Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />? <br />to improve a proposal so it will have the least negative impact. Mr. Orlowski <br />read the comments of Mr. Sohn (taken from the May 20, 1992 minutes) "Mr. Zergott <br />read Mr. Sohn's comments who agreed with Planning Commission that the letters of - <br />the sign are too big. He further commented that the entire elevation should have <br />tieen shown; that this is a piecemeal approach; there should be a total renovation <br />of the front; that the mansard is too high; that he will not accept a partial <br />renovation; and the ocaner of the center should ha.ve a sign criteria so one <br />tenant's sign is not bigger than the others." Mr. Shepherd pointed out that, <br />after that, he did approve it with the condition that the entire elevation was <br />painted so that it would match. He also stated that the owner of the center was <br />present and is not interested in renovating the building, and that Habitat is <br />bearing the entire.cost of the renovation and cannot afford to renovate the <br />entire eenter. He cannot understand why a city would stop a developer from <br />investi.ng a half million dollars into improvi.ng a building which would make the <br />shopping center look superior to what it is now. The members did not agree that <br />this renovation would improve the appearance of;the building and were concerned <br />that others in the City would want higher mansards and bigger signs. Mr. Shepherd <br />again e.xplained that Habitat was a wallpaper and blind store, that other such <br />businesses had approximately 500 to 1,000 square feet, Habitat would oecupy over <br />5,000 square feet, they do extensive advertising, thus drawing customers from a <br />15 mile radius, and due to their ha.lf million dollar investment in the building <br />they must have an identity in the shopping center to gvarantee that they will <br />have a viable business. They have agreed to paint the rest of the facade at their <br />expense. He pointed out that another blind store opened up recently in the City <br />and probably invested about $50.00 .in the building and put up a paper sign. Mr. <br />Solomon, the representative of Ha.bitat who attended the Board of Zoning Appeals' <br />meeting, explained that at the Zoning meeting, they had made significant <br />compromises compared to their original request, and he believed that the Board <br />granted the variance because they were pleased that an improvement was being made <br />to the building by at least one tenant, and hoped the others would follow. Their <br />only concern had been what the Plann;ng Commission felt about the architectural <br />appearance of the proposal, and as a courtesy they passed it on to the <br />Commission. The sign variance had been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Gorris <br />understood that the B.Z.A. had stated that the approval of the sign was <br />contingent on the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Solomon disagreed <br />stating that the motion read contingent upon the Planning Comnission and <br />Architectural Board reviewing and approving the improvements, it said nothing <br />about Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board reviewing or apprbving <br />the signage. He reiterated that they'are requesting approval of the improvements <br />as stipulated by the Board of Zoning Appeals who approved the sign variance over <br />the objections of the Building Department. Mr. Shepherd thought that Mr. Conway <br />suggested that this be referred to the PlarLn;,,g Commission after the motion to <br />approve was made. Mr. Conway disagreed stating that the vote was taken after he <br />made that statement. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that it is the <br />function of the Board of Zoning AppEals to grant or deny variances, but if they <br />indicate that the variance is subject to Planning Commission approving the - <br />improvements it cannot be construed to give the Commission the authority to deny <br />the proposal on the basis of exeessive square footage, the Comanission must <br />approve or deny an the basis of aesthetics, safety, or compliance of the Zoni.ng <br />Codes. The members agreed that they should only look at the aesthetics and height <br />of the mansard, they could not look at the size of the letters. Mr. Solomon <br />pointed out that Habitat did make changes as requested by the Architectural <br />Review Board and that Board ha.d Unanimously approved the proposal. Mr. Thomas <br />suggested that the developer somehow incorporate the sign for which the variance - <br />2