01/06/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 6, 1988 PAGE 6 hotel was built. Mr. Bugala stated that they do have signage, and he does not believe that he can make a decision based on trees.which grow and die, he is against the request in the respect to the aesthetic interest-of the city; he be•lieves'that the city has allowed for effective advertising of . . businesses. Chairman Remmel stated that a larger sign on top of the building might be acceptable. Mr. Helon would prefer to see a larger sign on the build- ing, but is aware that other communities are getting hotel business because customers do not know the Hampton is available. Al1 neighbors present indi- cated they object to having the request continued. Mr. Grace started to make a motion regarding the request for a variance. Mr.. Gareau advised that a. voteshould be taken on the request for a continuance first.. Mr. Grace with- drew his motion. R. Bugala moved to grant a continuance of this case, seconded by C. Remmel. Roll call on motion: Bugala and Grace, no. Remel and Helon, yes. Motion failed to pass. B. Grace moved on the first point of the request a 584 square foot variance for a pole sign. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.04-f-4 for the Hampton Inn, 25105 Country Club Blvd. • At this point Law Director Gareau advised that the Board should vote on all three elements, indicating by a yes vote that you agree that they have esta- blished by the evidence that there are practical difficulties, that they do have'unnecessary hardships as they relate to size, shape, topography and characteristices that are not shared by any other property in the immediate area. He explained that the Board must make a finding on each of the three conditions that exist and that if .there are not three votes on each condition, no fining has been made that these contitions exist. Mr. Grace moved that it is the Board'sfinding that the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, which is inherent in and is peculiar to the premises sougYit to be used be- cause of physical size, shape or other characteristics of such premises, or adjoining premises which differentiate such premises sought to be used from other premises in the same distxict, and as to such premises sought to be used, shall create a difficulty or hardship caused by a strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code not generally sHared by other lands or structures in the same district, seconde.d by G. Remmel. Roll call on motion: Grace and Bugala, no. Remmel and Helon, yes._ Motion failed to pass. Mr. Grace moved that it is the finding of the Board that refusal of the variance or modification appealed from shall deprive the owner of premises sought to be used of substantial property rights,.seconded by C. Remmel. Roll call on motion: Grace and Bugala, no. Remmel and Helon, yes. Motion failed to pass. Mr. Grace moved that it is the Board's finding that the granting of the variance or modi- fication appealed from shall not.be contrary*to the purposes and intents of the provisions of the Zoning Code, seconded by C. Remmel. Roll call on motion: Grace and Bugala, no. Remmel and Helon, yes. Motion failed to pass. It was the conclusion of the Board that.the variances should not be granted. 8. Pheasants Walk Office Retail Center, 28867 Lorain Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to construct access driveways more than the maximum permitted of 120 feet apart. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1161.09. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to D. Narrowitz and M. Keller, neighbors; J. Certo, architect; and Councilmen D. McKay, R. Wilamosky, and R. Tallon. Mr. Certo explained that there are 230 feet between the two drives which is 110 feet more than the maximum 120 feet allowed by code; if they add a third drive it would take away some of the required parking spaces. Mr. Bugaia and Mr. Helon both have