Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 1, 1989 PAGE 4 <br />administered to Mr. Papandreas and Mr. Payton, Biskind Development Company. <br />Mr. Bugala questioned what the difference is between this proposal and that <br />which was granted last month. Mr. Papandreas stated that in the past month <br />they have been trying to comply with the condition placed on the variance, <br />but have not been successful. He poin•ted out that they have no legal position <br />to force Kronheims and Marshalls to remove the signs as was required by the <br />Board. They are requesting now that the Board consider a substitute condi- <br />tion, that is that they are allowed to install the signage program subject <br />to the removal of all names identifying Kronheims and Marshalls throughout <br />the entire signage program. He stated that in no event will either of these <br />names be installed on any of the signs until Marshalls and Kronhiems comply <br />with the request to remove the signs as indicated on the previous variance. <br />Law Director Gareau stated that this option was discussed at the last meeting <br />and it was assumed that these two stores would prefer to be on these signs, <br />but apparently Marshalls and Kronheims have chosen not to remove their arcade <br />signs. He pointed out that this whole program which was approved by the <br />Planning Commission will be stopped by two tenants whom they cannot make remove <br />the signs that were stipulated to be removed. Mr. Payton pointed out that <br />one of the biggest complaints they receive is that customers cannot find their <br />way around the campus. Mr. Restifo is concerned since the Board was told that <br />these signs would be removed and he finds it hard to believe that they can <br />leave these tenants off their signs. Mr. Grace questioned what recourse the <br />City would have if these retailers were put on the campus signs without re- <br />moving the other signs as stipulated. Mr. Gareau responded that the Building <br />Commissioner could issue a violation against them. Mr. Bugala has a problem <br />with this request.since it should not have been brought back to the Board <br />for one year after the request was granted. Law Director Gareau stated that <br />he had advis.ed that they could come back and he believes that this Board <br />should not have had to hear this since the Planning Commission is the body <br />that does the planning and they were totally in favor of this program; however, <br />the procedures that are in effect at this time require variances for such a <br />program. Mr. Helon stated that since the Great Northern Campus is totally un- <br />like any other development in the area, it should be handled differently. <br />Mr. Restifo still has a concern about these stores being left out of the sign <br />program and questioned if, under these circumstancesg the city could be sued. <br />Mr. Gareau stated that it would appear that Marshalls and Kronheims had made a <br />business decision that the signage they have on the canopy of the strip is <br />more valuable to them than the signage on the campus signs. Mr. Conway clari- <br />fied that both of these parties had been granted variance and have more signage <br />than would be permitted by the code today. B. Grace moved that the conditions <br />originally placed upon the variance granted for the Great Northern Retail Campus <br />signage will be changed and the condition now will be that neither the Marshalls <br />or Kronheims names will be placed on these signs unless they meet with the <br />conditions of the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 1, 1989, seconded by T. <br />Restifo. Roll call on motion: Grace, Helon, and Bugala, yes. Restifo, no. <br />Motion carried. <br />At this point Mr. Noble, Service Director, approached the Board and advised that <br />there were some extenuating circumstances pertaining to the North Olmsted <br />Lumber Company request, but that he had been unable to be present when this <br />issue was discussed. Chairman Bugala administered the oath to Mr. Noble who <br />explained that the variance being requested was based on property belonging to <br />Che lumber yard, but at this time the City is storing on their property. North <br />Olmsted Lumber is willing to give the City a perpetual easement for this portion