09/28/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11, v regulate the details. Mr. Dubelko indicated that it was not necessary to address color in the ordinance. Mr. Brennan questioned if the sideyard and rear setback requirements would still apply as the ordinance requires the modular unit be placed 100 feet from public right of way. N1r. Dubelko commented that it would be subject to all other site location requirements, wluch are consistent with these locations located in the zoning code. R. Tallon motioned to endorse ordinance 99-106 and ask for its adoption. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. Motion Carried. 2). Ordinance No. 99-109: An ordinance creating new section 1139.13 of the North Olmsted Zoning Code regulation outdoor, un-enclosed storage of motor vehicles at motor vehicle repair facilities. Mr. Dubelko indicated that he was not real familiar with the reason behind the request of ordinance 1139.13, but thought it was requested for esthetics reasons along Lorain Road. The provision is, that cars can not be left out for 45 consecutive days or a total of 45 ciays within a 50 consecutive day period, so the car can not be brought in for one day and then brought back out again. He was not sure why the 45 day period was chosen, but it might have been thought that 45 days would be reasonable to get to a car and have it repaired. Mr. Hreha suggested the ordinance stated an enclosure not indoors, which could be a fence. He remarked that ordinance 74-112 was still on the books and it says after the 7`i' day a non-working motor vehicle must be put inside of a building or put in a working and safe condition. He questions which of the ordinances the Building Department would enforce. Or would it conflict and make neither one enforceable and if this ordinance is meant to repeal the 7 day ordinance why would you get rid of a 7 day law and replace it with a 45 day law. W. Dubelko indicated that he reviewed 74-112, which was passed in 1974 and is a provision of the heath and safety sanitation code, which deals basically with junk vehicles. Which is an ordinance against littering. There was an amendment to 74-112 last spring, which provided that automobiles in a certain state of disrepair had to be put indoors. He did not recall a 7-day provision in the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was, that anybody that leaves a car outdoors with doors off, windshields missing things of that nature are prohibited. They have to keep that type of vehicles indoors. The current ordinance does not apply to junk vehicles it only applies to motor vehicle repair facilities as defined in the ordinance. There possibly could be over-lapping between the two ordinances. If there is over lap in the ordinances he didn't feel there would be a conflict. If a motor vehicle repair facility has a junk vehicle as defined in 74-112 they might be violating that ordinance. The ordinance is aimed at two separate City problems, there may be some over lap and if there were over lap the more severe provisions of the junk ordinance would control. Mr. Hreha suggested the Law Director indicated that the 7- day ordinance was unenforceable and this ordinance was to be more cooperative with the businesses. He didn't feel that if the City couldn°t enforce a 7-day ordinance then a 45-day ordinance would be just as hard to enforce. The intent is good, but there needs to be another look at the ordinance. The ordinance states an enclosure, which could be a chain link fence or chicken wire fence and would that be considered an enclosure. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the ordinance would be a zoning code provision and the applicant would have to put up an enclosure that would satisfy the Planning. Commission. Mr. Hreha questioned if that would not foster a bunch of enclosures up and down Lorain Road were ever there is an automobile repair shop. Mr. Dubelko 4