06/02/1965 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cITY oF Na-RTx O??szrD -?OARD oF zaNrNG IIPPEaLs, REGUIAR ?iEETING HLI.D AT TIIE CITY HATT, -- JUI`1E 2, 1965 ? Meeting called to order at 7;40 p.m., Yro Greene presiding. TZembers presont: Messrs, Greene, Byers, and Ms°s. Eian Also present: Mx'. Gundy9 Building Cormnissioner Counca..l.man 'Uest, Councilwoman Hoagi.ns Others as listed unaer appellants 14inur,es o-f the ilay 5, 1965, meeting were accepted as i;rritteno 1, Appellant: Snider Bldg. Corp.9 5112 `Abitethorn Dr,., North Qlmsted Ref : Request for variance (1133 -7.3 ) of 21511 on corner lot of Sutton Dr, and Christman Dr., which is in violation of Zoning (}rdinance 1159.02' Urhich requires 25 ft, side yard, i2ra W. J. Seminsky represented the firm9 stating home to be built on lot has beensold but with deal pend.ing outcome of appeal for variance. Person chose 1ot for seclu- sion as he wants to s-tore boat at rear of propertye No one appeared to object the request, 14rs. Eian moved to grant the varianee. Second by Tjir, Byers, Vo-'Eoe was unanimous. 2, Appel,lanta Dorothy Kalchoif' 28541 A].den lirt°.., ?'7orth Q1ms-ted ReF: Request ior variance (1133.13) by Dorothy Kalchoff, oi 21 rear yard depth. P1.ans to erect a patio roof would reduce rear yard to 481., which is in viol.ation oF Zona.ng flrdinance 1163,01 reguir3ng a mini- rmam rear ya.rd depth of 501, 2•4r. Kalchoff tisas present. They need foof to protect patio from strong sunlight and heat of sun. Hoof to be slat ty-pe. kirs Byers moved to grant the variance, ilrs. Eian secondede Vote was lananimous. 3. Appellant: Kimberly Development Co., 2728 ?,ti.clid. Ave., Cleveland' Ohio. Refa Request for variance (1133-13) to erect a subdivision developrnent sign corner Lorain Rd, and MacKenzie Rd. ?-to show direction to Zouann Drive subdivisionQ Variance would be in vialation of Zoning Ordinance 62-33 Chapa1225.01 (C) Sub 2,, requi-rang developrnent signs to be on development property., within 500 feet of the development. I4r. Dean Costa represented the firm, sayi.ng his plans called for an 81x121 sign' with space at bottom of sign for ad.dition of two more deve].opers at a later da-te. A sign now exists on this property advertising sale of the propertyQ Ownex° would agree to development sign if it were not p7.aced so as to crbate a. disadvantage to his signa He said sign was needed as subdizrision does not benefit by being visible9 and thereby undue hardship would be caused taithout sign to promote development. 1•irsm I-hdgins stated if sign were erected, a tima should be set for •talcing it downe mr. Pi.chards of West rark Drive, objected to varianee, statixg the sign would add ? to undesirable condition notr exista.ng af too many sign.s on Lorain _Rd., i'eeling strangly that Ordinance should be adhered to. At this time a second appeal from Kimberly Development Co. was introduced9 request- ing variance for a sign to be erected at Terrace an.d MacKenzie Rds. Sign tirould be