10/07/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' site and fire trucks would not go on the site for a fire. The reasons the setbacks are required are due to the placement of the existing building and their intent is to continue following the existing site lines. They will be removing the existing guardrail and replacing it with island piers which include landscaping. The existing retaining wall along the rear property line will remain, which creates the setback violation. The applicants would like to match the existing post style light fixtures on the site. Ms. Wenger believed that the applicant has worked with the city to develop the land to the best of the lands capabilities. The applicant meets the parking requirements, the building does not exceed lot coverage and he has used design solutions to compensate for the setback. The size of the lot restricts the applicant's ability to place any size buildings to code on the lot. The development will only abut commercial property, no residential land abuts the area. The applicant showed a rough drawing depicting a building built and set to today's codes. The existing building would have to be demolished and the new building could only be 10' to 15 feet wide, which would be unusable. J. Maloney moved to grant Corner Stone Plaza of 23420 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of renovations and addition to existing building and that the following variances are granted: A special permit for alterations and adding to a non-conforming structure, as the existing building does not meet the current requirements for the 75-ft. front setback, section (1165.02 (b) (1)). 1.A 16 foot variance for setback from right-of-way line to parking on corner lots, (code requires minimum of 20', applicant shows 4'), this setback area is required to be landscaped, section (1139.08 (a)). 2.A 10 foot side yard setback for west property line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 0'), this area is also required to be landscaped, section (1139.07). 3.A variance for 3 luminaries at north property line, (code requires full cut-off, applicant shows none), section (1161.12 (d)), (see note 1). . 4.A variance for luminary mounting height at north property line, (code does not permit, applicant shows 3 at 14' 6"), section (1161.12 (e)). Note: Although luminaries are not full cut off as defined in the zoning code, house shields are to be installed so no light shines to the north. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1165.02 (b) (1)), (1139.08 (a)), (1139.07), (1161.12 (d)) and (1161.12 (e)). The variances are contingent upon the final approval of the proposal being approved as presented. W. Kremzar seconded the motion, which was unanianously approved 2. IVIercv & Martin Akpo-Esambe; 4167 Laurell I,ane, WRI) 1 Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of erecting a storage shed. The following variance is requested: 1. A 4 foot variance for an accessory building closer to rear lot line than code permits, (code requires 10', and applicant shows 6'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section (1135.02 D4). Note #1: Permit was issued 7/26/04 for this shed, as it originally complied to city ordinances. Request for variance was made after it was issued. Permit on hold until the Board of Zoning Appeals reviews the applicants variance request. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. & Mrs. Akpo- Asambe came forward to be sworn in and address the proposal. The applicants were back to readdress their variance request for a final decision. Mr. Maloney read aloud the city engineers report, which stated that they do not want the shed more than ten feet from the rear property line and suggested that the shed could be placed to code on the other side of the yard. Mr. O'Malley explained that the board only grants or denies variances for issues dealing with the zoning code. The board can not supersede Engineering regulations or requirements. The engineers' letter is just advising the board and resident ahead of time that even if a variance is granted they can restrict the placement of the shed. The engineer is advising that the placement of the shed can be placed within code. Mr. O'Malley advised the board and applicant that even if the Board of Zoning Appeals 2