03/03/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MIloTiT'I'ES OF 1VIAItCH 3, 2011 ROLL CALL Ms. Sergi called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Nancy Sergi, Maureen Diver, Jennifer Rudolph, Laura Bellido, Alfredo Lopez Staff: Law Director Michael Gareau Jr., Planning and Development Director Kimberly Wenger, Planning and Development Secretary Tricia Granfors REVIEW AND COItRECTION OF MINUTES Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Diver, to approve the minutes of February 3, 2010 which was approved 5-0. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS Michael Isabella; 4199 Clague Road: Request for variance. Proposal consists of a fence; the following variance is requested: l. A variance for fences/arbors higher than 30" in front yard; code permits 30", applicant shows 10' - 12', section 1135.02(F)(1). See note. Note: Structures are preexisting and were installed without a permit. BZA tabled 12/2/2010. Michael and Veronica Isabella of 4199 Clague Road, and Robert Frindt of 4084 Clague Road were sworn in. Mr. Isabella said he installed posts with a lattice across the top to support Wisteria and other climbing plants. As a landscaping project he did not realize it would be a problem. A Wisteria bush in the front may be an obstruction and will be removed. He does not feel the new landscape features cause a safety issue or sight obstruction. Mr. Frindt is in favor of the landscaping additions and submitted a letter of support. He feels the arbors make the road look better than it did. The arbors will not obstruct the view any more than cars parked in the front yard. He speaks for several neighbors in stating they have no objections with the project. On behalf of Building Commissioner Mitchell, Ms. Wenger said he wished to reiterate his concerns from the last meeting. Ms. Wenger said the height requirement is in the code for public safety so fences are not built to a height that would obstruct the visibility of motorists entering and exiting the property. If the arbors do not create a safety issue of poor visibility, she has no obj ection to the arbors as a landscape feature. If it is a safety or visibility issue she has concerns. Ms. Rudolph inquired and verified that the Wisteria bush on the north side adjacent to the driveway is to be moved and the evergreen bushes would be staying. Ms. Rudolph recommends splitting the issue between the arbor near the sidewalk parallel to the street and the arbors in the yard perpendicular to the house. She feels the arbor near the sidewalk is a safety and visibility issue but that the others are acceptable. Ms. Diver agrees with Ms. Rudolph and noted that they were all installed without a permit in violation of the Building Code. The arbors will be linlced to the property, not the owners. Future owners would need to maintain it and future neighbors