02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cause problems with the judges ruling as it is not content neutral. Mr. Bizjak, with Brilliant Sign Comp came forward. He has worked for 5 or 6 years with the City on variance requests, which are _ mostly, size. The 75 square foot cap penalizes large businesses. He has taken part in at least 10 to 15-variance request that deal with size. He doesn't understand non-conforming signs; multi-tenant signs are all over the City. Does that mean that if one tenant moves out the whole sign has to come out or would the new business be restricted from having signage? There could be problems with that. With traffic and safety he didn't see anything that covered directional signs in the new code. There should be something that addresses these signs in the new code. Most other cities allow a 1 too 2-foot setback for directional signs. He questioned the meaning of esthetically harmonious, as he was not clear as to what that meant under section 1163.01 D. 1163.24 "Maximum Sign face Per lot" there are not many lots that fall under this but the setback or placement of building is not taken into consideration. There are 30 to 40 businesses in North Olmsted that would exceed more than a 75 square foot frontage, which should allow them to have bigger signs. Mr. Bizjak questioned how a 40% secondary street frontage fit into the overall 1.35 if there is a 100 foot depth and the secondary frontao,e allowance would be 40 and come out to 1.40 it is not clear. Great Northern mall works under their own section of the sign code and he doesn't understand how that fair. Other businesses ? are being discriminated against, as they don't have their own code. Mr. Spalding indicated that there j were a lot of good questions raised from the audience members and questioned if Mr. Conway felt ` that the code should be modified to accommodate some of the comments that were made. Mr. Conway indicated that the board should take direction from the law department. Mr. Spalding questioned if he thought it would be best to take the 30 days and make appropriate changes. Mr. Conway indicated ,that he didn't feel that it couldn't be done in 30 days. He understands the comments and questions of the board members and the audience on different provisions of the ordinance, but he also understands the urgency of not having anything in place at all at this point. Mr. Spalding questioned why it would be a problem if there wasn't a code in place, and questioned what the hazards would be. Mr. Bizjak commented that it is general knowledge throughout the business that there is no code in place right now and he hasn't seen signs popping up all over the place. Mr. Conway indicated that even though signs haven't been popping up there have been inquiries about signs. Mr. Spalding indicated that there had been many good questioned raised. Mr. Dubelko reviewed that the Law Department was trying to make a content neutral sign code by using the IM- Law sign code model. He believes that the new sign code is a good start. He is not suggesting that city just pass anything by just rushing it through but a sign code does need to be in place. He doesn't believe that 95% of the business community will just run out and put up signs, but someone in the other 5% will use the lack of a sign code being in place to just put up what he or she wants. Once the code is passed it is up to the businesses and residents to get on their Councilmen if they feel any part of an ordinance needs to be changed. Mr. Asseff questioned if there is not a sign ordinance in place and a sign is put up before one is in place, would the sign have to be brought into code once a sign code is put in place. Mr. Dubelko indicated that it would remain in place until it required changes exceeding the 25% allowed. Mr. Spalding believed that the board could address all the issues now. He would just like to see an ordinance that provides protection for the City and not open the City up to additional law suites. Mr. Graham, from the Chamber of Commerce sign committee asked to address the board. Mr. Graham indicated that he heard many good remarks tonight, but it seamed whenever the business owners get together with the City it becomes nothing more than bickering which does not accomplish anything. He sent a copy of the Chambers concerns and some of those concerns have been addressed tonight and a number of issues that haven't been addressed. The 10