07/12/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ? . CITY OF NORTIi OLMSTED BOARD OF ZONING APPEAI.S gIELD IN COUNCIL CHAMSERS JULY 12, 2007 MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm PRESEle1T: Members; M. Diver, N. Sergi, T. Kelly, R. Menser and A. Williamson. ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. Conway, and Clerlc of Commissions D. Rote. Chaii7nan Diver reviewed that there were 9 cases requesting 1 special permit and 13 area variances. She further advised that each board member viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required for approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and lilce situations elsewhere. The board will address each of the 7 standards when reviewing each case and each applicant is asked to address each of the 7 factors in their presentation. H. REVIEW AND CO1tRECTION OF MINUTES: R. Meiiser moved to approve the June 07, 2007 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written. T. Kelly 'seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. TII. I2ESI])ENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: 1. Teresa Mills; 27974 Terrace Dr: (WRD # 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a landscaping screen walUtrellis and tlie following variance is requested: 1. A 10.5 foot variance for an accessory structure (screen wall) in 50' front setbaclc, (code requires 50', applicant shows 39.0'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (fl)). Ms. Mills and Mr. Schremm the owners each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Schremm said they would like to keep the garden wall they installed for the cliinbing roses. The lattice wall was installed to buffer the headlights of vehicles as they reach the intersection of Louann and Terrace Drive. A pictorial board was presented of the applicant's front property and lattice wall to demonstrate that the wall would not impede their neighbor's drives or their ability to safely access their own drive. Mrs. Diver aslced if the wall was before the board due to the structure being permanently fixed. Mr. Conway advised that the wall/fencing was before the board as the code does not allow any structure within the 50' setback.°, Mrs. Sergi said the garden wall is somewhat transparent, it would not block visibility and buffering is needed to shield the vehicle headlights. Governmental services would not be affected, it will not adversely affect the neighborhood, and the spirit and intent of the code would be observed granting the variance. Mrs. Diver felt that although the property could yield a reasonable return without the lattice wall and the variance is substantial by code standards she understood the need to shield the lights. Mr. Conway said the board needed to determine if the structure was a barrier or if it should be considered an accoutrement for roses. All board members voiced in the affirmative that they had no objections to the lattice wall. Mr. Menser noted that once the climbing roses mature and attach to the wall it would become visually pleasing. 11 1