09/10/1985 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10., 1985 PAGE 7 for depth, and for square footage be granted on the basis that it creates two lots with existing residences on each lot, so that each residence can obtain ownership or deed rightsto the individual lots, seconded by T. Morgan, and unanimously approved. 3) James C. Passant Subdivision Heard under Building Department Requests, Item 4) Self Service Maxi Wash. 4) Canterbury Tennis Academy Assembly Plat: Location is the west side of Canterbury Road south.of Butternut Ridge Road. Proposal is to combine two (2) parcels, 235-25-8 and 235-25-13 into one (1) parcel, which is the site of the proposed Canterbury Tennis Academy. Mr. Schaller explained proposal to assemble two adjacent parcels for Tennis Academy which was approved by Council on June 5,'1984. Mr. I Waterbury, representing the developer, explained the he had been unaware that tYie property was two separate lots. Proposal was explained to adjacent.property owners who had no.objection. J. Brown moved to approve the Canterbury Tennis Academy Assembly Plat, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. V. COMMiTNICATIONS : Ordinance will eventually eliminate pole signs and allow only ground sign or other types of building signs. Chairman Burns questioned Section 1221.06 Sections (G) &.(H) which would seem to be referring to pole signs when they are actually pertaining to projecting signs (Section (G) states "...erected on ground supports..."; and also Item 3, under Section 1221.07, (A), Indus- trial signs, he questioned if there was a provision for industrial signs, since there was no definition f-or them. These areas of the ordinance might need clarification. Councilman Wilamosky then explained the purpose of the ordinance to eliminate pole signs within the city by January 1, 1940, and thus allowing an amortization period so that prop erty owners can full de- preciate for tax purposes their present pole signs, and allowing ample time for owners to removed pole signs and replace them with other type of signs. Other communities are successfully removing the clutter and hazards of pole signs. In many cases several pole signs are on one property and will have to be reduced to one ground sign or other types of sign. He pointed out that there is a provision by which on the basis of proven economic hardship, a business could be granted an additional 90 day period to comply with the ordinance. Commission had several suggestions: reducing the area of the ground sign might be considered since a sign at ground level may not have to be as large as is presently allowed; some type of required landscaping sur- rounding the ground sign might be included in the ordinance; or some type of tree planting program could be introduced for business properties. Mr. Dubelko advised that the courts have recently upheld legislation pertaining to aesthetics and regarding the required removing of the present signs, there are similar types of cases which are under appeal, but the courts have ruled both 3aays. The Commission would like the Council to take note of their concerns'and suggestions, but they do not want to hold up the legislation. J. Brown moved to approve Ord. 85-86 as presented, seconded by T. Morgan, and unanimously approved.