Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage And Lighting Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances Madison Street sign rules and citywide lighting standards after split votes
Summary
Council approved first‑reading changes to allow electronic message signs in the Madison Street design overlay and separately passed citywide lighting standards after questions from business owners and residents.
The City Council voted in favor of changes to allow digital message boards in the Madison Street Urban Design Overlay and separately approved citywide updates to lighting standards on first reading.
Councilman Streetman sponsored Ordinance 4, which the council divided into two questions after public comment and discussion: citywide lighting limits (question 1) and the Madison Street electronic message board design standards (question 2). The council approved the lighting portion on first reading (9 yes, 3 no) and then approved the Madison Street signage portion (11 yes, 1 no).
Public comment and concerns: Business owner Thomas Brennan, whose business sits near Crossland Avenue, told the council he understood the proposal was intended for Madison Street only and asked that the city not treat the measure as a citywide sign code change. Brennan said he was worried the current ordinance language read citywide and asked the council to confirm that the digital message board rules were limited to the Madison Street corridor. Streetman and staff clarified that the sign design standards apply to the Madison Street overlay, while the lighting limits being added are citywide. Brennan asked whether existing bright or animated lighting would be grandfathered; Streetman and staff said the lighting rules are not grandfathered and would require changes to address light pollution.
Why it matters: Sponsors said the change allows businesses inside the Madison Street design overlay to use LED message boards under specific design restrictions, while the lighting standards aim to reduce light pollution that affects drivers and neighbors. Opponents warned the city may be imposing rules that businesses cannot afford to comply with or that will be unevenly enforced.
Process and next steps: Council split the ordinance after members asked for clear separation between the two topics. Both parts passed on first reading and will return for second reading. Separately, the council took up Ordinance 112 (an update to the Clarksville design overlay districts) on the consent agenda but then pulled it for separate consideration; Councilman Lovato offered an amendment to soften surface‑parking language (replacing “shall” with “should”) and to defer setback specifics to base zoning. That amendment passed (8 yes, 4 no) and the amended ordinance was automatically referred back to the Regional Planning Commission for review.
