02-25-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998 without a permit process. Carson suggested that the public should control the situation and the City should be left out of it. Dan Mahai, Keller Parkway, reported that the real estate industry is the primary violator of the City's sign ordinance. Mahai felt that allowing property owners to decide whether or not to allow signs on their property would be opening up a cottage industry. Mahai felt that the goal should be to make the City look welcoming and aesthetically pleasing. Mahai felt that an open house sign that was up for only a few hours was O.K., but had concern for signs that get put up and stay up. Mahai reported that the City has been cleaned up, and asked why it would now digress by allowing off - premise signs. Carson pointed out that off - premise signs are currently allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Keis stated that he wants to make the decision for his property whether or not there is a sign in front of his house. The City Planner pointed out that the ordinance amendment limits the time an off - premise sign can be up to 24 hours before and after a real estate agent is on the premises. A sign that is left up for longer than that is a potential enforcement activity. Mahai raised the issue of directional signs to businesses. The City Planner responded that the zoning patterns the City tries to develop are such that businesses would be easy to find negating the need for a directional sign. The Planner pointed out that the ordinance amendment before the Commission is specific to real estate signs. Barraclough pointed out that the directional arrow sign for a house for sale and an open house sign are two different signs. An arrow sign is typically left up until the house is sold while the open house sign is up and down within a short period of time. Mahai pointed out that there would be no way to tell if a sign was put up by permit or not. Mahai again stated that illegal signs in the City have been cleaned up. If the ordinance amendment is adopted, Mahai questioned what the incentive would be to keep the sign ordinance enforced. Keis agreed it is an enforcement issue, and suggested there may not be enough City staff people to enforce it. However, under the ordinance proposal, the property owner can control the situation. If signs are put up on a corner without the property owner's permission, those signs can be taken down. 7 Page 40