Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines proposed sign‑code changes; council debates enforcement priorities and digital signage
Summary
City zoning staff presented a package of proposed sign‑code clarifications at the April 21 work session; the changes would clarify permit thresholds, add a public‑interest allowance for informational kiosks and similar devices, adjust the variance standard, and address illuminated canopies and electronic displays.
City zoning staff presented proposed clarifications and amendments to the sign code during the April 21 Des Moines work session, and council members questioned enforcement priorities and the proposed treatment of electronic and window signage.
Eric Lundy, who led the presentation, told the council the proposed changes are intended to clarify enforcement, respond to market trends, and address ambiguity that has hampered consistent application of the ordinance. "Part of that is the sign regulations that I'm gonna be talking about here," Lundy said. He noted the city’s current sign rules sit in two places: the zoning allowances in chapter 134 (what signage a property may earn) and permitting and structural requirements in chapter 26 (the building‑code permitting process). That split, he explained, has led to enforcement confusion.
Major elements Lundy described included:
- Permit clarity: Amend language so that a "prohibited sign" is one that requires a permit under chapter 26 but does not have one, rather than defining prohibited signs by whether they are allowed in the zoning allowances. Lundy said the previous wording created different interpretations among enforcement staff.
- Public‑interest signs: Add a flexible clause to the zoning code to allow certain informational or educational signage (for example, kiosks or trail wayfinding) that serves a public interest without being treated as commercial signage. Lundy gave an example of informational kiosks for Icon Trails used to warn pedestrians and cyclists.
- Electronic and illuminated signs: The update would clarify how electronic video displays and illuminated canopy/awning signs are treated. Lundy said the Board of Adjustment has routinely granted variances for illuminated canopy signs and that permitting language should reflect that practical market use.
- Variance standard and appeal process: Replace the very restrictive "unnecessary hardship" variance test for many sign appeals with a practical‑difficulty (type‑2) standard so the Board of Adjustment can evaluate character and proportionality without requiring a showing that strict hardship exists. Lundy said the change would not eliminate public hearings where controversy exists but would allow more practical relief when appropriate.
- Murals and window signs: The proposal would exclude artistic murals from being treated as signage while clarifying when painted or worded wall art crosses into commercial signage. Staff also recommended follow‑up work on window signage (bright LED displays, vaping‑shop neon) and on measurable limits for brightness and flashing.
Council members raised several topics during discussion: the frequency and prioritization of enforcement sweeps (some members urged shifting enforcement resources from corridor sign sweeps toward neighborhood issues such as parking, junk/debris, and front‑yard violations), whether large public event centers (the Iowa Events Center was discussed) should get administrative relief for digital displays versus a Board of Adjustment review, and how to deal with long‑standing nonconforming signs (whether existing pole signs would require replacement as monument signs if damaged).
Legal constraints framed some of the discussion: staff cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert when explaining that Washington‑area decisions require the city to regulate signs by physical characteristics rather than content; Lundy said the public‑interest clause aims to preserve flexibility without opening content‑based regulation.
Council members also raised concerns about LED brightness standards (the code currently references 75 lumens, which staff said may be too high), the practical difficulty of measuring lumen/brightness reliably for enforcement, and how to treat window displays that may be essentially advertising but are located inside storefront glass. Jim Hoff (council member) pointed to experience with window «glass tower» signage and suggested staff consider definitions that capture attention‑getting displays visible from the public right of way while preserving small, noncommercial window art.
Ending: Lundy said the revisions are part of a set hearing item (Item 31) on the zoning and design amendments; staff will return with draft ordinance language, technical measurements for lighting/brightness, and recommended enforcement procedures for council consideration.
