DAPHNE, Ala. —During a special work session last week, the Daphne Planning Commission spent two hours discussing possible changes to the city’s interstate sign ordinance, which many members of the commission felt were not adequate to meet the needs of potential developers to the area.

The discussion, which was prompted by a request from a developer, dealt with sign height, property requirements and sight-line studies.

Commissioners reached agreement on specific requirements, and a possible replacement for the interstate signage ordinance will be drafted. The ordinance, once drafted, will be discussed by the planning commission at a later meeting and the commissioners will provide a recommendation to the council regarding its adoption.

The commissioners do not have the authority to change the ordinance, and any changes made will only go into effect if the city council approves the new ordinance.

In the proposed new ordinance, the commissioners decided on the following matters:

• Any property with less than 200 feet of interstate frontage would be allowed a 40-foot monument type sign.
• Any property with 201 feet to 500 feet of interstate frontage would be allowed a 45-foot monument type sign.
• Any property in excess of 10 acres of interstate frontage with three or more tenants would be allowed a development sign up to 90 feet tall and 900 square feet in surface area, pending a sight-line study to determine if the excess height is needed and approval of the planning commission.

“I remember hearing some feedback from you that 200 feet of frontage area may be too small of an area to have a large sign,” Adrienne Jones, community development director, said. “You don’t want to have sign, sign, sign all the way down the interstate.”

Commissioner Larry Chason said that the tracts of land in the area could be subdivided or used in a variety of ways, so the ordinance needs to address all of the possibilities.

“We have got to take into consideration what types of signs are appropriate on interstate lots given that they may be an acre, or may be 5 acres,” Chason said. “I don’t think that the ordinance has ever addressed the difference. All of our discussions, to this point, have been about how many feet you need to have a larger sign. The challenge is to put together an ordinance that is prepared for any possible option.”

He doesn’t want the sign ordinance to affect the way people develop their lots.

“We don’t want people configuring lots in order to get as big a sign they can get,” Chason said. “The sign should be adequate for what they are doing.”

Commissioner Ed Kirby agreed with Chason.

“We need to develop in our ordinance some type of definition for what type of property gets what type of signs,” Kirby said.

Many of the commissioners thought 200 feet was too small for a large development sign to be appropriate.

“I think 200 feet is too small,” Commissioner Don Terry said. Commissioners Victoria Phelps and Chason agreed.

Chason suggested that the land should be 500 feet or more, but Commissioner Dan Gibson suggested the ordinance require the property to be at least 10 acres.

“The height of all signs will be determined based upon the height of Interstate 10 instead of the height of the property. In my opinion that would be one thing we need to do is work on where we are going to start the elevation,” Kirby said.

Commissioners agreed to use the center line of the eastbound lanes.

“I think that is the fair way to do it, easier on everybody so they know what to do,” Mayor Fred Small said.

Businesses with interstate frontage would be allowed to use up to 30 percent of the back wall of the building for signage purposes as well.

Commissioners also discussed the possibility of landscaping along the interstate right of way to increase signage visibility.

“We do know that ALDOT is going to approve some type of tree windowing and tree modification to provide a compromise,” Phelps said.

Small said the city is still working out the details, but he is confident that there will be some type of agreement. Approval of any landscaping must be obtained before beginning work on landscaping.

The height specifications determined by the planning commission coincide with the specifications in place at Jubilee Shopping Center.

Members of the commission agreed that signs are needed by some businesses along the interstate, but the proper height and design is still to be determined.

“The goal is for these people to have their businesses seen from the interstate,” Chason said. “The further you are from the interchange the less importance I think should be placed on the height of the sign. If you haven’t put a sign up by now, if you haven’t felt the need to do it, you have to adhere to the new ordinance.”

Phelps said the commission needed to make sure it did its part to protect the natural resources Daphne has.

“In my view, we do have a scenic vista that still exists. Anything that we can do as a community to help preserve that slightly, I think is our duty as a planning commission to do that. By using monument signs versus lollipop signs, a lollipop sign, to me, is less appropriate. I don’t think we want to pollute with lollipop signs…” Phelps said.

Chason said telling developers what type of sign they had to use was overstepping the powers of the planning commission.

“I start getting really nervous when I think we start telling people what we think looks good. We are just nine people. When it comes to writing an ordinance, when it comes to putting in personal preferences in terms of what colors or what types…we leave the decisions about cost and shape to the guys paying for it,” Chason said.

In other news, the planning commission began discussions to determine the future land-use plan, which would be utilized if any property owners along State Highway 181 wish to be annexed into the city.

“At our last planning commission meeting, in conjunction with the annexation of Highway 181, commissioners determined that in going forward with the annexation of the road, that it would be a good idea to also talk about the future land use of the area and  look at developing a map,” Jones said.

The city council recently approved the annexation of rights of way along State Highway 181 as far south as the Oldfield Subdivision, but the property along the roadway has not been annexed.

The planning commission began the discussion in anticipation of property owners requesting annexation in the future. The land is currently under the jurisdiction of the Baldwin County Planning Department. The current map designates the area as primarily low-density residential or small businesses. Chason pointed out that the county’s designations were much broader than Daphne’s, so the commission would have to thoroughly consider what is wanted in each area.

“I think that their urban land development category encompasses three or four of our commercial zoning districts. That is really the big challenge. For residential, it is a matter of density probably,” Chason said.

The planning commission made no decisions regarding future land use along the newly annexed rights of way, but expects to continue discussing the issue.

“It looks like we’ve got some work set out for us,” Kirby said.