11/04/2013 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requested the owner needs to be aware that local Building and Engineering Standards are required to be met. Ms. Rudolph read aloud three letters submitted by neighbors objecting to the size of the structure (see attached). Mr. Lopez said the shed is double what is allowed and no permits were pulled. He is sympathetic of the need for storage however the structure does not meet building or engineering requirements therefore he strongly objects to the request. Ms. Bellido said she objected to the size of the shed and the fact there was no foundation or gutters installed. Ms. Diver said although the structure looks nice it is quite large and doesn't fit the neighborhood. There are reasons for building and engineering requirements both of which were ignored. Mr. Raig said not only is the size of the structure too large for the lot there are structural concerns as well. Ms. Rudolph suggested the owner contact the contractor to rectify the violations they created. Mr. Lopez moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant CMS13-37: Jennifer Jancek of 27751 Blossom the following variances: 1. A 120 sq. ft. variance for a shed larger than code allows; code permits 120 sq. ft., applicant shows 240 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(d)(1). 2. A variance for an accessory structure over 200 sq. ft. without a masonry/cement foundation; code requires masonry/cement foundation, applicant shows none, Section 1135.02(d)(1). 3. A 4 inch variance for a storage shed higher than code allows; code permits 9 ft., applicant shows 9 ft. 4 in., Section 1135.02(d)(1). 4. A variance for no drainage (gutters and downspouts); code requires drainage for 200 sq. ft. and over, applicant shows none, Section 1135.02(d)(1). Which failed 0-5. COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS CMS13-29 Buv Backs; 26324 Lorain Road Proposal consists of a monument sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A 10 foot variance for a sign too close to the side yard lot line, code requires 20ft applicant shows lOft, section 1163.27 B. 2. A variance for a sign located within the 35ft line of site triangle, code does not permit, applicant shows sign located within line of site triangle, section 1163.17 a. The oath was administered to Sign Lite representative Mike Bizjak. Mr. Bizjak said he is replacing an existing ground sign which will be placed in the same location as the existing ground sign. His client needs better visibility which the new sign will provide without impeding vehicle visibility. He noted the board granted a variance for the existing ground sign previously. Ms. Wenger explained that due to the conditions of what was previously granted being significantly changed she felt it important the board have an opportunity to readdress the request. Ms. Diver questioned the size of the existing and new ground sign and Mr. Bizjak said the existing sign is 30sqft and the new sign will be SOsqft and conforms to code however it can't be placed to code due to the configuration of the lot. Mr. Raig questioned if the new sign was wider than the existing sign or if placing the sign along the west side of the entrance was visited. Mr. 2