12/04/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

item was the only variance required, the applicant would not be before the board. It is not an issue. Mr. Maloney mentioned the variance for additional ground signs. There was discussion about the height. Mr. Chuppa said they want those signs for visibility. He said a 2 foot sign will not be seen if there is snow. Mr. Kremzar said a 4 foot sign would block the vision of cars coming out of the lot. Mr. Gnat said he believes the signs are set back from the curb cut far enough so it doesn't impede vision. Mr. Conway said he sees no need for two signs out on the sidewalk. They are for direction on the interior of the lot and have no business being out on Lorain. They have two driveways in and can cross the front of the building to go from one side to the other. If it was one way in or one way out, that would be different. He suggested the board give the applicant some direction as the applicant said he is not in a position to negotiate. The board can tell him what it does not like and have him take it back to the drawing board. The board discussed requests #5 and #6 which involve ground signs. IO'Ir. Kremzar suggested the board inform the applicant that it does not like the 20 feet, it does not like the 4 pylons in the front, and it does not like the "North Olmsted" on the sign. Mrs. Sergi mentioned that the 7 foot "pre-Owned" sign is too big. There was further discussion about adjusting the variance requests one by one. Mr. Maloney said the board is agreeing that the ground sign should be 12 feet high instead of 20 feet. No variance would be needed. Mr. Maloney referred to the ground signs on Lorain. Mr. Conway pointed out if the ground signs are put on the site, the applicant still needs a variance because only one ground sign is permitted. It is up to the board to work with the applicant to see if there is another location that is acceptable. Mr. O'Malley pointed out that changing one or two variances may have an impact on the other variance requests. Mr. Convvay said they should eliminate #8 and #6 and #7 can be reduced or eliminated. Mr. Maloney said they could table the proposal and have the applicant come back at the next meeting. Mr. Gnat said they have no agreement on anything right now. Mr. Kelly suggested they vote on the #7 variance and require a 12 foot high sign. Mr. Maloney asked Mr. Conway if the variance would not be needed at this time if the applicant went for the 12 foot height on the ground sign on Lorain. Mr. Conway said that would be correct. Mr. O'Malley said if the applicant decided he was going to stand on his pre-existing, non-conforming pole sign, and continue to request variances from the board for some of the other matters, it might have a dramatic affect on what the board is willing to approve. The company probably does not want to have its new look on the buildings and the old look on the pole sign. He said perhaps if the applicant rearranged or went back to the drawing board they might come back and be down to 2-3 variances instead of 8. Mr. Gnat said with regard to the 12 foot sign, they pushed for a taller sign because of the semi-trucks traveling on Lorain. It is possible that many people would miss the Nissan sign. Mr. Kelly again suggested the board vote on item #7. 1VIre Conway said he believes the applicant made the representation he can't negotiate that. Mr. Chuppa said when they are talking about removing several signs, lowering a sign 8 feet, taking "North Olmsted" off the building, that's more than a few changes. There was further discussion about reducing the existing 20 foot pole to 12 feet. Mr. Chuppa said he will take that information back to United Auto Group. Mr. Maloney said if the applicant is agreeable, he would like to table the matter until the next meeting, to give them a chance to go over the variances. They have heard what the board wants and this gives them a chance to come back. If they want to move forward with the pole sign on Lorain Road, and they are within code, they will not need approval for that. The applicant said that is fine. J. Maloney made a motion to table the Nissan application until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by N. Sergi and unanimously approved. MOTION CARRIED. THE PROPOSAL IS TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. The clerk announced that the board does not meet in January. The next scheduled meeting will take place on Thursday, February Sth. Notices will be sent out. 7). Carnegie Management & Development Corporation, Parcel E: (WRD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a Retail/Housing development. The following variances are requested: 6