My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/17/2000 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
04/17/2000 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:45:27 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 9:50:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
4/17/2000
Year
2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Public Hearing, Ordinance 2000-12 <br />April 17, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br />whether the owners would be able to update them. The Law Director and Mr. <br />Zimmerman explained that, if a sign is damaged by more than 50% of the replacement <br />cost, then it has to be brought into conformity. Usual maintenance would not be a <br />problem. Mr. Graham felt there was a contradiction in 1163.26 (m) where two identical <br />sign faces on opposite sides of an emrance drive aze discussed. Mr. Zimmerman <br />suggested that the matter is easily resolvable by variance on special cases. Mr. Graham <br />objected to 1163.12 and restated his previous objections to the requirements that the <br />information be put on the sign. He renewed his suggestion that the city issue a sticker <br />that could be applied. Mr. Graham said that 1163.14 "Outdated Signs" is redundant and <br />is covered by 1163.10 (b). Section 1163.17 (a), relating to sight triangles, is a new <br />"curve" that was thrown in. Mr. Zimmerman said one way to read paragraph (a) is not <br />that it prohibits signs being in the sight triangle, but it requires that they not obstruct free <br />and clear vision within those sight lines. Law Director Gareau said it is a safety measure, <br />and it had been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Graham said he would like to <br />renew his plea for pole signs because bringing signs down to the ground in every case is <br />not the solution. Mr. Graham expressed an objection to regulating through variance. Mr. <br />Zimmerman said that any time you try to do what is being done here, which is recast an <br />ordinance that's defensible and constitutional and appropriate under the law yet control <br />things effectively, you aze going to be facing variances. He does not see that a bad <br />ordinance creates variances, but he thinks a good ordinance creates opportunities to allow <br />flexibility for business owners who have valid and legitimate concerns. <br />Tim Bums, 3968 Dover Center, noting some properties aze not as large as others, <br />suggested that a provision be made where pole signs aze prohibited except for lots that <br />are of a certain size. Mr. Zimmerman again noted that there is a variance procedure. <br />There being no further comments from the audience, President Saringer adjourned the <br />public heazing at 8:40 p.m. <br /> <br /> ~..` _. ` <br />t.K..~~'~--~E..- ~ <br />t`Bazbaza L. Seman, C1~;rk of Council <br />~~ <br />Ja A. Saringer, President of Co it <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.