Sign ordinance on hold
DCD proposes huge increase in allowable size

Feb. 26, 2007 -- A proposal to allow buildings to display temporary advertising banners that are more than eight times the current maximuml size was put on hold by a Common Council comittee after an alderman said the proposal was written to benefit special interests.

"This was not well thought out," said Ald. Robert Bauman said during a meeting of the Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee. "I don’t know who this was vetted by, but this appears to be a classic case of special interests writing legislation for their exclusive benefit."

The proposal, which has received strong support from the real estate industry, would allow temporary banners of up to 600 square feet to be displayed on or for buildings or proposed buildings at least four stories high and with 50,000 square feet of floor space.

Current ordinance generally limits banner sizes to 36 or 72 square feet.

The proposed ordinance, offered by the Department of City Development, would allow the larger signs if they announced the rehabilitation of a building, offered at least 10,000 square feet for lease, advertised conversion of a building to condominiums or marketed a building for sale.

Bauman said the ordinance would apply to probably 30% of the properties in his district, which includes Downtown and the near west side.

"Most of Wells Street on the west side would be covered under the four-floor 50,000-square-foot rule," he said. "Anybody who put in a new toilet can claim they have a rehabbed building and put a 600 square foot sign on Wells Street in a residential area."

Bauman offered a substitute amendment that would, among other things, allow signs of up to 100 square feet to be hung on buildings at least 12 stories high and that have at least 150,000 square feet of floor area.

Ald. Michael Murphy, who represents Story Hill on the council, said he also has concerns about the DCD-backed ordinance. That proposal would allow a 600-square-foot banner to be hung on the condominium building on Bluemound Rd. that faces Mitchell Blvd. Park, he said. A banner of that size would be "ugly," Murphy said, and would not add value to the neighborhood.

The committee endorsed Murphy's motion to consider the matter again at a later meeting.

Printer-friendly version