Coupeville business owners, residents press planning commission to revise sign code and enforcement

Business owners and residents urged the Coupeville Town Planning Commission on June 3 to revise local sign rules and make enforcement and appeal processes clearer after several small businesses received citations.

Speakers described long-standing signs and small, movable signs that they say help customers find businesses set back from Main Street. “The message board was in place for over three years, and we were unaware that it violated any sign or ordinance,” said Will Hawkins, who identified himself as an owner at Rain Shadow Nursery. Hawkins said customers had stopped by because the board confirmed the business was open.

The issue drew a series of public comments from business owners and nearby residents. Susan McClellan, who lives on South Main Street, said the sign had helped keep customers informed of hours and specials and asked the town to work with businesses “to come to decisions that satisfy all parties involved.” Pamela Cornell, who said she owns Lavender Wind in Coupeville Village, described being surprised to receive a removal notice and said the loss of the sign immediately reduced foot traffic.

Planning staff described the regulatory framework that governs signage in Coupeville. Joshua (last name not provided), a planning staff member, said the town enforces two related sources: Chapter 16.28 of the Coupeville municipal code and the town’s design guidelines (section 4.8) that apply in the historic reserve. He told the commission the sign code was revised in 2017 after a U.S. Supreme Court decision and therefore focuses on material, size and location rather than message or content.

Staff explained how the code measures allowed sign area (usually as a percentage of building façade or parcel frontage) and listed several prohibited sign types, including internally lit and certain temporary signs. “Area allowance, and location are sort of the two biggest components,” Joshua said. He noted enforcement is typically complaint-driven and described the department’s practice of site visits, mailed notices and follow-ups.

Several speakers proposed specific changes. One suggestion, made during public comment and by Commissioner Josh during discussion, was to allow a small, second freestanding wayfinding sign for multi-tenant buildings or business parks and to require the property owner to apportion display time fairly among tenants. Speakers also asked the town to clarify whether a-frame (sandwich-board) signs or small interior-lit signs could be allowed under certain conditions.

Business owners and members of the public asked for clearer appeals and variance procedures and easier access to the complaint record that led to enforcement. Hawkins said he asked planning staff for help before the sign was removed and was told staff’s role at that stage was enforcement not design assistance. Multiple speakers recommended the town provide an “office hours” or workshop session where business owners could get staff help applying the code to their facades.

Planning staff acknowledged those requests and described existing flexibilities in the code (for example, rotating-content signage and signage attached to awnings or building facades) while noting some design guidelines in the Eves Landing National Historical Reserve are more restrictive. Staff proposed a month-long outreach period in June followed by potential code revisions and formal council review if the commission requests it.

The commission and staff agreed to use workshops and written suggestions from business owners to inform any proposed ordinance changes. Staff advised businesses to submit written proposals and examples to planning staff so those items can be included in the code update process.

The commission did not adopt any code changes at the meeting; the discussion was a staff-led update and public hearing-style input session. Planning staff said they will compile comments, consider specific language changes, and bring formal proposals back to the commission and then to the Town Council for any regulatory changes.

For more immediate procedural relief, staff noted that variances and appeals exist under Chapter 16.28 and can be pursued when a permit is denied or when a sign is cited.

A follow-up workshop and additional public outreach were suggested by staff and multiple speakers to give business owners a concrete pathway for resolving permit questions and for the commission to gather precise language changes.

The commission moved on after the sign discussion to other agenda items, including shoreline code amendments and the comprehensive plan schedule.