Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission hears DMC 14.5 sign-code amendments; staff favors city‑sponsored banner option
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff presented proposed updates to DMC 14.5 to make sign rules content‑neutral, reduce permits for many temporary signs, and offer three banner approaches (allow all, ban, or city‑sponsored). The presentation was informational; the draft will return for public hearings before the planning commission and city council.
City planning staff presented proposed amendments to DMC Chapter 14.5 on sign regulations and asked the planning commission for early feedback; no vote was taken. The presentation explained the updates respond to recent court decisions and aim to make the sign code content‑neutral while simplifying administration and reducing visual clutter.
The staff presenter said the draft consolidates prohibited and exempt sign categories, clarifies the calculation of sign area (for wall signs, a percentage of facade area), and restructures the temporary‑sign section. "We are removing content based regulation," the presenter said, describing changes that would stop treating political signs differently from other temporary signs. Under the draft many temporary signs would no longer require permits but would still have limits on number, size and location and must meet published guidance.
The most consequential policy choice identified by staff concerns community banners that span public streets and corner banners. Staff described three options: allow all banners (open to any applicant), prohibit banners entirely, or permit only government‑sponsored banners that bear the city logo and would require a city policy to decide sponsorship. The presenter said option three currently appears preferable but that staff sought the commission's input and legal review before recommending a path to council.
Commissioners pressed staff on how city sponsorship would affect speech and who would determine sponsorship. One commissioner noted the practical risk that large, nonlocal businesses could put up banners if the code allowed all applicants. Another commissioner asked whether a city‑sponsored banner would be perceived as the city ‘‘telling’’ the public something; staff said the city attorney and administrator are involved in that legal analysis and that staff will return with clearer criteria.
Staff also outlined the schedule and process: the initial draft was prepared by consultant BHC; departments have reviewed it; staff will finalize a draft and submit it to the state Department of Commerce; staff will perform required determinations (including a CEVA determination and a determination of "mass significance," as stated) and then hold public hearings before the planning commission and city council. The presenter said the draft will be returned for at least one more review and that public hearings are planned; no action was taken at this meeting.
The commission requested more detail on proposed enforcement and sponsorship criteria and on outreach to affected businesses. Staff said it will design additional noticing and preliminary workshops (including a committee‑of‑the‑whole session) to solicit business input before formal hearings. The item will be noticed for public hearing at a future meeting.
