Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Dot Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners flag city-code limits on digital signage, ask DOT for guidance on Highway 62/23
Summary
The planning workshop highlighted that city code currently prohibits digital signs, prompting commissioners to request a review of sign rules and a possible presentation from the state DOT; participants also raised concerns about a bright digital sign on Highway 23 and the need to coordinate with DOT on billboards and right-of-way rules.
Cassie told the commission she added a question to the draft about whether digital signs are allowed under current city code and noted the city code currently prohibits digital signs. Commissioners agreed the vision plan should not recommend digital signage without first verifying code constraints and possible ordinance language that would distinguish public city signage from private signs.
The group also discussed state highway jurisdiction for Highway 62 and Highway 23 and whether some sign approvals fall to the state DOT rather than the city. Chair said he would inquire with DOT and request their published rules and possibly invite a DOT representative to a future workshop. Commissioners recommended the project team map the distinctions between city and state authority before proposing signage changes.
Several speakers raised a specific local complaint about an especially bright digital sign at a store on Highway 23 that affects nighttime visibility. Chair said the sign was so bright that ‘‘it’s blinding’’ for drivers, and commissioners discussed asking the owner to dim the sign and confirming whether state rules apply.
No ordinance changes were proposed at the workshop; commissioners directed staff to research relevant city code and DOT standards and to return with recommended next steps and potential draft language for the vision plan.
