Council asks staff for written options on large digital displays after hours‑long debate

City staff presented a concept for allowing limited large digital building‑mounted displays in parts of the central business district and the downtown cultural corridor, and council directed staff to return with a written report with more specific draft language.

What staff proposed: Abby Feeley and legal staff outlined a concept that would create special sign districts — a Museum & Arts District and a Convention & Cultural District within downtown — where wall‑mounted digital displays could be permitted as part of a controlled site plan process. Staff said the initial concept would limit freestanding signs (no new billboards) and start with modest numeric limits (staff suggested a starting point of three signs per district) and a surface‑area cap around 650 square feet, but emphasized the framework was conceptual and subject to direction.

Legal and technical constraints: City attorneys warned council that any local rules that allow large new sign technology will run up against First Amendment limits: once the city permits a class of sign and a private owner applies, the city has limited ability to control the expressive content of what appears on the sign. Legal staff also flagged the City’s 1996‑era billboard settlement with a major sign operator; that agreement allowed a transition that removed hundreds of billboards in exchange for limited relocation rights and technical allowances. Paragraph 18 of that agreement, legal staff said, contemplates the city may change local sign law in the future and permits the billboard company to use new technology for signs that are otherwise allowed under the agreement. Staff cautioned the council that permitting new signage technology could create an avenue for billboard owners to convert or relocate signs under the settlement’s terms.

Design and safety considerations: Staff showed examples from peer cities (Baltimore, Denver, West Hollywood) where sign programs were paired with place‑making goals and strict block‑by‑block siting rules, and they emphasized illumination controls — automatic dimming tied to ambient light, cut‑off hours, and distance separations from riverwalks and residential windows — would be required. Several council members said they wanted clearer objective criteria for placement, scale and illumination; others urged limited pilots and a role for the Downtown Partnership in pre‑review or advisory stages.

Public reaction and council direction: Councilmembers expressed a range of views: some said the city should not be overwhelmed by billboards; others said downtown place‑making and economic development benefits could justify carefully regulated signs. Multiple councilmembers and city staff agreed that the proposal warrants more time and public input. Council approved a motion directing staff to deliver a written staff report with draft language and options; the council set March 6, 2025 as the date for that written report. The presentation also generated an immediate request that staff consult with the Downtown Partnership, consider revenue uses (several councilmembers suggested dedicating revenue to downtown programming), and plan public workshops before any ordinance is drafted.

Why it matters: Large digital displays are visible, durable and commercially valuable. Allowing them in downtown would reshape the public realm, create new revenue possibilities, raise visual‑impact and light‑pollution questions, and trigger legal risks relating to existing billboard rights and free‑speech constraints.

What’s next: Staff will produce a written report (requested for March 6, 2025) that lays out options, draft ordinance language and proposed illumination and siting criteria, and will include consultation with legal counsel about settlement agreement implications and First Amendment constraints.