02/04/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED "TOGETIiER WE CAN MAK]E A DIFFRENCE" BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES -g'EBRUARY 4, 1999 I.. ROLL CALL: Chairman Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman, R. Gomersall, Commissioners, J. Maloney, J. Konold, and W. Kremzar. ALSO PRESENT: Law Director, M. Gareau, Building Commissioner, D. Conway, and Clerk of Commissions, D. Rote. ABSENT: Commissioner, T. Koberna II. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES: J. Konold moved to approve the December 3, 1999 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by, J. Maloney, and unanimously approved. Motion Carried. Chauman Gomersall advised that each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. Law Director, Gareau made the following statement: Currently on tonight's docket there are three cases dealing with variances for pole signs. Those individuals that are here dealing withpole signs need to be informed, that there is currently a federal court order that does not permit this board to deny a variance solely on the bases that the pole signs have been prohibited by the current law within the City of North Olmsted. I have instructed the members of the Planning Commission as legal council that they are to review any request for variances dealing with pole signs, as if they were ground signs, so that is the standard that they will use. At the same time they are to take into consideration the factors for an area variance which are: "The factors to be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area variaiice has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property which includes, but are not limited to; (1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; (2) Whether the variance is substantial; (3) Whether die essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services )e.g., water, sewer, garbage); (5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; (6) Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; - (7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance." Mr. Gareau suggested the above standards apply for all applicants requesting variances tonight. With respect to the pole sign request, if a variance is granted, as part of the motion to grant the variance the following provision will be read and added to the record; This variance is granted only as to the specific relief requested. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and has agreed not to enforce its prohibition against pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Should the lawsuit resolve in favor of the City, your pole sign will be unlawfully non-conforming under City law and will have to be removed unless you obtain another variance at that time. Mr. Gareau suggested in the same manor if a vote.is taken on the request for a variance on a pole sign and it is denied, obviously that pole sign is presently there the following will apply. The denial of this variance was based on factors other than the fact that your sign is a pole sign. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and you are permitted to retain your pole sign because of the City's agreement not to enforce its prohibition on pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Therefore, you may keep your existing pole sign, without altering it in any way, or you can bring your sign into compliance with all other requirements of the Sign Code, such as maximum size, maximum lot signage, and so forth, without any further need for a variance from this Board. Mr. Gareau suggested it was important that everyone present understand that when those cases come before this board that is the criteria the Planning Commission will use to make it's determination. 1. Suburban Auto Body, 26618 Brookpark Road Ext.: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of renovating front facade, with new entrance and drive-through estimation bay, along with redesigning the parking lot, and landscaping. Note: A special permit is needed as the existing building is a non conforming building. Heard by Planning Comrrzission on January 12, 1999,. The following variances are requested.