The writing is on the wall for a new sign ordinance that will likely regulate local murals in the city limits of Dahlonega. But it appears the support for a ban on holiday inflatables has slowly deflated. These were the main takeaways from last Monday’s Public Hearing in City Hall as business owners and residents stepped to the podium to provide feedback that could help shape a series of new City sign laws. Some took issue with the proposal that would essentially ban murals by defining them as wall signs. This proposed ordinance would then stipulate that the painted or vinyl overlay sign could not take up more than five percent of any wall.
Historic Planning Commission member Ivana Pelnar-Zaiko pointed out that this would have the potential to limit “artistic expression” in the process.
“I would like murals to be exempt from the five percent,” she told the council.
Business owner Ryan Puckett echoed that sentiment.
“As a city resident I don’t have an issue with murals,” said the owner of Nimblewheels Bicycles. “They’re ultra-fantastic reference points. … I think they’re definitely valuable to the community.”
Puckett also had concerns with the five percent sign limit.
“My sign as it sits on the front of my facade is ten percent and I still have a tough time getting recognition,” he said of his North Grove Street storefront.
Fellow business owner Tony Owens expressed similar worries.
“A sign of that size on a building the size of my building [The Corner Kitchen] on East Main Street is going to be very small, because the building is small,” he said. “I guess my question is, will there be variances available for businesses that have buildings that are minuscule in size?”
City Attorney Doug Parks mentioned that if the new law is ultimately approved any variances would be up to the Historic Preservation Commission.
“Which would be logical since the HPC already deals with painted surfaces on historical buildings,” he said.
INFLATE DEBATE
When it comes to the potential of regulating holiday inflatables, Parks indicated that the City may want to hold off, as he pointed out that no citations have been written against the decorations despite the fact that the current ordinance technically outlaws their display within Dahlonega.
“What we may wish to do right now is to defer regulations of inflatables,” he said. “We may just put that off, because right now it’s tending to be a little bit of a solution in search of a problem.”
City resident Cathy McLendon didn’t seem to be a fan of the inaction.
“We have a historic town and quite frankly I think they’re tacky,” she said from the podium.
Council member Johnny Ariemma indicated that it’s all a balance when it comes to these ordinances.
“I don’t want to micro-manage every business in town,” he said. “I think hopefully everyone can just use common sense when it comes to inflatables. … If it gets to be a circus, you’ve got all these crazy inflatables out there, you get this cheesy atmosphere and it’s more like Helen, then I think there’s probably going to be more conversation.”
After the hearing, the City Council ultimately approved the extension of a painted wall sign moratorium until the matter can come to an official vote at the June 17 meeting.
Meanwhile, council member Lance Bagley indicated that he didn’t want the council to be too heavy-handed when it comes to these regulations.
“We don’t want to have a resolution for every potential situation,” he told the assemblage. “What we want is people to all be pulling in the same direction to make Dahlonega that town that people want to visit and want to live in. That takes discretion. That takes restraint from our end and people who live here and people doing business here.”