02242003 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting 82. February 24, 2003 Page 9 potential locations are in the ETJ. Ms. Narvaiz stated she would like to send this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for them to address the non-interstate issues. She stated she feels the Ordinance does not need to be changed. Mayor Habingreither stated TxDOT regulates the Interstate billboards. He stated he cannot imagine more than half would be used. Mr. James stated he feels that is probably an accurate count. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he feels there are multiple issues 1) property owner's rights, and 2) whether billboards are key to the businesses. He inquired what the major concerns of the Council were. He also stated he feels the current number of billboards is fine. Mayor Habingreither stated he feels the closest compromise there is would be Option d, which allows new sign permits with stricter rules on location, size and height. Ms. Tatum stated she is interested in a compromise between Option c, which allows new signs with the removal of two existing off-premise signs and Option d, which allows new sign permits with stricter rules on location, size and height. Ms. Tatum asked whether most sign companies own the property where their signs are located. Mr. James stated he believes there are few, if any, sign companies who own the property where their signs are located. Mr. Mayhew stated he feels the Council should follow the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation Option b, which prohibits all new off-premise signs and grandfathers existing signs. Ed Theriot, Acting Director of the Planning Department, stated the Planing and Zoning Commission mainly focused on Option b and c. Mr. James stated the Planning and Zoning Commission rejected Option c because they felt the landowners would not be protected from sign companies removing their signs to replace them at another location. Mr. Mayhew asked if the new legislation passes, would the City be bound to follow it. Mr. Mark Taylor stated the City could not allow what State law does not allow, but we can make it stricter. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he would like Staff to work with Option d. He suggested Council suggest an alternate ration if uncomfortable with the recommenced 2 to 1 replacement. Mr. 0'Leafy stated if the Council is leaning more towards Options b, c, and d, then he feels Staff can provide some sub-options to b, c and d. Ms. Narvaiz stated if the Council is leaning towards Option d, then she feels the spacing requirements should be increased. She feels this would decrease the number of signs and might bring a compromise. Council agreed to delete both Options a and f. Mr. Mayhew stated he is leaning towards Option b, which prohibits all new off-premise signs and grandfathers existing signs. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he is leaning towards Option c, which allows a new sign with the removal of two existing off-premise signs. Ms. Tatum and Mr. Taylor stated they both are leaning towards Option d, which allows new sign permits with stricter rules on location, size and height. Mayor Habingreither, Mr. Montoya and Ms. Narvaiz stated they are leaning towards Option e, which keeps the rules as they are. Council stated they would like Staff to bring the sub-options to the Council at the last meeting in March or first meeting in April. Mr. Taylor stated he would like to make sure there is a balance between the landowners and sign companies.