Laserfiche WebLink
<br />inisleading and posing a hazard to traffic control and safety. Who is going to define what is <br />disruptive to pedestrians and vehicles: He suggested that some of the sections in the proposed <br />sign code could contribute to that problem. 1163.19 "Illuminated Signs" also has vague and <br />suggestive terms. Who will be the one to define what distracts operators of vehicles or <br />pedestrians. Mr. Tallon indicated that if a light shines in your eyes that is offensive. Mr. Graham <br />commented that what might be offensive to one person might not be offensive to another. Mr. <br />Asseff indicated that there are reasonable standards for so many luminaries per square foot at such <br />a distance or angle from the light source which can be determined by a lighting engineer. Mr. <br />Graham suggested the code be defined instead of having a subjective term. Mr. Koeth indicated <br />that in the past the Planning Commission had addressed lighting issues that were offensive. Such <br />as lights crossing property lines and things of that nature, so if a question to that nature is brought <br />up he is sure if that is the case the person perpetrating the offense would have to -come before the <br />Planning Commission. Mr. Graham indicated that he was just trying to bring up things that the <br />Chamber of Commerce would like to discuss and come to a meeting of the minds on. There are a <br />number of definitions and terms that they do not agree with and they understand that everything <br />? they want stricken will not be removed just because they do not want it, but the Chamber of <br />Commerce wants and welcomes a sign code that everyone can live with. They do not want to see <br />a fee for all on signs going on either. They would just like to see what is best for the business <br />owners as well as the residents. 1163.26 "Ground Signs" section 2 states "ground signs shall be <br />set back at least eight feet from every right-af-way line, at least twenty-five feet from any side lot <br />line, and at least one hundred feet from any property line abutting upon residential property. They <br />would like to see it read residential district instead of property. It is conceivable that a residential <br />home could be located in the middle of a business district. If a one hundred-foot restriction is <br />placed on a commercial district that would be difficult to adhered to. Mr. Koeth sugjested <br />wording it as residential zoning instead of residential property. Mr. Spalding agreed with Mr. <br />Koeth's sugaestion. Mr. Tallon indicated that residential property is zoned residential. Mr. <br />Spalding indicated that there could be residential homes located in the middle of a business <br />district. Mr. Asseff commented.that would be a definition issue, what makes property residential. <br />Mr. Dubelko remarked that changing it to residential zoning would give ii clarification. Mr. <br />Graham indicated that the Chamber of Commerce would like to discuss the merits of height <br />restrictions and setbacks with the City. It has been mentioned that the safest height for a sign in a <br />35-mile per hour speed limit is 8 to 12 feet. The purpose of signs is for identification and if a <br />motorist has to slow down or stop to see a sign, that could cause problems. They do not want <br />competition as to who can put up the biggest sign, but if the City would sit down with them there <br />could be good discussion of what would work for everyone. Mr. Spalding questioned Mr. <br />Dubelko as to how the City derived the standards for height and size. Mr. Dubelko suggested he <br />was not sure but believed they were taken from the old sign code. When the old sign code was <br />developed Mr. Bob Hill who is an expert brought in most of the provisions dealing with municipal <br />heights of pylon signs and things of that nature. Mr. Graham remarked that that was the <br />gentleman that wrote the old code that was thrown out, so he would question his expertise. Mr. <br />Dubelko commented that he would say in Mr. Hill's defense that he is a well-established Planning <br />expert known throughout Cuyahoga County, he may be lacking a little on his knowledge of first <br />amendment concerns, but there again we all were in 1989 and 1990. Mr. Graham indicated that <br />he meant Mr. Hill no disrespect. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned how different our current ordinance <br />was from the surrounding municipalities. Mr. Dubelko indicated that he had not looked at all of <br />9