05/03/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y she will follow the guideline of the building inspector where he had pin pointed the angle for the cut. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if the board could do anything as a minimum footage, where by a car driver is 8 ft. away from the bumper and make the fence at least 10 feet back on the angle for visibility of anybody on the walk. Mr. Maloney indicated that the angle would be cut from her lot line. That driveway is about 25 feet off. Make it a 45-degree angle there. Mr. Gareau questioned why not simply indicate that it is approved at the appropriate angle as indicated by the building department, so as to provide appropriate safety conditions. Mr. Rymarczyk replied that he would not want to take the responsibility of that, he would rather have the police department go out and view it then if it is for safety. All the buildinc, department needs is a definite dimension. J. Maloney motioned to grant 7onathon Popik of 24056 LeBern Dr. the request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a fence and that the following variance be granted: A 10 ft. 4 inch variance for intrusion into required side setback (code permits 0 ft., applicant shows 10 ft. 4 inches). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 (F-2). Ms. Popik agreed with the building departrnent to cut the rear corner of the fence at an angle no less than 10 ft. from the rear property line and the side property line to give clearance for the neighbor's driveway and vehicles as noted below. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variance Grantecl 5/3/01. Note: There is a safety consideration at the rear (Northwest) corner due to the neighbor's drive which is adjacent to the rear property Iine. The corner of the fence should probably be angled to allow a clear line of sight backing out. 6. Lorain Point Buiid'ang (Da-. Waghrav); 24693 Lorain Roacl: Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists ofBuilding & parking lot expansion. The following variances are requested: 1. A special pennit to add to a non-conforming building, (1165.02). 2. A 17 foot 6 inch variance for front yard setback of building, (code requires 75' applicant shows 576"), section (1139.07), 3. A 6 foot variance for front yard setback of parking/drive, (code requires 20', applicant shows 14'), section 1139.07. 4. An 8 foot variance for side yard setback of parking, (code requires 10', applicant shows 2'), section 1139.07. 5. A variance for not having a ZS foot radius at apron, section (1161.10 (b)). 6. A variance not to be 90 degrees to street right of way at apron, section (1161.10 (b)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, 1165.02, 1139.07 and 1161.10 b. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. The oath was administered to Andy Riiel, the architect, who came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Riiel indicated that he brought revised drawings based on Planning Commission's recommendations. At the last Planning Corrunission meetirig they requested that they eliminate the front easterly apron drive and turn that whole front yard area into landscaping. That was the only big request they had. Mr. Maloney asked him to review the variances. Mr. Riiel commented that number 1, they're adding to a non-conforming building. Item 2 is a 17 ft. 6 inch variance for front yard setback of building, which is derived from where the building is Iocated currently. Item number 3 is a parking stall which is actually 6 ft., but the original drawing had it at 10 ft. Item number 4 is the side yard setback. In the north west corner of the property that Dr. Waghray purchased there used to be a dark brown building that has been demolished, which is the area they would Iike to turn into a parking lot. Item 5 is there because of site restraints they are unable to get the 25 ft, radius at the apron. The big item they are fighting is the fire hydrant. Mr. Maloney questioned if the fire hydrant would stay as is. Mr. Riie1 replied correct. Item number 6 is 4