05/06/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, I_ the existing sign from one side of the street to the other. Mr. Gomersall advised that pole signs were prohibited and all pole signs must be removed by January of 1998. Mr. Halleen was aware of that"and at that point in time he would comply. After some discussion, Mr. Giesser stated that they would probably take down the Partners building since it would clean up the area and combine the lots. The members asked Mr. Halleen if he had been told that a landscape plan had been requested. Mr. Gareau stated that it was up to the developer to convi.nce the Board that there was a hardship, and it was up to his attorney to advise him of that. After much discussion, it was clear that the developer would not compromise on the setback and the members agreed that what they are proposing is not acceptable. Mr. Giesser again mentioned the pole sign and advised that General Motors does not provide any signs other than these, they have standard signs. Since Lakewood no longer allows pole signs, Mr. Gomersall asked if there were no General Motors signs in Lakewood. Mr. Giesser responded that North Olmsted's code has not done away with pole signs, they are being phased out. Mr. Gareau pointed out that if the building is to be torn down and the pole sign is to be moved then after the lots are combined there would be too many pole signs. This is why the developer should present an overall plan for the Board's review. Mr. Halleen requested that the Board vote on the proposal subject to a landscape plan. Mr. Giesser explained to Mr. Halleen that it was not just a landscape plan the Board wanted, they wanted a 20 foot landscaped area which he was not willing to do. Mr. Grace stated that the Board had not absolutely stated that they would accept 20 feet, they said it would make it more palatable. Mr. Gomersall agreed and also stated that the Board agreed that a 75 foot setback was unreasonable. La.w Director Gareau presented the section of the code that specified the conditions of the appeal and asked that the Board makes separate findings as to whether or not the appellant substantiated hi.s claim on each of the 3 conditions. Chairman Gomersall read sections 1123.12(a)(1); 1123.12(a)2; and 1123.12(a)3 and 1123.12 (b). Mr. Gareau advised that, if the appellant insists on going forward with this today (the request that Mr. Halleen has as the first item on the agenda) and if the Board is inclined not to grant this, that a finding be made that they have not substantiated these three items. Mr. Gareau stated that technically they must make this finding if a variance is granted, but he suggested tha.t if the variance is to be denied a finding should be made also. The members read the section. rSr. Gareau suggested that the motion read, "I move that we find that the condition in respect to the practical difficulty under particular section was not met". This has to be done with each of three and the finding has to be the same for all three. B. Gomersall moved that relative to the request for a variance to display vehicles for sale in the 75 foot front setback on the Halleen Truck Lot, violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07, item 1 on the agenda, that the Board makes a finding that provision one of Section 1123.12(a)1 that an unnecessary hardship has been substantiated. During the framing of the motion, Mr. Giesser stated that he wanted it noted for the record that Mr. Gareau, as the Law Director, is dictating the motion to the secretarye Mr. Gareau stated that he did not want a problem wi.th the court that the Board did not vote on all three issues. Mr. Giesser stated that they were trying to work something out. Mr. Gareau advised that he wanted the Board to lmow what their legal obligations are. The motion was seconded by B. Grace. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Grace, Ferencik, Maloney, and Purper, no. Motion failed to pass. B. Gomersall moved that relative to the request for a variance to display vehicles for sale in the 75 foot front setback on the Halleen Truck Lot violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07, item 1 on the agenda, that the Board make a finding that provision two of Section 1123.12(a)2 that the refusal to grant a variance would deprive the applicant of a substantial property right, seconded by S. Ferencik. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Ferencik, Grace, Maloney and Purper, no. Motion failed to 9