Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants limited sign variance for BPI fence screening, calls for sign‑ordinance review
Summary
Council granted a two‑year variance treating BPI's branded fence screen as two signs so the company can keep its installed screening while staff and council revise the sign ordinance. Council expressed support for screening aesthetics but concern about fee consistency and precedent.
The City Council voted to treat the branded fence‑screen installed at BPI’s Rooster Springs equipment yard as two signs and granted a two‑year variance, a compromise to allow the company to keep the screening while staff and council consider ordinance changes.
Rob McClellan, director of business development for BPI, said the company has invested roughly $7,000 in a commercial‑grade fence screen installed in July 2024 and asked the council not to apply the city’s sign ordinance as if the screen were 13 separate signs. “We view this as one continuous fence screen with repeating elements,” McClellan said, urging that the installation be treated as a single sign for fee purposes. Building official Shane Peebehaus told the council the sign code’s variance criteria did not show a unique hardship and recommended denying the variance under the existing ordinance.
Council members debated temporary vs. permanent installations, the precedent for allowing branded screening, and fee fairness for other local businesses. Several members said the city’s sign rules are inflexible and that revising the ordinance to better address modern fence screening and construction‑site materials would reduce future conflicts.
A motion to treat the installation as two signs for fee calculation and to allow the variance for two years carried. Council directed staff to bring back sign‑ordinance clarifications and to define time limits and application of temporary screening in a future update. The council also clarified that the right‑of‑way sign and the fence screening would be treated separately for fee assessment.
