One notable issues discussed was the enforcement challenges and perceived inconsistencies in the application of existing sign codes. A business owner recounted an incident where their newly installed sign, costing $300, was removed, while a neighboring sign remained untouched. This incident was attributed to inconsistent enforcement directives from a previous city manager. The business owner emphasized the critical role of signage in attracting customers, especially in high-traffic areas such as US 19, and questioned the rationale behind selective enforcement.

The conversation on enforcement led to a broader analysis of the current sign code, which has not been reviewed in nearly two decades. City attorney Nancy Meyer introduced a proposed ordinance to update the code, crafted by attorney Ashenfelder, which includes sections that require more immediate attention, such as sections 121-2 and 121-3. These sections are crucial in addressing issues like “activated signs,” which respond to movement or sound, and “snipe signs,” which are temporary signs often placed illegally in rights-of-way.

Discussion further delved into the distinction between vehicle signs and vehicle wraps, with some members noting that vehicle signs could detract from the visual appeal of the cityscape. It was noted that while such signs could boost business visibility, they often posed enforcement challenges due to their temporary nature. The board acknowledged that many communities faced similar regulatory dilemmas and emphasized the need for sign codes that reflect current business operations while considering public safety and aesthetic standards.

The topic of inflatable signs also generated discussion. Examples were cited of local businesses like Liberty Taxes and a new Thai restaurant using inflatable signs for promotional purposes. The board contemplated the potential for temporary permits to allow new businesses to use these signs for limited periods, recognizing the challenge in ensuring they remain temporary and do not become permanent fixtures.

Window signage regulations were another focal point, with proposals to limit window coverage to 25% in aggregate. The existing rule led to confusion, as evidenced by a business being compelled to remove a tribute to veterans from its windows. This prompted suggestions to invite sign industry professionals to the proposed workshop to discuss modern trends and compliance strategies.

Addressing off-premise signage, the board discussed the complexities of regulating signs that advertise businesses not located on the same premises. Current regulations prohibit such signs, leading to conflicts when businesses paint signs on adjacent buildings. The need for clear and consistent definitions within the code was underscored, as ambiguous terms have led to varied interpretations and enforcement challenges.

The meeting also highlighted the importance of community engagement in the signage regulation process. Suggestions were made to hold public workshops to foster dialogue between the board and local businesses. Members suggested involving the Chamber of Commerce to help notify businesses about these forums, recognizing the importance of broad participation in shaping regulations that meet both business and community expectations.

The board concluded that a workshop should be organized to gather input from business owners, with the intent of creating a more inclusive and business-friendly environment. There was agreement that the workshop could be scheduled for January, allowing ample time for planning and ensuring maximum attendance by holding it in the evening.