As some of you know and are sick of hearing about it, I'm involved in creating the sign ordinance for our city. This has gone on for over two years with revision after revision, snag after snag.
This thing went to the Plan Commission in November 2002. From there it would go to the City Council for final approval and to make it real. Here's what has happened: The Plan Commission (I'm on that too) after hearing from the business community (a good turn out) and after NOT hearing back from the Historic Preservation group decided to table the discussion for the December Meeting. In that amount of time, the Ordinance group would revise, take it back to the business community for feedback, hear from the Historic Pres. and revise again if needed, then it would go to Plan.
Everyone did what they were supposed to do except for the city staff. Staff was supposed to get the Historic Pres. info back to the groups for the December meeting and somehow failed to do so. Perhaps this (along with an only 1.5% pay increase for the City Administrator) is why she has resigned. So... the Plan Commission has kicked it out until the Sign Ordinance group can get their heads together.
There is a meeting Friday morning at 10:30am. Here are the questions that I need answered:
We've come down to only a couple of snags, here's one and how do I address this? We have a Historic Preservation District. MOST but not all of the downtown businesses are located here. The HP does not want internally lighted signs in the district. There are SOME locations in the downtown area that use pole signs. These are internally lighted. The city (in this ordinance) will allow pole signs in this district. They can also remain as non-conforming signs if the business changes hands and the new business wants to use the existing pole sign. The big BUT here is that they can no longer be interally lighted. A lighted sign is OK, but in order for them to achieve this, they would have to mount additional lights somewhere to shine onto the face of the LIGHTED SIGN CABINET! I know it is stupid. What is the intelligent answer to this?
Personally, I have no problem with Internally lighted signs. I feel that the light in a box is easier regulated and better looking than cheapo conduit added to the building(s) to light a sign with a couple of crummy 150 watt spots. I'm not push FOR internally lit signs, I just think that if they have had that option up til now, why revoke it now? I also questioned exactly WHEN history in this district was to begin. I am now informed that this area reflects 1920 and prior. Someone please show me an example of some horrid electric lighted sign from this era so I have ammo for the meeting!!
Here's the other thing:
Banners. All banners must now be mounted to the building. For example: a gas station that advertises beer, pop and smokes on a banner must now mount that banner to the building. What happens here is that any Non-profit group like the Scouts, Masons, VFW, Seniors, School must also mount their event banners to the building. Many of these buildings are very much OUT of the public eye. Event banners that previously were mounted on the edge of the city are now kaput. My suggestion was for the city to establish designated areas of this type of advertising and continue to allow it. The answer I get from "STAFF" is that if we allow that, then we have to allow the KKK and other less desireable groups to advertise as well. I feel that a good source of advertising will be lost. Advertising that brings folks into the community that would not normally have come in. These folks also may stop at other businesses along the way or make a mental note of some business or service that they had not previously known about, patronizing them in the future. Am I nuts?
How do you handle this one? Also, banners are described as "non-rigid" material. This evidently does not include the coropolast P.O.P. displays that are all over the light poles at the gas stations.
Any good answers? Thanks!
-------------------- Jeff Vrstal Main Street Signs 157 E. Main Street Evansville, WI 53536 1-608-882-0322 Posts: 670 | From: Evansville, Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If lighted signs are going to be verboten will street lighs also be gas lamps...they need to let up some...how far back is the historical society going?
There were back lighted drop out letter signs with opaque glass backing at the turn of the century...so why not allow something that ties into that theme.
The banner issue? they are more afraid of gay rights prople advertising than the kkk but won't admit it. They need to get a life ...free speech is free speech ...a lot of what they are afraid of can be taken care of by not allowing Banners to be off premise advertising and only allow direct advertising pertaining to the business it is made for.
Ever notice all the banners the city's make money from on the light poles ...can and do say anything they damn well please (without permits)?
Oh and beware of anyone classed as "Staff" they have a way of changing anything they please with out notifying anyone...til it's too late to do anything about it.
I was on the perverbial "sign code commitee" for two years too...it took me 3 years to get to the point where they didn't scrutinize every permit I ever asked for. (My reward for all the free time I donated to keeping them out of trouble).
