Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kalina, with Sign Company, and Mr. Lisy with Ganley each came forward to be sworn in and <br />review the request. Mr. Kalina reviewed that at the Planning & Design Commission meeting he <br />agreed to remove the VW pylon sign and discussed decreasing the size of the VW logo by 9 inches <br />however Volkswagen sent an e-mail stating the VW logo can not be reduced. Planning felt that all <br />three wall signs were fine, there was a split response to the directional sign and the pylon was turned <br />down. They have returned to the Board of Zoning Appeals requesting all the same variances except <br />a third pylon sign. The distance between the existing pylon and directional sign is 168 feet so they <br />will need a 32 foot variance for signs to close together. <br />Mrs. Diver stated that the board has voiced their frustrations regarding multiple wall signs with Mr. <br />Kalina in the past and asked why he keeps returning asking for multiple wall signs when he knows <br />the board's frustration. She questioned why the applicant was choosing not to follow the City <br />Planners recommendations of decreasing the size of both the logo and the Ganley sign and placing <br />them one above the other over the entrance. Furthermore the applicant is saying there have been <br />changes yet there are no plans showing the changes. Mr. Kalina stated that the signs are very small <br />and he is under a corporate mandate as to how the building and signs have to look and neither <br />Ganley or himself designed what is before the commission. Mrs. Diver questioned how Volkswagen <br />believes that they can dictate that there will be only one size sign in every city in the US that 'has a <br />Volkswagen dealership. The business must fit into the city not visa versa and she is getting tired of <br />hearirig the same thing. <br />Mr. Kalina presented a photo from the Volkswagen manual of a proto type building located in <br />Flori da. He said that if the Ganley sign is not allowed there will be no recognition for the owner and <br />commented that the owners were spending millions of dollars putting the dealership in North <br />Olmsted and they want their name on the building. The Ganley sign could not be placed under the <br />logo as suggested due to the fact that the entrance wall is curved and the building design is based on <br />the iocation of the owners sign placement. Mrs. Diver suggested curving the signs to fit the <br />entrance. Mr. Lisy suggested that as the owner he has no choice or say in the building or signs it is <br />dictated by Volkswagen. Mrs. Sergi asked what would happen if the commission denied all the <br />variances being requested. Mr. Lisy said then there would be a VW logo only on the building. <br />Furthermore if they do not have and place the signage Volkswagen says to have then they will not <br />receive any funds from Volkswagen for their building. This location is the 80th location undergoing <br />the construction of a new building. Mrs. Diver questioned if a1179 other cities allowed those dealers <br />to have and place signs as they are being submitted in North Olmsted. Mr. Lisy suggested he did not <br />know what was and wasn't allowed in other Cities. Board members voiced that they agreed with the <br />City Planner that the Ganley sign should be resized to fit beneath the VW logo. <br />Mr. Maloney read aloud page 22 from the Volkswagen Headquarter handbook submitted which <br />stated that all primary signage is subject to local ordinances and that in the event a sign is not <br />permitted by local ordinances the Volkswagen Corporate identification team would work with the <br />Dealer on an approved custom solution. Therefore there should be no reason why the applicant can <br />not comply with what the city is asking and place the Ganley sign under the VW logo. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk advised that if the Ganley sign was decreased in size and placed to fit (within 2 feet) <br />beneath the logo then the applicants would require one additional wall sign instead of two as well as <br />a height variance for the two signs stacked over each other. He advised that if there are any changes <br />made to what is currently shown in the applicants plans then the applicants are required to submit <br />new plans for the Building Department to review and provide the board with an accurate write-up. <br />Mr. O'Malley reviewed the Planning & Design Commissions charge versus the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals charge and advised the board that they are not controlled or have to follow the <br />4