Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Garland committee reopens sign-ordinance review, considers temporary-sign rules and historic-sign preservation
Summary
At a Sept. 9 Development Services Committee meeting, staff sought direction on updating the city sign ordinance to address temporary signs, materials and the condition of existing signage and outlined options for preserving historically significant signs.
Members of Garland’s Development Services Committee on Sept. 9 directed staff to return with a code review and enforcement options after discussing temporary signage, sign materials and a proposed historic-sign preservation program.
Committee Chair Margaret Lutt said the additional scope requested by Councilwoman Sam Dutton (by email) centers on “the condition of signs and allowed materials, and that was also in reference to temporary signage. Sam Dutton sent a couple of pictures, and I will send those to you.” Staff emphasized the item was intended to determine whether the issues are code, enforcement or both.
Planning staff said the review will include an inventory of existing signs and their conditions and will assess whether current code language and enforcement practice match the council’s vision. “So what we'll do is a current ordinance review in relationship to that and then see if if that's a code issue or is that an enforcement issue or both,” a planning staff member said.
Cultural-arts staff told the committee the city should support and preserve historic and significant signs. “Definitely, we like to support and then, preserve those historic and significant signs,” cultural-arts staff said, adding the department would coordinate on any preservation or facade program.
Committee members and staff discussed several options for historic-sign preservation, including (1) asking property or sign owners to request historic designation under the existing ordinance, (2) city acquisition and storage of signs if owners are willing and funding can be identified, and (3) creating a historic-overlay district in the comprehensive plan that could extend regulatory tools in targeted areas. City legal staff said the current ordinance does not provide for the city to be the applicant for a historic-sign designation and warned that unilaterally designating a private sign as historic could raise legal issues.
Staff said approximately 12 signs have been flagged as “significant” as a starting point for proactive outreach; the department plans to contact owners to determine interest in restoration, designation or voluntary transfer for city stewardship and possible display.
Committee members asked staff to include photo examples of temporary signage and banner treatments, to clarify which temporary elements (for example wall banners) would be covered, and to show how historic-sign options could link to the city’s revitalization grant program. Staff confirmed they will identify where the code already allows exemptions for designated historic signs and will propose updates where necessary.
The committee gave staff direction to (a) prepare a current-code review tied to temporary signage, materials and sign condition, (b) assemble photographic examples and an inventory of identified historic or significant signs, and (c) coordinate with cultural-arts and legal staff on potential designation, acquisition and storage mechanisms and how any preservation program could fit into the comprehensive-plan process.
Votes and procedural actions at the meeting included a motion to approve the minutes from the prior meeting that passed unanimously (motion by Councilman Bass; second by Margaret Lutt).
