11/06/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant would be allowed to erect a 200 square foot shed, 10 feet tall and still not exceed 20% lot coverage. Mrs. Sergi agreed the size of the lot minimized the affect of a second garage within the neighborhood but felt the board should restrict any further accessory structures from being added to the lot. Mrs. Bellido felt that the new garage would improve the appearance of the site. Mrs. Diver advised the owner that if the board granted the variances the lot would be restricted froin having any further accessory structures added. She noted that the restriction would not include declcs or a pool. Ms. Ruclolph moved, seconcled by Mrs. Sergi, to grant Wayne Palmer of 6145 F'itch Road the following variances to replace an existing detached garage as amended: 1. A 114 square foot variance fop a detached garage larger than code allows (note #2) code permits 750 sq ft applicant shows 864 sq ft section 1135.02 C1. 2. A 561 square foot variance for total garage space on a residential lot (note # 1& 2) code pei•mits 750 sq ft applicant shows 1311 sq ft section 1135.02 C3. Coaaditioned upon no further accessory structures/buildings being allowed on the lot, however it does not prohibit decks or a pool which was unanimously approved 5-0. NON-RESIDEN'I'IAL APPEALS ANI)REQUESTS: Wellin2ton Place; 4800 Cla2ue Road; Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a wall sign The following variance is requested: A variance for a wall sign on a building in a residential district code does not permit applicant shows 1 which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1163.28 a. Mr. Meserini the Administrator of Wellington came forward to be sworn in to address the case. Mr. Meserini read aloud a letter from Fairview Hospital therapy department requesting permission to be allowed to keep the wall sign for visibility from Clague Road. The clinic is located within the new building addition of Wellington Place on the first floor just inside the main entrance. The 60,000 square foot addition plans included an out patient clinic being moved froin the second floor of the existing building to the new addition. Therefore he was surprised to find out that the sign was never addressed during the approval process. The use of the sign is strictly to identify the location of the clinic. He was not aware that the sign company installed the sign without a permit until he was notified by the building inspector. Mr. Menser questioned the wattage of the lights in the sign and aslced the hours of operation. Mr. Meserini was not sure of the light wattage and said the clinic was open Monday thru Friday 6:00 am to 5:00 pm. Mrs. Sergi aslced if the sign was illuminated 24/7 or just during worlcing hours and Mr. Meserini was not sure. Mr. Menser felt that due to the hours of operation the sign did not need to be ilhuninated. Mr. Meserini was very apologetic for the oversight and assured the board that he did all he could to address the matter as soon as it was brought to his attention. Mr. Mitchell said there had been many conversations with Mr. Meserini over the past few months addressing the sign being installed. He has also spolce to Fast Signs Company regarding installing signs without a permit in a residential neighborhood. His main concern is the sign being illuminated as there are four 40 watt florescent bulbs which are extremely bright. Mr. O'Malley said city codes were clear for each residential district stating wall signs are not allowed however the code does allows one wall sign on a building located within a residential district which has been granted a conditional use permit. As the facility was granted a conditional use permit he was surprised the sign was not addressed when the development plan was reviewed. However the Building Commissioner ruled that the wall sign was not allowed and the matter doclceted. It is within the board's right to prohibit the wall sign from being 2