Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Governing body refers proposed sign-code change to council, would cap monument signs at 12 feet
Summary
Members voted to refer proposed amendments to the local development code that would define monument (ground) signs and cap monument-sign height at 12 feet to the council for review; staff will check statutory requirements before any ordinance advances.
The governing body voted to send proposed amendments to the local development code, intended to define “monument” or ground signs and limit their height, to the council for review. The motion was approved by voice vote and the chair declared the motion passed.
Mr. Milstead, a planning/economic-development staff member, presented the draft language that would define a monument sign as “sign permanently affixed to the ground at its base supported by a base structure…not attached to any part of a building, and no taller than 12 feet in height as measured from the surrounding unmodified ground level.” He said the change is intended to prevent building a berm or elevated feature to artificially increase sign height.
The draft also adds a separate column to Table 16.5.0.1 to indicate maximum monument-sign heights in commercial zoning districts and clarifies that pole signs and monument (ground) signs are treated differently in the code’s height columns. A board member noted the RC1 district already establishes a 10-foot maximum for pole or monument signs; Mr. Milstead confirmed RC1 remains unchanged.
A member asked whether the minimum-distance column should explicitly use the word “monument”; Mr. Milstead said ground signs can include monument and pole signs in the code and that the minimum-distance item is primarily designed to differentiate pole signs. The board also asked about sign-area calculations; Mr. Milstead said the same sign-area calculation applies across sign types.
After brief discussion a motion and second were made to advance the draft to council for review. The body approved the motion by voice vote. Mr. Milstead said staff would ensure any statutory requirements are met before advancing an ordinance to council.
The transcript does not identify the name of the governing body or provide a meeting date; articles use the term “the governing body” when referring to the presiding group because the transcript only identifies participants by speech and honorifics.
