06/05/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

jeopardized the only issue would be that it requires area variances. She felt that placing the condition of the lots being consolidated would be sufficient. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the home was not required to have a garage. Mr. Conway said as there is no evidence there ever was a garage he can not require the owner construct one, otherwise he would require a garage. Ms. Rudolph moved seconded by Mrs. Sergi, to grant David I)itmore of 4069 Clague Road a special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02) which is conditioned upon the applicant consolidating the two lots upon purchase or the current owner consolidating the lots within 2 years which was unanimously approved 4-0. A brief discussion regarding a variance being required from section (1165.02) toolc place and it was determined that in fact a variance from the section was required and would be added to the area variances needed. Mrs. Sergi felt the property could be used without a variance and the variances were substantial as it is a 350 sq ft variance. Mrs. Diver did not thinlc it was substantial as it is an existing building. Mrs. Diver moved seconded by IYIs. Rudolph, to grant David Ditmore of 4069 Clague Road the following variances; 1. A variance from section (1165.02) as the addition does not meet zoning codes. 2. A variance for altering an nccessory structure on a lot with no dwelling, which the code does not permit per Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02. 3. A 350 sq. ft. variance for an accessory structure larger than code allows for lot size. Code permits 120 sq. ft.; applicant shows 470 sq. ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(d)(1). 4. A 3 ft. variance for an accessory structure higher than code allows per lot size. Code permits 9 ft.; applicant shows 12 ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(d)(1), which is conditioned upon the applicant consolidating the two lots upon purchase or the current owner consolidating the lots within 2 years which was unanimously approved 4-0. NON-12ESIDENTIAL APPEAI,S AND REQUESTS: Ollies Bargain Outlet; 26662 Brookpark Roacl Extension: (Ward 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A 61 sq. ft. variance for a wall sign larger than code allows. Code permits 100 sq. ft.; applicant shows 161 square feet, which is in violation of Ord. 2000-12, Section 1163.28(c). 2. An 11 sq. ft. variance for a sign larger than code allows. Code permits 150 sq. ft.; applicant shows 161 sq. ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2000-12, Section 1163.25(c). 3. A 2.75 ft. variance for a wall sign higher than code allows. Code permits 4 ft.; applicant shows 6.75 ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2000-12, Section 1163.28(c). Mr. Denman with Sign a Rama came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Board members voiced their frustration pertaining to no land owner or business owner being present to address the board. Board members wanted it made clear that they want land owners and or business owners present when addressing plazas as sign companies can not properly represent or answer for the site. The board ruled that as Mr. Denman was listed as the applicant they would proceed. Mr. Denman said the wall sign will be channel letters internally illuminated and requires 3 variances. The site is unique and not granting a variance will affect the property as it faces another building. The tenant is located on the north east side of the building and faces the 6