02/22/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

many things to be addressed to just pass something quickly. Back when the sign ordinance was brought up in the 80's, Chamber of Commerce publicly objected to that. Commerce was assured by the then sitting Council that the chamber would be involved and their input would be welcomed on any City Ordinance. At that point the new Building Codes came out and in the dark of the night a whole new ordinance was passed including the Sign Code and Commerce did not have any input. Mr. Tallon remarked that that was totally incorrect, the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at that time was fully informed. He told the City he would get a list of all the amendments they wanted in the ordinance and the City never heard another word once the ordinance was tabled. Mr. Graham questioned what ordinance Mr. Tallon was referring too. Mr. Tallon commented the first ordinance so what Mr. Graham just said was totally incorrect. 1VIr. Dubellco indicated that it should also be noted that the second ordinance that was passed was not passed in the dark of the night either. The second ordinance was the result of a two-year process from 1989 to 1991 with the assistance of Bob Hill, from the City of Strongsville. It was a two- year process of public meetings and he is sure that there are minutes were Ms. Amy Watts Chairman of Commerce attended. Mr. Tallon remarked that all those meetings were open meetings and he takes objection to Mr. Gr.aham's comments. If Mr. Graham is going to state that things were done in the dark of the night he should have his facts straight. Mr. Graham su?aested he would agree to disagree on that and move forward if the board would please. The Commerce brought the sign issue up long before the drop-dead date of January 1, 1998. They had conversations with then Mayor Ed Boyle, numerous members of Council and they were led to believe at that time that their issues would be addressed prior to the January 1, 1998, effective date of the old ordinance. As that was not done Commerce was left with no choice but litigation. Since the litigation Commerce has offered to Mayor Musial, members of Council, Board of Zoning and Development and now to the Planning Commission that they would like to sit down as a group and discuss all the merits of the ordinance. They have experts that are willing to come in and donate their time to also help write a good ordinance. Jim Clouse, from the International Sign Association in Organ will come it at Councils pleasure and discuss any issues they would like to discuss. Chamber of Commerce just wants a good Ordinance that everyone can live with. A number of tlungs in the workirig ordinance 2000-12 that are proposed, such as 1163.06 section B it states that the Building Commissioner will make a determination on the application within 60 days. Mr. Dubelko remarked that he agreed with Mr. Graham on that issue and his advice to Council would be to shorten that to 10 days. He believes the person that first drafted the proposed ordinance did not want a sign permit on a new development to be approved before the new development went in as it would cause potential conflict between the structure sign location of building and so on. He agrees work needs to be done on that and his recommendation to Council will be to shorten the time frame. Currently it states 60 and 30 with a 30-day extension. It should be 10 and 10 with a couple of provisions added. (1) If the applicant requires a variance then obviously that variance will be a delay occasion by the applicant, and wont count against the 10 days. (2) If there are other delays brought on by the applicant, that time will not count against the Building Commissioners time. If it is a lot development proposal or redevelopment proposal that requires structure other than signs the City will work out something where it will be done in conjunction with the lot development. If there is a need to put up some kind of sign it will be done on a temporary permit bases until the final development is approved. Mr. Graham indicated that the issue of non-conforming signs that was briefly discussed tonight, 1163.10 A, Commerce feels that the $1000.00 dollar threshold is unreasonable in that no one can replace a sign face for 7