09/15/1998 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,~,~ NORTH OLMSTED CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING RECESSED ON AUGUST 4, 1998 TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Present: Council President Saringer, Council Members Gareau, Kasler, Limpert, McKay, Miller, Nashar, O'Grady Also Present: Law Director Gareau, Clerk of Council Seman Council President Saringer called the previously recessed public hearing back to order at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers, 5200 Dover Center Road, North Olmsted, Ohio. President Saringer announced the continued public hearing was in regard to Ordinance No. 98-36 which creates a new and revised Section 1163.12 of the Zoning Code of the City of North Olmsted in order to permit businesses to be identified on permanent pylon and ground identification signs in business areas containing more than one building and business buildings containing more than one business unit as amended. Law Director Gareau announced that the public hearing was being held to discuss the new and revised Section 1163.12 and not to discuss the pending litigation or the constitutionality of the city sign ordinance. He has instructed his clients, the members of City Council, that issues that are in litigation are not to be discussed or debated in public. The forum for those issues has been chosen, and that is where it should remain. This ordinance deals with one specific subject dealing with identification of multiple businesses, and that is what this Council should discuss. The Council should not discuss the merits of the lawsuit nor other aspects of the Zoning Code dealing with pole signs. AUDIENCE PARTICII'ATION Pat Graham, 30217 Hilliard Boulevard, Westlake, Ohio, general manager of Great Northern Dodge, said the Chamber of Commerce is pleased that in response to the lawsuit initiated by the Chamber the city is taking action to remedy one of the defects in the unconstitutional and overly restrictive sign code and make it less harmful to businesses in North Olmsted. The Chamber of Commerce would like the city to open a dialogue with their lawyers to work out a sign code that accommodates both the city's desires and the needs of the business community. Mr. Graham believes the proposed amendment is still unduly restrictive. The limitations as to the content of the plaza identification sign are not content neutral. The Chamber vigorously objects to the city's attempt to control the content of signs. He also believes the proposed amendment is unduly vague. He said it is not clear from the proposed amendment whether the business identifications on the plaza sign are to be counted against the total sign area allowed to the individual businesses or to the total allowed the plaza or both. Mr. Graham said the proposed amendment does H.a