Last night I and several other WeMAR members joined small business owners and Church Pastors to voice our opinions, insight and suggestions to the City of Surprise Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Commission was hearing from the public on the topic of A-Frame and other temporary signage as suggested in the proposed updated sign ordinance.
Pastor Starr from Just Church was the first to speak. He described how the lack of A-Frame signage has led to a large reduction in attendance and calls from people wondering if the Church still exists.
Small business owners described how A-Frame signage directing customers to the driveway of their building accounted for 80% of their business traffic. Now that A-Frame signs are gone, so are the customers.
REALTORS® described how A-Frame directional signage efficiently directed customers to their open houses. Depending on housing type and location, the traffic attributed to A-Frame signage accounted for between 40%-80% of open house traffic. Nate Brill was even more specific about the actual costs to his business in dollars and cents since the change in the A-Frame rules.
Apart from the ability to direct traffic to the open house, is the reality that people selling their house want adequate signage so that potential buyers can easily and efficiently find their house. It is simple math, the more people who see your house the better your chances of selling it for top dollar in a reasonable amount of time.
But apart from business concerns, WeMAR voiced concerns for free speech and private property rights. Although speaking time was limited, here are the main points of our public comments to the Commission:
I had a client who wanted to open his business here in Surprise. I was able to find him two locations well within his budget. Before we wrote up the offer to lease, I asked him to drive by each of the locations and pretend he didn’t know where they were. I asked him to act like a first-time customer. He couldn’t locate either place.
His next idea was to use an A-Frame sign at the driveway entrance, but of course he couldn’t really do that either. So, Surprise didn’t get his business. How many other businesses don’t you (City of Surprise) have?
Signs are still the most cost effective and least expensive method to advertise goods, services and location of a business.
Individuals who start businesses risk their finances, savings, homes, assets and their family’s future. They shouldn’t be hampered by lack of signage.
Property owners who choose to lease or sell their property themselves will experience difficulty and delays which may negatively impact them. Residents trying to hold a garage sale will find directing traffic to their location difficult.
WeMAR would like to see adequate, visible and legible signage available to property owners and business owners. What is adequate? It isn’t a number, but it can be defined. Let’s take open houses as an example.
A house on Elm St may need only one sign at Dysart and Elm. A house at Redfield and 145th Dr. will need about 15. A house deep in Sierra Montana or Surprise Farms may need more and Heaven help you if you are in Desert Oasis.
We would also like to see appropriate access to the public right of way. People heading up to an open house in places like Desert Oasis need to see signage along the way or they will turn back thinking they have gone too far.
In the proposed ordinance, there is a requirement for the name and number of the responsible party. We suggest that be modified to read responsible party or entity. Arizona law states the Designated Broker is the responsible party no matter who puts up the sign and the law requires the brokerage name and contact information be on the sign.
Banner signs are listed as commercial use. We would like to see this modified to allow residential banners. Not only do people put up “It’s a Girl/Boy” sign, “Congratulations”, “Happy Birthday” and “Welcome Home “signs for military members, but families post Gold Star and Blue Star banners. We see no compelling government interest in limiting people’s expressions of joy, sadness and pride.
Section 113-16 details enforcement. Item A states a violator may be charged with a civil or criminal violation, punishable by jail. We think that is a bit over the top. The Notice of Violation seems to be the same as guilt.
There doesn’t appear to be a way to protest the notice or the fine. The automatic discarding of city removed signs within 5 days does not give the sign owner time for due process. If the only way to protest the Notice of Violation is to sue the city, that cannot be done in 5 days. That means the government is taking private property without just compensation. We ask this section be amended to allow or due process and non-criminal penalties.
As to the suggestion for generic open house signs, Arizona law states real estate signs need to have the brokerage identified. There is a possibility a generic sign could endanger agent and broker’s licenses. I would ask the city request guidance from the Arizona Department of Real Estate if you decide to pursue generic signs. There is a possibility you could be endangering our licenses and our businesses.
Thank you to those who attended. I hope you will be able to attend future meetings and the August 15th City Council meeting.