Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends new Comprehensive Sign Plan process but seeks clearer thresholds for planning commission review
Summary
Staff proposed a Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) process to allow consolidated sign approvals for large or multi‑building developments. Commissioners supported the tool but asked staff to define clear thresholds for when the director should refer applications to planning commission.
The Timnath Planning Commission reviewed a land‑use code amendment to create an administratively approved Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) process that would allow coordinated signage for large or mixed‑use developments as an alternative to per‑sign review under Article 7.
Staff presenter Chad said the CSP would permit limited adjustments to sign type, height, number and location within a defined plan while preserving safety and landscaping standards; applicants would provide building elevations, wayfinding plans and a justification for any deviations. Chad said the director would approve CSPs administratively but retain authority to refer proposals to planning commission when deviations are ‘‘substantial in scale, intensity, or visual impact.’’
Commissioners debated whether CSP approvals should be subject to planning commission review by default or only when thresholds are met. Several commissioners asked staff to develop clearer metrics or a pragmatic referral process so the public could meaningfully review controversial proposals. Commissioner concerns included digital/LED signs (which are banned in current code), overall visual clutter, and whether multi‑tenant monument signs should allow tenant logos or be limited to subdued branding. Staff said LED/digital signs and other high‑intensity deviations would be kicked up to commission automatically.
A motion to approve the land‑use code amendment was moved and seconded and passed with recorded support and a recorded nay. Commissioners asked staff to inform council of the planning commission discussion and requested that council consider whether the commission should be the primary approval authority or whether staff should craft objective referral thresholds.
