Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 13, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he liked the idea that the constructi on sites had a larger sign, but <br />was concerned about more than one sign on a site. He asked if only one sign would be <br />allowed. Mr. Smyser replied as being propos ed one sign would be allowed per street <br />front. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if internal streets in a pr oject counted. Mr. Smyser noted that was a <br />good point and he would look into that. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked if they should regulat e signage on construction trailers put on a <br />construction site. Mr. Smyser replied they could add text that names and numbers of <br />subcontractors with signs on their trailers w ould not be included into the Ordinance as <br />signage. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he was con cerned that construction signs were appearing to be given <br />preferential treatment. He asked how they coul d be more inclusive, instead of exclusive. <br />Mr. Smyser responded they could use the same the same requirements as portable signs <br />or other temporary signage. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson noted a construction sign by its nature is tempor ary. Mr. Hyden agreed that <br />construction sites were different. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz noted there were se veral different types of constr uction sites, where at some <br />point a construction sign would go away a nd be replaced by a monument sign. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he would like to see one construction sign per street also. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked why construction signs did not need a permit. Mr. Smyser noted no <br />Cities that he researched required a permit fo r a construction sign and he did not believe <br />this has ever been an issue in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if they discussed as a Board the timeline for the construction signs. He <br />questioned whether construction signs in re sidential subdivisions should be allowed, <br />especially until 75 percent of the lots were so ld. Mr. Smyser responded a lot of times the <br />construction and real estate signs were together. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he like d the Ordinance the way it was written and the amount of <br />money being invested for a project site, the 30-day after the Certific ate of Occupancy was <br />a fair deal. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he did not believe cons truction signs should not be allowed in <br />residential subdivisions until 75 percent of the lots were sold. He stated sometimes it <br />took years before 75 percent of a development was sold. <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser asked at what point the constr uction company would be told they had to <br />remove their signs. Mr. Laden replied he woul d put a time certain on sign removal, such <br />as six months, 12 months, etc. <br />