John R. and Barbara Linn, owners, the Zaremba Group LLC and Matt Casey, agent, appeal to construct a retail store building proposed to be situated on an irregular shaped corner parcel, located in split zoning between a General Retail Business District and a Multi-Family District on the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and East 79th Street at 8000 Euclid Avenue; subject to the limitations of Section 337.08, a retail store and premises are not permitted in a Multi-Family District and the proposed parking spaces measure 162 square feet where accessory parking spaces shall be at least 180 square feet, according to the provisions of Section 325.03 of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 3-19-07)
Abdel Abukalil, owner, appeals to construct a one-story, five store retail development, situated on a 110’ x 150’ parcel located in a Midtown Mixed Use District-1 on the west side of East 79th Street at 1960 East 79th Street; contrary to the building width requirements of Section 344.06, a 30’ width, or approximately 27% of the lot width is proposed where the building front facing East 79th Street shall be at least 50% of the lot width; and one-story is proposed, contrary to Section 344.07 that requires there to be a minimum building height of three stories that are occupiable floor space; with 19 parking spaces, where the maximum number of parking spaces for retail use shall not exceed 100% of the requirement specified in Chapter 349 of the Zoning Code, or 13 spaces; and all developments with 10 or more parking spaces are required to provide exterior lighting for all vehicular use areas, including entrance and exit access drives, as stated in Section 344.09(c)(1) of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 3-28-07)
Vincent Potochar, et al, appeal under the authority of Section 76-6(b) of the Cleveland City Charter and Section 329.02(d) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances from an action of the City Planning Commission dated March 2, 2007, granting a motion to approve the request to amend the Planned Unit Development for Stonebridge Towers, Phase 4, by approving the as-built drawings of the parking spaces for the parking garage. (Filed 4-2-07) POSTPONED FROM MARCH 19, 2007
Joseph Mobily, owner, and Jim Dupree, tenant, appeal change use from a factory and warehouse to a use for truck sales and salvage that is proposed to be on consolidated acreage parcels, where 125’ of the frontage is located in a Semi-Industry District and the remainder of the land is in a General Industry District on the south side of South Waterloo Road at 16606-16702 South Waterloo Road; and the operation of wrecking or dismantling of motor vehicles, or the storage of motor vehicles pending wrecking or dismantling (salvage) is contrary to Section 345.03 and first permitted in a General Industry District; and 7 parking spaces are provided where 19 parking spaces are required, according to Section 349.04(j) of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 12-15-06; testimony taken.) Second postponement granted for appellants to meet with the Councilman about illegal parking, debris and dirt being tracked onto the Public Right of Way; and for a plan to be submitted that shows parking for all uses on the lot, installation of landscaping and relocation of the dumpster according to Code requirements. The tenant appellant acknowledged responsibility for ensuring that the property owner is present for the postponed hearing.
HCR-ManorCare, owner, and Victor Brigner, agent, appeal to add 19 new parking spaces for a nursing home that is situated on an acreage parcel, located in a Multi-Family District on the west side of Rocky River Drive at 4102 Rocky River Drive; contrary to Section 337.08(e), a nursing home in a Multi-Family District is required to be 15’ from any adjoining premises in a residential district not used for a similar purpose and the proposed new parking spaces are within 15’ of a One-Family District; and the expansion of an existing nonconforming use requires the Board of Zoning Appeals approval according to the provisions of Section 359.01 of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 2-28-07; testimony taken.) First postponement granted for appellant to meet with neighboring property owner and the local development corporation for additional review of the proposed plan.
|