02/16/1993 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Hearing of 2/16/93 Mrs. Beringer commented that the Chamber of Commerce, as with the sign ordinance several years ago, had not provided any input dur~.ng the plarming stages of this issue. The president of the Cha{nber of Commerce does receive Ccx~cil md.nutes. She felt that prolonging the issue would not help to protect the residents. Mrs. Babas said the Chamber had provided input on the sign ordinance, and ahe had been a member of the coasnttee. Mrs. Babas questioned the Clerk as to who at the Chamber received the minutes . The Clerk said that the minuteas of each Council meeting were mailed to the president of the Caber of Coerce. Mr. Nashar asked the Clerk what public notification ~s made concerning this legislation. The Clerk said that notification of the public hearing appeared in the legal ads on February 3 acid February 10. A copy of the legislation is kept in the Council office. In addition, the newspaper reporters have written abet this legislation in their columns. Mr. McKay said that all that is required is that the ordinance be posted in a public place and to single out one to be published would be unfair. Mr. Musial asked if it would be a problem to postpone this legislation for one or two months. Mr. Baehmer and Mrs. Beringer agreed that Council could make such a motion at a regalar Council meeting. Mr. Graham asked if soane~e could address the issue of the height of poles. Mr. Tallon said there is not problem with the height of the Bole or the size of the bulb. The lighting sche~ae is created by the light fixture it~lf, and the height of the bulb will just expand the width of the area. The legislation may cause business to have more light$ cxi the property, but businesses have to remember they created the problem bq "bigger is always better." This has caused problems to residential areas for years, and up until now there has been rbo mans to alleviate the problem. Mr. Ta].lon said that the Chamber haci asked for an extension on the sigxt ordinance and had not provided awry input. Ile. felt that delaying the ordinance any more was ludicrous. He said it was a .goad arxi fair ordinance and would accoe~lish what needed to be done to protect the citizens of North Olmsted. Mr. Graham asked how glare was going to be measured. Mr. Gateau said this issue had come up before when Iialleen had put in their truck lot. Ile waa deeply involved in the litigation on that and would defy anybody who was involved to deny that there was not glare on the neighbors' properties. This is a problem that the city has been trying to resolve for years. In addition, he agreed with Mr. Tallon's assessment of the Cha~sber's lack of input on the sign ordinance. He said that, if the Chamber or anyone else wants to oppose this legislation and provide input on a professional basis within one month, that would be fine. However, this issue should not be delayed for four or five years as was the sign ordinance. Mr. Garesu has worked with an expert on this matter, so he is aware of these issues. Mr. McKay asked Mr. Gateau if he felt that this ordinance was workable. Mr. Gateau replied that he felt it was. Mr. Tilberg, CEI representative, wanted to make the point that CEI had not been aware of this ordinance until last. month. They did meet with the B2~ Committee to identify their concerns. CET drams have some legitimate information to share with Council and this will be done within two weeks. Mr. Gateau told Council that, if CEI has something worthwhile to add and it can be done within a short period of time, then Council should allow them to add it. 3