Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale council rejects immediate ban on portable “A‑frame” signs, directs planning commission to draft rules
Summary
The Springdale Town Council denied a proposed change to Title 10, Chapter 24 that would have clarified portable signs are prohibited and instead directed the planning commission to develop safety- and size-based standards for temporary business signage.
The Springdale Town Council on July 9 denied an ordinance change that would have clarified portable signs (including A-frame or sandwich-board signs) are not allowed in town and directed the planning commission to draft standards for limited temporary signage.
The move came after staff presented a planning-commission recommendation to prohibit portable signs in Title 10, Chapter 24 of the town code. Niall (staff member) told the council the recommended change would remove confusion created by the code's current phrasing, which specifically bans A-frame signs but leaves open how other portable signs are handled.
Why it matters: Council members said they want to balance pedestrian safety and the town’s visual character with small-business needs to advertise daily specials or short-term offerings. Several local speakers urged the council to allow a measured form of temporary signage rather than a blanket ban.
At a public comment period, Mike Marriott (Resident) criticized the existing restriction and told the council that outright prohibition is “one of the more ridiculous ordinances” and urged accommodation for businesses. Jeff McKee (Resident) said, “Businesses should have the same rights as the city has,” arguing regulation could preserve appearance while allowing temporary signs.
Council members debated enforcement and accessibility. Council member Kyla Topham raised concerns about people with limited vision and the potential for signs to become obstacles: “I will be the person who is knocking over A-frame signs,” she said, urging caution on permitting anything that would reduce the clear pedestrian path. Other council members said wider sidewalks and sensible size and setback limits could allow safe use of temporary signs.
Council action: Councilmember Jack Burns moved to deny the ordinance changes to Chapter 10‑24 and to direct the planning commission to develop standards that would allow temporary portable signage with appropriate safety parameters; Randy Aton seconded. The motion passed 4‑1 (Burns, Aton, Barbara Bruno and Pat Campbell aye; Topham no). The motion directs the planning commission to return with recommended size, setback and use rules rather than the council adopting an immediate prohibition.
The council also discussed, but did not decide tonight, related sign rules contained elsewhere in the code that affect temporary noncommercial signs (the staff report noted a provision allowing one temporary noncommercial sign on a residential parcel for up to 90 days not to exceed 4 square feet and 4 feet in height). The council agreed clearer, implementable standards should be developed before any ban is implemented.
Next steps: The planning commission will be asked to draft standards for temporary portable signage that address size, placement/setback from sidewalks, frequency of use and enforcement mechanisms, and to return to the council with a noticed ordinance for formal action.
