Port Richey council workshop trims sign-permit triggers, bans plastic for permanent signs and sets 60% window-coverage limit

Port Richey City Council members and planning and building staff spent a multi-hour workshop reviewing a proposed rewrite of the city's sign code, agreeing to several changes intended to simplify permitting and tighten safety and appearance standards.

The council and staff agreed, by consensus during the workshop, to remove the words "maintenance" and "repair" from the list of activities that automatically require a sign permit. City Attorney Nancy Myers explained the practical boundary for permits: "If you're maintaining a sign and you're doing electrical work or you're refacing it, you would need a permit. But the actual maintenance, if you're cleaning it, if you're painting it, things of that nature, it wouldn't require anything." That distinction guided the group's decision to carve out routine upkeep from the permit trigger while keeping permits for structural, electrical or other safety-sensitive work.

Why it matters: Council members said the change is aimed at reducing friction and expense for small businesses that only need to refresh or clean an existing sign, while still preserving inspections for work that affects electrical systems, structure or windloads.

Key outcomes and staff directions

- Maintenance/repair language removed from permit triggers: Council consensus was to strike both "maintenance" and "repair" as stand-alone triggers for a permit, after staff and legal counsel said routine cleaning or repainting should not require a full permit process.

- Permanent plastic prohibited: Councilmembers agreed to remove "plastic" from the list of permitted permanent sign materials; participants repeatedly noted that modern temporary banners and plastic vinyl are common but should be limited to temporary use. The workshop record includes an explicit, on-the-record directive that "plastic is gone" from permanent-materials language.

- Appeal timing and decision-maker: The council directed staff to revise the administrative-appeal language so that if the Board of Adjustment cannot meet within the ordinance's 45-day window the appeal can be routed to a contracted special magistrate rather than held indefinitely. Staff said the city already has contracted magistrates who hear red-light and other code enforcement matters and can be used for sign appeals.

- Window signs: Councilmembers asked staff to adjust the draft so window-covering limits are more permissive than the earlier text. Workshop participants settled on a 60% maximum window coverage for signage/graphics (the draft had used 50%), with staff to translate that into the ordinance text.

- Bus-stop/bench signage: The council agreed to allow bus-stop informational or advertising panels (including bench and shelter panels) where the transit or property owner gives permission; the council asked staff to ensure agreements clarify maintenance and trespass authority.

- Fees and variance process: Council asked staff to review the fee schedule and bring back recommended adjustments. Staff noted publication and certified-mail costs (examples mentioned: publication up to $640; certified-mail about $8.47 per notice) and sign-permit revenue figures: "Since October we've done 10 sign permits totaling $5,600 — 6 new and 4 refaced," a staff member reported during the workshop.

What remained under discussion

- Refacing vs. replacement: Council members debated whether simple refacing (replacing a plastic insert or panel) should always require a permit and an inspection. Building staff and the mayor warned that without inspection, a refaced cabinet or reinstalled panel could present a wind-load or electrical hazard in storms. Staff said they would clarify the draft language to distinguish safe, in-place refacing that does not affect structure or electrical connections from work that requires inspection and a permit.

- Variance scope and fee level: The council asked staff to tidy the variance language and return with a proposal for an adjusted variance application fee (staff and council discussed an example increase from $500 toward $800 to better cover advertising and mailing costs for variance hearings).

Other operational clarifications

- Permit timing and renewals discussed: Staff and council recited common building-permit practice: a statutory or standard outside review period (example cited: 30 days to issue), six-month permit validity with two 90-day extensions commonly used for construction-related permits, though staff said the building official determines specific timing.

- Enforcement gap acknowledged: Multiple councilmembers and staff acknowledged that the city has not consistently inspected or collected fees for many existing sign changes and that work will be needed to bring enforcement and code language into alignment. Staff was tasked to return with clarified ordinance text and an implementation plan.

Procedural next steps

City staff will prepare revised ordinance text reflecting the workshop directions, highlight the changes (staff said they will show edits in a new color or redline), and return the draft for a first reading and routing back to Planning & Zoning as required. The council directed staff to bring supplemental material on fee impacts, enforcement steps, and suggested special-magistrate language for appeals.

Ending

Council members closed the workshop emphasizing two goals: make the sign code more business-friendly for routine, low-risk work, and keep safeguards for structural and electrical changes that affect public safety. Staff will return with a revised ordinance for formal consideration and additional fee and implementation detail.