02/06/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There is the legislative suggestion that Mr. Maloney presented that is very worthwhile but he thinks the Councilman is trying to address another point. Mr. Konold said we all know that Council is not going to do anything to hurt this City. We need the tax money, we need the business and they know this. Mr. Maloney said he would make the recommendation as presented and if they want they can present it to Council and let them take it under advisement. Mr. Kremzar asked if they should answer Mr. Nashar back saying that they will take a closer look at all cases coming before them. Mr. O'Malley replied that might be appropriate. He said they are not obliged to respond to him but they can. They could make their legislative suggestion separate and apart from any response to this memo. It could be two separate communications so it is not viewed that the board's response to his concern is to point out some legislative idea that would solve the problem. Mr. Kremzar asked if Mr. Rymarczyk had any comments. Mr. Rymarczyk said on a new development the owner himself, many times, does not know who the tenants are going to be or how many business units they are going to have within a development. It could become a factor. Mr. Kremzar asked if developers know how much they are allowed. Mr. Rymarczyk said basically, yes. Mr. Kremzar said then he knows what he can allow for each tenant. Mr. Rymarczyk said right now he uses up his 1,000 square feet of signage and he has another tenant coming in. Mr. Kremzar said then he has to reduce someone else's sign. Mr. Rymarczyk said he doesn't know how he would reduce it. Mr. Kremzar said he should be able to allocate it for each section. Mr. Rymarczyk said right but therefore, they still have the right to come before this Board to try to get a variance. He said he doesn't know what we are gaining by doing an ordinance on it. Mr. O'Malley said he believes in Westlake they built it into the Planning Coinmission process and have the sign plan as part of the development plan. What we have right now is the landlord says to any tenant, God bless you, good luck to you, go and see the Board of Zoning Appeals, the sky's the limit, and you have my full endorsement. The way Westlake does it, it puts more of a burden on the landlord to move the planning commission to modify the total sign package for the strip mall or shopping center. Now all of a sudden the landlord has some work to do and he says to the tenant you're going to have to live with the square footage that you are allotted because I don't feel like going back to Planning Commission for every tenant that comes along. Now of course the landlord will go to bat for an important tenant and try to get the modification. He said he doesn't know whether or not that provision of the code then precludes a tenant from petitioning the Board of Zoning Appeals separately but if that right still existed, the Board of Zoning Appeals could certainly inquire of an applicant did the landlord put on a sign package to the Planning Commission, has that been modified, and if it has not, the Board could take that into consideration. Mrs. Sergi said doesn't that affect new development more so than established businesses. Mr. O'Malley replied yes. Mrs. Sergi said let's take the Dollar Tree. Someone moves in next door to the Dollar Tree and signage is a problem. We don't want too many signs but this memo from Councilman Nashar basically says, say no, your business can't have any signs. Technically, can the landlord say, well Babies R Us you have to get your signs down so the guy over there can have a sign. Are we in a catch ZZ? Mr. O'Malley said it depends on the circumstance of each case that is presented to the board as to whether or not there is a hardship and there are some circumstances where the board is forced to grant a variance under a circumstance like that. Mrs. Sergi said we would lose the business. Mr. O'Malley said or the application of the law is such that their allowed to have a sign the size of a postage stamp, then there is obviously a hardship. Mr. Rymarczyk said there are shops 500 feet back from the road and a person can't see the sign from the road. Mr. O'Malley said as the board has seen, an applicant will routinely ask for twice what they are permitted by code and are quickly willing to take a lot less than what they came in asking for. Mr. Konold referred to the Promenade and said those owners know the code, they know what they are allowed to do going in. Mr. O'Malley said he thinks what Mrs. Sergi is suggesting is if we try to impose that now, can we take it and impose it at Great Northern which is already up and running, as opposed to Westlake which had the system in place, the uniformity, through the planning process from day one. He said his hunch would be that we wouldn't be able to apply a code section like this retroactively. Mrs. Sergi said to go with Mr. Maloney's comments, if we wanted to have Planning 6