02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

can be anyone's interpretation. He believes that in the Cities case it should apply relative to the public health safety and welfare of the community rather than having it as a non-disrupt basis as it is. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the intent is while using the term nuisance is to use it as a term of art in the law, the law has long recognized nuisance. He indicated that some of the comments were a little bit reactionary. In the old code the term nuisance was used and it hasn't been a problem with the City condemning properties that weren't a nuisance. If the board wishes the term could be defined, but as municipal lawyers we know what a nuisance is, it is not a vaa e term. Mr. Spalding moved to 1163.14 "Outdated Signs Prohibited" he questioned if there should be some type of warning procedure should be set up. He questioned if the property owner shouldn't receive a warning first, so he would have a right to explain his situation. Mr. Dubelko commented that it is like every other law, everyone is presumed to know the law. The probation is this particular code is that if their sign is outdated it is prohibited. If you go back to 1163.11 it provides that if the Building Commissioner is going to do something about it rather than sight the person then he will have to follow the provisions in 1163.11. 1VIr. Spalding indicated that in 1163.19 subsection (A) "Illurninated Signs" he believed that there were standards relative to glare, that there will not be any foot candles beyond the property line. Mr. Tallon suggested that that was not considered glare there has to be zero lighting at the <. property line or that is spill out or nuisance lighting. Glare is when you look at a light and it shines in ? your eyes. Mr. Spalding questioned if the reading had to be zero at the lot line, why wouldn't that be sufficient. Mr. Tallon indicated that there could be a zero reading at the lot line and still produce glare. If there is a glare there are many types of shields that can be used to eliminate the glare. Mr. Spalding referred to 1163.19 subsection (B) distract operators of vehicles or pedestrians on the public right-or-way, the term distract is vague. He believed that subsection (C) covered that and recommended striking subsection (B), as it is covered elsewhere. Mr. Dubelko indicated that he agreed-with Mr. Spalding. He also believed that it was vague, glare takes care of lighting problems. NIr. Conway reviewed that the Building department received complaints mainly on misguided > spotlights on a ground sign. Somehow it gets moved and it's not shining on the sign but into the street, which that would be more of a glare issue.. Mr. Dubelko questioned if Mr. Conway could envision any scenarios where he would want to have the language "distract operators of vehicles or pedestrians". I.e. is there something that is a problem and the code is not addressing it with the use of other language. Mr. Conway suggested changing distract to glare as it is covered in other areas. Mr. Spalding remarked that he moved to eliminate subsection (B). Mr. Dubelko indicated that it just shouldn't be stricken, something should just be put in its place to deal with a sign that is running muck. NIi-. Tallon suggested the glare or intensity of the light distracts the motorist. Mr. Dubelko sugjested merjing subsections (A) &(B) together and just have a subsection dealing with certain characteristics of illuminated signs dealing with glare or excessive lights or rotating lights, all dealing with either residential properties or on public right-of-ways. Mr. Hreha suggested taking a variation of subsection (B) and putting it into 1163.17, as that is traffic and pedestrian. Mr. Dubelko suggested it could be done, but 1163.19 covers illuminated signs and gives definitions. Mr. Spalding questioned 1163.23 "Flashing Signs" why are they not being allowed now as he has seen some of the items inentioned in the past. Mr. Conway commented that they were not allowed under the previous code. The previous code was modified to eliminate searchlights and balloons. Applicants who wish to use searchlights and big balloons have always had to apply for variances. Mr. Spalding addressed 1163.24 " Maxirnum sign face area per lot" he questioned what standard was used to establish the standard. Mr. Dubelko indicated that 1163.24 was copied from the old code which Mr. Hill established in 1991. Mr. Spalding questioned if they were good standard. 1VIr. Dubelko indicated 3