03/09/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTFi OLMSTED BOARD OF ZODTING APPEALS MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1994 Chairman Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: M. Boyle, T. Koberna, J. Ma.loney, W. Purper, and R. Gomersall. Also Present: Law Director Gareau, Building Commissioner Conway and Clerk of Commissions Oringo W. Purper moved to approve the minutes of January 19, 1994, seconded by J. Maloney, and unanimously approved. Chairman Gomersall advised those present that each of the board members had viewed the premises involved in each case and that 3 affirmative votes would be required for approval. Each case would be Judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself so that in no way is a judgement rendered considered to be a general policy judgement affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. Elias Brothers Restaurants, Inc., 26770 Lorain Road. Request for ruling (1123.08). Request ruling, that the correctness of the Building Official's determination that the Big Boy statue is a sign and must be appealed under Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11(A) and 1163.12(b). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Berman, an attorney representing Elias Brothers, who explained that he had no lmowledge of the first request to keep the big boy statue outside, this was before Elias Brothers owned the property. He apologized if putting the statue autside offended the citya He further advised that they do not feel that having the statue outside is in violation of the sign ordinance. He maintained that the statue is unlike anything that will be seen in other businesses. They have gone to court over this in other cities. He maintained that the statue is not a sign and he could find no definition that would indicate it was a sign. This might be considered an identification sign, however that is defined as as something that includes the name and address of the building which this does not do. This could not be considered an informational sign, an organizational sign, and it is not a nameplate. He understood why the city might ticket this and consider it a sign, but it is not a sign. Mr. Gomersall directed him to Section 1153.03 which reads "any display, figure, painting, drawing, placard, poster, or other device visible from a public way". Mr. Berman responded that, in that case, anything that draws attention to a business and gives a patron the understanding that this is a Big Boy, a Taco Bell, a Pizza Hut, or a Red Roof Inn" wauld be considered a sign. , He maintained that the Pizza Hut and Taco Bell buildings could be considered a sign, since even without a sign, people would recognize the building. He believed that the definition Mr. Gomersall read would be too broad to stand up in court. Another court had ruled that a city must specify a statue, this term is too broad. Mr. Gomersall disagreed. Mr. Berman stated then that the alternative would be to grant a variance for a sign and noted that it was close to the building, as opposed to being aut near the street, and could not be considered a bother since it is barely visible from the street. He believed that if the board viewed this as a sign, they would be taking a broad definition of the term "figure" thus a building might be considered a sign because of its appearance. Mr. Maloney stated that he considered this the same as the McDonald "M" which is a symbol or an emblem and he considers it a sign. Law Director Gareau asked the Building Commissioner's rationale for his determination. Mr. Conway replied. that he based his determination on the 1