The Town Council spent several hours of its meeting time on Jan. 19 discussing two items that seem to frequently return for updates or clarification. One of those is the sign regulations within the Zoning Ordinance, and the second was policy for sponsorships, naming rights and waiver of fees for rentals and events using town facilities (see separate story).

Town Manager Grady Miller explained that he was presenting these items to the council for discussion and feedback, there was no action taken at the session. Miller noted there is still considerable work on both issues and the council may see them again more than once before final adoption.

The sign regulations are a familiar subject for update and refinement. Councilman Mike Scharnow noted that signs are an issue that the community has struggled with since prior to incorporation and, in the 30 years since incorporation, the council has adopted three or four updated versions, usually spurred by clutter, complaints or court decisions. In this instance it was a 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that brought staff back to reviewing the ordinance. The court basically stated in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (Arizona) that municipalities may not regulate signs based on content, which would be a free speech violation. This was related to a local church placing signs out as notice of services.

It is this type of off-site or “temporary” sign that causes consternation and confusion in Fountain Hills. The council had little input for Development Services Director John Wesley as he presented the regulations for the more permanent signs on buildings or structural monuments for shopping centers.

In lengthy comments to the council Scharnow described these as “professional and permanent signage.”

“Such signage adds to the overall architecture and look of a building,” Scharnow said. “It helps businesses be found by consumers, it serves as advertising and such signs do contribute to the overall business climate.”

However, he had plenty to say regarding what he called “extraneous signage.”

“A-frames, the tent signs, garage sales, directional signs for open houses, the banners. I feel this type of signage is detrimental to the overall aesthetics and business appeal of our community,” Scharnow said. “I think it detracts, it can be a traffic safety hazard, it is visual pollution and clutters up the landscape.

“We profess to live in an environmentally sensitive community and love our mountain views and natural desert landscapes. We pass ordinances to protect our Dark Skies. Yet we seemingly have no issue about cluttering up our rights-of-ways, sidewalks, landscaped areas in front of businesses with all kinds of questionable signage.”

Scharnow said he is familiar with the arguments that such signs bring in traffic for businesses and branding.

“I’m a business owner and a Chamber member myself,” he said. “With a newspaper background for three decades, I’m well aware of how advertising and marketing works. But I think we can be better than this. Marketing has changed.”

Scharnow said with changing times, the town’s ordinances should reflect that.

“One element that’s not reflected in the current proposal is the advent of technology and digital platforms,” he said. “This is 2021, not 1971. Does an A-frame sign for a mortgage broker suddenly convince a motorist to turn into the parking lot and start signing papers for a loan? No.”

Scharnow said he is also no fan of the state legislature preempting local control regarding political signs. He noted that for years Fountain Hills was able to successfully keep political signs to a minimum. This may have been that at one time, putting up a sign in town could cost more votes than it attracted.

“This past election cycle is the worst I’ve seen, and I don’t see it getting any better,” Scharnow said. “Do we simply accept proposed revisions taking out any reference to content, or do we truly look at serious sign code revisions for the betterment of our overall business community and our appearance as a town?”

Mayor Ginny Dickey said she believes state law still provides for limitations by creating sign-free zones, and she asked Town Attorney Aaron Arnson to research that.

“Councilman Scharnow made a very thoughtful statement,” Councilman Alan Magazine said. “It may be worth listening to what he said and possibly modify our approach to this.”

While most council members were generally in agreement with Scharnow’s comments, Council Member Gerry Friedel challenged some of his positions.

“I take a little exception to what Councilman Scharnow said,” Friedel said. “We can’t discount the effectiveness of the A-frame signs totally,” Friedel said. “I have been in businesses and heard customers state they relied on the (A-frames) to bring them right to the place.

“Not everyone has access to, or can use, a smartphone for digital navigation or the internet.”

Councilwoman Peggy McMahon suggested that the regulations include standards for construction and aesthetics for the A-frame signs, which have been included in past regulations.

However, Councilwoman Sharron Grzybowski said that involves a cost most businesses can’t afford.

“If you are going to do that, the town should be willing to bear some of that cost,” Grzybowski said. “I don’t think we can afford that.”

Wesley noted that currently, as of the end of 2020, A-frame signs are technically banned in town. Dec. 31 was the expiration date of the latest sunset provision in the ordinance, and the council has not renewed it. Wesley said the town would continue to allow the signs until the council provides further direction.

Miller said the discussion provided staff plenty of guidance to go back to work. He said he believes it will take two or three more discussion sessions before the ordinance is in a form for a council vote.