|
Council, Normans talk
by John Morris EAST TAWAS - A year after both sides attempted to resolve the long-uncompleted Norman Corporation building exterior, it appeared at Monday’s East Tawas City Council meeting the issue is no closer to being resolved.
“It’s get off the pot time,” said Councilman Tim Freel. “Something needs to be done.”
Freel said the city “had articulated a resolution over a year ago” on the steps the business needs to take. Freel said he sent a letter in May 2006 to the attorney representing the business, outlining those steps.
Freel also reiterated the city’s position that Norman’s use of placards on the building is in violation of the city’s sign ordinance.
Timothy Sullivan, Norman’s director of development, hand delivered a letter to City Manager Ron Leslie and the city council at Monday’s meeting. Stanley Firkser, Norman Corporation owner, also attended the meeting.
The letter is nearly identical to the one Norman’s Corporation submitted to the city on March 2, 2006.
“We are here to again renew our position, in a friendly effort to reach conclusion to the missing storefront sign at Norman’s,” Sullivan said in the letter dated Monday.
“We seek once more to offer to complete the building exterior with the sign detail as submitted to Judge Richard Ernst, dated Feb. 9, 2001, drawn by Harmon Sign of Toledo, Ohio.”
Sullivan said the business is prepared to complete the building under a five-step process:
The three canopy sign faces as submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and as approved by Judge Ernst, renditions dated Feb. 9, 2001.
“We would erect them as soon as soon as we can, within a reasonable period of time and complete the building exterior subsequent to city permit issuance,” Sullivan said.
The canopy sign faces including the north or parking lot side, can only be installed subsequent to the construction of bollards on the north side of the building.
Sullivan said the business is prepared to complete the building under a five-step process:
The three canopy sign faces as submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and as approved by Judge Ernst, renditions dated Feb. 9, 2001.
“We would erect them as soon as soon as we can, within a reasonable period of time and complete the building exterior subsequent to city permit issuance,” Sullivan said.
The canopy sign faces including the north or parking lot side, can only be installed subsequent to the construction of bollards on the north side of the building.
Sullivan said the bollards are key and must be in place prior to the sign be erected to avoid damage to the sign face and building sign frame. “The bollard plan is the one previously submitted and would be installed and maintained by Norman’s,” he said.
Upon completion of the canopy sign faces, Sullivan said Norman’s would remove the placard signs which are presently on the exterior walls. “We would retain the historical and existing Norman’s signs on the vertical canopy columns and rolling racks,” Sullivan said.
The time frame to complete the building must be sensitive to the weather as key elements of the installation, cleanup and repair can only be undertaken in warm weather conditions.
“We ask that you recognize that weather conditions will affect the pace of work, especially with regard to the cleanup of canopy openings and preparations that are needed to complete the exterior,” he said.
The existing soffit lighting will be maintained.
However, Freel said the business needs to follow the necessary steps by again going through the city application process.
Meaning that the business will need to take its sign request first to the planning commission for approval. If that is denied, then Norman’s will need to seek a sign variance from the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
But Sullivan said Norman’s isn’t “keen to jump through a number of hoops and attend a number of meetings. “We don’t want to repeat the same steps,” he said.
“Then why are you offering the same steps,” Freel asked.
Mayor Bruce Bolen said the city is in a catch-22 situation. “We’re sitting here waiting to see if you’re going to go through the planning commission, ZBA process,” he said. “And you’re here thinking we’re going to turn it down.”
“We are firm in our position that this represents the path to completion of the structure and avoids further legal expense to the city, while moving this issue forward,” Sullivan said in the letter.
Norman’s original request for a 600-square-foot sign for the building’s facade. The city originally approved the request in the early 1990s, but the business missed the deadline to finish the project and later came back with a larger sized sign, which eventually was denied by the city’s ZBA.
A city ordinance calls for signs no more than 100-square-feet.
The issue was tied up in courts for about a decade while the building remains unfinished.
|
|
