12/02/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant requested a variance for full coverage of a window sign, seeking to cover 100% of the window area, which exceeds the 33% limit set by code. The reason for the request was that the windows currently cover construction materials inside the store, making them unsightly without the signage. The building department noted that Spectrum was in violation of the code but had approached the issue proactively, seeking a solution. They explained that the sign was necessary to conceal equipment behind the window, which, if uncovered, would be visually unappealing. The building department had recently sent out advisory letters to businesses, including Spectrum, to inform them of window sign violations. Some businesses had already reduced coverage to comply with the code. Spectrum's window signs, which had been installed after a store renovation, were not compliant with the code's 33% window coverage limit, and a variance was required to keep the signs as is. The discussion included consideration of past code changes and enforcement challenges. The law director explained that the sign code had been updated a few years ago, and that the entire sign, including vinyl coloring, was considered part of the coverage. The board members agreed that the current sign covered an entire window but was justified.due to the construction inside the window. It was noted that the variance would apply regardless of the business occupying the space. The discussion -concluded with a recognition that the variance, if granted, would remain in effect for future tenants of the space. The board emphasized the importance of businesses following proper procedures to comply with the code, which had not been strongly enforced in the past. The variance would _allow Spectrum to maintain the window signage as long as the functional need for the coverage remained. Mr. Kovach motioned to approve 195-2024; Kathy Clarke; 24910 Lorain Rd. Spectrum; seconded by Ms. Patton. The discussion began with acknowledgment of the unique situation presented, which was seen as creating a hardship, and support was expressed for granting the variance. One member expressed that while the situation seemed to meet the criteria for hardship, the difficulty lay in the potential long-term implications, as the variance would apply to the property and not just the current use. Despite this concern, they supported the variance based on the current circumstances and hardship. Another member agreed, noting that the business was seeking compliance with the city's recently enacted code, marking this as the first time the board had addressed such an issue. They expressed support for the business's efforts to satisfy the city code and voiced their backing for the variance request. Motion Passed: 4-0 COMMUNICATIONS 0