Belmont set to change rules for signs

“In the interest of trying to promote better visibility for businesses it might be time to allow some greater amounts [of signs],” de Melo said.

The proposed rule changes for commercial properties include upping the number of permitted signs per window from one to three and allowing signs to cover 30% of the window area rather than the current 15%. 

Commissioner Amy Goldfarb agreed the current cap is too low, but also felt 30% might be excessive. She suggested 25%, but asked for the limits in neighboring cities as a point of comparison. De Melo said that information will be provided when the commission revisits the proposals at a meeting Nov. 4. 

Staff also proposed to allow up to six directional and open house signs rather than the current four and increase the maximum sign area in non-residential districts from 12 square feet to 48 square feet. The idea behind the latter proposal is that commercial properties are usually set back from the public right of way and for-sale signs on those properties pack a lot of information that can be hard to see when driving by.

Commissioner Nathan Majeski approved of the 48-square-foot limit but felt properties that aren’t set back should have smaller signs.

Chair Thomas McCune said allowing six directional signs for open houses might not be enough.

“I house hunted for seven years before finding my current house almost every week and in a lot of cities around here trying to find the site of an open house is challenging,” he said. “When I first saw the six directional signs for open houses I thought ‘that’s a little much’ but no — I’ve looked at plenty houses where that’s not enough to find it from a major arterial street.” 

During the meeting, Realtors noted that Belmont is not a perfect grid and at least six signs are needed to direct people from multiple areas. 

McCune also suggested rules for when open house signs need to be picked up so they don’t clutter streets for too long. 

Open house signs continue to be prohibited in the public right-of-way, which wasn’t sitting well with Majeski. 

“The right-of-way thing is a sticking point for me because I feel there are lots and lots of properties in Belmont where the right-of-way technically is the only visual part of the property,” he said. “Every time a property is sold is technically breaking our ordinance. Rather than right-of-way maybe we can say something like out of the flows of traffic, something slightly more flexible.” 

De Melo said if signs are allowed in the public right-of-way for real estate then signs have to be allowed for everyone there.

“If you allow it, be prepared that any group can come to the city and say ‘I want a sign out related to this and if you allow it for everyone you can allow it for me,’” he said. 

After the commission reviews the proposed changes again Nov. 4, the City Council will consider them later that month. De Melo also said additional changes to sign rules will be proposed in the future.

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102