07/09/1969 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOAPD 0F ZONTntG APPFAI,S. - 7/9/69 - Page 2 He pointed out that if the garage was ta be Zocated 5' from Iot line, it imulcx be very difficult to enter the second sic'e of the gara.ge. The lot 3s oriY 541 wide, I4r. ? Lancashire moved to graazt a 21 variance; secontied bY Mro vavis- and unanir:iously passed. ? 5. Appellant: Arthur S. Hogue. 4628 Columbia. Roado Request to erec-t a partial patio enclosure 51 ]1i.gh a.nd I?a from side lot line. Request is in viola.tion of Ordinance #62-33, Section II51.04 wl3ich requires that no part of sach a windbreak be clcrser than 158 to aray lot line. Present: R.obert Hogtze (son of appellaz3.t), Carl Williams Mr. Roberts read a Ietter from Councilman Clarence MiZ1er stating that Mr. Hesgue had suffered a heart attacl{ and wa,s unable ta attend the hee.ring. A tetter was enclosed from Ra.ymond Payne stating that rie felt that the variance slaould be granted and that the other neighbors were in agreement k-ith it except for Carl Williams. Mr. F..obert Hogue exDIained that the wi.TSdbre-Jc vrou3.d be L snapea, 51 in height and 2L,.a te,tttl tength. It would be a decorative ril.uminurc type fence. Iie poin.ted out that his father spends many hours working in the yard and tha.t the fence would ezlYiance its beaut3r p.Lus servQ as a privacy screen for the patio. Mr. Williaras stated tYsat he was against the fence being erected since he felt that it would obstruc't the air and view fxom his bedroom. It was pointed ou-t that Mr. Williams° house is even ttith 14r. Hogue's house aazd that the bedroom window was 51 above the graund and would not be even vith the wi.ndbreak at aI7.. - It was felt that it would nat cut off the circulation. It was pointed out that Mr. Hogue could go o4er the additionaZ 3' anrl erect a 61 wiiidbreak withaut any variance being necessary and that this would be less desirable fror4 Mr. Viiliams' standpoint, Mr. Lancashire moved to grant a 31 varianceT seconaea by AIrs. Eian an.d passed ws.tYa Mr. Greene and Mro Davis votin.g nvo • 6s Appellant: Rudolph Worsech, 2965 Walter Road, Request to erect 4.' fence on a corner Iot. Request is in iri.olatior_ of Orclinance #62-33, Section II51m049 f ence along the street li.ne may not exceed 3001 in height. Present: Mr. Jones of Seax°s Roebuck and Co. (representing Mr. Worsech) Mr. Jones expIained that Mro Worsech's house is on the carner of Walter Road and (;ar1a Lane. He has a consUnt prob2em of c1v.Idren cutti.ng through tlae yarcl and wishes ta f'ence it in. It wa.s poin-ted out that only the portion of fence a].oxig the street I3ne z-rould require a variancem This vnu1cZ amount to 511. It was determined that tliere would be no safety problem if° the fence were instGlled. P2rs. Eian moved to grant a variAnce for 511 of 41 fence; seconded by Mr. Greene and unanimously passed. 7. AppelTant: The Mark Resta,urant' 241?09 Lorain Roau. Request ta erect sigm i.n excess of permi.tted squaxe footage rand too kiigh. Request is in violation oi Ordinance #62-33' Section 1225.02. Present: Mark Figeta.kis (owner), Mr, and Mrso Kaye' Mr. Spixo of Be:Llows Sign Uoo Mr. Figetakis expla.iia.ed that he feels it 3s vital to have a sign identifying The Mark. His sign was desigried by artist 1?on Drum and is vexy sinple -vri.th no flashzng lights, etc. He stated that he could bring the sign down to the 251 height requirement with na problera btzt felt the sign ituelf cvuZd not be scaled down witbout ruining its total appearance. Mr. and Plrs. Kaye.- new owners of Columbia Terrac-t 14ote7., stated that they felt the sign shouZd be permitted. Board menberS agreed tYiat while the sign wa,s attractive • enough, it wwa,.s much tQO Iarge (I21 X 9t)m It was suggested that Mr. Figetakis consult Mr. Drtm about sca].ing it down and that new plans be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Greene moved to continue tlae case; secondeci by Mrs. Eian an.d unanimously passecj o