Flagstaff Sign Code

Submitted by tpradmin on

The purpose of this site is to provide a forum for interested persons to comment on the City of Flagstaff's Sign code. The ultimate goal of this site is to encourage the Flagstaff City Council to re-examine the city sign code with respect to the following:

  • Recognize the role of small and large businesses in the vitality of the community
  • Ensure a level playing field for large and small businesses with respect to advertising / signage opportunities
  • Allow for affordable signage opportunities
  • Assure fair and equitable enforcement is conducted

To post comments on this site you will need to create an account. Comments will be posted as long as they are constructive, and are not abusive, rude or otherwise considered by the site administrator as inappropriate.

Please visit our companion site at http://www.facebook.com/FlagstaffSigns or just search facebook for Flagstaff sane signs!

Tags: 

5 Comments

Vehicle Signs

Submitted by Ed Goodwin on

In the sign code vehicle signs, as you would expect include trailers in addition to boats and other motor vehicles. The code goes on to say that  "Business vehicles shall be parked in an assigned parking space which is not immediately adjacent to a street frontage."  One business that I regularly pass by has a wrapped  trailer parked across two parking spaces (presumably because it does not fit well in a marked space) parallel to the road and near the street.
My reading of the code is that this is a violation of the sign code. Lets get real - it does not fit in the regular space and would be a hazard if they tried to park it that way. What is the owner to do? Violate the sign code or create a hazard? I pass another that often parks a wrapped trailer behind their building, but parallel to the street that runs behind the building. Is this in violation of the sign code? 
From a business owner's perspective here are some things that I find disturbing:

  1. I generally park my vehicles away from the building (and generally near the street) so that my customers can park close to my store entrance. Does this put me at risk of violating the sign code?
  2. If I were to park across two parking spaces (such as the trailer in the example) without a great need - such as the inability to fit into a single space) this eliminates a parking space for a potential customer. Why would I do that?

If a customer can not park near my store it is likely that they will not patronize me and I would lose business.
I do not see any reason for the sign code to regulate parking - especially on private property (i.e. shopping area parking lots).  
 

Equal Treatment?

Submitted by Ed Goodwin on

Right at the top of the sign code, in Section 10-50.100.010 Purpose​ the code indicates the following:
B. The purpose of this division is to promote public health, safety, and welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, effective, consistent, content-neutral, and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements, including the following specific purposes:
...
2. To balance public and private objectives by allowing adequate avenues for both commercial and non-commercial messages;
...
8. To provide consistent sign design standards;
...
10. To enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations.
 
Later in the sign code there is a section titled:
D. Flagstaff Auto Park District.
1. Purpose.  The purpose of the Flagstaff Auto Park District Area of Special Designation is to recognize that the interior parcels of a large commercial center should be entitled to install the same kind of business signage as the perimeter parcels, and to promote the economic vitality and commercial viability of those businesses that do not have highway frontage.

There are many businesses in addition to the Auto Park in Flagstaff that do not have highway frontage yet there are no special privileges extended to them.  

This afternoon (8-27) a city employee came to visit me. One item that I mentioned to him was one of our customers who placed some temporary signs “off premises” on Route 66 directing customers to her small business located on a side street. This was on a Friday - she was soon told that those signs were not allowed and that they would have to come down (they had already drawn in a new customer).  When I related that story to the city employee here were his responses:
1) Off premises signs are not allowed
2) What if every business on that side street put a sign on Route 66 - think of the mess and disorder

When I told him that it hurt her ability to develop a successful business because she can not use this inexpensive advertising medium and she can not afford to run ads in the local paper - his response was that she should seek a more visible location.  The problem with that is that a more visible location demands a higher rent that is unaffordable to many small businesses.  

Is this fair? The auto dealers got a break. I guess you only get a break if you are an auto dealer located on a parcel “supported” by the city.

Does the existing Sign Code meet purposes 8 and 10? The sign code does not provide consistent standards and it is difficult to enable fair enforcement when the provisions are not fair.

 

Balloons

Submitted by Ed Goodwin on

In the same visit I asked about the practice of auto dealers using balloons on their cars in spite of the fact that they are not allowed by the code. The response - we have always allowed auto dealers to use balloons.

This is in spite of the portion of the code that reads:
Section 10-50.100.040 General Restrictions for All Signs
B. Display Restrictions:
“2. Applicability. The following display features are prohibited:”
d. Any sign animated by any means, including fixed aerial displays, balloons, pennants, spinners, including strings of flags, streamers, tubes or other devices affected by the movement of the air or other atmospheric or mechanical means;”

He asked me if I wanted to register a complaint and it would be taken care of. I said “NO, the point of the discussion is to allow such displays - not to penalize those using them”

He also mentioned that the city staff is taking suggestions for revisions to the code that will be considered and perhaps presented to the City Council in the future. Have a suggestion or comment? Post them here or write to the city. I will provide a convenient form to use in the next day or so.

Agreed!

Submitted by HopsOnBirch22 on

Ed,
First off thank you for going through the code and pointing out the various hypocrisies it entails. As a local business we have had nothing but red tape thrown at us for both sign regulations and parking restrictions. The simple effect- it restricts our business'.
As for signs, no neons agreed! But most of it is so convoluted and ridiculous. Our experience- "Well you can't have it pointing towards the main street......and if you do a mural it can't have anything to do with your business"... WHAT!?
As a local business owner I respect the city of Flagstaff and would never want to alter the historic appeal and its beauty.. The last thing any business should want is a bunch of tacky signs littering our streets.......but this is not the argument. Our argument is simple- that there is not enough being done to attract customers. This hurts us and Flagstaff in general.
There is no doubt that these regulations need to change but it is definitely a tricky line. My proposal is a fair and balanced sign committee.
Throw out any specific inquires other than (size,no-light, and safety concerns) and give it up to council. It would be a great way for the city to make more money.. you could register signs annually and apply it to signs already in exsistence....take that money and give it to a flagstaff beautification program.
We can work together on this issue and absolutely should. Please let it be known if there are any upcoming meetings or events on the issue.
Thank you,
Thomas Smith
Owner at Hops On Birch
22 E. Birch Ave Suite # 2, Historic Downtown
Flagstaff, AZ

Equal Enforcement?

Submitted by Ed Goodwin on

We recently had a prospective customer come into The Print Raven asking about a banner. We discussed the sign code and its limitations. She related to us an experience where she had a banner that hung about 6 inches below the fascia of the business entry way. She was required to remove the banner.
The next day I passed by a local chain supermarket.  There were 6 "lawn" signs. Five were upright and one on the ground broken. Some of these signs were advertising flu shots and are part of a campaign that has been going on for about a year.  The temporary sign permit is for 60 days in the year and allows only one sign. Why is this portion not enforced?