Ypsilanti considers new sign ordinance restrictions
A faded banner that has hung for over five years at on the side of the Centennial Building is one of many that could be addressed by a proposed sign ordinance changes.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
For what officials estimate has been five or six years, a large banner advertising available commercial office space has hung on the west facade of the Centennial Building at the corner of Pearl and Washington Streets in downtown Ypsilanti.
It has been up there so long that its lettering has mostly faded.
Under proposed sweeping changes to the city's sign ordinance the city is developing, such a sign could only hang on the wall for 60 days a year.
Council approved the ordinances first reading last week, and it will vote on a second reading of the ordinance in August.
The ordinance -- which seeks to bring clarity to rules governing signs -- addresses nearly every kind of sign imaginable in Ypsilanti with the exception of billboards.
City Planner Teresa Gillotti said the planning and building department received a significant number of calls about signs, and it would give the city new tools with which it can address “nuisance” signs such as the one on the Centennial Building.
Among the major changes is the prohibition of roof signs. Window signs could only occupy 25 percent of a window at a time - down from 30 percent - and ground signs would be prohibited downtown. The maximum size of several styles of signs also has been reduced, depending on the zone they are in.
Gillotti said temporary signs presented a particular challenge. The banner that hangs from the Centennial Building would, under the proposed ordinance, require a permit to hang for 30 days. Only two permits for such a sign would be issued annually. A permit is currently required, but there is no limit to how many times a resident can return for a new permit or the length of time for which the sign is hung.
In residential zones, for sale signs would be limited to 12 square feet and must be taken down within three days after the purpose of the sign is fulfilled. Construction signs would be limited to 64 square feet and must come down within seven days of completion of the project.
Sidewalk signs outside businesses, which currently aren’t allowed but can still be found throughout the downtown districts, would be limited to six square feet and must be made out of a durable material.
Electronic signs that display a moving message would be limited to two messages in a 60 second interval to prevent becoming a distraction. The ordinance also targets signs that could confuse drivers, such as those that look like a stop sign but are really for another purpose.
No neon window “outlines" would be permitted, and murals would require a permit. If the mural is for commercial purposes, all applicable sign rules would apply.
Among prohibited signs would be: - Abandoned signs.
- Signs not specifically permitted under the ordinance.
- Animated signs.
- Portable signs, not including sidewalk signs in front of businesses.
- Roof signs.
- Signs containing obscene material.
- Mechanical or rotating signs.
Officials would also require that business owners submit a “master sign plan” with the city that describes the size, location, lighting and other characteristics of its signage.
But Gillotti said there would be exceptions and flexibility within the ordinance to allow for historic signs or those that reflect the character of the community. Additionally, signs already in existence and compliance with the current ordinance will be grandfathered in.
Implementation would include community outreach and education followed by 90 days of targeted enforcement.
Council Member Brian Robb raised concerns about how and which signs would be grandfathered in, and questioned whether nuisance signs the ordinance intended to address might be left up.
“I’m worried this will allow nuisance signs we would hope to limit and penalize 'real' signs,” Robb said. “If we target nuisance signs specifically, people are going to see that as unfair or government treating individuals differently, and that would be a very sad by-product of this ordinance.”
He used an example of a “cute” series of portable signs outside Haab’s on Michigan Ave. The signs are already illegal under the current ordinance, and would still be illegal under the new ordinance. Robb asked if those signs would have to come down, to which Gillotti replied they would.
Robb said one of his main concerns was how this might impact the business community.
“This was supposed to be created to be business friendly, but if we are going to inconvenience businesses, that’s a problem,” Robb said.
Robb said he wanted to meet with Gillotti before the second reading to try to improve the ordinance. The issue will likely be on the August 16 agenda.
Comments
Kevin
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
The 30 year old sign ordinance was working to the advantage of the business owners. Yes it needed some clarifications, but ended up with so many new restrictions that will hurt the business owners. But that is what the city paid for. When you hire a consulting firm to make changes, the changes are not made standing in the business owners shoes or based on any traffic and safety studies. One example, the Haab sign cannot be seen in the summer because of the trees. Haabs is telling everyone with the "illegal" sidewalk signs "here we are". Now with the new revised ordinance, the same Haab sign becomes nonconforming and can only be 1/4 of the size it has now.
sesomai
Tue, Jul 26, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
I don't know that we need these restrictions, but I would be glad to see the banner on the Centennial Building removed. That thing is an eyesore for sure.
Cash
Tue, Jul 26, 2011 : 8:59 a.m.
As an update to this story, a church in Lake Orion put a temporary banner type sign up for free food, helping those out of work etc....a nice looking professional sign on their church. They were ticketed and fined for it. There should be exceptions for non-profits helping those in need. Profitting from those who are helping the needy is bad government.
Turd Ferguson
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 8 p.m.
I know my group needs a permit to put up any sign in the city limits. That sign is limited by square footage. The sign advertises an event That sign also has to come down after said period. That sign is checked on regularly by the city.
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
Nice to see we will be pulling down all the steet side and exit signs: Buying diabetic products!! Powerwashing done!!! xyz going out of business!! Taxes Done!! If it happens, great. Who is going to enforce it? The same guys enforcing the Haabs signs? The pitbull breading? I'll believe it when I see it, but I am not holding my breath.
