10/05/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Haiman, attorney, and Mr. Smaretsky, sign contractor. Mr. Haimau explained that the sign on the building is not visible from the street since the building is set back 40 feet. Also, the existing sign does not indicate that this is both a Window and Door Factory. The sign contractor did not check the ordinance and constructed a 75 square foot sign, which fits on the existing sign area. They believe that they had a hardship since their sign is not adequate or visible. He pointed out that if they were in a separate building, instead of a unit in the building, this sign would conform. He presented pictures of other signs which do not conform to code. Mr. Gomersall noted that the information they were given did not show the sign that Mr. Haiman is presenting. They had presented a picture of the existing sign. It was clarified that they are intending to use the same cabinet and change the sign to state `Window and Door Factory".. Building Commissioner Conway clarified that the codes for buildings included sign area for both wall and building signs, not just wall signs, and wall signs are figured at the same ratio for either a building or a unit. Also the signs that he mentioned are non- conforming, since the code was changed in 1991. The board had ruled that he could issue a permit if the square footage of the lettering conformed and the ends of the signs could be left opaque in order to use the same sign cabinet. He noted that in 1998 all non conforming signs must be removed. The members had no problem with the -request. W. Purper moved to grant the request of Window and Door factory, 25139 Lorain Road, for a 19 square foot variance for excess building signage to replace existing wall sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.12(a). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and uuauimously approved. Variance granted. ?`--. 3. James F. Blake, 23916 Elm Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 47 foot variance for 6 foot fence (not 50% open) which will abut the front setback ofthe adjacent property. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(fl. • Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr. Blake who explained that his lot was 55 feet wide and located on a corner lot. He would like to fence in the back yard for the safety of his children and for privacy. Mr. Gomersall stated, that for the safety of other children in the area, the board rarely grants this type ofvariance. He pointed out that when a car was backing out of his garage, the driver could not see children on the sidewalk. He suggested bringing the fence out from the house or, at least, installing a 3 foot fence that was 50% open. Mr. Blake stated that this would reduce his back yard considerably and would not provide privacy. He noted that when the city was working on Coe Road, cars would come up within about 6 inches from his house. Mr. Maloney was also concerned about children on the sidewalk. It was suggested that the fence could be installed at an angle from the garage. Building Commissioner Conway advised that the right of way was one foot from the sidewalk, so the fence would be 4 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Gomersall suggested a 6 foot variance from the property (7 feet from the sidewalk) with the fence placed at a 45 degree angle from the garage extending to a point 6 foot from the property line. Mr. Conway would like to have an inspector check this while the fence is under construction to make sure that they have achieved the safety lines. The members agreed that the 6 foot height would be satisfactory under this plan. R. Gomersall moved to grant to James F. Blake, 23916 Elm Road, a mutually agreed on revised request for a 44 foot variance for 6 foot high fence (not 50% open) which will abut the front setback of the adjacent property. This fence will run at a 45 degree angle from the garage to a point 6 foot from his property line, and then parallel to the street to a point where the fence will connect with the house. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(fl. The motion was • seconded by J. Maloney, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 2