BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 AUGUST 1995

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwoman Marge Boice, William Mitchell, Thomas

Schecker, Councilwoman Kathy McNear, and Chairman

Ralph Nadaud.

Members Absent: Secretary Wilton Blake (out of town) and James Young

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 18 JULY 1995

Mrs. McNear moved for adoption and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five

affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 7A - July 15, 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 8 - August, 1995

C. 7/26 Letter to C.A. "Ike" Kauffman re Expiration of Variance T-6-1993

(Kauffmans wish to renew-on vacation-to September 19 meeting)

D. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice - no report

E. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Blake is not present, but I have a copy of his report which we all received and will be adopted.

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. RSL Architecture Requests Variance to Allow Parking Space Width of

8í6" at Executive Plaza I & II, 134 & 144 Merchant Street. Variance is Requested from Section 153.123 which indicates a required 9í minimum width parking stall (tabled 7/18/95)

Mr. Anthony Ravagnani stated we have two buildings at Executive Plaza. Building II has 100% occupancy and Building I is about 30 or 40% right now. We have a lot of potential tenants for Building I, but some of them are concerned with the amount of parking we have. Right now Building II takes up all this parking and a good portion of the middle section. We are requesting to be allowed to add one or two spots in some of the longer aisles, taking the width of them below they 9 foot requirement to 8í6". What it does in most cases is have spaces that are 8í9" or 8í10" 8í6" would be the minimum. We have 806 spaces and we could gain 26 spaces. It doesnít seem like a lot, but it could be important in the end if we gain full occupancy in this building. Mr. Nadaud asked if the addition of 26 extra spaces would satisfy the potential tenants? Mr. Ravagnani answered that is hard to answer. We are taking educated guesses as to how many we need. It would be better if we could get more, but going down below that 8í6" would be unacceptable; you couldnít make that work, and beyond that, we are fairly landlocked, so that is our immediate option.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Two

V A EXECUTIVE PLAZA I & II 144 MERCHANT ST. PARKING SPACE WIDTH

Mr. Mitchell commented you are saying educated guess; what is that guess based on? Mr. Ravagnani answered talking to potential tenants and what their requirements are. Some of them are based on businesses that may have more people per square foot than some of the tenants we have right now. If it was a small office, you might have three or four people, but if you have a bigger office, you might have more need for spaces. Mr. Mitchell continued of the parking spaces, what percentage would be needed for permanent parking spaces for the employees? If you have 600 employees in the building, and everyone drove a car, you would have 600 parking spaces occupied so for any people who would come up to do business at the building, you would have available 226 spaces. Mr. Ravagnani responded I donít have that information right now; I can get it.

Mrs. Boice asked if it was his intention to adjust all the parking spaces, or just some? Mr. Ravagnani answered not all of them; in some cases, we have concrete islands and weíre not attempting to take out any of those. In the shorter runs, you canít do it, because you would have to go down below 8í6". Mrs. Boice said to get the extra 26, how many of the present parking spaces will be affected? Mr. Ravagnani responded probably half of the total, and those half would be between 8-6" and 8-10". Mrs. Boice commented Iím not trying to be difficult, but there is a vagueness here. Mr. Ravagnani added I donít have those totals, but in looking at the drawing, about half of the spaces have been marked with plus one or plus two. I can get you an exact number if you wish.

Mrs. McNear said are you saying that you will restripe the entire parking lot surrounding both buildings? Mr. Ravagnani confirmed this, and Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane the dimensions of the parking spaces at Tri-County Mall. Mr. McErlane reported that they are eight and one-half feet. They are the only parking lot in Springdale like this, and they also double stripe those to help people center up in the parking space. Mrs. McNear commented I find those tight spaces to get into, so that would give you a point of reference of what we are looking at for this parking lot.

Mr. Nadaud reported I measured at Tri-County and a couple of other places, and most of those that I measured are 8í10" center to center. I guess the stipulation was 8í6" and I agree with you; they do seem very tight. My concern is that people spend a lot of money for their automobiles and then have to park in these tight little places. I would assume that your agency considers this a vital request in order to secure new tenants at that building?

Mr. Ravagnani answered they have expressed a great interest in having this done. Mrs. Boice asked if there were a tenant pending that has triggered this request? Mr. Ravagnani answered there is one tenant that probably would take up the whole third floor of the one building, which would be 28-30,000 square feet. Mrs. Boice asked the number of employees for that tenant, and Mr. Ravagnani reported that he did not.

Mrs. McNear stated I have a problem with the eight and one-half feet. I think that is too small. If we could get them closer to 8í10", I would not have much of a problem. I work in a building where we have parking problems, and I know what a hassle it can be. I would hate to see us get into a situation where we have another large piece of property with parking spaces that are so tight.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Three

V A EXECUTIVE PLAZA I & II 134 & 144 MERCHANT ST. PARKING SPACE WIDTH

Mr. Nadaud stated we could go ahead and vote on your request to allow 8í6". If the Board voted not to allow that request, you would have to wait another six months before you could request another variance. At this point of time you may want to consider another option such as what Mrs. McNear suggested, changing your request to 8í10".

Mr. Ravagnani responded it may be better to try and see if we can rework it a little bit, maybe get a little bit more information on how many people would be involved, the total number of employees.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he would prefer to table this, and Mr. Ravagnani answered that he would. The matter will be tabled to September 19th

VI NEW BUSINESS

A. Kenneth W. Randolph, 510 Smiley Avenue Requests Variance to

Allow the Construction of a New Deck on the Front of Residence.

Variance is Requested from Section 153.037(B) "..may extend six

feet into a front yard."

Mr. Randolph stated I built an 8í x 10í wood deck porch at my residence, and I was 75% done when one of the inspectors came by and let me know it was only supposed to go out six feet. I had gone out eight feet so I came down here for a variance.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he had a permit, and Mr. Randolph answered no, I did not know I needed a permit. I was putting it around a 5í x 6í cement slab.

Mrs. McNear commented I went by the property and the deck is already there and it looks nice. I do not have a problem with it; it looks like a great addition. I would be willing to make the motion to grant the variance. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

B. Ethel E. Keefer, 969 East Crescentville Road Requests Variance to

Allow the Construction of a Utility Shed 15í from Neighboring Residence

and 42" from her Home. Variance is Requested from Section 153.024(C) "...shall be located not less than 5 feet from main building and not less than 20 feet from..adjacent residential lot."

Mrs. Keefer stated the shed is built; I had a permit and it was put up in April, not where I wanted it. Before the inspector came out three weeks ago, I looked into having it moved. It is impossible without tearing the whole thing down. Iíve already put $1500 into it. It is a Heartland Barn. The next door neighbor has no objection to it; he hadnít even noticed it. Heartland Barns constructed it on the property; I wasnít home. It rained the day they were supposed to put it up and I couldnít take off the day they could. I had a little 6í x 6í shed there and I told them I wanted it to go at the edge of the foundation. It would have ended up 10 feet from the house and more than 20 feet from the next house. They didnít do that; they lined it up on the left hand side with the edge of the new barn which is four feet wider. I have a drainage problem there which is why I didnít want it there; now I have to spend quite a bit to get my drainage problem fixed.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Four

VI B ETHEL E. KEEFER 969 EAST CRESCENTVILLE - UTILITY SHED

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít have a problem with where the shed is at

I feel sorry for you that you didnít get your shed where you wanted it. I donít suppose the company is willing to tear it down and move it? Mr. Keefer answered no. I wasnít there, and I told them over the phone where I wanted it. I didnít go out and draw lines because there had been torrential rains, so I guess Iím as responsible as they are, because I didnít mark it. I thought they would have common sense, that you could look and see it should go here, and not here.

Mr. Schecker stated Iíve seen the shed, and considering the circumstances, and as long as your neighbor to the west doesnít object, I donít see that as a problem, so I would make a motion that we approve it. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

C. Hope Palmer, Collins Signs Requests Variance to Allow Additional Signage for Rhodes Furniture (previous Perinís Interiors) at 12000 Princeton Pike. Variance is Requested from Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "maximum gross area of signs.." and Section 153.092(E)(1) "A single wall sign shall not exceed 150 square feet total area."

Ms. Palmer stated Rob Moore is here with me this evening. Mr. Nadaud asked if the property still belongs to the Perins, and Ms. Palmer confirmed that it did, adding that Mr. and Mrs. Perin are here this evening. Mr. Nadaud asked the Perins if they had any problem with this, and Mr. Perin indicated that they did not, adding that we will continue to own the property. They have a 15-year lease on the building with options; we hope and expect that they will be there for a long time.

Mr. Nadaud said maybe you should explain to us what you would like to accomplish; we have the material and a letter given us this evening that you plan on keeping the pylon signage there. Ms. Palmer responded that is still under final discussion; we have not come to a decision, so if the Board would not mind, we would like to omit that letter and stick with the building signage tonight. Mr. Moore added the pylon is still in the developmental stages; also Staples is on the property, and they have not been included in the discussions of the pylon sign, so we would like to include them as well as look at some different ideas. We do not have concrete information to present you at this time.

Mr. Nadaud said so we are looking at a request for signs that we are going to be discussing tonight, and not the addition of the pylon sign? If at some later time you decide you wish to put the pylon up, you have to reapply; is that correct Mr. McErlane, because I believe tonightís request puts them over the allowable signage. Mr. McErlane stated if you include the pylon sign, we are talking about 100 square feet more that would be totaled into what they are presenting tonight. Mr. Nadaud continued so even though we are not discussing the pylon sign, we have to consider that as a future possibility? Mr. McErlane commented it is kind of difficult to not consider it when we donít know what the disposition of it is. The sign is there, and we donít know what might happen on the sign faces. The Zoning Code requires the sign faces to be changed within 30 days after the business is discontinued and whether or not those become blank sign faces or some other tenants, somewhere along the line this board will have to consider it, whether it be Staples or Rhodes Furniture.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Five

VI C RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE

Mr. Moore asked if it would be possible to state that we would work within the square footage and the overall height of the sign that is there now, and use that for our developing the pylon sign? Mr. McErlane said the reader board is 160 square feet on top of what is being requested. The top portion of the sign is 100 square feet, and the reader board is 60 square feet.

Mrs. Boice asked the total of the sign you are requesting tonight? Mr. Moore reported we are requesting the same signage on the front and the rear of the building. This is a photograph of the building, and we have used a computer simulation to superimpose the facade that Rhodes has planned. Mrs. Boice continued so we are looking at 242 square feet over. Mr. Mitchell added plus another 160. Mrs. Boice said I do think one thing this board has to consider when they are looking at the overage and square feet, is that the location of this building is unique compared to many of the buildings throughout Springdale. I think if anyone requires a little edge on square footage, that location probably does. Mr. Nadaud added it definitely doesnít get the exposure that a lot of businesses here in town do. So we would actually be granting 242 plus 160 feet over and above what is allowed. Mr. Schecker commented that additional includes the rear signage, and currently there is no rear signage. Ms. Collins added that signage included the pylon signage, so if we are excluding the pylon sign, we would like to ask for an additional 361 square feet for the building signage, the building alone, not to include the pylon. Mr. Moore added the 242 and 160 were combined, and working on the basis that we are going to use what is already there, the 160 for the pylon sign, then what we are focusing on is the building signs.

Mrs. McNear commented you are allowed to have 150 square feet for the building; how much additional do you want? We need to get the exact figure that you need, the overage. Mr. Moore answered it is 359 square feet; there is an existing 48 square foot sign on the side of the building, and we are asking for an additional 52 square feet there to make that an even 100 square feet. For the rear elevation signage, that sign is 307 square feet. Mrs. McNear added 307 on the front, 307 on the back, 100 on the side and 160 on the pylon. I have a problem with that. We want to help as much as we can, but I think weíll have every business in the city in here tomorrow if we grant a variance of this magnitude.

Mr. Moore stated Rhodes is adding that parapet on the rear elevation, and they are doing that for several reasons. One is because of the uniqueness of this land and the way the property sets. Not only that, they are doing it to beautify the store and create almost a block. When you are on the highway, you see the top of the roof and all the air conditioners. They are trying to create almost a mirror image of the front elevation so when you look from the interstate you see an attractive looking building. Plus, you have to look at the fact that cars are passing by at 55 miles per hour. Mrs. Boice responded you have to understand; Mr. and Mrs. Perin have been there for quite a number of years and never came in with quite this signage. Certainly we are open to give and take, but I think Mrs. McNear has made a tremendous point here. Our various business people monitor what is going on, and theyíll be standing in line next month I assure you wanting equal, which you couldnít blame them for. We need to do some adjusting because the overage is 724 square feet, and thatís a big overage.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Six

VI C. RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE

Mr. Moore said Mr. Perin indicated that he felt that at one time there was a lot more signage. From the audience, Mr. Perin stated when .Baby World and Teens was there they had a tremendously large sign on the back of the building, probably 40í x 10í plus their signs on the front plus our signs on the front, plus the pylon sign. Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Perin if they had ever maintained a sign on the side of the building, and Mr. Perin indicated that there is a 50 foot sign there right now.

Mr. McErlane reported attached to the packet is the old variance information when Baby World & Teens went in. They have a current variance for a total of 472 square feet. Mr. Nadaud reported this is dated May 18 1982 and states a panel change on the existing 5í x 20í pole sign and an 89 foot overage on sign allowance. Mr. McErlane added there is an older one than that. That one was for a panel change on the pole sign and they were required to get a variance. There is an older one probably in the late 70ís.

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít think it is the Boardís responsibility to consider what was in effect 10 or 25 years ago. We have to take into consideration what is there now, and what we are faced with as far as additional business that has come to Springdale. Many have come before this Board seeking larger signage, and we have been able to compromise with them and work out solutions to allow them additional signage without going what I consider overboard. I agree with Mrs. McNear that we may want to review this and you may want to step down and review this for a while and see if you can come up with a request that falls closer to the code or at least reduce it from what it is tonight.

Mr. Moore responded if we were to reduce one of the elevations, either the front or the rear depending on which one Rhodes and Mr. Perin would feel needs reducing, instead of a five foot set of letters down to a four foot set of letters. The square footage is what you are interested in. If we were to reduce one of those, it would take about 100 square feet off the total. It would not be the most ideal situation for Rhodes. Mr. Nadaud asked which sign that would be coming off of, and Mr. Moore answered it would be downsizing either the front or the rear elevation. The Rhodes letters are five feet tall and the furniture is 2í6". We would downsize the Rhodes to four foot and the furniture to two foot instead of 2í6".

Mrs. Boice commented I also see where you have "since 1875". That is included in the measuring; is there any way you can drop that? Mr. Moore answered if Rhodes is not the oldest furniture retailer, they are one of the oldest, and that is one of their major marketing strategies. Not only that, but they are the fourteenth largest furniture retailers in the country, and this is a flagship store for them. They are coming into the Cincinnati market and are planning on four or five locations and want Springdale store to be their flagship store because of the reputation you have. They use that in all their television ads so "since 1875" is really a key.

Mrs. Boice continued so you are talking about reducing the size of the Rhodes in the front and back by 100 square feet, so we would be knocking off 200 square feet at this point. Mr. Moore answered I really

meant just one or the other for a total of 100 square feet. Mrs. Boice said so that would bring us down to 774 square feet.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

15 August 1995

Page Seven

VI C RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE

Mrs. McNear said instead of using the 307 square foot sign on the back of the building, would you consider using the 100 square foot sign you have on the side, use it on the side as well as the rear? That would give us a reduction too.

Mr. Moore responded we thought about that, anticipating what you might say. We came up this afternoon and looked at the location, and because of the proximity of the building to the road, and the speed of the traffic, it would not be properly identified with letters that small. They really need to be larger so that the motoring public can read them.

Mrs. Boice said Iím trying to get that other 100, which would bring us down to 674, which I wouldnít say is totally palatable, but is better. Would you consider reducing both front and back in that manner? Mr. Moore responded I think that would be acceptable. Thatís not exactly what they are asking for, but we can twist the arms of the right people and probably get them to go along with that. If that would be acceptable to the Board, I think that would be fine.

Mrs. Boice said so it would be down to 674 square feet, with 100 square feet on the side, and that is including the pylon. Technically, they arenít the only one on that pylon, but we still have to consider the total.

Mr. Schecker stated I am curious about the front presentation. How does that compare with the current square footage that is out there? Mr. Moore answered it is approximately 261 square feet, and this is 214 square feet. Mr. Nadaud said so this would be smaller than the existing? Mr. Moore answered on the front elevation, yes.

Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Perin the size of the sign on the side of your building right now? Mr. Perin answered it is 5í x 14í. Mr. Moore added I think it is just a little over 4í x 12í, roughly 50 square feet.

Mr. Schecker commented my observation is that the sign on the side is disproportionately small to the building. A larger sign on the side would make the building look nicer.

Mrs. Boice said what I am looking at is to bring the square footage down. What the Perins have there now has always seemed to me to be quite adequate. I understand it from the aesthetic point of view, but it still leaves us with 674 square feet. Iím trying to find some other square footage to eliminate here.

From the audience, Mrs. Perin suggested that they take the existing side panel that we have that is disproportionate looking to the building, and you put Rhodes on it. Keep that existing cabinet the same size and then do what they want to on the front and the back. Mrs. Boice commented that would drop another 50 square feet. Mr. Nadaud commented that is an excellent suggestion. Mrs. Perin added the Rhodes would be more effective than what we have. Mr. Nadaud commented we already gain a message from the front and back that it is Rhodes Furniture. On the side all we have to do is reinforce that with Rhodes.

Mrs. Boice commented I think Mrs. Perinís idea of using that panel, which takes us from 100 square feet to 50 square feet, and reduces the request by 250 square feet to a total of 624 square feet is a good one. Mr. Schecker added if the word furniture is not critical, that would be fine.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Eight

VI C RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE

Mr. Nadaud asked if there were more than one side sign, and Mr. Moore answered there is just one side sign. Mrs. Boice added using the panel that Mrs. Perin suggested would reduce it another 50 feet, which now brings them down to 624 square feet.

Back 207

Front 207

Side 50

Pylon 160

624 Square Feet

Mrs. Boice added this is certainly a step down from the 874 square feet originally requested. Mr. Nadaud asked how much overage is this now? Mr. Perin commented the Rhodes portion of the pylon sign would be much smaller on the pylon sign. Mrs. Boice said this is the question I had before; do we consider, because their name is on there the total 160, or do we only consider their portion, because that makes a big difference. l Mr. McErlane reported it would only be their portion. I just talked with Mr. Perin, and he is considering a new center sign, and the total sign would be 160 maximum, so they would only have a percentage of that. I donít know what kind of number they want to decide on in terms of the amount on the pole sign. Mr. Perin commented if you give them one-third of it, that would take 100 square feet off the total right now. Mr. Moore added 160 square feet divided into three would give you 53.3 square feet. So you would take 107 square feet off their total of 624, leaving 517 square feet.

Mr. Moore said on the side elevation sign, the reason we wanted 100 square feet is they have the box sign that is there now. We had discussed just replacing the face on that sign, which is what you are talking about now. In updating this building in the front and rear, to also modernize the whole look of the building side, that we would go with channel letters instead of replacing the face on the box. That is why we requested 100 square feet, because that fits. A set of channel letters is more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Palmer added that is the second sheet I passed out.

