07/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. A 60 foot variance for minimum distance from residential property line to luminaries, (code requires 180 ft, applicant shows 120 ft), section (1161.12 (E)). 2. A.1 foot candle variance for minimum foot candle in a parking lot, (code requires .1 minimum, applicant shows.0), section (1161.12 (C) Table). 3. A 2 foot 6 incli variance for a wall sign higher than code permits, (code permits 4'-0", applicant shows 6'-6"), section (1163.27 (C)). 4. An 82 square foot variance for a wall sign larger than code permits, (code permits 100 sq ft, applicant shows 182 sq ft), section (1163.27 (C)j. 5. A 6 square foot variance for total signage on a lot, (code permits 296 sq ft, applicant shows 302 sq ft), section (1163.24 (A)). 6. A 53.25 square foot variance for total square footage of wall signs on a building, (code permits 128.95 sq ft, applicant shows 182 sq ft), section (1163.24 (B)). Which is in violation of 90-125, Sections (1161.12 (E)), (1161.12 (C) Table), (1163.27 (C)), (1163.24 (A)) and (1163.24 (B)). Note: 1). Item #1 applies to the 2 rear light poles. 2). As there was no representative present the Board of Zoning Appeals tabled the request on 6/2/05. Mr. Ferguson, with Four Point Architects came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Ferguson passed out a new plan for the wall sign. He stated that out of the 6 variances being requested his client would be withdrawing 4 of the 6. The first two variances pertain to site lighting. They have talked to the abutting neighbors and have placed their light poles as faraway from the residents as they can but for security they do need to illuminate the parking area. Their foot candle readings show there would be no lighting on the rear pavement nearest the residents which is below minimum requirement. However, they are below minimum requirements out of respect for the residents. Although the light poles are located closer to the residents they are needed to properly light the parking lot. The lights have full-cut-offs to make sure lights would not shine onto the residents land. Mr. Ferguson stated that variances for signage numbers; 3, 4, 5, & 6 were withdrawn as the new sheet showed the sign met city codes. Board members commended the applicants for reworking the signage to meet city code: W. Kremzar moved to grant B.A.D. Boys Ltd of 28597 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new development and that the following variances are granted as amended: 1. A 60 foot variance for minimum distance from residential property line to luminaries, (code requires 180 ft, applicant shows 120 ft), section (1161.12 (E)). 2. A.1 foot candle variance for minimum foot candle in a parking lot, (code requires .1 minimum, applicant shows .0), section (1161.12 (C) Table). Which is in violation of 90-125, Sections (1161.12 (E)), (1161.12 (C)Table). M. Diver seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Variances Granted NEW BUSINESS: 6. Michael Murrav; 26817 Sudburv Drive: (WRD 1) Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a storage shed. The following variance is requested: 1. A 35 square foot variance for a shed larger than the rear yard permits, (code permits 109 sq ft., applicant shows 144 sq ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 D1). Note: A previous variance request for 99 square feet was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals on 5/5/05. New request has been reduced by 35%. 5 of13