Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission considered proposed changes to the city’s sign ordinance during a public workshop session held on Monday.
City Director of Planning and Development Jon Hartman said the existing ordinance is vague, does not address a number of specific types of signs, does not outline specific calculations for sizes or fee schedules and does not consistently specify the type of permit required.
According to Hartman, the proposed ordinance aims to be content-neutral, specifies and reduces the fee schedule, and allows for “snipe signs” (corrugated plastic or cardboard temporary signs.) It also includes specific regulations about enforcement and provides calculations and illustrations.
The two issues that have recently come before the commission regard allowance of off premise signs and signs along the right of way.
Hartman said the right of way is set by whichever is furthest from the street: a line of telephone poles, sidewalks or if neither is present, five feet away from the back of the curb.
Tiffany Gold, owner of Primp N Tease Hair Salon at 401 Hudson Drive, has been meeting with city officials weekly to determine what can be done about the new policy enforcer confiscating her snipe sign. Because the salon is not very visible up a hill above a retaining wall, she has no prime location for a sign. The area below the wall is public right of way, and the property across the street is a privately owned field. For years, her employees have put up a sign in that field with no complaint which she said increases her clientele. It is put up and taken down daily.
She has approached city officials and commissioners to determine how she can continue to market her business with more than her existing banner, and to legally increase her visibility.
If she is allowed to place signs in the right of way, then other companies would be allowed to, which Council Chairman Paul Bellamy said could create a mowing issue.
It is also an issue of safety, Hartman said, because the right of way is government property, and thus, liability falls on the government if said signs cause distracted driving or injury.
Hartman pointed out, and others agreed, that specific regulations must be established that can apply to all businesses, and they must be zone specific, but content-neutral.
When the new policy enforcer, George Duffy, began working for the city, he started confiscating signs, which according to the current policy were illegal.
Gold feels that her business has been targeted unfairly because other signs which are throughout the city illegally have remained for months and even years.
A group of seven real estate agents attended the meeting and said they also feel targeted.
“Why are our real estate signs being taken down, but For Sale and For Rent signs remain?” asked Russ Swanay. “It is infuriating that we are trying to run businesses, but ‘for sale’ signs remain while ours are confiscated.”
He said these problems, of which no complaints were made to the real estate agents or to the city, began with the new enforcer. City Manager Jerome Kitchens said Duffy is simply doing his job according to what the existing policy states.
“We have two problems: the ordinance and enforcement,” said Planning Commissioner Dena Bass.
The request of the realtors was to be allowed to have two small off-premise directional signs per property for sale as needed.
Hartman advised that if the ordinance allows off-premise signs, they be in front of the parcel and at a limit of one per lot or per store front, much like wall-signs or multi-tenant signs and that they must have size restrictions of less than 4 square feet.
However, for both the real estate agents and Gold, this presents an issue.
Policy subcommittee members debated whether allowing real estate agents to have off-premise directional signs, would mean they must allow them for other companies. Hartman emphasized the importance of indiscriminate policy.
For Gold, having an off premise sign seems to be the only issue, but if she is allowed to advertise her business, others would be allowed to do the same.
“What do we do to help businesses, but not make things tacky?” City Mayor Curt Alexander asked.
Bass said, “I’m okay with businesses allowing one sign within proximity.”
Hartman said that according to supreme court rulings, they cannot regulate what signs say, but they can regulate what types of signs are allowed in certain areas. For Gold, this does not solve her problem, because the proposed policy, though it allows for snipe signs, does not allow them in commercial districts.
“We can’t say, ‘business signs can do this, real estate signs can do that, residential signs can do this, yard signs can do that.’ We are very limited on what we can and can’t regulate,” said Hartman.
Hartman scheduled a Monday training session with his staff, which includes going through the chain of command, the policy enforcer, clarifying which signs may or may not be confiscated, what to do with them, and what is and is not legal.
The proposed ordinance will go before the Planning Commission, and then, if substantial changes are made, it will go before City Council for two hearings.