04/25/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

what is to be done. Mr. Hreha questioned where the sunroom would be located. Mr. Conway indicated in the back of a corner lot. Mr. Tallon motioned that the Board recommends the Board of Zoning Appeals not to allow Bravlio Roldan of 23055 Lorain Road Proposal the proposal, which consists of adding a Sunroom to the existing stiructure. He indicated it is an addition onto a commercial building in a commercial setting that does nothing for the aesthetics and quality of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by C. Allan and unanimously approved. Motion carried. In the framing of the motion, Mr. Merdes questioned if the Board of Zoning Appeals grants the variances, the applicant can submit proper drawings if block could be used instead of the aluminum and add windows in the roof. Mr. Conway indicated it could be addressed after the Board of Zoning Appeals. He indicated if the Board of Zoning Appeals grants the variances, then he would sit down with Mr. Merdes to discuss other options. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No Items. V. COMMUNICATIONS: l. Ordinance No. 2000-12 An ordinance creating new and revised chapter 1163 of the Zoning Code of the City of North Olmsted, entitled "SIGNS" as amended. Planning Corrunission addressed this ordinance on February 22, and 29, 2000 and April 11, 2000. Mr. Gareau reviewed that the sign ordinance was passed in 1991 and there were provisions in the ordinance for elimination of non-conforming pole signs. The pole sign issue was mixed in with first amendment issues and was litigated. He reviewed the court appeal indicating the case was not completely resolved and that there are some issues that cannot be discussed since they are back before the judge dealing with prior restraint matters which would be resolved in May. When the court threw out the entire zoning code dealing with signs, the law Department was pressured to have an ordinance in place. What was used was a model from the International Municipals Attorneys Associations model code, which itself had some problems. Since then numerous meeting have been held with the City's own sign code expert, Mr. Zimmerman. When the original ordinance was put before Planning Commission, the Board was concerned because of the fact that it needed to be handled in such short order. That ordinance had wound itself back to City Council and has been amended 3 times at some of the suggestions of the Chamber of Commerce, the experts at Chamber of Commerce, as well as our own expert, the ordinance was further modified. In the Law department's opinion, the ordinance is content neutral. Council has also adopted a policy of what the city is to look like relative to signs. For instance, flashing signs and rotating signs are prohibited. With respect to ground and pylons signs, there has been an adjustment in the provision provided for higher signs but with a bonus if the sign is lower. There was also a problem in regards to the construction of signs within the triangular area, so much of a distance from the building has been removed for flexibility. The Law Department is in the process of developing specific standards for variances for signs. If the zoning code is looked at on what is needed in order to obtain a variance, it usually does not fit the typical request for someone who wants to build a bigger sign or wants to put the sign into a different location. The Law 3