The Peachtree City Planning Commission on July 28 voted to recommend initiation of a sign ordinance text amendment to City Council to resolve internal conflicts in the city's zoning and sign code. The recommendation instructs staff to draft clarified language addressing roof signs, parapet-mounted signs and related multi-tenant signage issues and return to the commission for detailed review.

Commission staff told commissioners that the Unified Development Ordinance and the sign ordinance contain inconsistent language about roof signs. "Text amendments can only be conducted by initiation from the planning commission or by council," staff said, asking the commission for permission to begin drafting clarifying language.

Commissioners said they want staff to provide draft language and alternatives. Commissioner Chris and others asked for examples of how comparable cities handle similar issues and for both options (banning roof signs outright or permitting them only on parapets) to be presented. Commissioner Halverson raised installation and aesthetic concerns for signs mounted over parapets, noting such signs often include supporting arms and attachments that affect appearance and waterproofing. Commissioner Jack Allen flagged possible impacts on multi-tenant buildings, citing the existing large sign at Westpark as an example that could set a precedent if roof or parapet signage were permitted.

Staff described three code sections creating confusion: definitions (what constitutes a roof sign), a list of prohibited signs, and a zoning-based provisions section that permits certain building signs to extend above the parapet. The staff presentation noted examples in the code where one section appears to prohibit roof signs while another allows signs that extend above the parapet, creating conflicting interpretations for permit review.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to recommend that the Planning Commission initiate a sign-ordinance text amendment and forward that recommendation to City Council. The motion passed by voice vote; commissioners asked staff to return with red-lined draft language, sample codes from other cities, and recommended options so the commission can make a recommendation to council on whether to prohibit roof signs, allow parapet-only signs, or adopt alternative language.

The commission's recommendation is procedural: it authorizes staff to draft and return with proposed ordinance language. Any final change to the city's sign rules would require subsequent commission review and City Council action.

(Ending) Staff said the next step is a return presentation with proposed red-lined language, example ordinances from other jurisdictions, and staff recommendations; that will be the basis for the commission's formal recommendation to council.