My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/02/2000 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
05/02/2000 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:45:26 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 9:50:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
5/2/2000
Year
2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Minutes of 5/2/2000 <br />limitations on the signs that are up, a 12 foot height limitation and a 50 square foot sign <br />`~,,, face area and a 65 foot sign face area on an 8 foot sign, is creating exactly what we are <br />trying to eliminate and that is sight line problems. The Chamber's recommendation is to <br />raise the height limit to 15 feet, thereby creating a line of sight, and lowering the sign <br />face allowance because 50 feet is excessive. On a 15 foot sign, a 40 foot sign face would <br />be more than adequate, and with an 8 foot sign down on the ground, a 50 foot sign face <br />instead of 65 feet would be more than adequate. This would provide the business with the <br />opportunity to identify their business and also provide the sight line needed for safety for <br />residents and for the business. On another point, in one of the latest revisions, there was <br />a paragraph put in to allow fora 3 5 foot line of sight triangle on a driveway in addition to <br />the intersections. The Chamber understands the need for the intersections, but thinks that <br />a 35 foot triangle at the intersection of a driveway and aright-of--way is certainly <br />excessive and puts an undue burden on a business. <br />LEGISLATION <br />Ordinance No. 2000-12 introduced by Mayor Musial and the entire Council was given its <br />third reading. An ordinance creating new and revised Chapter 1163 of the Zoning Code <br />of the City of North Olmsted, entitled "Signs," as twice amended. Mr. Nashar moved for <br />adoption; second by Mr. Gareau. Roll call: Nashar, yes; Gareau, yes; Kasler, yes; <br />O'Grady, yes; McKay, yes; Limpert, yes; Miller, yes, with comment that he wished to <br />thank the Planning Commission for their efforts on the sign code. Motion passed <br />unanimously. Ordinance No. 2000-12 adopted <br />Ordinance No. 2000-18 introduced by Mr. Gareau was given its third reading. An <br />ordinance vacating a portion of Northern Avenue in the City of North Olmsted and <br />declaring and emergency. Mr. Gareau moved for adoption; second by Mr. McKay; <br />motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 2000-18 adopted. <br />Ordinance No. 2000-23 introduced by Mr. Gareau and Mr. Nashar was given its third <br />reading. An ordinance creating new Chapter 719 of the Business Regulation Code of the <br />City of North Olmsted, entitled "Home and Garage Sales," for the purpose of regulating <br />garage sales, and other similar sales in residential neighborhoods, and declaring an <br />emergency as amended. Mr. Gareau moved for adoption; second by Mr. Nashar. Roll <br />call: Gareau, yes, with comment. "Having reviewed this matter on at least two occasions <br />before the Legislative Committee, having incorporated several changes recommended by <br />several individuals including several residents, I believe this ordinance hits its mark <br />without significant burden to the residents of the City of North Olmsted. By way of <br />background and explanation for my vote, I had received a complaint some time ago <br />concerning a considerable volume of garage sales taking place on one particular street in <br />the City of North Olmsted. The volume was upwards of 15 to 20 sales over a very short <br />period of time. When that individual called City Hall to complain, they were simply told <br />there was absolutely nothing that could be done, it was not regulated within the city. The <br />resident was simply left with no where to turn. That resident contacted me by letter, and <br />that letter in turn was submitted to all of my colleagues on Council requesting their input <br />on whether or not this is something they would like to see regulated within the <br />IZ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.