City Council Meeting: July 23,
2008
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Proposed Changes to Sign Code and Sign Policy Issues
Recommended Action
Staff has received some comments on the proposed ordinance which would
amend the sign code. Those comments have
been considered; and, in some instances, staff has modified its
recommendations. This information sheet
is intended to summarize the revisions to staff’s proposal. Staff recommends approval of the revised,
proposed ordinance, which is attached.
Executive
Summary & Discussion
The additional revisions to the proposed ordinance would:
·
Add new
language making clear that the “substitution clause”, which allows a sign owner
to replace a sign’s text with a noncommercial message, does not abrogate
requirements of any approved sign program.
This proposed amendment is a clarification of existing law, not a
change;
·
Add new
language clarifying the exemption for building identification signs. This would not change City policy which
allows for building identification;
·
Limit
the number of exempt signs on or adjacent to entrances, exits, restrooms, etc.;
·
Revise
and improve the definitions of “public signs”, which are exempt from obtaining a
sign permit if they are not of a prohibited sign type. This change effectuates existing City policy;
·
Revise
the definition of “temporary” sign and add a definition of “permanent” sign; to
clarify the regulations governing temporary and permanent signage;
·
Revise
the definition of emitting sign to be consistent with controlling case law;
·
Delete
the exemption for traffic sign replicas because it is content based;
·
Restore
language on temporary window signs, which is in the current law but was
inadvertently omitted from the proposed ordinance;
The revised, proposed ordinance is not intended to change City sign
policy. However, comments received by
staff suggest that the Council may wish to consider issues relating to real
estate signs and signs visible through windows.
As to real estate signs, there is an ambiguity in the current law. The number of temporary signs is limited to
four. However, it is not clear whether
this numeric limit applies to the number of signs at a single location or the
total number of signs (at various locations) advertising a particular
property. This should be clarified. Additionally, Council may wish to clarify the
language in the proposed draft which allows signage in “close proximity” that
is for sale. Finally, current law is
ambiguous as to installing or placing temporary real estate signs on public
property, including parkways and sidewalks.
And, insofar as current law imposes a prohibition, that prohibition has
not been enforced. Consistent with
current practice, the revised proposed ordinance would allow temporary signs at
intersections within “close proximity” to properties available for sale or
lease. Council may wish to consider and
articulate a clear prohibition against temporary signs on public property.
As to signs visible through windows, current practice counts signs
within three feet of windows as window signage.
Council may wish to address this as a policy issue.
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Marsha
Jones Moutrie City
Attorney |
|
P. City Manager |