Planning commission delays sign-code vote after staff says revisions not ready

The La Conner Planning Commission postponed final action on proposed sign-code revisions on Jan. 20 after staff said commissioners had not had sufficient time to review tracked edits. Planning staff told the commission the redline edits would be re-presented at the Feb. 3 meeting.

The delay did not stop a substantial discussion about what the code should regulate. "The definition of sign that I'm proposing is any device, display, or structure that is visible from a public place and that has words, letters, figures, designs, symbols, logos, illumination, or projected images," a planning staff member said, adding that the proposed definition would exclude architectural elements incorporated into a building facade. The staff member said items that fall outside that definition would likely be treated as decorations unless another part of code addresses them.

Commissioners raised legal and practical concerns. The chair said commission members and staff had deliberately avoided creating a broad category called a "declaration" because that can raise First Amendment issues and invite litigation. Commissioners also debated whether illumination such as string lights or holiday lighting should be treated as a sign and noted that enforcement has historically been limited in residential areas even where the chapter technically applies.

A recurring point was how the code should treat mixed-use buildings and where exemptions should apply. Several commissioners favored an overlay or zone-based approach so property owners could check restrictions by zoning district rather than by case-by-case property determinations; staff agreed that a zone-based approach would be "a lot cleaner." The commission discussed specific draft exemptions in the sign chapter that already address some residential circumstances but noted the code currently applies to all signs as defined unless an exemption is listed.

Staff emphasized that, despite the technical scope of the chapter, enforcement practice has been conservative: "We always investigate complaints," a staff member said, "but we do not plan a broad enforcement push while the code is under revision." Commissioners agreed it would be messy to open a large enforcement effort during the revision process.

The commission did not take a formal vote on the sign-code edits. Staff apologized for a related staff error that prevented adequate review and said the item will be on the Feb. 3 agenda for formal consideration. The meeting adjourned at 06:33.