Laserfiche WebLink
c <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance for 2 temporary projects signs for a tenant (none <br />allowed for in code). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.12( fl. Please note: signs will not <br />conform to requirements for a temporary development sign for the entire project. 1) one sign is 28 <br />square feet and the other is 16 square feet larger than allowed; both signs are 3 feet 6 inches higher <br />than allowed; and setback for each sign encroaches by 10 feet into the required setback. <br />Chau7nan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to <br />Mr. Scherette, Circuit City, and neighbors, Mr. Hoelter, Mr. Herbster, and Mr. and Mrs. <br />Meadows. Mr. Scherette presented pictures of the signs wluch are installed at another location. <br />Mr. Gomersall explained the requests for both signs. Mr. Scherette offered to elimiuate some of <br />the variances for setbacks and size. He explained that one of the reasons they wanted the signs was <br />to identify that the buildang was being built aud more importantly to advertise employment <br />opportuuities. Finding qualified people to staffthe store has been a problem in the past and some <br />stores have not opened on time, because they did not have qualified employees. The signs would <br />be between the two entrances on'Lorain Road and he would like them installed as soon as possible <br />and they would be removed about a month, or month and a half before the store opens which is <br />proposed for mid or late October. Mr. Gomersall noted that would be roughly 4 months and that <br />one sign is 6 by 10 foot and one is 6 by 8 foot. Building Commissioner Conway clarified that 5 <br />foot would be the maximum height for a development sign and a required setback is 10 feet. Mr. <br />Scherette agreed to place the signs behind the 10 foot setback line. Mr. Meadows suggested that <br />they could advertise for employees in the paper, and believed that everyone knew what was being <br />built. He believed that this would be setting a dangerous precedent and that they should stay within <br />the code. Mr. Hoelter questioned if there would be 8 signs, since four stores are going in. Mrs. <br />Meadows believed that all the businesses will waut signs and the area is congested enough without <br />these signs. Mr. Scherette responded that these are not shabby looking sigus and clarified that <br />there would be a 1-800 number for hiring, and then they would set up a hiring camp. He again <br />stated that many qualified people could not pass their tests. Mr. Gomersall advised that he would <br />not be opposed to one 4 by 5 foot sign advertising an employment opportuuity, but he believed <br />that it should not go up until mid July. Mr. Koberna suggested allowing the sign for a 60 day <br />period prior to opening. It was pointed out that they would be stocking before opening and before <br />getting a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Conway clarified that they had to have their stocking done <br />iu order to check aisle width, etc., before an occupancy certificate could be issued. Mr. Hoelter has <br />some concerns about other issues which he will address with Mr. Conway privately. Mr. Purper <br />stated that was an unusual circumstance so a 60 day period uught be acceptable, and it was agreed <br />that the 60 day limitatiou should start as soon as,the sigu is iustalled, but there should only be one <br />4 by 5 foot sign. Mr. Maloney quoted the code wluch stated that for a temporary project sign <br />could be installed for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Conway clarified that this was not a <br />temporary project sign, a temporary project sigu would be for the entire development and would <br />state the owner, the architect, the builder, etc. Tlus sign is for one tenant in a development. Mr. <br />Scherette asked if the 4 by 5 sign could be 6 foot lugh (2 feet off the ground). This would not <br />create a visibility problem if it were 10 feet back. Mr. Conway, cautioned that there would <br />probably be tlree more such requests from the other tenants so the board should make a <br />determination as to where these signs should be located. Mr_ Maloney believed that all these signs <br />should be in line and their actual placement should be up to the owner of the building. Mr. Conway <br />noted*that all four permanent signs would be heard at the next meeting. Mr. Scherette was advised <br />that. he could apply for an extension and the neighbors were advised that they would be notified <br />whenever a variance is requested. R. Goinersall moved to grant the request to Circuit City 27250 <br />Lorain Road, for a variance for one 4 by 5 foot temporary project sign for a tenant for a period not <br />4