07/02/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•, ? , • • ._ `. P allotqed l.mtil the pro ject Naas complete. Mr. . Bellalap stated that they did want a permanent sign and the verbiage could be changed later. They do not want a billboard effect of a sign panted on the back of one of the garages. Mr. Trevillian stated that they need this expo5ure from the freeway and that their comrmun-ities are frequently mistaken for condominiums. Mr. Gareau pointed out that other apartments did not have similar signs on the freeway. Mr. Schulz believed that this sign would be a traffic hazard and would cause accidents. Mr. Conway presented a sign board showing pictures of the signs' location. Mrs. Davis did not believe that this project was conforming to the judgement entry and Mr. Schulz complained that this development was infringing on 6 feet onto the cemetery property, and further stated tha.t they piled dirt on the City property. Mr. Conway advised that two people from the Engineering Department and the forester have inspected the property and Mr. Schulz had previously been advised that this dirt is from the cemetery. Mr. Schulz stated that thi:s dirt is on the west end of the cemetery. Mr. Bellmap used the picture board to explain where the sign is to be located. Mr. Gomersall suggested that they move the sign further away from the residents. It was clarified that the fence in front of the sign was over 5 feet high and the sign is 7 foot above the fence line. Mr. Bellrnap stated that this area has an abundance of trees and vegetation which will remain. It was clarified that their rear property ran about 440 feet along the freeway and the sign would be approximately in the middle. Members discussed moving the sign away from the residents. It was explained tha.t the state will not approve this sign tmtil the City has. Mr. Gomersall was concerned that if they grant the variance for a project- sign, it would not necessarily be a quality sign. Mr. Gareau did not want a permanent sign which had a temporary approval. It was decided to granted a variance for the size of a project sign which is permitted under Section 1163.07(c) to be 25 square feet and 8 feet high, so the variance must be granted for 75 square feet of area and 4 foot for height. Mra Bellmap woulcl still like to have the sign reviewed after 1 year so that it could remain if needed as sugges.ted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Conway wanted it clarifiecl that the sign could stay as long as the project was being actively constructed, it should.not remain if there was a lengthy delay in construction. Mr. Trevill.ian questioned if the sign could not remain until the buildings are all leased. The time is dependent on the construction, not the leasing. J. Maloney moved to grant to Butternut Ridge Apartments a 4 foot variance for height and a total variance of 75 square foot to install a project pylon sign signs this sig,n is to exi_st while the project is actively under construction and until fi.nal inspection is made by the Building Department, seconded by R. Gomersall, cmd unanimously approved. Variances granted. 12. Ms. Lola Liebchen, 6080 Burns Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 10 foot rear yard variance to construct addition. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.08. , Chairman Gomersall called a11 interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mrs. Liebchen, Mrs. Denister, and Mr. Bennett, eontractor, and, neighbors, and Mrs. Thompson (daughter of a neighbor).. Mr. Bennett explained addition would be to the rear and the:large tree in the back yard would not be affected. The mmbers had no problem.with the proposal. R. Gomersall moved to grant the request for L. Liebchen-? 6080 -Burns.Road, for a 10 foot rear yard variance to construct an adeiition, : and to grant a special permit to add to a non-confor'ming dwelling, seconded by W. Purper, and unanimously approved. Variance and special permit gzanted. 6