Laserfiche WebLink
, .. <br />them, but he has looked at a lot of sign codes and with respect to the issues that were raised in the <br />litigation, he believes that this sign code is the best in Cuyahoga County. With respect to being <br />content neutral and eliminating discretion from the Building Commissioner in reviewing sign <br />permit applications. Also in addressing problems of equal protection with respect to creating <br />categories of certain speech that can be placed on signs in some districts and not in others. He <br />commented that he could not address the height and setback issues, with respect to whether or <br />not they are harsher than other communities. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if Mr. Graham could <br />indicate if our height and setback requirements were more harsh then other communities. Mr. <br />Graham remarked that he agreed with Mr. Dubelko that the proposed ordinance was one of the <br />best, but he has not reviewed them all. The current ordinance goes a long way to righting the <br />wrongs of the other ordinance. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if the City had heard that there were <br />more accidents because of lower signs or glare, lights and safety issues in Lakewood. Mr. <br />Dubelko indicated that he had not heard anything. An unidentified audience member indicated <br />that Lakewood still had a lot of pole signs. Mrs. O'Rourke commented that Lakewood also no <br />longer allowed pole signs under their ordinances. There are statements in Mr. Burns letter that <br />was submitted to this board that are not supported by anything`because the other communities <br />have the same regulations and they are not as strict as ours. It has been suggested that the new <br />ordinance causes problems but there is no record of any problems to back up the statements. Mr. <br />Graham remarked that other communities are not as strict, but that will change as their sign <br />chapters also have a lot of problems that our previous ordinance had. It's just been recently that <br />some of the issues have been brought to the public's attention. Mr. Graham indicated that most <br />of the Cities use another Cities ordinances and just builds off that. Mr. Dubelko suggested that <br />that was not uncommon and that Mr. Hill was the City Planner for Strongsville and that might <br />have been his model to begin with. Mr. Graham suggested it would be nice to see North <br />Olmsted's ordinance become a model to be used around the country, because a lot of effort is <br />going to go into this ordinance to make sure it can be as good as it can be. Mrs. O'Rourke <br />questioned if the objections are just to our community or are they objections that are happening to <br />the surrounding communities. Mr. Graham questioned what objections Mrs. O'Rourke was <br />referring too. Mrs. O'Rourke remarked that she was referring to Mr. Burns's letter, as he states <br />the ordinance creates problems but has nothing to back it up. The Planning Commission heard <br />everything that he lists in his letter before and it was discussed but never proven that it would <br />happen or should happen or does happen. Mr. Graham suggested that Commerce did a study <br />with bus drivers when the first ordinance was written and they asked them to point out the trouble <br />spots and virtually all of the spots were legal complying signs under the old ordinance. There are <br />a number of businesses in North Olmsted that can not put -up ground signs as their lot size <br />prohibits them from being able to do so. He questioned whether or not that meant the owner <br />would not be allowed a sign or did it mean they would have to obtain variances. Mr. Tallon <br />remarked that is what the Board of Zoning Appeals board is there for. There is no way the City <br />can have an ordinance that can address every signal property in the City that is why there is a <br />Board of Zoning Appeals. If a property owner has a problem then they can have it addressed. <br />The record shows that there are not a lot of variance requests for sign location just sizes, <br />everyone wants to be big, bigger or best. Mr. Graham suggested that with the new sign ordinance <br />there would be a lot of area variance requests. 1163.30 "Pole Signs" The definition any sign that <br />is not designed to have pedestrian or vehicular traffic thereunder is not a pole sign, then you are <br />only dealing with height restrictions. What a sign is mounted on should not be as important as to <br />10