NEVER AGAIN...Come back and tell us how you are treated at the city after this "sign code commitee" stint you're now involved in.
Good luck...(you'll need it)!
-------------------- "Werks fer me...it'll werk fer you"
Here is my spin and maybe it will give you a little insight although we are from quite different geo areas.
I am serving my 4th term as vice chairman of my cities board of adjustment, a state regulated entity that grants or denies variances of the city ordinance. I have said many times that I would not vote based on the state requirement that a variance must be denied if there is no evidence of a hardship and a financial hardship is not good enough...
Having been appointed by the city council, we serve as a quasi judicial board and I have often been in opposition to the above arguments that guide our descision making.
Now for my opinion of the sign and graphics industry...I personally think the visual noise that is overcoming our industry due to this loose mentality for everyone to become an overnight signmaker and the franchise industry explosion is driving city govenments crazy as they try to control the crap going up in our cities and I agree completely with them on that. I also beleive that Letterheads are going to become a very strong entity in the next ten years that will reverse the trend that so many of you are experiencing now (as has been repeatedly brought up in the posts lately).
This is my spin on your current situation. On the pole signs, I would suggest to the governing body to go ahead and place the light restrictions on future work and if someone insists on the use of internal illumination, pay a fee (ours is 250.00) per variance request for reveiw...have a copy of the proposed sign faxed to each "sign" board memember and a majority vote would approve or deny it. Why?..you might ask...is that there are going to be some great designs that are better served to have illumination from within. Then it becomes the owners responsibility to create an appealing product that not only serves the overall purpose but keeps the Local Government at bay...keeps the sign inspector honest and a good compromise.
As for the banner, this city has also implemented this same policy and I think has improved the situation here somewhat , but now we are finding these things staying up for a very long time which is just a nasty a look to the point that peope are using them for their sole form of ID. I would define anyone as a business and allocate 3-4 times per year to advertise on these banners for like 30 days, post banners...maybe implement a "vertical" banner policy that would be attached to poles and might otherwise have a "city" themed banner on it while it is not being used for advertisment.
I hope this makes sense and good luck.
-------------------- Robert Beverly Arlington, Texas Posts: 1023 | From: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello Jeffrey - historic districts want beautiful signs that evoke the memory of a historic time, not signs that are true to the period. All you have to do to confirm this is to look at old photographs. The point is, internal illumination is considered modern, and is discouraged.
For the pole signs, you want to argue that the issue that evokes "modern" is the brightness of the sign. The old ones usually have white backgrounds and are very bright when illuminated. If you require a background with a translucent color and white letters, the sign is still useful but much more muted. This will be more attractive than appending external lights to a cabinet not designed for it.
In our code, pole signs are grandfathered but with conditions. If the pole is destroyed for any reason it cannot be rebuilt. If the pole is allowed to become "derelict", it is considered abandoned and must come down. The goal is to make the poles go away over time. In a small downtown this is basically good, in my estimation.
As for off premise banners, it is hard to get around the city attorney. Our town erected one set of banner poles which they control. They allow privately owned banners that communicate information of broad interest to the general public (or words to that effect). Street Fairs, Art walks, car shows, farmers markets, 4 July - stuff like that. Highly unlikely that KKK would pass the screen. So you argue the city should do something similar and cross the KKK bridge if it ever appears. If the confrontation ever occurs, you just pull the poles down at that time.
Don't despair with the pokiness of the process. There are too many laws as it is. Imagine how bad it would be if they passed laws fast. Vic G
-------------------- Victor Georgiou Danville, CA , USA Posts: 1746 | From: Danville, CA , USA | Registered: Dec 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have personally limited my involvment with sign-ordinance politics to that of volunteer consultation, and here are my views of these issues:
Victor has the right idea about a city-controlled banner. In Mystic their is one official "community affairs banner site" across West Main Street. Its content and time of display is controlled by the Chamber of Commerce, and by regulations as to what is regarded as a "community event" - the event must be sponsored by a recognized local community organization. Works just fine; they seem more than able to screen out any potentially offensive messages.
