01/22/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Yager thought that taking out the asphalt would not be too expensive a.nd. suggested that the board just tell the developer what to do. Mr. Zergott responded that he has seen projects that were never built, because there was too much cost involved. Mr. Flinn explained the way the cars would circulate on the site. It was agreed that they needed one entrance on Barton and both entrances on Lorain Road. Mr. Flinn asked if the city would convert the asphalt tree lawn to grass, but it was noted that grass usually dies when they salt the streets. Mr. Orr agreed to add more landscaping on Barton Road. T. Gallagher moved to accept the proposal for Paletta's Auto Trim, 30514 Lorain Road, to construct an addition to their building with the following suggestions: that the brick will be covered with vertical panels; that one apron be removed on the northwest side of Barton Road, in order to install a mounded landscaping bed, and this plan should be submitted to Mr. Zergott for his review; the two entrauces on Lorain Road will remain; that the colors be softened, either with a deeper gray block and a lighter gray siding or some complimentary colors; the lighting can remain as is. The motion was seconded by T. Liggett. Roll call on motion: Gallagher, Liggett, Zergott, yes. Mr. Yager, no. Motiou carried. Mr. Yager asked that a note be sent to planning commission that he thought this proposal was below what the city should consider a minunu.m standard and asked. that the city should pursue supporting better projects on Lorain Road since Lorain is not a back road. He does not know what this would mean, financial help, rejection, etc. This will go on to planning commission and Mr. Zergott would like to see the landscaping and would like them to bring in a final plan so the members could review it individually. After the developers left, Mr. Yager stated that he dealt with the planning commissions and architectural review boards in several other cities, and not one would have approved this project. In about a third of the cities, tlus proposal would have been rejected before even getting to the architectural review board. It was clarified that the architectural review board could recommend to planning commission that the proposal be rejected. III. SIGNS: 1) Sunnyside Toyota, 26990 Lorain Road. Logo on one Toyota pole sign. (Sunnyside logo approved previously). Two existing pole signs on property, one will be removed. Note: All non-conforming signs must be removed by January 1, 1998. Mr. Bizjak, sign contractor, explained that they were requesting to change the face of an existing pole sign from Mazda to Toyota, add.ing the logo, as well as changmg the faces of the existiug Sunnyside sign (on same pole) which will look the same as they do now. The Toyota pole sign which is the larger of the two signs will be removed, leaving only one pole sign on the site. The Toyota sign will have a red background with white copy and white logo. The Sunnyside logo had been approved previously, but they will need approval of the Toyota logo. It was clarified that this is a Mazda sign at present. Mr. Yager noted that in one year they would have to remove the pole sign down and install a ground sign. Mr. Bizjak stated that the owners believed that the visibility of the higher pole will justify the extra cost of changing the faces and later making it a ground sign. Mr. Zergott agreed. Mr. Yager did not believe that they needed the Toyota logo and after one year it wIll be gone. Mr. Liggett agreed stating that the board is trying to get the logo in the sign to accent, compliment, or blend with the sign, such as a letter style or design which would be more acceptable. These are two separate things. Mr. Yager stated that -- they could put the logo in the "O". Mr. Bizjak stated that they cannot alter the corporate trade mark. _ There is no logo on the build.ing; but since they will be refurbishing the building, they may ask for one at that time. 3