Greetings,
I'd like to do that thing I do where I respond to each point in a post. Here goes:
There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting.
I am one of the Blue Dome business owners hoping to change these ordinances. Nice to meet you and thank you for posting here on the forum. I've always appreciated TulsaNow for the way it allows us to discuss things exactly like this.
First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.
Actually, yes they can. They make the laws. A "variance" of any kind, means that it is of course "varying" from the norm. Naturally, they can decide that an entire district "varies" from the norm. Precedent has long been established in Tulsa that different geographic areas can have different rules than others. Downtown, for example, is not subject to the same parking requirements as the rest of the city.
Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.
In most parts of the city, there is room on the property to construct a typical pole sign. Downtown, however, our lot lines end where our property ends. If we want to display signage, it has to be done on the face of our buildings. It can be argued that it is actually better for the buildings and the aesthetics of our neighborhood to have signs stretching upward, increasing the perceived height and visibility of the district.[/quote]
By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town. The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.
As I mentioned earlier, granting one variance doesn't obligate the city to grant another. The code is in place, with the flexibility to vary as needed. It's actually a very nice process. It's okay to have large blanket codes as long as you allow deviation from them on a case by case basis, at the discretion of public servants, and when compelling reasoning is presented. As for illegal signs and banners, I agree. They are ugly and offensive. We're not proposing anything like that. Earlier you mentioned that you like the signs on the Cains and Mayo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call those signs "visual litter."
Second, there is no need for these signs downtown. Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses.
Many of our buildings in the Blue Dome District are one story buildings. The Brady District has several two story buildings, which stretch the eye upward and provide a more urban feel. As you may notice on Brady, there is a sign on the face of the building above the second story windows proclaiming it "The Brady District." I would be hard pressed to build a rooftop sign at any of my businesses that is as high in the sky as that one. The bottom of it has to be at least 20 feet off the ground. The only difference is that it's mounted on the face of the building, rather than on the roof. This is really just a matter of where the same sign will be placed. I can put it on the front of the building, or I can raise it ten feet and put it on top. Same sign, just a different location. So to wrap up this point, the Blue Dome District in particular will really benefit from these signs. They will affect the feel and personality of our growing district and will enhance visibility. Furthermore, they are appropriate, given that Rt. 66 (a road known for its neon) once ran through our neighborhood. As nice as they are, no amount of benches, lights and trees could enhance our neighborhood like rooftop signs could.
Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts. Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping. These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.
Joe Momma's has a large theater style marquee on the face of it. It is a very large 24,000 dollar sign. It does as much for the district and for my restaurant as any street scaping could do. I've never heard anyone complain about it. Instead, I've had more compliments on it than I can count. If I'm not mistaken, our sign company had to do some work to get it approved. I think most would agree that it was a nice addition. It's on the face of my building and I like it. They relaxed the standard because a compelling case was made as to why the sign was safe and appropriate.
Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.
The previous post was accurate. They would never relax the building code to allow for heavy signage. It's more likely a concern to place a heavy sign on the face of the building than on the top. HVAC units are certainly heavier than any sign. Engineers are required on all types of renovations of old buildings. The permit office could easily require an engineering report if there was concern about structural integrity.
With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.
I'd really like to ask you to reconsider your perspective. We're not advocating LED signs, flashing billboards, or other digital type signage. We're hoping to simply move the types of signs you already see on our buildings up a few feet to our rooftops. The Blue Dome District is Tulsa's most unique area of commerce. There are no chains of any kind, but rather a host of locally owned restaurants and retail. There's no greater concentration of local restaurants and venues in all of Tulsa and I believe in our short existence, we have established a history of doing things with class and style. The typical reasons for fighting signage are largely non-existent as there are no highway drivers within site and no homes within eye-shot. The only people who should be concerned with our signs are those who own mediocre businesses in the more unoriginal parts of town. As Tulsans continue to realize that downtown is the unrivaled leader in entertainment, dining, and nightlife, one has to assume that the chain restaurants to our south will begin to lose some customers to the city's core.
