10/01/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Subaru logo, Subaru name and Ganley name required on the building. There is also a service sign over each service door to identify their entrances. Ms. Rudolph asked why the Subaru name and logo were not combined into one sign and Mr. Lisy said Subaru require the signs be separated. Ms. Rudolph said she would prefer a single service sign used between the two bays. Mr. Lisy noted that they were allowed a wall sign along the west elevation but chose not to place a sign there to ensure the abutting residents were buffered. A brief discussion ensued as to the locations of all existing signage and proposed signage. Mr. Durbin noted that if each dealership was on a separate lot they would each be allowed a ground sign, however as the three dealerships are combined into one lot a variance is needed for the new ground sign. Mrs. Sergi questioned if any of the existing ground signs would be removed or refaced and Mr. Durbin said all existing ground signs would remain as is. Mrs. Sergi pointed out that Subaru was already identified on a ground sign. Mr. Lisy said that the distance between the two ground signs was significant and only three of the wall signs identified the dealership. The total square footage of all five signs is 97 square feet which is less than what would be allowed by code for one wall sign with a building frontage of 189 feet. Mr. Mitchell reviewed each wall sign proposed and noted that the Ganley and service signs would not be illuminated. Mr. Durbin said they would remove one of the service signs and center the other service sign over the two doors. Mr. Mitchell said that the applicant worked to minimize the variances needed and have tried to make sure there would be no adverse impact upon the abutting neighbors by moving the building forward, forgoing a wall sign on the west elevation and decreasing the size of all wall signs to ensure the total square footage of all signs didn't exceed 100 square feet. Ms. Rudolph questioned why the lot consolidation was needed and Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the applicants consolidated the lots to eliminate a number of variances and minimize the number of variances needed throughout the site. He advised the board to, condition approval upon lot consolidation approval and note the owner forgoes the right to place a wall sign on the west elevation. Mrs. Sergi questioned the nuxnber of display cars along the front of the site and Mr. Lisy reviewed that there would be 4 cars displayed arid all other parking spaces along the front would be reserved for customers. Mr. Mitchell requested the board restrict the displays allowed to 4 and require they be on concrete slabs and appropriately landscaped. Mr. Lisy said there would be three displayed cars at the southwest corner of the site and only one near the main point of egress. The board had a lengthy discussion regarding whether or not a third ground sign was warranted due to the wall signs being so close to the road and recognition on another ground sign. The board felt that there should only be one wall sign along Lorain with a monument sign or forgo the monument sign and have the additional3 wall signs. Ms. Rudolph said the front setbacks, vehicle displays and three additional wall signs were warranted but an additional ground sign wasn't. Mr. Mitchell said the applicant could remove the existing directional sign at the VW lot and install a new ground sign as they were already granted an additional ground sign. Mr. Lisy felt the ground sign was warranted due to the size of the entire lot and one of the grounds signs being a directional sign. Mrs. Diver said the variances requested were substantial three ground sings are not warranted and the business could continue to receive a reasonable return without the ground sign. Also without a third ground sign the wall signs are warranted for building identification purposes and 6