09/15/1998 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Hearing Minutes 9/15/98 difficulties he is having with the issue is he has not been completely content with the ~.. ,~„ solutions. But to his understanding, this is an improvement. Mr. Garland said for some businesses, yes; but for others it is a hindrance. Law Director Gareau questioned how it could be a hindrance. Before, if you had an identification sign for a plaza, you weren't permitted to have any identification. Whereas now, if you have your fascia sign, you are now permitted to have your identification on the plaza sign. If the fascia sign is at maximum square footage, a variance can be applied for. This new provision permits additional signage--it doesn't take away. Mr. Graham said it was a hindrance because the law that does not permit them to have any identification currently is an "absurd" law. He does not believe there ever should have been a limitation and restriction. After inquiry from the Law Director, Mr. Graham said there should be "reasonable standards." Law Director Gareau asked Mr. Graham if he would like to see the legislation defeated. Mr. Graham said "absolutely not" anything is better than nothing. However, he does not feel this legislation goes far enough. Mr. Graham asked why this segment of the ordinance had been addressed and not the other "over-restrictive items." Councilman Gareau said he believed it had occurred because of comments made to the media by Mr. Graham and Mr. Garland. Although Mr. Graham was insistent in discussing the total sign ordinance, Law Director Gareau did not wish to pursue the discussion as those matters are issues involved in the litigation. He noted that Council as a legislative body exercised its legislative authority by introducing this ordinance. It doesn't mean that every subject matter dealing with the Zoning Code is put on hold because of the lawsuit. If this Council determines that in fact a legitimate issue was brought up, then the message is that the other issues that were raised are not legitimate and they are to be determined by a court of law. However, he is not going to say that in the future, if other things are discussed with this Council in their legislative capacity, that they may not also address or amend the Zoning Code dealing with signs at some time in the future. There is nothing from prohibiting them from exercising legislative authority. Don Ramsden, 29000 Mallard Drive, Bay Village, who owns Play it Again Sports, said he does not understand why a business is prevented from using its logo on the pedestal sign when all the national chains have their logo or trademark sign on their building or on their pedestal sign. Robert Stemmer, 29930 Lorain Road, who owns Stemmer's Auto Body, said he thought it was unfair that he got a notice about the height of his sign. He doesn't understand the reasoning for it. The subject of logos was brought up by someone from the audience who did not identify himself. Law Director Gareau said that was an issue that Council may want to address in the future, however, that has nothing to do with this ordinance. The gentleman from the audience said there is a slight semantic difference between a logo and a trademark sign. He believes it is discriminatory not to allow the logo or the trademark sign on the pedestal sign because that is how some businesses identify themselves. Law Director Gareau said logo is not the same as the size, shape and design of a sign. 3