As for the pole signs, and internal illumination in general... why not apply certain guidelines as to what constitutes an "ideal" sign, and then charge additional permit fees on an annual basis, according to criteria by which the sign deviates from the ideal? Call it an "ugly sign tax" if you will. Example: If the ideal is an externally-illuminated sign of X square feet, and the business wishes to use a larger sign that's internally lit, let them do so - for a hefty fee. This has the benefit of eliminating the entire process of applying for a variance, and the cost-benefit is borne by the business.
If the ideal sign has external lights and is 20 sf, and Chucky of Chucky's Cut-Rate Diamond Emporium and Discount Gold-Chain Warehouse simmply cannot exist without a 100 sf neon flashing sign, tell him "Sure!" then present him with an annual permit fee of, say, $10,000 - hell, make it $50,000, if it's really awful. Set these fees on a sliding scale, from slightly less-than-appealing to totally gag-me obnoxious. Make sure the fee schedule is applied without exception and with NO avenue for appeal, and see how fast Chucky can live with a 20sf externally lit sign. This proceedure would have the added benefits of: A) Getting the damn lawyers off the public payroll, and B) saving lots of time for the Zoning Board of Appeals, who don't have Chucky's sign on their agenda anymore.
This system also eliminates the proceedures by which major corporate franchise operations send a squad of lawyers to manipulate variance laws to get around whatever local ordinance they find inconvenient. Let's face it, in lots of towns those huge bright golden arches are a non-conforming use, granted by a variance - hey, it the damn thing's gonna be there anyway, at least make Mickey D pay for the priveledge by funding the new sewers or paying for a new roof on the school.
Seriously speaking, though, I think a municipal sign ordinance could do worse than to replace legal sanctions on undesirable signage with economic sanctions. Any thoughts?
-------------------- "A wise man concerns himself with the truth, not with what people believe." - Aristotle
Cam Bortz Finest Kind Signs Pondside Iron works 256 S. Broad St. Pawcatuck, Ct. 06379 "Award winning Signs since 1988" Posts: 3051 | From: Pawcatuck,Connecticut USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
Just a few years ago, an ugly, internally illuminated sign for a chain restaurant was erected in our community. A controvery ensued, and a new ordinance was proposed and passed,(by acclamation, at the next town meeting.
The problem is, the citizen who stood up and proposed said ordinance knew nothing about signs. Consequently, the local sign regulations now prohibit all use of neon as a source of illumination.
However, the offensive sign is tube lit, not neon lit, so it is still a legal sign under the code.
The only neon in use here is a beautiful reverse channel (low key, halo effect) sign at the local supermarket, and it is is now nonconforming.
So, in effect, through haste and ignorance, our Town Meeting threw out the baby with the bathwater, and did nothing to prevent such an unattractive sign from being legally proposed in the future.
My opinion is, as I stated, that design is everything. A well constituted, unbiased DRC (design review comittee) in consultation with area professionals, will do more to keep the area beautiful than an unyeilding, poorly worded code that does not consider esthetics.
-------------------- Steve Purcell Purcell Woodcarving & Signmaking Cape Cod, MA
************************** Intelligent Design Is No Accident Posts: 900 | From: Cape Cod, MA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
My experience is somewhat limited here, but maybe I can shed a little light from a recent run-in I had with sign inspectors in Mt. Pleasant, MI.
Here, the issue of sign lighting is only lightly touched on in the city Sign Code. Rather, the question of sign lighting is covered in a (still more or less pending) city Light Pollution Ordinance. Get out your light meter, ‘cause if you love red tape, bureaucracy and huge headaches, you would love it here. You can go to http://www.mt-pleasant.org/ and click on the link to 'Planning Commission Looks at Light Pollution' to find more info on what they are trying to accomplish with this ordinance.
On the plus side, it does open the door for business owners and sign makers to make an argument that each sign needs to be treated individually. That being said, any method of lighting a sign is potentially viable, as long as it does not create so called light pollution problem. On the down side, approval of all sign lighting permits are up to the discretion of the zoning office and may involve more politics than logic.
Oh, as far as banners or ‘temporary signs’ are concerned in this town… forget about it… they are more or less outlawed entirely.
Good luck,
Marty Engel
-------------------- Marty Engel Berkley, MI Hill Mountain Signworks LLC
marty@hillmountain.com 248-890-8265 Posts: 58 | From: Berkley, MI | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic