02241986 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

37 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 Page 2 Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration a ~ublic hearing and ap~roval of an Ordinance on first reading, the caDtion which was read as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN ~ßRCOS, TEXAS, ADDING AN APPENDIX B, THE SAN ~ffiRCOS SIGN ORDINANCE, TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SAN ~1ARCOS REGULATING THE SIZE! HElGET, MAINTENANCE ~ND LOCATION OF BOTH ON-PREMISE AND OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ~ITHIN THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS AND ITS EXTRATERFITORIAL JURISDICTION. PROVIDING FOR NON-CONFOffi1ING SIGNS. EXEMPT- ING CERTAIN SIGNS. REQUIRING STREET NU~1BER SIGNS. PRO- HIBITING CERTAIN SIGNS. PROVIDING FOR PERMITS. LICENSING CERTAIN SIGNS. O~HERWISE REGULATING SIGNAGE. PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION, ENFORCEMENT, APPEAL AND VARIANCES' AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Craddock opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to s~eak in favor of the Ordinance and no one did. Mayor Craddock asked if anyone wished to speak in o~position to the Ordinance. Gayle Ross of the Zoning Commission commended Dan Gibson for his efforts in drafting the Ordinance. He stated he was Op~oSèd to the excessive amount of billboards as you enter the City traveling South down IE35 from Austin and is op~osed to the largeness of billboards. Mike Moore of the Planning Comnission reviewed the OrŒinance with the Council ~ointing out his concerns: Page 9, Item 13, Window Sign~ Page 11, Sec. 3~3, off~Dremise is not covered. Mr. Eankins stated that it was just clarification of the definition. Mr. Moore stated it needs to address all abandoned signs. Page 11, Sec. 3--5.3. He stat- ed he was opposed to large flags that were placed just to attract attention and not truly show patriotism; Page 16, Item 2. Mr. Moore felt this provision was discriminatory to new businesses allowing old businesses to kee~ their existing signs; Page 17, Item 4. Mr. Moore stated the size allowance of signs is entirely too large (480 and 260 square feet) ~ Page 17 Item 5. Mr. Moore said the City should research this matter further regarding the Staff ins~ections of signs at $20.0r per inspection. Frank Robbins was asked to resnond and stated he felt it was a reasonable amount. Mr. Moore stateŒ that signs are an abuse to the beauty of our City. He stated he felt the Planning and Zoning CoMmissions were manipulated by the Chamber of Commerce's committee and that the citizens had not been given equal o~~ortunity for input as the Chamber had been provided. Sylvia Newsom of the Zoning Commis- sion stated she agrees with most of Mr. Moore's comments. She stated the Commissions had com~romised ~any issues. She stated where flags are flown would show whether or not patriotic in her opinion; and some comnromised issues are non-conforming sign (Page 14); restructur- ing adapted 260 square feet (Page 16). change Item 4 on Page 17 to 480 s~uare feet but she would like to see 64 square feet retained in this same ~rovision rather than the increase to 75 square feet; she was concerned about the safety deletions (Page 15) ~ she was concerned about the increase from 10 to 15 days for banners on Page 18, Sec. 4~3.2; she stated it would be a burden to candidates to take down political signs within 7 days (to~ of Page 19). Mr. Hankins respond- ed he would be satisfied to see the Council delete any requirements for political signs from the Ordinance. Mrs. Newsom stated she was in favor of retaining the 25' setback rather 10' setback on Page 20, 6.c.; she stated she was not in favor of làrger signage on Page 22, Item 10, Highway Corridor 20 square feet and all other locations 10 feet but preferred 10' and 5' respectively. Jay Moore asked if Aqua- rena would be able to continue flying a corporate flag. Mr. Robbins stated it would be grandfathered in but would not be an exemption for new businesses. Mr. Moore thankeŒ all the ~ersons for the time put into the Sign Ordinance. Bill Thom~son, Manager of the Sirloin Stockade,