Mrs. Boice commented so what you are saying is you donít want to give up that 50 square feet. Mr. Moore said it is 5í x 19í. Mr. Nadaud asked if this sign was already made; can it be modified? Mr. Moore said it is not made, and we could kill some of the dead space, like the distance between the letters; some of that space can be condensed. Mr. Nadaud commented we were considering eliminating the word furniture on there. Mr. Moore said that is part of their registered trademark and their corporate identification. Mr. Nadaud continued but you already have it on the front and back of the building. Mr. Moore responded thatís part of what they consider their identification; they are abandoning the 1875 on the side already. Mr. Nadaud responded but not on the front.

Mrs. Boice stated let me back up here because Iíve done so many calculations.

207 Back

207 Front

53 Pylon

100 Side of Building

567 Total

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Nine

VI C RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE

Mrs. Boice said I am now getting the impression that you do not want to go with the 50 square feet. Mr. Moore said I wanted to explain to you the reason for the request for 100 square feet, and that would be optimum. Mrs. Boice responded I understand that, but I want to call your attention to the fact that if we went 207 back, 207 front, 53 on the pylon and 100 at the side of the building, it would total 567 square feet, and that is still four times over what you are allowed.

Mr. Mitchell said arenít we looking at 150 square feet per elevation?

Mr. McErlane reported for an individual wall sign the maximum is 150. Thatís one requirement, and the other is the total permanent signage, which per code is 340 square feet. There also is an existing variance for 472 square feet.

Mr. Mitchell said so we are actually looking at 85 square feet over. Mrs. McNear added but you have to keep in mind that there still is a variance; and we donít want to go hundreds and hundreds of square feet over.

Mrs. Boice commented if their side sign is reduced to 50, that would bring us down to 517 square feet, and it would be 95 square feet over the variance. I could live with that.

207 - Back

207 - Front

53 - Pylon

50 - Side

517 - Total

Mr. Nadaud said if you feel you absolutely need the 100 square feet on the side, is it possible that you could reduce the front and rear signage? Mr. Moore said they told me not to jeopardize that front and rear signage. Mrs. Boice stated I think Mrs. Perinís suggestion was a good one, and that does bring it down to 517 square feet. Mr. Moore said then let that be the final.

Mr. Nadaud commented due to the location of the building and the circumstances of where it is situated, I do not like the 517 square feet, but I can go ahead and agree with it if that is agreeable. Mr. Moore responded I think that is acceptable.

Mrs. Boice said I would move to grant a variance to Rhodes Furniture for

signage as follows:

207 s.f. Front of the Building

207 s.f. Back of the Building

50 s.f. Side of the Building

53 s.f. Pylon

517 s.f.

Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud voted aye, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

D. Rick Groenert, General Manager, Best Buy, 427 East Kemper Road Requests Variance to Allow the Hanging of a Temporary Banner for 25 Days. Said Variance is Requested from Section 153.160(3)(d) "..signs..shall in no event exceed two consecutive weeks in duration.."

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1995

Page Ten

VI D BEST BUY 427 EAST KEMPER ROAD TEMPORARY BANNER-continued

Mr. Groenert stated we would like to extend it nine extra days. We started our job fair, and where we are located it is set back so far behind Michaels you canít see it from Kemper. You almost have to get on top of us to see us. The travel sign is still there, and you couldnít see our little signs in the window. We are trying to hire 170 people. We are going to be in that location until the 25th, but we only want a nine day extension. We donít like those banners; the only time we ever use them is five days during grand opening. We will only use those banner one time; we never use them again. Our company really doesnít like them, but itís the only way you can see our job fair site behind Michaels. The banner is yellow and has our Best Buy logo in black and just says now hiring.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

VII DISCUSSION

 

VIII ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Schecker moved for adjournment and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:41 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1995 ________________________

Kathy McNear, Acting Secretary