The Starkville Board of Aldermen Tuesday held its fifth public hearing on amendments to the city”s sign ordinance and then rejected the proposed revisions by one vote.
At issue is a proposed amortization period, which would give property owners a deadline to bring non-conforming signs into conformity with the ordinance”s new proposed size and location regulations. The city”s ad hoc sign committee will now go back and revise the ordinance again before the Board of Aldermen votes on any amendments.
As part of the proposed amendments, a monument sign, defined as any sign supported totally by a solid base of masonry, brick or other material, could not exceed 80 square feet in area, down from the existing standard of 140 square feet, and could be located a minimum of five feet from the edge of the paved road, back of curb or right-of-way line, down from the existing standard of 10 feet. Monument signs also would not be allowed in the sight-distance triangle of any intersection.
Additionally, monument signs could not exceed eight feet in height above the finished grade, as opposed to the current standard of 15 feet, and distance requirements between monument signs on the same property would be dropped from a 660 feet minimum to 330 feet.
For wall signs, the aggregate square footage of a sign displayed on an individual wall could not exceed 50 percent of the total square footage of the wall, and the sign would not be able to exceed 150 square feet, down from the existing standard of 500 square feet.
Another proposed addition states the square footage of wall signs could be increased to 250 square feet if the primary structure is more than 200 feet from the nearest adjacent public roadway.
Window signs would not be allowed to exceed 25 percent of coverage for any individual window or door, under the proposed amendments, and roof signs would be non-conforming.
Regulations for multi-tenant business signs also would be amended. The central part of the multi-tenant sign, normally reserved for advertising the name of the shopping facility or mall itself, would be limited to just 100 square feet in area, down from the existing standard of 144 square feet. Additionally, the entire sign structure could not exceed 12 feet in height, down from the existing standard of 45 feet above the finished grade.
Multi-tenant signs also would need to be separated from other multi-tenant signs on the same property by just 330 linear feet as opposed to the existing standard of 660 feet. And multi-tenant signs would be allowed just five feet from the paved road, back of curb or right-of-way line under the proposed amendments instead of the existing 10 foot minimum.
Flashing signs, pole signs, post signs, inflatable displays, snipe signs, motor vehicle signs other than those for businesses located on the premises and portable signs that also meet the definition of a flashing sign are prohibited under the existing ordinance.
If the Board of Aldermen were to approve the ordinance as amended and presented on Tuesday, monument signs, multi-tenant business signs, pole signs and roof signs would have to be removed, changed, altered or made to comply with the provisions of the sign ordinance within a period of seven years, or the property owners could be fined and face the suspension or revocation of his or her privilege license, which is required to operate in the city.
All non-conforming wall signs would need to be removed or brought into compliance within one year from the date the ordinance amendments are enacted, and all non-conforming window signs would have to be removed or brought into compliance within 180 days, or the city could suspend or revoke the property owner”s privilege license.
Ward 1 Alderman Ben Carver and Ward 3 Alderman Eric Parker were concerned about the proposed amortization schedule. Neither liked the idea of making property owners pay to replace or alter signs on their land to comply with the proposed ordinance amendments.
Carver said businesses and property owners shouldn”t have to “dig into their pockets” to pay for new signs or alterations. And property owners shouldn”t have to pay fines and risk other penalties if their commercial tenants” signs aren”t in compliance with the sign ordinance amendments, Carver said.
“It”s passing that (penalty) on to somebody that really didn”t have anything to do with the sign in the first place,” Carver said.
Carver and Parker voted against the ordinance amendments, along with Ward 6 Alderman Roy A. Perkins and Ward 7 Alderman Henry Vaughn Sr. Only Ward 2 Alderwoman Sandra Sistrunk, Ward 4 Alderman Richard Corey and Ward 5 Alderman Jeremiah Dumas voted in favor of the amendments.
Dumas said the amortization schedule and enforcement by city officials is the only way to give the ordinance any “teeth.” Additionally, some businesses would have up to seven years to come into compliance with the ordinance, Dumas stressed.
“Seven years is a good bit of time for these businesses to do this,” Dumas said.
Signs are the first thing visitors see when entering a new town, Dumas said, then cited the cluttered appearance of Highway 12, where signs of all shapes and sizes are located. Uniform sign regulations would improve the appearance of Highway 12 and other areas around town, he said.
“Sure it”s a burden to businesses, but I think really there”s no other way around it to get the city looking the way we want,” Dumas said.
Among other proposed additions to the sign ordinance, applicants who want to erect or install political signs as permanent or semi-permanent signage would be required to obtain a sign permit from the city”s Building Department.
Directional signs also would be allowed for non-profit organizations identified as religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, public safety, fostering amateur sports competition or preventing cruelty to children or animals. Each organization would be allowed to post two off-premises directional signs. The signs could not exceed six square feet and could not stand more than six feet in height. The signs would only be allowed to include the name of the organization, its logo and a directional arrow.
Sistrunk said she thinks directional signs should be allowed to include a distance to a specified location and Carver said he thinks organizations should be allowed to include an address.
The board did not set a date for its next public hearing on amendments to the sign ordinance.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 29 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 29 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
