02/22/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

recommendations as all zoriing ordinances are required to have done. The Planning Commission has two versions of Ordinance 2000-12 before them, labeled old and working copy. The one- labeled Old is the one that had a first reading and what is officially before Council and now Planning Commission. The working copy is the new and improved version, which derived from listening to concerns from the Building Department. The Building Commissioner had concerns regarding the practicalities of the code enforcement. He felt that there were some items in the proposed chapter that should be covered in the Building Code chapter, i.e., electrical requirements and safety requirements with respect to the construction and wiring of the sign. Mr. Dubelko believes that from the Law Departments perspective the sign chapter is very close to being a finished product with respect to addressing Judge Nugent's concerns. The Law Department has eliminated almost all of the content-based distinctions and has drastically changed the permit application process. Thereby removing the discretion from the Building Commissioner, with respect to granting or denying sign permit applications for reasons other than violations of the Zoning Code and other ordinances of the Laws of the City of North Olmsted. The Law Department has dealt with the equal protection problems by not prohibiting certain speech in certain zoning districts, which would be pernussible in other zoning districts. He believes the City has from a constitutional first amendment and fourteenth amendment perspective Created a good ordinance and the Law Department recommends the Planning Cominission give it their consideration. He had not discussed the new ordinance with Mr. Conway as of yet, but he feels that they have addressed all the issues that were brought up in the court case. He understands that the Planning Commission has not had sufficient time really to review the ordinance and it is important legislation. On behalf of the Law Department they are asking that if the Planning Commission can not make recommendations tonight because of the shortness of notice, that the Commission hold a special meeting prior to the first Council meeting of March. So at that City Council meeting, Council can place the working copy with any additional recommendations that the Planning Commission may have on second reading. After a second reading it will go to a public hearing for comments and inputs from the public and then on to a third reading and passage. As will all zoning ordinances once it's passed by Council it does not take effect until 30 days later. It is important to note that the litigation originated, because of the ban and amortization of pole signs. With respect to pole signs, this ordinance still proposes to ban pole signs in the future. However it does not address the subject of amortization as that subject will be addressed if at all in a future ordinance. Mr. Spalding questioned a comment out of the ordinance regarding pole signs which states (a) "Pole sign" as regulated by this ordinance shall mean any sign that is supported by or suspended from a freestanding column or columns and designed so as to permit pedestrian or vehicular traffic thereunder. (b) "Location" Pole signs shall not be permitted in any zoning district. Could that be interpreted to mean existing pole signs would not be permitted in any zoning district. Mr. Dubelko answered, that the City could not order the removal of lawfully non-conforming structures under state law. The only exception to that rule was found in a Lakewood contractor's case. Which the Ohio Supreme Court held that if a City declares a structure that is lawfully non-conforming under zoning code to be a nuisance that the City can provide for the amortization of that nuisance over a reasonable period of time. Mr. Asseff questioned if there is a pole sign in existence for example ABC Repair and ABC Repair goes out of business and XYZ Auto Repair moves in, can they change the non-conforming pole sign to say XYZ Auto Repair. Mr. Dubelko commented that that was a good question. Under 1163.10, non-conforming signs are expressly allowed to exist except for two 5