05/01/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ?. ?l • members would like this pole sign removed as it will be non-conforming come January 1, 1998. Mr. Maloney advised there are seven signs on this property. Mr. Branham believed the wall sign was necessary for visibility reasons and noted if the building were closer to the street the size could be reduced. He advised the letters `W" and "M" will be 44" in height, however the remaining letters will be 36" high. Mr. Gomersall would like to see the larger letters reduced to a 3 foot height and the smaller letters 30" high. Mr. Branham agreed to reduce this size, but would like the members to consider exempting this proposal form Ord. 1163.26 pertaining to non-conforming signs. Mr. Gomersall noted the 11 square foot variance for excessive free standing signage and the 133.4 square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign face area for a business use can be eliminated with the removal of the pole sign at the street. The only variance that is now required is a 51 square foot variance for excessive wall signage, this has been reduced with the reduction of the letters. The members agreed to exempt this proposal as amended. J. Maloney moved to grant Mattress Warehouse, 4690 Great Northern Blvd. the following amended and agreed upon variances: a 51 square foot variance for excessive wall signage under the stipulation that the letters `NV" and "1VI" shall be reduced to 36" high and the remaining letters shall be approximately 30" high. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1163.11 (A) and 1163.11 (c) In the framing of the motion it was noted, this sign proposal is exempt from section 1163.26 pertaining to non-conforming signs. The motion was seconded by R Gomersall and unanimously approved. Variance granted. . 7. Dennis Hall, 3488 Walter Itoad Request for variance (1123.12). . Request a 25 foot variance for the location of fence, on a corner lot, which will encroach into the requ.ired 50 foot setback of the abutting lot. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (f-2). Note: There is some concern about obstructing the ability of vehicles exiting the drive of this house and that ofthe abutting house, on Deerfield to see pedestrian and vehicular traffic proceeding west on Deerfield. Chairuian Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Ha1L Mr. Gomersall wondered what type of fence will be installed. Mr. Hall presented a drawing and advised the fence will be five feet high. The members believed the fence is too close to the sidewalk which is unsafe. Mr. Hall noted, the location merely continued in line with the existing fence. Building Commissioner Conway advised the fence must be 50% open. Mr. Hall stated the fence would not extend beyond the front of the house. Mr. Conway explained, because this is a corner lot, it must be 50% opened. The members had concerns about pedestrian safety. It was noted that this fence may obstruct the view of vehicles exiting this drive as well as the driveway of the abutting house on Deerfield. Mr. Conway believed the fence could be angled to prevent obstructing anyone's visibility. It was noted the fence will run to the comer of the garage and the garage will be moved back slightly. Mr. Gomersall believed moving the garage back is a significant improvement. The members would like the fence angled, so as not to obstruct visibility. Mr. Hall agreed to work with the board in this area, but noted there is a big maple tree in the yard that may obstruct 7