Plano — Planning staff asked the commission on Sept. 15 for direction on an ongoing rewrite of the city's sign regulations. Robin Kirk, senior planner, framed the project as an effort "to modernize and simplify the code, and then to ensure our compliance with all the legal directives on signs." The item was discussion and direction only; staff did not call a public hearing or seek immediate formal action.

Why it matters: The sign code rewrite aims to comply with recent court decisions on content‑based regulation, tighten measurement standards, move temporary sign rules into the zoning ordinance, and address illumination near residential areas. Changes could affect existing nonconforming signs, pole signs, monument‑height rules in overlay districts, and the permitting and enforcement process for new signage citywide.

Key points staff presented: Kirk and colleagues summarized three topics for direction:
- Nonconforming sign rules: staff asked whether nonconforming signs should be allowed to remain and be repaired, be replaceable with identical structures, or be required to come into compliance on ownership/occupancy change or after a time limit.
- Pole signs: staff presented maps and peer‑city research showing many cities greatly restrict new pole signs; staff asked whether Plano should prohibit new pole signs citywide or in more areas.
- Monument signs and overlay districts: staff proposed two approaches for monument sign height rules — Option A (retain overlays but simplify their differences) or Option B (remove sign rules from overlays and regulate monument heights based on thoroughfare type, which is correlated to travel speed and legibility needs).

Building official and enforcement perspective: Salsa Amada, chief building official, told commissioners the department's priority is simplification and clearer permitting: "Simplification of our sign ordinance is the target, and there's a lot of things that we have proposed that help do that." She added that consistent, clear rules tied to the permit process make enforcement more effective.

Commissioner direction and majority positions: Commissioners discussed several tradeoffs — long‑term aesthetic goals versus the economic impact of forcing immediate compliance on owners and tenants. The commission gave staff direction on the draft rewrite along these lines (no formal ordinance adopted at this meeting):
- Nonconforming signs: commissioners generally favored allowing repair and maintenance of existing nonconforming signs but were reluctant to permit wholesale replacement of a nonconforming structure with an identical copy. Many commissioners supported natural attrition and repair rights; several favored triggering compliance on a sale or a substantial change, with an emphasis on transactional changes rather than nominal ownership transfers.
- Replacement and vacancy: commissioners supported a time‑limit concept for signs advertising a vacated business (a vacant message or an unused sign) and agreed that a sign that advertises a vacated premises should be removed after a reasonable period; they were cautious about treating temporary no‑copy windows as automatic loss of nonconformity.
- Pole signs: commissioners signaled they want pole signs more restricted; several stated preference for prohibiting new pole signs in more areas and tightening where they are allowed. One commissioner summarized the informal consensus: "No more pole signs."
- Monument signs and overlays: a majority of commissioners favored Option B — removing sign language from overlay districts and regulating monument sign heights by thoroughfare type for citywide consistency, rather than retaining multiple overlay‑specific height rules (Option A).

Next steps from staff: Kirk said staff will continue drafting the ordinance language, perform industry outreach, solicit targeted public input (including sign industry stakeholders and affected property owners), and return with a draft ordinance for the commission to call for a public hearing. The building official asked staff to prioritize clarity in the permitting process to help enforcement.

What the record does not show: The meeting produced no formal vote or ordinance changes; commissioners provided direction for staff research and drafting. Staff did not commit to a specific timeline for the formal text amendment and Council hearings. The transcript shows detailed commissioner concerns about ownership change triggers, tenant impacts, and the logistics of bringing nonconforming signs into compliance.