Laserfiche WebLink
already have a changeable sign they just want to upgrade it to an electronic sign. His client's <br />existing sign can and will continue to display messages they are just requesting the way the <br />messages are changed. His client's variance request should be based upon Walgreens needs <br />only. Ms. Rudolph read section 1163.23 and asked if in fact that section of the code applied to <br />the request. Mr. Gareau said the Building Commissioner oversees and applies the zoning codes. <br />The Board's role is to determine whether or not Walgreens should be granted reconsideration. <br />He reviewed section 10 of the board's rules pertaining to the request for reconsideration. Ms. <br />Wenger said she agreed with the building commissioner's memo that the applicants had not met <br />their burden to show that there is new evidence which has not been raised during the original <br />hearing. She recommended the board deny the request for reconsideration as no new evidence <br />had been presented. Mr. Lopez said he does not believe the requirements for reconsideration had <br />been met as no new evidence was presented. Both Ms. Rudolph and Mr. Lopez voiced their <br />frustration that the city doesn't follow their own laws and is not leading by example. Discussion <br />ensued regarding why the city is not bound to its codes. Mr. Lopez said he agrees that it is the <br />building official's role to interpret the code. The applicant has not shown a hardship for an <br />electronic sign. The request doesn't present any new evidence of a hardship. Mr. Frezell has <br />stated that the existing sign is changeable in use and will continue to be used. Ms. Rudolph said <br />there has been no new evidence presented in the request for reconsideration to warrant granting <br />the request. The existing sign is changeable continues to be changeable with or without a <br />variance. Mr. Gareau reviewed the board's role and explained that members are to be neutral <br />weighing the testimony of both the city and applicant and determine whether or not the <br />applicants have shown evidence that by following city codes it places an undue hardship upon <br />them. Mr. Raig said he has seen no bases for granting the request for reconsideration or the <br />variance, such signs are prohibited and there are no codes in which to regulate such a use. Ms. <br />Bellido said board member's personal opinion is not part of the review; the code is being <br />challenged by the applicant who says following it places an undue burden upon his client. The <br />applicant has not presented evidence to show that following code places a burden or impedes the <br />owner's ability to have a changeable sign in fact he states his client has a changeable sign which <br />is in use and can continue to be used. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to grant Walgreens of 24590 Lorain Road <br />their request for reconsideration which failerl0-3; Mr. I.opez abstained. <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />With no further business, Mrs. Diver's absence was excused and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 <br />p.m. <br />Q? .??? <br />Je iler Rud Chair D a Rote, Cler o Commissions <br />?1316? <br />Approved: