The meeting kicked off with a presentation by the city’s code enforcement manager, who detailed the violations regarding the hotel’s sign. The sign was installed without a permit and measured 250.5 square feet, violating the maximum allowable size of 160 square feet. Despite a permit being granted for another sign on the hotel’s western elevation, the permit for the oversized sign was denied. The denial was confirmed after a variance request was initially approved by the board of adjustments but subsequently appealed by the city staff and overturned by the city council.

At the heart of the debate was the role of the community and economic development department. The appeal, filed by the department director, raised questions about whether the department could be considered an aggrieved party, as it typically provides recommendations rather than acts as a party with direct financial harm. The legitimacy of the appeal process was hotly contested, with one side asserting that the department’s lack of standing should nullify the appeal, while the opposing view argued that city staff, representing the city’s interests, had the right to appeal decisions impacting city regulations.

Further complicating the matter were communications between the hotel’s representatives and city officials. Text messages between the hotel’s vice president of construction and the city’s deputy building official suggested an expectation of permit approval, which was not fulfilled. The lack of documentation indicating non-compliance with city code was highlighted as a issue, emphasizing that decisions were made under the assumption of compliance.

As the meeting unfolded, the discussion shifted to the economic implications of the non-compliant sign. The hotel’s vice president of construction contended that removing the sign constituted economic waste, given the investment in its design, fabrication, and installation. He argued that the sign’s removal would require extensive permitting and reconstruction efforts, which he deemed irreversible. The magistrate challenged this notion, pointing out that redesigning the sign to meet city code was neither irreparable nor irreversible, drawing a parallel with scenarios where property damage is typically considered irreversible.

The magistrate emphasized the urgency of resolving the compliance issue, particularly with the holiday season approaching. The timeline for approval and installation was tight, with the magistrate underscoring the need for swift action and setting a deadline for the submission of necessary permits. The discussion revealed the hotel’s operational pressures, particularly the need to maintain visibility for guests during the busy holiday season. The magistrate acknowledged the potential for losing business if tourists could not locate the hotel due to the absence of signage.

Ultimately, the magistrate set a series of deadlines for compliance. The hotel was given until December 3 to submit the permit application for both removing the existing sign and designing a new, compliant one. The complete removal of the non-compliant sign was mandated by January 14, 2026, allowing additional time for fabrication and installation of a sign adhering to city regulations.

This decision was accompanied by a stipulation that failure to comply by the deadlines would result in a $250 daily fine and an assessment of all enforcement costs against the hotel. The magistrate also emphasized the importance of adhering to city regulations while considering the hotel’s operational needs, highlighting the challenges faced by the hotel in navigating compliance amidst business pressures.