10/19/1981 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i , ?: 2 Mre Etzler questioned the objection of the Architectural Review Board, if it was interior lighting they objected to, would exterior lighting be permissible? He asked Mr. Amendola if the Sohio sign was up before the ordinance was passed. Mr. Barber explained the high.cost involved to use exterior lighting, especially if it were just for a trial basis. Mr. Amendola stated the Sohio sign was up before the ordinance went into effect. Mr. Flynn asked for further comments from Council. Miss Trask stated it was her suggestion that the gentlemen from Marathon make arrangements to meet with the Architectural Review Board, that perhaps they might be more inclined to listen if the facts were presented to them firsthand. It4r. Barber questioned why they should go back to the Board that had previously rejected their proposalm Mr. Carmen further explained what Miss Trask had said, also stating he did not feel the sign would impose a traffic hazard. He stated the Architectural Review Board did not have a complete opportunity to hear his presentation. He stated after he makes his presentation to them it would come back to Council, which would be the proper procedure to follow. Mr. Barber questioned the time factor involved. Discussion was held. Mr. Amendola stated if Mr. Barber would get a letter to the Building.Department next week it would be sent around, that this now would be a matter for the Board of Appeals. Mr. Etzler asked if the sign ordinance does not contain provisions that deal specifically with the aesthetic value of signs in the area in addition to safety hazards et cetera? He stated Mr. Barber had been told the sign could not be illumunated as it was a safety hazard but there must be more to it than that. IvTiss Trask suggested Mr. Barber be given a copy of our sign ordinance. Discussion was held regarding the possibility of allowing Marathon to light their sign for 30 days, or until a decision was made.