04/01/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p . . . 95square feet for #3 variance. Mr. Gomersall asked if Mr. & Mrs. Deeley had any further questions. He then reviewed the changes the board would allow. Mr. Goulding asked if the size of the work area was cut dcgwn could a work area be added. Mr. Koberna reviewed the reason the board was asking for the work area ' to be removed. Mr. Gomersall suggested the additional garage bay not go past the exiting back wall. Mrs. Deeley indicated the garage would only be 30'feet from our lot. She asked about fire concerns. W. Koberna suggested was not within 15'feet of a sri-ucture so it is not a concern. Mrs. Deeley indicated that their house was only 3'feet in from their property line on Mr. Goulding's side. Mr. Gomersall suggested the Deeley's driveway was within the sideyard setback. Mr. Gomersall suggested the proposed garage would be 40'feet from the Deeley's home. He further reviewed that the 11'foot x 24'foot bay would be excepted but the work area would have to be eliminated. Mrs. Deeley suggested no other homes looked like that now in the neighborhood. No further questions were asked. R. Gomersall motioned to approve Mark Gaulding of 6781 Maplehurst Road his request for variance (1123.12), and that the following variances be granted: 1) A 2.6% variance for rear lot coverage. 2) A 100squre-foot variance for total floor area as agreed by the requester. l 1x24 addition to the north side of the existing garage. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (C 2), (D 2), and (C 1). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 11. Olmsted Manor; 27380 Mill Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of constructing a two-story assisted living building. The following variances are required: 1) A 10'foot variance for west-side parking setback, (code requires 20'ft), (1138.05). 2) A 12'foot variance for rear parking setback, (code requires 20'ft), 1138.05). 3) A 33.5 foot variance for east building sideyard setback, (code requires 43.5ft), (1138.05). 4) A 23' foot variance for west building sideyard setback, (code requires 33'ft), (1138.05). 5) A 12'foot variance for front building yard setback, (code requires 100'ft), (1138.05). 6) A 19.4 foot variance for rear building yard setback, (code requires 51.4 ft), (1138.05). 7) A 1.2% variance for lot coverage, (code permits 25°/o), (1139.05). 8) A variance to have only one existing access driveway, (code requires 2 access driveways), (1161.10), see note 41 below. A variance to have a loading/unloading area within 50'feet of residential lot line, (1161.13 B). Which are in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1138.05), (1139.05), (1161.10), and (1161.13 B). Note 41. Planning Commission can approve variance request 48. Note 42. Lot consolidation or legal easement required for use of existing asphalt drive. Note #3. Room sizes are to comply with code and not as shown on plans. See letter dated 3/22/99. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Suhayda the architect came forward to present his proposal. Mr. Gomersall asked Mr. Suhayda to review the plans. NIr. Suhayda reviewed that he had been before the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board, at which time both boards expressed a concern about the lot line to the east. The building has been moved 10 feet to the west, and the building has been reduced in size by 5'feet. Mr. Conway asked how close the building would be to the lot line on the east. Mr. Suhayda suggested it would be at 25'feet. Mr. Gomersall asked if the building would be on the lot line on the West Side. Mr. Suhayda suggested the building would be 2'feet away form the west lot line. Mr. Conway asked if the owners had given thought to combining the two parcels. Mr. Suhayda suggested the father owned one parcel and his children owned the other and for financial reasons they would like to keep them separate. He further indicated that the easements will not be a problem. Mr. Gomersall asked how close the assisted living building would be to the eYisting nursing home. Mr. Suhayda suggested the new addition would be 50'feet from existing building. Mr. Gomersall reviewed each variance request and asked Mr. Conway what variance changes would need to be made. Mr. Conway indicated each variance that would change. He also suggested the board grant a variance for 0 driveways if the board was not going to allow them to only have one driveway. The applicant proposes to share an existing driveway. Mr. Kremzar questioned what would happen if one of the lots were sold. Mr. Conway indicated he was sure the Planning Commission would not approve the plans without a legal easement in place for the driveway. Mr. Gomersall asked if variance number 8 should be addressed as note number 1 suggests that the Planning Commission can address number 8 request. Mr. 8