08/05/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Denham commented that he has owned the property for 15 years. Mr. Conway indicated that the building department's records show a small addition to the house, an addition to the garage and he has been informed that has been in filled and this addition is to be added to that. There are questions regarding the fence and other things along that nature. 1VIr. Denham indicated that he is applying for the current variance and trying to work things out with his neighbors. Mr. Gomersall indicated that Mr. Denham could review what he is going to do for his neighbors. Mr. Denham indicated that there was currently two screened in patios one he installed and placed a hot tub in and there was a tent canopy cover over it until last winter when it collapsed. He is attempting to install a wooden structure, which would be more durable. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the rear property looked like a fortress with all the fencing. He indicated that he wasn't sure how high the fence was, but believed it was out of code. Mr. Denham indicated it the fence was 6 feet high. Mr. Gomersall asked to hear what the neighbors had to say. Ms. Duncan presented pictures to the board members to view that the roof that was up went over the fence and would drain into her yard. 1VIr. Denham indicated that the builder went to far and he doesn't want it to be that big. He suggested that he had building inspector, R. Tennant come out and he advised him to leave everything alone until an inspector come out and look the site over. Ms. Duncan indicated that the notice she received from the City indicated that the structure would be 4 feet off the sideyard line. She indicated that there was no way the proposed structure was 4 feet off the property line, because before the City made him remove the roof it hung over the fence into her yard. She indicated that she came to City Hall to review the plans and lookup all the building pernuts that had been granted and the last one that had been granted was for the chain link fence and that was in 1981. She suggested the fence might look good from Mr. Denham's side of the fence, but it looks pieced milled from her side. She indicated that the way the fence is pieced milled together it is hurting the value ofher property. Mrs. O'Connor indicated that she was a new neighbor and suggested she couldn't put into words how bad it looked. Ms. Duncan suggested that Mr. Denham's property was an eye sore and would hinder her being able to sale her home. Mr. Denham suggested that he didn't want to be a bother to Ms. Duncan. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he would like to see the proposal tabled until the next meeting. He would like the building department to measure the fence and review the other discrepancies. Mr. Conway commented that he had asked Mr. Denham to cooperate with the building department so that they can do some inspections. Mr. Denham showed a picture of the structure that he would like in his backyard. Mr. Gomersall commented that Mr. Denham needed to have everythuig documented on a site plan for the next meeting. Mr. Conway questioned who would be doing the work. Mr. Denham suggested a friend would be helping him with the construction. Mr. Conway asked if Lee Builders would be doing any of the work. Mr. Denham commented "no". Mr. Conway asked if Mr. Denham's friend could be available when the building department comes to the home. Mr. Denham commented that he would be present. J. Konold motioned to table the proposal of Patrick Denham, 28384 Aspen Drive until the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unaniinously approved. Proposal Tabled 8. Marshalls• 5170 Great Northern Mall: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a sign package. The following variances are requested: 1) A 192.5 square foot variance for sign face area of a business unit, (code allows 35.5sq ft, applicant requests 228sq ft), (1163.11 C). 2) A 2 foot height variance for wall sign 42, (code allows 4ft high, applicant requests 6ft), (1163.12 A). 3) An 83 square foot variance for wall sign 42 face area, (code allows 75sq ft, applicant requests 158sq ft), ( 1163.12). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1163.11 A) and (1163.12 A). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Eppolito, the sign contractor came forward to present the proposal. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the proposed signage size was the same as the existing signage. He inquired if the existing sign had already 5