AWOL?
I haven’t lost interest in local doings….
I’ve just been a bit busy lately.
I’ve just been a bit busy lately.
Instead of watching:
I was out of town playing with:
And I’m soon off to here:
Such is life when kids have flown the nest and scattered to
distant places.
IS “MODERN” THE WAY
TO GO?
The local issue stirring up the most controversy is Council’s
proposed ban on electronic signs---you know, those huge, multi-color, tv-type advertising
screens frequently seen along local highways.
It all started last December when a business owner asked the
Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to grant him a “variance” so he could
put an electronic sign in front of his Bishop Road self-storage facility.
(Should I point out that the facility already has a huge, nonconforming (but previously approved) monument sign in front of it?)
(Should I point out that the facility already has a huge, nonconforming (but previously approved) monument sign in front of it?)
The variance request sparked a discussion on Council:
Were electronic signs even allowed under our zoning….. and, if not, should they be?
The bugaboo in the discussion, of course, was the two garish-red
electronic signs sitting in front of the Community Park and the Municipal
Complex.
It seemed a bit disingenuous to hear Council members
question the desirability of electronic signs when the city installed its own electronic
signs along two major city thoroughfares several years ago.
Never fear.
Law Director Tim
Paluf pronounced that whatever the restrictions on everyone else, the city could do whatever it
wanted.
He pointed to Ordinance 1145.03(a)(1), which states:
The (sign) regulations…shall not apply to…Identification, informational or directional signs or notices erected or required by public authority.
Take
that, business owner!
Council
President Cathy Murphy clearly expressed her feelings about
electronic signs at a March 25th Legislative & Finance Committee
meeting:
“I don’t support allowing electronic signs. I don’t think we should have them. I liken our city more to Mayfield Village (which bans electronic signs) than Mayfield Heights (which allows them). We don’t have business strips. Our businesses are near sensitive residential areas. They (electronic signs) would destroy residential character….Residents really don’t want them…and I can make an argument about safety. They are a distraction.”
Mayor Scott Coleman
commented at an April 11th Committee of the Whole meeting:
“We are basically a residential community. The general feeling (of residents that the mayor talks to) was they were either indifferent or against them (electronic signs). I did not hear anyone say that they are in favor of them or that there was overwhelming need for the signs. I don’t think we have any particular need for them. If we prohibit them, we protect our city.”
Councilwoman Ann
D’Amico spoke protectively about her ward:
“When I look at the landscape of Ward 4 I can’t imagine where there is a place that an electronic sign would not impact residents. In my ward it’s not something that would be good at all.”
Not every Council member, however, was dead set against
adopting rules to regulate the use and placement of electronic signs in the
city.
Councilman Bob
Mastrangelo (a P&Z member) looked at things a bit more globally:
“Our city is 80% residential and 20% business. A majority of our income is from businesses that allow us to maintain our residential neighborhoods. …
It’s easy to make rules when you can exempt yourself…
We can’t claim a safety issue when our own (city electronic) signs are flashing every 3 seconds. If that’s a safety issue for businesses then the city should follow that too….
I remember when I started on P&Z, we only allowed 2 car garages. Things change over time, changes that the zoning code did not anticipate when the zoning code was written. I don’t know what we have to fear….
I don’t have a problem looking to see if we could come up with something (regulations) that makes sense.”
Councilman Chuck
Brunello, attempted to sit on the fence but seemed to take a pro-business, “best
case” scenario stance:
“I am not overly excited about them (electronic signs), but if we allowed them not every company would jump on board. They are expensive. Esthetically they look better than what’s already existing. …Two business owners I talked to asked, “When are we going to start doing more for them?”
They are trying to conduct business to stay afloat. They want to advertise new products….Even if they (electronic signs) are allowed, they aren’t going to pop up everywhere I don’t think because they are too expensive. Where we would have them would not be everywhere.
I’m not crazy to do it, but there are some pockets where we could think about it. We (the city) aren’t just residential areas.”
It was reported to me that an attorney came to the April 22nd
Council meeting, hoping to foster a discussion with Council about electronic
signs and the self-storage business owner’s variance request.
That attorney didn’t know what residents know:
Even though members of the public are allowed and invited to
speak at Council meetings, Council members refuse to dialogue with residents in
that forum.
The public can speak but, except in the rarest of rare occasions, the only response they will get from Council members in return is..... silence.
On April 11th Council President Cathy Murphy asked Law Director
Tim Paluf to prepare legislation prohibiting electronic signs in the city.
Her final take on the issue:
Her final take on the issue:
“A lot of cities let them in and then tried to stop them. I’m not sure they are as popular as people think they are or that they are appropriate for every city. We can always revisit it when a compelling need is made.”
