02/11/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the neart meeting. Mr. Frye wondered if the board is -saying that this proposed signage is contingent upon other signs. Mr. Kobema advised the board can vote on the proposal and if it is turned down the case cannot retum to board of zoning appeals for a year. Mr. Purper suggested tabling this proposal until the next meeting to see what can be worked out as far as a ground sign. Mr. Frye explained he will not come back before the board requesting a grou.nd sign but will instead come back and request a variance for the pole sign. He believed they can present a very good case as to why the pole sign makes a lot of sense. Mr. Gareau explained there is one more option that is to come into compliance with the build.ing sign and the total signage. He stated there aie signage issue and Mr. Frye is requesting to settle only half of the signage issues. Mr. Frye maintained he saw the building signs and the pole sign as two separate issues. Law Director Gareau advised Mr. Frye has indicated to this board that he will attempt to change the law in the future with the help of other property owners or altematively come back before the board in the future and request a variance to maintain the pole sign. In sum, Mr. Gareau stated Mr. Frye is attempting to bifurcate the entire procedure. Mr. Frye questioned if the board turned down the proposal tonight if that means they cannot come back to the board at all for a year. Mr. Rymarczyk clarified the proposal would not be permitted back for a year and the request must be reduced by twenty-five percent. Mr. Gareau advised this is the first proposal to come before board of zoning appeals requesting a variance for the wall signage while at the same time being in violation of the law with respect to the pole sign. Mr. Maloney recommended the tabling of this proposal. Mr. Bizjak wondered if they would be permitted to bring in a free standing sign proposal and add it to the request. . Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk advised if a revised plan is submitted it will need to be received by February 19, 1998. J. Maloney moved to table the Sunnyside Toyota, 26890 Lorain Road, sign proposal until the March 5, 1998 meeting. Mr. Frye advised the address should be 27000 Lorain Road. Mr. Rymarczyk clarified 27000 Lorain Road is the Satum Dealership, and 26890 is the Toyota dealership. Mr. Frye explained that was changed by the post office. Mr. Rymarczyk explained there is one address per property and addresses are assigned by the building department. The . motion was seconded by W. Purper and unanimously approved. Proposal tabled. 4. Develoners Diversified Realtv Comoration. 25853 thru 26429 Great Northern Shonning Center and 5078 thru 5194 Great Northem Plaza South. Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following variances: a variance to have a superstore on a lot that is not 60% within 1/2 mile of an Interstate I?'ighway Interchange, and a variance of 2.05% for excess lot coverage (25% allowed by codes and 27.05% is shown on plan). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1129.11 (B-4), 1139.05, and 1139.07 Vice-Chainnan Maloney called all.interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to: Mr. Barrow; Mr. Scherry; Ms. Canwright; Ms: Oring; and Mr. Herschmann. Law Director Gareau advised the superstore ordinance developed out of concern regarding Water Tower Square and other establishments. He stated the intent was to have big box facilities in Great `Northern. W. Gareau advised there is a percentage of this shopping center that is located within a half mile of a freeway, but it is not quite 60 percent. M.T. Barrow added this type of shopping center attracts big box stores. Ms. Canwright advised she is not here to oppose the superstore but had concerns about truck traffic which is expected to increase with the superstore. Mr. Maloney explained this was something discussed in detail at planning commission , and he requested that Mr. Barrow shed some light on the agreement that was reached. W. Barrow explained heavy 5