Laserfiche WebLink
. ? ?. . . <br />purpose of a sign ordinance is for the purpose of safety and esthetics. While Judge Nugent didn't <br />state that the City could not exempt their own signs, he did state that there was nothing that showed <br />that the cities signs were safer and more esthetically pleasing then a commercial sign. The pole sign <br />at the recreational center was brought up it is not safe and not esthetically pleasing. It blocks the <br />walk and do not walk traffic signal on Lorain Road. So there is nothing regarding that sign that <br />promotes the purpose ofthe sign code. The business community has been talking about this code for <br />several hours tonight and can't get an agreement from the Planning Commission on a number of <br />issues. The business community would just like to work together with the city and are willing to <br />bring in the experts at our expense so the city can develop an ordinance that everyone can live with. <br />Within the last month a pole sign was backed into and now under the proposed ordinance the sign has <br />to be replaced. This ordinance is supposed to promote safety. There are a number of businesses in <br />North Olinsted that can not accommodate ground signs does that mean they wont be allowed any <br />signs. Parking places are required and if they have to put in ground signs then they have to have <br />variance for parking. The business is worried about getting something just put in place. The <br />businesses don't want to jeopardize what is best for everyone. He woulcl like to see the city come up <br />with a consent agreement that the businesses can agree with and protect the City at the same time. ? <br />Then the City can sit down with the experts to make sure North Olmsted's sign code could be the i <br />Model City in the United States and be on the forefront. Thousands of dollars were spent to get rid ? <br />of an ordinance that was wrong. The ordinance was so bad that the whole chapter was throne out. <br />He suggested that the City adopt a stop measure agreement to keep a free for all happening and work <br />with the experts and businesses to come up with something everyone can live with. A Councilman at the last meeting mentioned that the Planning Commission should just pass the ordinance on and let <br />other boards work on the mistakes. He would like to recommend that the Planning Commission not <br />just pass the ordinance on as it is written now and make a good sound ordinance. Mr. Allan indicated <br />that he doesn't think the board is any further now then what they were 2 hours a go. He has spent 7 = <br />days looking at the ordinance and is not comfortable with passing it on to council as it is written. Mr. ° <br />Spalding questioned how NIr. Graham thought an agreement with the City could. be made. Mr. <br />Dubelko indicated that to have something enforceable an agreement could not just be with the <br />business community it would have to include every property owner in North Olmsted not just the <br />businesses. He suggested a sunset provision that the ordinance would be in place for 1 year and then <br />after that the City would have to change it. Mr. Spalding questioned why an ordinance couldn't be <br />written which would exclude concerns that the businesses have. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the <br />purpose of this ordinance is to deal with the ruling of the court and this does that by eliminating the <br />content base distinctions from the ordinance and all property is on an equal bases. N1r. Spalding , <br />remarked that that wasn't true because Great Northern Mall has. their, own section. Mr. Dubelko <br />commented that the board could request the Great Northern section be removed. Mr. Hreha <br />indicated that he is eoncerned with some of the issues that the business community has brought up <br />and he would have a hard time disagreeing with some of the issues they bring up. He also <br />understands the law department's undertakings. Mr. Dubelko suggested the sunset with a 1-year <br />limit and Mr. Graham indicated that that was not acceptable, but didn't present a reasonable <br />alternative. Mr. Hreha asked Mr. Graham what would be a good time for the business community. <br />Mr. Graham indicated that he would say 90 days at the most. Then the city could work with the <br />experts and the businesses on a satisfactory sign ordinance. NIr. Asseff questioned if 90 days would <br />be enough time to address all the issues. Mr. Hreha commented that the way the legal system works <br />90 days is not enough time. Why not make a compromise between 1 year and 90 days. Mr. Spalding <br />11