|
case they would agree to the Fischer Coa sign erection.
<br />Mr. Greene moved to table the request until the next regular Board
<br />meeting, NIay 5. Mre Byers secanded. Vote to taU1e was unanimous. The
<br />sign is to remain as is for the time being,
<br />3, Appellant: He1en Iiutchley Candy Co., 26041 Lorain Road, N. Olmsted, 0.
<br />Ref: Request for variance (1133.13) to erect a sign across the front
<br />o£ the building wl7ich would rest ora the roo£, which is in viola-
<br />tion of Section 1225.02 (E) 1 of the %oning Ordina,nce, which per-
<br />mits only 207o of the total hei,ht to extend above the roof line.
<br />N1x. Brown of First Neon Sign Com , and Mr. Franke of Helen rIutcnley
<br />Candy Co. appeared for the appellant. The discussion brought out that
<br />the sign in its prcposed location woulci tend to obscure from one direc-
<br />tion the view of air conditioning units atop the Uuilding, and that
<br />the building itself is bui].t Uelow street level, requiring the extra
<br />height to be suitably visible to motorists driving east on Lorain Road.
<br />No one appeared to object to the request.
<br />Mro Schmitt moved to grant the variance. Yirs. Eian seconded. Mr.
<br />Foltz indicated "nis agreernent, but suggested that all safety f actors be
<br />observed. Mr. Franke y of course, agreed, and said his coznpany may built
<br />another outlet in the city, gn which case all steps vuould Ue taken to avoid
<br />any need for another variance request. Motion was approved unanimously,
<br />4. appellant: Bruscino Development Coo, 15411 Chatfield Ave., Clevelan.d, p.
<br />Re£: Request for variances (1133m13) on eight sublots in the UVoodview
<br />SuUdivision as follows: S/L 19 -- 121 rear yard variance; S/L 20 --
<br />141 rear yard variance; S/L's 293,4,6 -- 221 rear yard variance;
<br />S/L's 10,11 -- 8' front yard setback (side street).
<br />Mr. Alex Bruscino, Jr. represented his company. Mr. Bruscino indicated
<br />that houses witnout attached garages are not selling well in the area,
<br />and that houses witn attacned gara,es would be built on tlhe lots in
<br />question, but that only stzblot 19 currentlg had a sales agreement pend-
<br />ingo Mr. Calvin Stelzer, 3405 Tree Lane, objected to any variance that
<br />might be gxanted on sublot 10, adjacent to his propertyo Alice Roberts,
<br />3367 Clague Road, was represented by her son, who felt variances on sub-
<br />lots 19 and 20 were suitable. Prir. Klinite indicated the Board's general
<br />unwillingness to grant blanket variances an all sublots involved.
<br />Mrm Schmitt moved to grant rear yard variances of 121 and 141, respec-
<br />tively, on sublots 19 and 201 inasmuch as they are adjoinin,, and that the
<br />requests for the other sublots be resubrriitted when sales are pending. Mrm
<br />Greene seconded. Motion was approved unanimouslya
<br />5. Appellant: Lewis Estates, Incop 5581 Ridge Road, parma IIeightsy Oe
<br />Ref: Request for variance (1133.13) to build an apartment project at
<br />27788 Lorain Road, witn a proposed density of 21 suites pex acre,
<br />in violation of Zonino Ordinance, Chapter 1157, which stipulates
<br />maximum apartment density of 18 suites per acrea
<br />IuTr. Ardeiz Wright represented Lewis Estatesm Interested property owners
<br />who identified themselves were Messrs. Gatchel, Schultz, Lauer, papp,
|