Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 2/16!99 <br />ordinance. The city had previously entered into a temporary agreement with plaintiff s <br />ry,~~' counsel not to enforce those provisions of the code. And so, when Sunnyside had <br />requested that they be granted a variance to be permitted to maintain their pole signs, a <br />number of letters went back and forth with their lawyer and the city returned the money <br />that was given to us to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Clerk of <br />Commissions was instructed to remove that issue from the board. The attorney was <br />notified that the city believes it would be a violation of our restraining order to hear that <br />case. As a result of that, when the other three issues came before the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals, the Law Director advised the audience in the beginning and after each case was <br />heard, that even though they were granted a variance, they were being treated as ground <br />signs rather than pole signs. Also, in the event that we would be successful in our <br />lawsuit, they would have to either remove those signs, even though they put new faces on <br />them, or would have to obtain a variance. <br />3) Yesterday, he and Jim Dubelko attended the annual municipal law workshop. Jim <br />Dubelko was elected recording secretary of the County Law Directors Association. <br />4) Today discussions were held with Tony Coyne, attorney for Biskind, concerning the <br />issue dealing with the constitutionality of our tree ordinance. We had a case in Common <br />Pleas Court on this issue at the same time that we had one in Rocky River Court. Judge <br />Cravens declared our ordinance unconstitutional. That decision is now under review in <br />the Eighth District Court of Appeals. We agreed that it would make little sense to go <br />forward to trial on March 1 to hear the issue dealing with the tree ordinance in the <br />Common Pleas Court until the Court of Appeal's decision is rendered. Therefore, we <br />have agreed to ask the judge in the Court of Common Pleas case for a postponement. <br />5) Originally, the trial dealing with the zoning on Parcel E was scheduled for March I5. <br />Because of impending surgery, the Law Director asked for a continuance. Since the court <br />did not act on the request, he rescinded the request. However, Biskind attorney Tony <br />Coyne has now indicated that he is going to ask for a continuance as he had gone ahead <br />and scheduled other matters for that time. <br />Finance Director Copfer: 1) The year-end, 12/31/98, preliminary revenue and <br />expenditure reports will be available after tonight's meeting to Council members and <br />directors. <br />2) Ordinance Nos. 99-22 through 99-25, which are on first reading tonight, provide for <br />the issuance of notes for a total of $2,050,000 for the 1999 capital improvement program. <br />Mr. Miller, Chairperson of the Transportation Committee: 1) The committee met this <br />evening to discuss Ordinance 99-3, an ordinance amending the Traffic Control File of the <br />City of North Olmsted, conditioned upon the approval of the Director of the Ohio <br />Department of Transportation, so as to provide for a uniform speed limit of 35 mph on all <br />portions of Lorain Road located within the City of North Olmsted. Present were <br />committee members Miller, McKay and Limpert; Council members Nashar, O'Grady, <br />Gareau; Council President Saringer; citizens Paul Barker and Rae Ann Thomas. The <br />purpose for holding the legislation for one more time period was to allow for additional <br />input from the public. However, there was minimal new input--approximately five or six <br />citizens contacted members of Council. Discussion was had about the Police <br />Department's opinion versus the Traffic Engineer's opinion. Ultimately, there was <br />2 <br />~•, <br />