10/01/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.. A_ • y • ., deer netting which has only been on the market for the past few years. Mr. Maloney does not agree with using that type of fencing, 7 feet high, around a yard when there vvere neighbors. The members agreed. Law Director Gareau stated that the deer fencing was not prohibited by code, it was the Building Commissioner's ruling and since this is a new product, he believed that she should be appealing the Building Commissioner's ruling. Mr. Rymarczyk believed that this was the first time the deer netting was ever requested. Mr. Gareau advised that the board cannot give a variance, if deer netting is not prohibited in the zoning code. Mr. Miller clarified that the field fencing is a wire fencing, and the deer fencing or netting is plastic. Mr. Gareau stated that there were two options, she can withdraw her request and appeal the Bu.ilding Coinmissioner's ruling, but she could move forward with the field fencing. The board can rule on the shed only. Mrs. Cutler decided to withd.raw the deer fencing and netting. Mr. Klesta stated that the Metro Parks and the zoo had advised that they had never seen this material used as a fence, they use it to control deer around shrubs and bushes. Neither parties wanted to come in and look at it. Mr. Miller is concemed that an animal might get tangled in it. Mr. Gareau stated that if Mrs. Cutler returns, she must request a decision on the Build.ing Coinmissioner's ruling, but she would have to come in with a 6 foot high fence. Mrs. Gutler withdrew the request for both types of fencing. R. Gomersall moved to grant to Bobby D. Cutler, 5927 Barton Road, the request for a 1.5 foot height variance for shed under construction Note: the screened patio attached to this shed is not considered part of the structure. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.01(a)(3). The motion was seconded by P. Miller, and unanimously approved. Variance granted: Fencing request was withdrawn by the applicant until the next meeting. 2. Homestead Village, 24851 Countrv Club Boulevard. Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following variance for signs: variance for additional wall sign; a 3 foot, 6 inch variance for the height of the wall signs; a variance to have an additional free standing sign; a 15 square foot for each ground sign; a 3 foot height variance for each ground sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a) and 12(b). NOTE: NON-CONFORMING SIGNS MUST BE REMOVED BY JANUARY 1, 1998 PER ORDINANCE 90-125 SECTION 1163.26, UNLESS AN EXEMPTION IS GRANTED BY TI-E BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Jobeson who explained that they hoped to have the hotel open by the end of the year. Councilmau McKay was swom in at this time. Mr. Jobeson stated that they were requesting four signs on the property: a monument sign and a building sign on the Country Club Boulevard side, and a monument and building sign on the south side. The building sign on Country Club will be on the tower and the rear building sign will be on the third floor leveL The monument sign in the rear will be on the southwest comer at the property line. The variances for square footage are the result of the logo on top of the sign. They believe the rear signs are necessary because of the heavy tree cover on the rear of the site and because they are located in the elbow joint of Country Club Boulevard and are not visible from Great Northern Boulevard. He explained exactly where the signs would be located. Chairmau Gomersall noted that signs have never been allowed along I-480. They are now asking to relocate the monument sign to the northwest comer, but there would be no variance needed for location, only for the size. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk asked that he submit a plan 2