Planning Commission tables sign‑ordinance amendment after extended debate on right‑of‑way and realtor signs

The Planning Commission voted to table a city‑sponsored amendment to the sign ordinance after extended discussion and public comment, directing staff to prepare revisions and hold a study session before returning the item to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Planning staff described the package as largely clerical cleanup with three notable substantive changes: (1) a prohibition on signs in the city right‑of‑way (except special‑event signs approved by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen); (2) an explicit ban on feather and other animated temporary signs; and (3) a simplification of sign permit fees from a base‑plus‑square‑foot formula to a flat per‑sign fee. Staff also said the draft clarifies staff titles—changing references from “property maintenance inspector” to the current “codes compliance officer” (Tony Mercado)—and corrects cross‑references in the code.

Sam Luthy told commissioners that the right‑of‑way prohibition is intended to avoid content‑based enforcement problems: "If we allow 1 type of sign in the right of the way, it opens that door up to all signs ... the only way to differentiate between a permitted and not permitted sign is judging it based on the actual statement or the content on the sign, which we're not allowed to do," he said.

Realtor and auctioneer Joe Orr, a 50‑year resident and local real‑estate practitioner, urged the commission not to prohibit auction and directional signs in the right‑of‑way. "I oppose that. So I think that's a restraint on our trade," Orr said, noting auction signs are typically small, limited in time, and important for marketing open houses and sales.

Commissioners discussed practical issues including whether the city or state owns particular rights‑of‑way (staff clarified most local street right‑of‑way is city owned even where the state maintains the road), typical right‑of‑way widths (commonly 50 feet in the city; 100 feet in some corridors), the treatment of legally nonconforming existing signs, and enforcement options. Staff said noncompliant temporary signs would be subject to removal and could be held at public‑works or codes facilities for retrieval for a fee; unclaimed signs would be recycled.

After debate, the commission voted to table the ordinance and requested staff prepare a report and hold a study session (preferably before the next regular meeting) addressing: preservation of realtor signage, temporary sign fee structure, and whether non‑content‑based differentiation (for example, a business‑licensed annual permit or business identification on signs) could allow limited right‑of‑way signage while remaining legally defensible. The motion to table and schedule a study session passed (mover: Mr. Sellers; second: Mr. Klein) with a 6–0 vote.

Votes at a glance: Motion to table the sign‑ordinance amendment and direct staff to prepare edits and a study session — mover: Mr. Sellers; second: Mr. Klein; outcome: tabled 6–0.

Staff asked commissioners and aldermen for input and indicated the draft ordinance and a signed copy have been attached to the packet for review; commissioners asked staff to include in future materials the proposed language for enforcement and a clearer explanation of how fees and sign retrieval would work.