EatKeyLimePie
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
How about Stewie Beal's "Precisely As Intended" sign hanging on the monstrosity we know as the Thomson Block "building". If you could include making ironically untrue and flat out inflammatory signs like this a part of the unapproved signs in the ordinance I know several residents (tax payers) that would be much appreciative.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
"Among prohibited signs would be: - Abandoned signs. - Signs containing obscene material." Will be interesting to see how they define "obscene" and if it would hold up in court...
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Yeah, it is the signs. Not the crime rate that is effecting our perception of Ypsi-tucky. Geez, get a life!
Cash
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 6:57 p.m.
Hmmm...right now if I were from Ann Arbor I wouldn't make comments about crime ANYwhere.
Eileen
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
Have to say I'm encouraged to see the new regulations would not permit windows outlined in neon. That just looks plain trashy.
Pete Murdock
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Murph has it right about the sign ordinance. It has been in the works for a couple of years. @ Cash, Murph was the City Planner and now is a member of the City Planning Commission. He has been involved in this process in some capacity all along.
murph
Sat, Jul 30, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
What pete said -- I spent a couple of years tearing out my hair on the staff side of the table trying to handhold businesses and property owners through the old, clunky, difficult sign ordinance, and know its pitfalls better than I might like. Ypsilanti City Hall is short-staffed enough, though, that overhauling it never made it to the top of the priority stack while I was there. When I came back as an appointed/volunteer planning commissioner, I was pleased to be able to deliberate on a revised ordinance that fixed a lot of the procedural issues with the old ordinance, as well as provide for a lot of things that businesses had asked for over the years (like sidewalk signs). It's not possible to make an ordinance make everyone happy, but I think the one provided is pretty good.
Cash
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
Thanks Pete!
Cash
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
As I recall there is a cost involved that the city pockets for each sign a business posts. Will this change? If 30 days is the limit for a "temporary" sign, will they be recharged each time they put it back up again? I know this was one of many fees that drove a couple of businesses in Ypsi down the tubes. I love those signs that Haabs puts up when the tree leaves cover their permanent "Haabs"sign on the front of the building. Those city trees that made it that much harder for businesses trying to hold on! Thanks for that! What exactly ARE they supposed to do when this happens...cut the trees down?
Rita
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 12:59 p.m.
How about street signs ?. Ypsilanti is very difficult to drive in because here are no "side street" signs???
Cash
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
So true!!!
murph
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
The headline "new sign ordinance restrictions" implies "additional", on top of what currently exists -- this is not the case. The real situation is "new" as in "updated and clarified". The new sign ordinance would replace the 30+ year-old sign ordinance with an updated version that is intended to be clearer and easier to use, for both businesses and city staff. Very few pieces of the new ordinance are additional restrictions -- most of the truly "new" bits would actually reduce restrictions on business- and property-owners. For example: * sandwich-board sidewalk signs have never been permitted downtown in the past: the new ordinance would allow them. * signs like the Tap Room's martini glass, the Terry Bakery sign, and other "locally significant" historical signs are currently illegal--if they fell off the building, they couldn't be replaced. The new ordinance would allow them to be maintained. * restrictions on signs that are currently found elsewhere in the ordinance and in conflict with the signs chapter are being pulled into and coordinated with the new signs chapter * procedural bits of the sign ordinance are being cleaned up and streamlined--for example, there are currently two different procedures in the ordinance for getting variances from different pieces of the ordinance, and both are different than the process for getting a variance from any other piece of the zoning ordinance. this is being cleaned up. Overall, the updated ordinance addresses a lot of complaints that staff and businesses had expressed in the past, and should result in a permitting process that is clearer, faster, and easier for businesses to navigate. It's long overdue.
Cash
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
This is helpful but are you a public official? I'm confused as to how you know the exact intent of this ordinance, if not.
Barb's Mom
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 11:56 a.m.
Notice there was nothing said about political signs. Lets ban them.
eastsidemom
Wed, Jul 27, 2011 : 11:07 a.m.
that is free speech...don't hold your breath
SalineSara
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.
Hmmmm, the assault on free speech continues and rights of property owners diminished.
Andrew Jason Clock
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.
Yup, that's just what we need here in Ypsilanti, another hoop for businesses to jump through. Since we have full occupancy in our downtown, this seems like the perfect time to address this issue. Oh, wait.... Why don't we start with making city hall more customer service oriented and easier for potential businesses to work with? Also, doesn't the "Ypsilanti City Hall" sign on the window take up more than 25% of the space available?
murph
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 12:23 p.m.
Andy, see my comment below: the ordinance updates are primarily intended to make the sign ordinance clearer and easier for businesses to work with. The "new restrictions" discussed have the net effect of being more permissive, and allowing more of the signs businesses have said they wanted in the past (such as sidewalk signs), rather than adding restrictions.
A2comments
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 10:47 a.m.
Mr. Robb, If Haab's signs are already illegal, why haven't they been told to remove them? Or is this an example of ineffective government?