02/22/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., coming into the rest of the guidelines. As long as those guidelines are reasonable and make sense for everybody, what it is mounted on should not be an issue. We can agree to height restrictions, sign face restrictions as long as they are reasonable restrictions, what the sign is mounted on is not important. By the current ordinance you can put a sign on two poles and put landscaping around it to prohibit pedestrian or vehicular traffic and it is not considered a pole sign. The Chamber of Commerce would like to sit down with City Council, Law Department, Board of Zoning and Development and Planning Commission to discuss the philosophies of what can be accomplished together for the betterment of North Olmsted and not just see who wins. The Business community has sizable invests in the community of North Olmsted, both in our businesses and what we do for the community. They are not going to do anything deliberately to hurt North Olmsted or to hurt their businesses. He believes that if everyone sits down and has a meeting of the minds to come up with what'is the best -and the best way to accomplish what would be best for everyone then they would not have to go through this type of ordeal. Mr. Spalding questioned if Mr. Graham would be able to prepare a listing under the current ordinance of issues that they would like to see addressed for the next meeting. Mr. Graham suggested that they would put together a list of concerns with the understanding it would not be a total list of-- concerns. They have sent a copy of the revised 200-12 to the International Sign Association for their input. They have offered to come to North Olmsted and meet with whoever would like to meet with them to lend their expertise as to what is a good sign ordinance. Mr. Asseff indicated that a good starting point whenever a working group can be put together to work through this proposed ordinance would be for the commerce to have a working list of their objections that the City can address and work out. Mr. Graham indicated that would not be a problem that is what they wanted to do, as this meeting was a last minute thing. He was lead to believe that Ordinance 2000-12 was not going to be on the agenda tonight when they got a copy of the ordinance today. The people present came tonight just in case the ordinance was discussed and frankly he is glad they did come now. Mr. Hreha indicated that he would also like to see a list of concerns from the commerce so that the Planning Commission can look at all aspects involved. He would like to see in writing documentation to substantiate the accusations of vandalism, more police time and safety problems. Mr. Asseff suggested that if vehicles are crashing into signs then the vehicles are evidently in an area they should not be, as signs are not typically placed alon? vehicle ri?ht-of- ways. The comment regarding red and blue ground signs interfering with emergency vehicles, the sign could not be large enough to have that effect. Regarding the comment that prices go up do to repairs and consumers paying for it in the long run. Prices are set by the market, if inerchants had the ability to raise their prices when ever they wanted to without judgmental effects against their revenue, they wouldn't be waiting around for someone to vandalize their ground signs to raise prices. Mr. Graham suggested he did not know what remarks Mr. Asseff was referring too, as those were not his remarks. Mr. Asseff indicated that he was referring to the comments in Mr. Burns°s letter. Note: said letter is attached to the back of these minutes. Mr. Jim Burns came forward to address the board. Mr. Burns suggested that when the first sign code came before the city he was on the Planning Commission. The basic concern then was pole signs along Lorain Road. Most of the structures were on lots that were prohibitive to any kind of ground sign safely being put on the lot. Another factor was the zone line being maybe only 200 feet off of Lorain Road, which doesn't really give an owner the opportunity to put in a ground sign. There was a concern about safety and at that time the police department was asked if they could give input on the concerns. The police department basically said they could not, as they did not have data 11