My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/01/1970 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1970
>
1970 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
07/01/1970 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:37:01 PM
Creation date
2/1/2019 3:53:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1970
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/1/1970
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
0 <br />, ECART> QF ZONING ITP?S -(7/1/70) -- 1'age 2 - %' <br />Ms°. Swailson statec: that vandalisn and Ioss of pro?:erty has cree.ted a severe problean <br />dux3ng the last rine Months and that their research deparfi.ment is in chaoso Ttie axea <br />is used for research and test panels have been mutilated and stolen. There is presently <br />a 41 fence but they have a percit ta irsstall a.n. 8" #'ence. i3e streosed that the a.rea <br />is nat v3sible to the main -artesy and that due tez the easy access at rear of the pro1 erty, <br />they feel barber.l vdxe is essential. The prorertSr is ne<;t door to MacDanalae s£testaurant <br />and kicls constaal.tly climb the #'ence. He empha:sized that their objective is not t,a catch <br />the kids but ta d.eter their entry. Discussian wa.s held and it wa.s felt t-hat a true <br />hardship exiated. Nir. Erne: t Green moved to grant avariance for 11 o'L barbed zaire almng <br />tor, of 89 fence subjec't to the ap-praval of the 5a.fety Eirectox; seconded by Mrs. Eian <br />and unanirnously pa5sed. <br />MT. Laszcashire entered the meeting at th3s time, <br />5. Ap-pellant: Jamestown Village Apartments, SE Corner of Brook-ps.rk and Columbia Et.oads. <br />Request to erect fewer enclosed gara.ges in Phase ITI of their development <br />than specified by Orairsance P69-210 which requi.res that one- IL-ialf the <br />rer,,uired parking spaces be enclosed. <br />Presents Mr. Margolius9 Mro Zer&n, Mrs. Young (resicent manager of anar'tments) <br />Mr. Maroolius and Iire Zeman e?.plained that aTprova2 f'or Phase ITT of their development <br />had been given prior to Ordinance #60,-210 Lut that they dicln°t appIy for their perrnit <br />at that time because af f3.nanciaig, etc. They pointeci out thaz one garage for ever3r three <br />suites has been their norL3al denand. They exceea in the number of parking spaces but <br />are un_der by 34 enclased spa,ces. A recent study showed zhat o-f' 58 existinb gaxages, <br />1.9 are presently vacant, IO are used f'or storage lry the develorer and only 25 2re leased <br />aut to origina.l tenants. Of these 7 are rented by tenants for -storage of household gaods. <br />They stressed that they would be glad to put up- oarages iT there was a.r_y d.erse.n.d. #'vr them <br />but tY?a.t there isn't. When the plan was ariginally a.p_r.rovec, it met the ordinenceo A <br />letter froza Counci3man. Grp-dy was read obj Ecting to any devi2.tian from the r_ew ordinance. <br />Discussion NTas held and the devel.operu stated that they d.on't feei it is in the best <br />interests of the city to have vacant garRges si-tting there, i^hey f'eel that vandaIisa <br />poses aprab? em when ga.ra.ges are vacant and f'urthur stated that vaca.n.t ga.rages consume <br />op-en parying sgaces. Mrs. Eian moved to contirrue the case to the neht meet3.ng in order <br />fi,o Iearn thoughts behind the Flanning Conimi.ssiont s decisivn to cha.nge the enc2osed <br />parking space requirer ent and to ask a member of PlanriaMg Commission and P? €3.tting <br />Camaittee of CounciZ to attend the next meeting, Mr. Ernest Green seconded the motione <br />IInanirnously passea. <br />6. Appellante wiZliam C. MattertA, 6034 Sorierset Drieeo Rec1ueat to install a 41 chain <br />Iink fence along rear 13rorerty line oiz a corizer lot. Reruest is in <br />violation of Oxd.inance #62-':139 Section 1151.04 which states that a fence <br />may not exceed 30" in height f'rom the building line to the street 13.ne. <br />r resenta P+Ir. Mattern. <br />II•iro Nfattern exrlained that his mroblem stems fron his Zot being on the corner. He <br />wishes to i.nstall anchor-tvpce greon vinyl coated fence along the rear of his lot. <br />According to the Ordinance, the 211 f'rom the : idewalk can be onlY 30" in height. He <br />stated that his neighbors haTre no objection to hi.s plan. Mro Lancashire maveG to grart <br />a Iii variance for 211 o=' £ence9 seconcied. by Mrs. Eipn and unanimau9ly rassed. <br />7. Appellantr 'Filliam Mort, 5350 rorter Road. Reciuest for srecia1 permit to add to <br />non-confor?!ing hause as per Ordinance #62-_`33, Section 1231.02. Also <br />request for vc.riance for nror--sed a.adi+.,ion too close to rear lot Iine. <br />?,equest? is in violation. of Qrdinance #62-3/39 Section 1163.01 which <br />repuires a 501 rear ya.rd.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.