07/07/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.08 (A)), (1135.02 (C 2)), (1135.02 (D2)), and (1135.07 (A)). Note: With the addition, the rear yard is reduced, therefore requires a variance for the existing detached garage. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. & Mrs. Camburn the owners, Mr. Frye, from Dover Bennett Builders, Ms. Mayerhoffer and Mr. Dubecky, neighbors each came forward to be sworn in and review the request. The applicant reviewed that his wife who is Handi Capped is unable to go up and own stairs, nor can she do laundry or access the full bathrooms. They would like the addition on the home to have a laundry room, bathroom, and an exercise area. The builder reviewed that once the addition is constructed the entire home will be vinyl sided, new gutters, downspouts and new shingles for the entire roof will be added. They are working to improve their home. Due to financial circumstances they were not able to address their home however they are cleaning things up now. The residents voiced that the state the home is currently in if very poor. Neither the home nor the yard is currently maintained and they are concerned that once the addition is added it to will fall into a dilapidated state. They felt that the home was already one of the bigger homes in the neighborhood and the addition would not fit in. The applicants voiced that they haven't addressed the yard because the yard will be dug up for the addition. Neighbors indicated that they would not give their approval until they had a guarantee the property would be maintained. The board reviewed a memo received from the City Engineer indicating that the city is concerned about the draining of the addition. The builder indicated that there would be downspouts on the addition. It was noted on the blueprints that there would be a 5/8 fire rated drywall used due to the distance between the home addition and existing garage. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that if the addition was reduced by 2-feet it would eliminate variance item # 4. The builder felt that the 2-feet could be removed without affecting the overall design that much. Mr. & Mrs. Camburn withdraw variance request number # 4. W. Kregnzar moved to grant Mr. & Mrs. Robert Camburn of 5165 Andrus Ave. their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an addition and that the following variances are granted as amended: 1. A 19 foot variance for resiclence too close to rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 31', section (1135.08 (a)). 2. A 9 foot variance for a residence too close to a detached garage, (code requires 15', applicant shows 6'), section (1135.02 (C 2)). 3. A 10 square foot variance for accessory structure in rear yard, (code permits 310 sq. ft, applicacat shows 320 sq. ft), section (1135.02 (D 2)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.08 (A)), (1135.02 (C 2)), and (1135.02 (D2)). T. Kelly secondeci the motion which was unanimously approved. 10. Bank One; (PP# 236-05-050),.4763 Great Northern Blvd.: (W1aD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of ground signs The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for traffic hazards (sign locations), (code permits none, applicant shows 2 signs), section (1163.17 (A)). 2. A variance for 2 additional ground signs, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3), section (1163.26 (A)). 3. A 57 foot variance for ground signs spacing, (see note 91), (code requires 200 ft., applicant shows 143 ft.), section (1163.26 (A)). 10