Laserfiche WebLink
.. y • <br />? CIT'Y OF NORTB[ OLMSTED <br />"T'OGETHER `VE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE'° <br />BOAI2I) OF ZONING APPEALS <br />MINUTES - OC'TOBER 7, 1999 <br />7:30 PM. <br />I. ROLL CAi,L: <br />Chairman CUomersall called the meeting to order at 7:35pm. <br />PRESENT: Chairman, R. Gomersall, Board members, J. Konold, J. Maloney and W. Kremzar. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Law Director, M. Gareau, Building Commissioner, D. Conway, Clerk of <br />Commissions, D. Rote, and Sites student, James McCraw. <br />ABSENT: Board member, T. Koberna. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MIN-[JTES: The Board of Zoning and Appeals minutes of <br />September 2, 1999 have been submitted for review. <br />J. Maloney moved to amend case # 9's roll call of the motion too show: J. Konold; yes, W. <br />Kremzar; yes and T. Koberna: abstained. The motion was seconded by, J. Konold and unanimously <br />approved. <br />Chairman Gomersall advised that each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to <br />itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting <br />properties and like situations elsewhere. <br />Chairman Gomersall announced that at the council meeting of September 21, 1999, it was proposed <br />that council members, administrative staff and residents who attend council meetinigs beginning in <br />October and running through December bring can food to donate to the City rood bank. Human <br />Resources Director, D. Copeland has endorsed this program as the food bank often runs low this <br />time of the year. <br />Mr. Gomersall indicated that there would be three cases involving pole signs and wanted everyone <br />to understood the following information: 1. If variances are granted; this variance is granted only as <br />to the specific relief requested. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and has agreed <br />not to enforce its prohibition against pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Should the lawsuit <br />resolve in favor of the City, your pole sign will be unlawfully non-conforming under City law and <br />will have to be removed unless you obtain another variance at that time. 2. The denial of this <br />variance was based on factors other than the fact that your sign is a pole sign. The City is currently <br />involved in a federal lawsuit and you are permitted to retain your pole sign because of the City's <br />agreement not to enforce its prohibition on pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Therefore, you <br />may keep your existing pole sign, without altering it in any way, or you can bring your sign into <br />compliance with all other requirements of the Sign Code, such as maximum size, maximum lot <br />signage, and so forth, without any further need for a variance from this Board. He indicated that he <br />would refer back to this statement for each sign proposal. <br />III. BUII,DING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />l. Columbia Land Development; 4647 Great Northern Blvd: <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of adding a third, goods logo. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1) A third goods logo variance for excessive number of goods, (code permits 2 applicant shows 3). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1163.03 a 1 c).