The introduction of a master sign plan was a major topic of discussion, with council members exploring its potential benefits and challenges. The proposed plan would serve as a general framework, offering guidelines for signage in the town’s commercial areas, particularly those with multiple tenants. This would mark a shift from the town’s current regulations, which outline specific allowances, such as limiting monument signs in certain districts.

Council members considered the implementation of a master sign plan as a way to simplify the approval process for new tenants. Under the proposed plan, if tenants adhered to the specified guidelines, they could bypass additional approvals and proceed directly to obtaining building permits. This tenant-friendly approach was seen as a way to enhance business operations while maintaining a consistent look within commercial areas.

Members debated whether to apply the plan exclusively to planned unit developments (PUDs) or to extend it to standalone structures with multiple tenants. The possibility of adjusting regulations based on property size was also considered, allowing larger signs for bigger parcels. The council discussed the potential costs to property owners, who might need to hire professionals to develop these plans, and the urgency of establishing guidelines as the town continues to grow.

A significant part of the conversation revolved around the balance between uniformity and individual expression in signage. While some members favored variation to prevent a monotonous appearance, others stressed the importance of maintaining a coherent town character. The council considered a flexible framework that would allow businesses to interpret guidelines creatively, with the council ultimately serving as the recommending body for final approval of signage proposals.

Discussions included the types of details to be incorporated into the sign plans, such as color schemes, lettering styles, and sign placement. Trademarked signs posed a unique challenge, as they cannot be altered in color or design based on local guidelines if the business can provide proof of trademark status. The council acknowledged the need for clear site plans and elevation examples to evaluate proposed signs against the overall architecture of a building or site.

The council also considered the legislative constraints imposed by Senate Bill 180, which prohibits the introduction of more restrictive ordinances regarding signage until 2027. This constraint sparked discussion about the implications of adding layers to the review process and the potential burden on applicants seeking sign approvals.

In addition to the master sign plan, the council addressed the condition of the town’s current sign code, described as “lackluster and confusing.” A proposal was made to create a detailed outline for sign regulations, which wouldn’t be enforceable until 2027 due to SB80. This outline would provide clarity on sign types, locations, and quantities, and the council expressed a desire to refine the sign code in preparation for future implementation.

The concept of amortization was introduced, focusing on the gradual phasing out of signs that don’t comply with updated regulations. This would involve a timeframe for property owners to adjust their signage to meet new standards, with a suggested period of five to ten years to avoid legal challenges. Council members highlighted the legal considerations of amortization.

There was a consensus on the need for a master plan that incorporates recommendations based on experience, leading to a more structured approach to signage in the town. The council expressed support for drafting a proposal that would provide clear guidelines for businesses regarding sign compliance, ready for council review once the timeline allows for enforcement.