Item 3: Ordinance Revising Sign Code

Home Browse Search

(The reason for allowing two exempt signs on residential properties and only one on properties used for commercial, industrial or other purposes is that a range of signs are already available by permit in commercial and industrial zones. The size of the exempt signs - 12 square feet - in the proposed ordinance is the same as the current Sign Code’s exemption for “signs during elections.”) 2. Make some minor wording changes to some of the other exemptions to make it clear that they are not based on the sign’s content. 3. Require the City to act on a sign permit application within three weeks of receipt of a complete application. The City Council held a work session on the proposed ordinance July 11, 2012. Its discussion focused on the size of the exempt signs described in paragraph #1 above, especially on residential properties. The council expressed its hope that members of the public would address that subject at the July 23 public hearing. Should the maximum size of these residential signs be 12 square feet, nine square feet, six square feet or some other size? Also, should the maximum differ if the sign is a free-standing sign or a banner/flag? Planning Commission. Because the Sign Code is in Chapter 9, consideration of the amendments follows Land Use Code amendment procedures. The City Council initiated the code amendment process at its May 29 meeting. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and deliberated on the proposed amendments on June 19 and recommended three changes to the proposed ordinance. The recommended changes are: (1) retain the exemption for “contractor signs” that is in the current code; (2) retain the exemption for “flags” that is in the current code; and (3) limit the size of the two exempt signs on residential properties to six square feet (as opposed to 12 square feet in the proposed ordinance). not The City Manager recommends that the council adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendations #1 and #2, because retaining those two exemptions would effectively negate the compromise with the ACLU, which has argued that both exemptions are content-based and unconstitutional. As to recommendation #3: although the allowable size of the signs is also part of the compromise with the ACLU, there is no clear constitutional standard for size limitations. The maximum size of a sign is a policy question for the council – subject to a constitutional principle that the Sign Code allow signs to be large enough to communicate a message. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City’s Sign Code is in EC 9.6600 to 9.6680. EC 9.6600 describes the purposes of the Sign Code; EC 9.6610 contains the exemptions that are the primary subject of the proposed amendments. The Sign Code is part of the City’s Land Use Code; the proposed amendments are “Type V” amendments, so the procedures and criteria for legislative amendments apply. The amendments must be consistent with applicable statewide planning goals and with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. To the limited extent those criteria are relevant to the proposed amendments, they are addressed in draft findings in Attachment B. S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120723\S1207233.doc