in the backyard, and suggested she had no complaints over the fence being placed in the front yard. Mr. Thomas suggested he was in favor of the fence also. No further questions were asked. 4