1/7/2019 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requiring a variance of 630 square feet for total garage area. The proposed shed shown on the plans is not considered a separate structure since it would be connected to the garage. The garage height of 24 feet 6 inches requires a variance of 8 feet 6 inches The building height is determined from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the average height between the eaves and ridge line. A 3 foot variance is required for the corner of the proposed garage- a 10 foot rear building setback is required whereas a seven foot setback is shown from the proposed addition to the rear property line. No professional survey has been conducted, with the applicant using his own measurements gathered from physical markers. The driveway serving the proposed garage is gravel, which will require a variance to remain; code requires that driveways be constructed of concrete, asphalt or similar materials as approved by the Engineering Department. Mr. Ulewicz said the location of the shed was moved from behind the west structure to behind the east structure to provide more clearance from the property line. Mr. Aspery said the Planning Department believed the driveway requirement should be upheld and the applicant should work with the Engineering Department to find an approved surface that will work for the project. Mr. Mackey asked the applicant about other options he considered for the driveway other than gravel. The applicant believed the problem could only be resolved by having gravel and he did not think the school system had an issue with the water on his property draining into the swale on their property. Mr. Papotto clarified that the applicant was talking about the driveway servicing the proposed accessory building. The top photos show the water ponding after a storm from the proposed accessory structure. Mr. Allain asked what the additional space would be used for, Mr. Ulewicz said his lawn maintenance equipment would be stored in it. Mr. Allain asked if any additional information was submitted for the property line issue. Mr. Ulewicz said a survey had not been done and explained his process for determining the measurements he provided in his drawings. Mr. Allain was concerned about granting a variance for exact dimensions based on potentially inaccurate measurements. Mr. Allain asked if the applicant considered what the construction would do to the flow of water. Mr. Ulewicz did not think the water flow would be altered since he was not adding much more roof space to what is existing. Mr. Allain pointed out that the space between the garages would be filled in so the flow of water should be altered. Mr. Ulewicz thought the main issue was the water flow from Butternut Ridge Road. Mr. Russell believed the roof line would be increased substantially and the Engineering Department would require downspouts be installed and tied into the storm system. Mr. Allain asked if the water currently flows into the swale behind his property. Mr. Raig believed the Engineering Department would deal with the water issues which are not under the purview of the Board. Mr. Mackey agreed with Mr. Allain about determining the amount of variance required for the rear property line and hoped a correct legal description could be provided if the variances were approved. Mr. Raig pointed out that the Cuyahoga County GIS has disclaimers about the accuracy of the property lines but it is not up to the Board to certify the location of the lines. Mr. Allain did not believe the applicant substantiated the request for a three foot variance since he has not shown an accurate assessment of where the property line is. Mr. Raig believed it would be the applicant's responsibility to show that the structure meets the proper distances. Mr. Allain did not think justification had been presented for the fourth variance and he thought increasing the size of the structure would increase the water issues. He did not think the applicant looked into all of the options available. Mr. Allain pointed out that the applicant was requesting more