City postpones sign discussion
Published 10:18 am Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Austin City Council decided to table discussion on a proposed sign ordinance that would prohibit private signs from the public right-of-way.
“I guess at this time, with everything that’s come up, we should table this to discuss more at the work session,” council member Jeff Austin, 1st Ward, said.
The city was prepared to vote on the issue after discussion during its past two work session meetings, when 2nd Ward member Dick Pacholl raised concerns about the inequity of the current sign ordinance.
“I guess if anyone deserves the blame for getting us into this, it’s me,” he said Monday.
Pacholl recounted the various complaints he’d received from rummage salers, whose signs have been limited to two local locations. They believe, he said, that the city applies an unequal standard to private signage on public roadways.
Pacholl said in his investigations into the issue, he found an ordinance through the League of Minnesota Cities that advised caution over laws that could be deemed discriminatory because of preference given to certain types of signs or groups.
“In other words, be very careful who you are allowing to put signs on city property,” he said.
City attorney David Hoversten clarified Pacholl’s point, saying that the ordinance he cited didn’t exactly address the issue before the council. He said it pertained instead to signs on private, not public, property.
“What we’re talking about is regulating the right of way, and that’s the issue with this ordinance,” he said.
City ordinance currently permits all except for rummage salers to post signs on the right-of-ways, including real estate agents, auctioneers, performers, private business and organizations.
Residents hosting yard sales must confine theirs to two areas — the Skinner’s Hill parking lot off Second Drive and Ninth Place Southwest and an area 100 feet west of Fifth Avenue and Seventh Street Northeast — a move reportedly taken to preserve public safety.
Austin said that he’d identified continuing enforcement issues in the ordinance as it stands, and expected more to arise with such sweeping new policy.
“The first problem we have with the ordinance is enforcement,” he said.
The council will likely revisit the issue during its Aug. 4 meeting.