Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates sign-size limits and whether to allow exceptions for large EMD signs
Summary
Councilmembers and staff discussed the village sign code, noting a proposed electronic message display (EMD) would be roughly 106 sq ft versus code allowances around 26 sq ft; options discussed included council review for exceptions or ordinance amendments to preserve corridor appearance.
The Village Council discussed commercial sign standards and the limits on electronic message display (EMD) area, focusing on whether code or an ordinance change should allow larger or structurally altered signs.
Staff (Ken, Speaker 5) explained that on a 40 mph street the code restricts EMD faces to roughly 50% of the allowed sign area — about 26 square feet — and said the proposed EMD face in one application is approximately 106 square feet. 'The EMD sign cannot exceed 50% of the sign area allowed, which is roughly about 26 square feet for their EMD sign. The one that's in the house is a 106 square feet,' Ken said.
Councilmembers discussed why the code limits exist and the precedent set by decades of prior council decisions to preserve a consistent, cohesive look along commercial corridors. Some members suggested a process that would permit an applicant to seek council approval or an ordinance amendment if a proposed sign requires structural changes; others cautioned that changing the rules for one large sign could weaken long-standing design standards.
Speakers recalled prior debates that established monument signs and height limits, and noted that a structural change — such as replacing an existing cabinet or making substantial changes to a freestanding sign — can trigger new ordinance standards. Several councilmembers said it may be appropriate to explore a pathway for limited exceptions, such as council review or narrowly tailored ordinance language, but no formal code change was adopted in the provided transcript.
The council asked staff to consider options for permitting review or an ordinance amendment that would preserve the corridor's character while addressing specific commercial requests. The transcript ends with discussion of considerations and historic context; no formal ordinance change or vote is recorded in the provided excerpt.
