02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? • .. _A - . of North Olmsted, is too with all do speed get an ordinance in place that essentially regulates signs. Right now anyone can put up what ever sign they want anywhere they want within the City and that is -- not right, as it could cause all kinds of health and safety problems, so lets get a code in place. Nothing is written in stone! The Commission can pass a good decent ordinance within a reasonable amount of time and then turn it over to a committee and experts and have it tinkered and modified as the next course. It is important to get something in place so just do it! Mr. Spalding agreed that something neecied to be put in place, but didn't believe the City had to have specifics present that are going to be problems or are problems. He believes specific dimensions that were discussed can be eliminated or modified to some reasonable standard. Mr. Tallon disagreed with Mr. Spalding because a professional planner using the data of the day set the standards and those standards are still relevant. To start tinkering with it because someone wants bigger and more is ridiculous. All ordinances are works in progress that's what they call amendments, when an ordinance is passed it is the bases for something. He knows of no ordinance that is 100% perfect that is why there is an amendment process. Therefore you establish a base to work with, that is sound solid and has been working for many, many years. If you want to tinker once it is in place there is no problem with that and there is a process in place for that. Mr., Spalding believes the process is now, the City has the ability to make the proposed ordinance a workable ordinance. Mr. Tallon interjected that the proposed ordinance was a workable ordinance, and the Commission is not present to drag this on for another 6 months that is ludicrous. Mr. Spalding disagreed as he got Mr. Conway to comment regarding the dimensions and he didn't agree that it was a reasonable ordinance in terms of the dimensions. Mr. Tallon believed Mr. Spalding took what Mr. Conway was saying out of contexts. Mr. Dubelko believed that Mr. Spalding took Mr. Conway answer to one section and expanded it to include all dimensions. Mr. Spalding interjected that he was not talking about all dimensions just the ones he specifically asked about. Mr. Conway remarked that he believed that the only thing in section 1136.27 that wasn't in the old code was the 6 inches projection from the wall. If the goal is to get something in place, dealing with the 75 square feet issue can be addressed at a later date. That is not a major concern of his, the 6 inches is something that should be stricken from the proposed ordinance as he is not sure it is a workable number nor was it in the old code. The-Zoning Code is set up to be reviewed every 3 years at which time adjustments are made. Mr. Spalding questioned if there were other adjustments that had been made within the proposed ordinance that were not in the old sign code. Mr. Conway didn't believe there was too many changes from the old code and commented that the 75 square foot had been on the books since 1991. Mr. Asseff questioned if it wouldn't be reasonable to expect that if there was a dimension within the code that was especially restrictive, then the Building Department would start to see an increase in the number of variance request on it, which would give a good clue that there is a problem with the way it is written. Mr. Conway agreed and suggested that his department has been discussing .going back to 1991 and researching what variances have been requested so that they could develop a base to addressing the Zoning Code. Mr. Hreha indicated that he believed that the simple fact that the board members couldn't agree on the details, points up enough evidence which supports Mr. Dubelko's position that an ordinance is no more than a guide line. The City can never develop a rule that satisfies every condition if you can get to 90 and 95% that is doing pretty good. To Mr. Asseffs point, if the City starts getting an increase in variance requests for specific clauses, then Council should change the clause based on the variances requested. If the dimension wasn't an issue in the lawsuit then why should it be an issue tonight. Mr. Spalding addressed 1163.31 "Window Signs" subsection (2); no window sign shall be nearer than 2 feet to any other sign, building or structure. He questioned if that was reasonable and if it was written the same 6