Council tables sign-code amendment after public concerns about language and notice
Council considered housekeeping edits to the sign code, including permitting temporary signs and updating fees, but tabled the ordinance for a month after public commenters and council members raised concerns about ambiguous text and stakeholder review (motion to table passed 8-1 abstain).
The full story
City staff described the proposed sign-code amendment as largely "housekeeping"—moving temporary signs to a permitted category, clarifying that development signs must be on-site, adjusting permit fees, and reconciling table entries for SC 1 with the existing SC 1 section. Planner/staff (S8) told council that an earlier package contained an error and that the corrected text retained existing multi-tenant standards for SC 1.
Sign up to keep reading.
Your free newsletter brings you what your city council, county, and school board discussed and decided.
Keep reading for free
Create a free account to finish this story and see the video, transcript and key details.
Continue with GoogleContinue with emailAlready have an account? Log in