Planning commission opens sign‑code review after state ruling on political signs

The planning commission held a workshop on sign regulations driven by a recent change in state law affecting political signs. City planner Lehi Robert told commissioners the state now treats political signs differently where an adjacent property owner permits placement in the park strip, and staff wants to revise the sign code to ensure content neutrality (size, setbacks, lighting) consistent with Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

Robert recommended treating most sign permits as administrative rather than conditional‑use items before the commission, and to simplify building‑permit references by deferring structural permit questions to the building code. He also noted the currently strict temporary‑sign provision in city code (remove within 24 hours of the event) is ambiguous for many modern temporary uses (business promotions, school events, banners) and suggested clearer objective durations or complaint‑driven enforcement.

Commissioners asked whether political signs could be affixed to utility poles or street signs (staff said that is likely covered by separate prohibitions against affixing materials to utility poles and public property) and whether sandwich‑board signs should be allowed; staff suggested drafting targeted language and reviewing other cities’ approaches before returning with a formal ordinance proposal and public hearing.

Next steps: staff will draft revisions that prioritize content neutrality, consider administrative permitting for most signs, and propose clearer rules for temporary signs and enforcement. The draft will return for public hearing after legal review.