Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Small-business commenter says longstanding signs could be affected; staff says one A-frame allowed per business
Summary
A public commenter said the proposed rules could force removal of signs on longstanding properties; staff replied the amendment allows one A-frame per business where permanent signage conforms and does not permit signs in city right-of-way.
During the public hearing on the sign-code amendment, resident Richard Snow questioned how many complaints had prompted the pause and the current proposal, said he has had two signs on his patio for about 30 years and worried the city would now require their removal, and suggested the amendment could be used to harass small businesses.
"I have 2 signs on the patio. They've been there for 30 years," Snow told the commission. "...it sounds to me like it's being designed to harass us to take those 2 signs down." The commission asked staff whether the rules would apply to properties with unusual frontages or no sidewalk.
Staff explained that a property with conforming permanent signage could add a single A-frame sign and that signage placed in the public right-of-way (including village streetscape easements) would remain impermissible. Nathan Castillo said businesses that already have sign permits would not need an additional permit to place an allowed A-frame; the amendment is an allowance, not a new permitting burden for compliant businesses.
