02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ¦ _ _.? .. Dubelko remarked that that was a good suggestion. Mr. Asseff indicated that the thought would be to include the tenant or if the tenant of the building happened to be the owner then it would be - tenant/owner. Mr. Dubelko questioned if Mr. Asseff was suggesting change of use or occupancy and questioned what Mr. Conway thought. 1VIr. Conway indicated that the word "use" would cause problems, as in the code they only divide between retail and service, so that is an ambiguous term. I. e. a business going from a restaurant to a car dealership the use has changed even though they are both retail businesses. The word ownership also causes problems because it is talking about the owner of the building or ownership of the sign, ther-e is a gentleman that owns the sign and leases out spaces to the other tenants in the building. Mr. Dubelko questioned if the term occupancy would work better for the Building Department. W. Conway indicated that occupancy would work better. To be able to say the occupancy has change would be a clearer use. Mr. Tallon indicated that it would read that every non-conforming sign located on a property which under goes a change of occupancy shall be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of this Chapter and all other applicable City Laws. Mr. Dubelko commented that the Law Department would have to look at defining the term occupancy. All the board members agreed that there should be a definition for the term occupancy added. Mr. Dubelko remarked that he could see a scenario were a tenant goes from having one type of business to another while being in the same building. Within the scope of what the City will contend that would be considered a change of occupancy even though the same person is the owner.. If the term occupancy is not defined or not efficiently defined enough then a definition can be defined or the definition can be modified enough so that it is broad enough to cover an actual change of tenant and a change of a tenant changing business. Mr. Hreha indicated that he agreed with the business distinction, as he would hate to see a situation where one spouse owns a business and passes away. The surviving spouse would inherit the business and just take it over. He doesn't feel that would constitute a change of occupancy in his opinion, as the business would still be the same. Mr. Spalding indicated that it would have to be put in by exception. Mr. Hreha indicated that is the spouse changed the business that would be one thing but if it remained the same business there is no change in occupancy. NIr. Dubelko indicated that would be tuff, because there could be a thousand scenarios so you have to be careful when you add exceptions. If the City didn't add them all it could be read as not covering other equally valid factual scenarios. The City could look at the variance process as a means to dealing with that issue. The City has to look at reasonable code inforcement. The City should not start out assuming that the City is going to have the most strained construction of a definitional term. The Courts rule that zoning laws are to be construed against the City because they are restrictions on the use of land. So if court gets involved they will construe the terms strictly against the City. NIr. Spalding suggested there were exemptions in other sections of the code. Mr. Dubelko remarked that the City had to be careful not to open a can of worms. Dealing with only some of them could put property owners in worse situations then if the City just leaves some things to common sense. Mr. Spalding has an objection to 25%, because if an owner has a sign fall and become damaged because of a windstorm the replacement value would not allow the owner to adequately cover the cost to replace it or restore it to original condition. Mr. Asseff injected that it doesn't matter who pays for the replacement because if the cost of the repairs exceed the 25% then the sign must be made conforming. Mr. Spalding didn't think that 25% was a good number. He recommends to council that it be changed to 50%. Mr. Spalding questioned if each section would be gone over as he had made notes on different sections. Mr. Tallon answered "yes" and questioned if anyone else had comments and to please address them. Mr. Spalding addressed 1163.11 "Removal of Signs" he questions the term nuisance, what constitutes a nuisance. There is a legal definition but it 2