| OCR Text |
Show Realtors want ban removed from proposed sign ordinance by Christopher Smart The newly-proposed city sign ordinance was attacked by the real estate industry in a public hearing May 17. Criticism focused on a section of the ordinance which outlaws "for sale" signs on private property bearing the names of individual indivi-dual real estate firms. At the hearing in the City Council chambers, Bob Ziegler, president of the Board of Realtors, said his organization was disturbed at the content of the proposed section banning "for sale" signs as well as the way it was written into the ordinance. ordi-nance. According to Ziegler, his organization was shown a draft of the ordinance six weeks ago and the section banning the real estate signs was not included. The signs are a vital part of the real estate industry, he said, and the city has not given the proposal enough study. Ziegler told the council that the Board of Realtors was in the process of designing a program that would eliminate unnecessary signs. He argued that property owners have a right to have for sale signs on their property. City Councilman Jim Doilney said he understood the city was banning the signs at the request of the Board of Realtors. He said that the council was given the impression by Councilman Al Horrigan that realtors, as a group, were behind the newest addition to the sign ordinance. He said the measure shouldn't pass without with-out the realtor's support. Ziegler and other realtors present assured the council that they had not suggested the ban to Horrigan. Additionally, the Chamber of Commerce submitted to the council a written declaration against the real estate sign ban. City Attorney Tom Clyde suggested that real estate signs be considered separately separ-ately from the balance of the ordinance. He told the council it was important that the code be put in place because ii settled legal questions on existing signs as well as setting guidelines for proposed signs. Horrigan, who was vacationing vaca-tioning at the time of the hearing, made the proposal to outlaw the real estate signs at a joint session of the Planning Commission and the City Council in March. The addition of the controversial contro-versial section banning for sale signs was done according accord-ing to procedure, Horrigan added. Upon his return, Horrigan said that to separate the real estate sign section from the body of the sign ordinance would be a mistake. He cited a recent Supreme Court decision which holds that visual clutter can be eliminated elimi-nated by a municipality if dealt with in a comprehensive comprehen-sive plan. Horrigan said that to single out real estate signs by not including them in the new ordinance could leave the city open to a legal suit. The ban on real estate signs was introduced, Horrigan said, because the "proliferation of real estate signs creates for the visitors an image of a real estate disaster area." He added that the Board of Realtors' attempt to police the signs themselves is not working. tiyde, however, said that he believes the city would be on solid legal ground if it adopts real estate sign regulations as an amendment to the ordinance. There were no comments at the hearing on the remainder of the sign ordinance ordi-nance that, according to the planning staff, was created to be more specific than existing exist-ing regulations. Planning Director Bill Ligety and staff planner Alison Child had sought input from various groups within the community to develop the new guidelines. guide-lines. The new ordinance deals with size and materials for signs as well as regulations for free-standing signs and neon signs. Doilney suggested suggest-ed that owners of existing signs be given five years to comply with the new regulations. regula-tions. The proposal is scheduled to be discussed again at the May 31 council meeting. |
