11/12/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mitchell said he is concerned that the size of the addition is larger than the existing garage. The existing bloclc structure should be demolished as it is unsafe. Mr. Reape said that the structure would be removed and the existing slab would be recovered to create a pavilion, after the garage addition is completed. Mr. Mitchell requested the board require the block building demolished prior to a building permit being issued for any size garage addition. Mr. Reape said the new addition will house the contents of the block building so it can't be demolished until the addition is complete. Mr. O'Malley said that if conditions were added to an approval it should be very clear as to what is required. Mrs. Sergi appreciates wanting a larger garage but the request is substantial as it is almost double what is allowed. Although she does not object to an addition the proposed request is substantial. If an addition is added to the garage she would want the block building demolished. The applicants RV can be stored in a smaller addition and the variance is not required to continue to receive a reasonable return on the property. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered however no other neighbor appears to have such a large garage. Governmental services would not be affected and it is assumed that all owners have knowledge of the zoning laws when purchasing a home. She noted that any addition would require a variance for size but the proposed size was not warranted. Mr. Lopez agreed the request was substantial and an addition could be built to accommodate the RV and other items without being so large. The proposed size of the finished garage is almost more square footage than the home's first floor. Ms. Rudolph agreed and said she was not comfortable granting a variance for an addition which is larger than the existing garage. Mrs. Diver voiced her agreement with all members and noted that once a variance is granted it runs with the land not just the owner or current neighbors. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to grant John & Mary Reape of 4517 Clague Road the following variance: A 690 square foot variance for a detached private garage floor area; code permits 750 sq. ft., applicant shows 1,440 sq. ft. which is in violation of Section 1135.02(c)(1), which was unanimously denied 0-4. NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS ANI) REQUESTS CMS09-11 Harrv Buffalo; 4824 Great Northern Boulevarcl: Request for variance. Proposal consists of a sign paclcage. 1. A 1 foot variance for height of sign; code permits 4 ft, applicant shows 5 ft, section 1163.28(c). 2. A variance for an additional wall sign; code permits 2 wall signs, applicant shows 3 wall signs, section 1163.28(a). 3. A 44.67 square foot variance for total sign face area per building; code permits 177 square feet, applicant shows 221.63 square feet, section 1163.25(b). Mr. George, owner of Harry Buffalo, and Mr. Holsman, sign company representative, were sworn in. Mr. George described the variances requested. Three wall signs are needed as the building fronts three roads. He noted that the previous business also had three wall signs which were larger than what was being requested. A photo showing the difference between a 4 ft and 5 ft logo was submitted. Mr. Holsman noted the Planning and Design Commission recommended the larger sign. Ms. Rudolph asked if all three signs were illuminated and Mr. George said yes 2