06/08/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? BOARD•OF ZONING APPEALS. JUNE 8, 1988 PAGE 3 and asked that the Board look at the value of the sport. Law Director Gareau stated that he should address these remarks to the Council, that this is a legislative function and guildlines for these ramps must be drawn up. J. Fairfield, a member of the audience, stated that he would like to submit some impartial information: this structure is not permanent, it is moveable, and not concreted into the ground as is a basketball backboard which needs no building permit. He further stated that according to Thomas Hayes, Deputy Administrator of the County Auditor's office who is doing the evaluation of homes for the county, this type of structure would not devaluate an adjacent homes. Mr. Miller, another neighbor, also stated he is in favor of this ramp and believe this is a fantastic opportunity for the.boys who use the ramp. Chairman Remmel advised them to approach the Council and request legis- lation. Mr. Grace is concerned that if the Board votes against this they will be setting a precedent and this should not have been brought before the Board. C. Remmel moved that this Board determines that a bike ramp is not an enumerated permitted use, nor an accessory use in a residential district, and also that it cannot be determined to be a like or similar use to any other uses enumerated, seconded by B. Grace. Roll call on motion:Rmeel, Bugala, and Gomersall, yes.. Grace and Helon, no. Motion passed. The Board has determined that a bike ramp is not a"permitted use. Mr. and Mrs. Steiner were advised to approach council and attempt to get legislation drawn up. Mr. Steiner stated she is confused because Council had adiTised them to come to this Board. Councilwoman Bahas explained that the Board had to rule first if this was a permitted use, and since this ruling has been made, Council can now go forward with some type of legislation. 3. Honors Hotel (Biskind Development Company), Great Northem Corporate Center. Request Board approval for 48 parking spaces which are to be provided under combined use provisions (not same owner). Permission required by Ord. 87-93, Section 1161.06. Request for variances as required by Ord. 87-93, Section 1123.12. Request variance for undersize loading facilities. Violation of Section 1161.12(d). Request 36.4 squar.e foot variance for wall sign on secondary street. Violation of Section 1173.06(e)3. Request 119 square f.oot variance for total sign area of all signs on property. 9iolation of Section 1163.06(d). Request variance for grotmd sign to be located off hotel site. Violation of Section 1163.06(a)1. Also request 95 square foot variance for sign area for the above ground sign. Violation of Section 1163.05. (Proposal heard by Planning Commission May 24, 1988). Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Mize, representing Biskind Development Company. Mr. Carlisle explained that, in reference to the parking spaces, that Section 1161.06 does allow a hotel to use up to 50 percent of their parking in combination with other parking available, so they are not re- questing a variance, merely Board approval to share 25 percent of the adjacent parking area. They are required to have 196 spaces, they are providing 146: new spaces, and are asking approval to-use 48 spaces in an area that has 182'parking spaces which wi.ll be empty.during the peak period when the hotel is occupied. He presented a copy of the standard agreement between the ` owners of the- building and their company, explaining that they. will supply ' a signed copy of this agreement prior.to receiving a building'permit. R. : Bugala moved-to grant apnroval for the combined use o€ the parking facilities between two separate organizations, seconded by B. Grace; and unanimously