Error
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 63
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 02:16

Jackson Discusses Amending Sign Ordinance

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

slide5.pngThe City of Jackson is looking into allowing local businesses to erect temporary signs. Currently, a city ordinance exists for permanent business signs and temporary “for sale” signs, but does not address temporary signage that is specifically for advertising. The issue came to the Planning Commission’s attention by way of City code enforcement officials. When asked to take down temporary banners, many local business owners complained and some were “flat out not removing them,” says City Planner Susan Peters. Due to number of complaints, city staff brought the issue to the Planning Commission, which heard the matter at their meeting Monday night. Many local business owners were in attendance to support the cause.

Staff provided the commission with a list of questions regarding amending the current sign ordinance. First, should temporary signs be allowed? If so, what size should they be, and what duration would be allowed? Also, should a permit fee apply as it does for permanent signs? And finally, what type of penalty should be imposed for violating the ordinance? Peters suggested that the Design Committee come up with a proposal, as they are already working on design aspects as part of the Economic Development Committee, a group charged with the revitalization of Jackson. Kam Merzlak of Merzlak Signs, who is on the Design Committee along with Shelly Scott, Cathy Yocheim, and Planning Commissioner Dave Butow, is excited about the task and says, “They are making a step in the right direction by having a professional in the (signage) field (help draft the proposal).” The Design Committee will bring a draft proposal to the next Economic Development meeting on August 14th. From there, that committee will bring the proposal to the Planning Commission at their August 18th meeting. Once the amendment language has been agreed upon, the Jackson City Council will need to vote on the amendment.

Read 675 times Last modified on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 01:56