CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Leonard Lamb | 5/21/2006 6:42:08 AM |
| Here it is again. Another attempt by an elite few who wish to circumvent the wishes of the majority. It is true, you cannot beat city hall. However, you can buy it. | |
| John Isby | 5/7/2006 12:46:39 PM |
| I just returned from a business trip to Houston, Texas. Assemblyman Sullivan ought to spend some time there. Talk about a place with ugly, in-your-face, obtrusive and distracting commercial signs! There are already portions of Anchorage that are miniature versions of Houston when it comes to signs. We should be investing our energy into making things better in our city, not undoing wise past decisions. We need to reign in rampant commercialism in our city and focus on aesthetics and quality of life issues. | |
| Vonda Nixon | 4/6/2006 9:54:01 PM |
| Dear Commission, For many years Anchorage has not been able to keep up with our growth and the planning has been more of a "catch up" than planning. We are now at a point that we see the need to plan for the future of our city in order to make it appealing to live here and a place that we can be proud to call our "home". Part of that is the time, money and effort that has gone into the regulation of signage in Anchorage. There is a marked difference in the esthetics of a city with regulation and one without. This is quite obvious to me when I visit other cities. I would like to be able to be proud of the city I live in. I would like to hear visitors comment on how nice our city looks. I feel that it makes a difference in the attitude of the people in the city if they like the humanistic aspects of the place they live in. Business have plenty of time to make the changes and I don't see any reason to do any "grandfathering". Don't put the wishes of the people of Anchorage down. Don't throw aside the effort that has been put into this. We need to have regulations, we need to keep them as they have been proposed. Sincerely, Vonda Nixon | |
| Talyne Corlyn-Belka | 3/31/2006 8:56:58 AM |
| We visit Anchorage quite often and one of our co-travelers commented recently that Anchorage is beginning to look a little trashy. If you want to keep those tourist dollars coming in, you'd better think about that. We have traveled to cities much larger than yours and they have grown into much lovlier downtown, mid-town and outskirts sections. Rolling back the sign ordinance would clearly be a detriment to the gradual beautification process currently underway in Anchorage. Stick to your guns! Don't rool back the ordinance! | |
| Rebecca Goodrich | 3/24/2006 8:21:38 AM |
| I do not agree with the idea of changing our current standards regarding signage in Anchorage. I'm happy we have few of the sign and billboard monstrosities that wallpaper the outside states. | |
| Richard Baker | 3/23/2006 1:53:22 AM |
| Cathleen Hahn | 3/21/2006 5:28:10 PM |
| RE: Sign Ordinance Amendment, AO 2005-163(S-1) I encourage you to support the sign ordinance amendment proposed by Assemblyman Sullivan, AO 2005-163(S-1). I am one of the owners of Guardian Security Systems, Inc. located at 2600 Seward Highway, between Fireweed Lane and Northern Lights Blvd. We installed an electronic, illuminated pole sign in February of 1999 that does not now meet the revised ordinance requirements, in spite of the fact that it met city requirements at the time it was installed. I’ve read Mr. Sullivan’s updated amendment and support the changes suggested regarding legal nonconforming signs. The revised sign ordinance as it now reads gives owners until the year 2013 to replace their signs. This is to give owners time to amortize the cost of their signs. Amortization is an accounting concept which allows owners to expense the cost of an asset over some pre-determined amount of time; amortization is non-cash recognition of an actual out-of-pocket cash expense. Businesses don’t actually accumulate the write-off amount in order to then replace the item amortized, this means they must come up with the cash to replace the item. An asset is not in need of replacement simply because it’s fully amortized. The sign ordinance currently in place causes a burden on business owners to replace assets that have simply fallen out of favor due to a change in aesthetic standards. Although I appreciate that Title 21 is meant to give our city updated standards it does not seem reasonable to change the standards, apply them in a retroactive manner, and expect citizens to incur costs that are not necessary to the viability of their businesses. In other words, as long as the sign that Guardian put up met the city standards at the time it was installed, it should be allowed to remain in place until such time as the business owners determine they need to replace it. I hope that my words urge you to support the amendment. Thanks for your time and consideration of this item. | |
| debra kirk | 3/20/2006 10:11:51 PM |
| Having grown up in chugiak, and now owning my childhood home there, I spend as much time in Anchorage as possible and over the years have watched it grow to previously unthinkable proportions. Excess signage is definately a turnoff and measures that have been taken, thoughtfully considered and implemented, should not be amended as Assemblyman Sullivan is attempting. Please leave the signage restrictions in place. Thank you-debra kirk | |
| Colleen Ryan | 3/13/2006 4:55:26 PM |
| In the 63 years I've lived in ANC I've observed the sad result of boom-bust development standards [or lack thereof]. Are we not educated, informed adults who can resist that trend & encourage continuity per the already established reasonable standards?? Let's ensure that ANC is attractive to knowledge-based & other new businesses as well as tourism, the car dealers, etc. Do the right thing -- retain the existing standards. | |
| Martha Siebe | 3/11/2006 10:14:08 PM |
| I do not support any changes in the sign ordinance. It took many months of work to create the present ordinance, and we need to stick with it. Many businesses have already conformed to the ordinance, or are in the process. It would be a real slap in the face to now rescind the requirements that they have already met. When I travel, I see towns without large signs and wonder why Anchorage can't be as forward thinking. I even brought back pictures and gave some to Tom Nelson one year. Please leave the sign ordinance as it is. Thank you. | |
| Kathleen Weeks | 3/11/2006 10:08:44 AM |
| I oppose this effort to rewrite the current sign ordinance. The existing ordinance went through an extensive public review process and it is beginning to bring about the beautification which was, and is, the intent of the drafters. Please do not redesign this wheel. | |
| Mark Parmelee AK DOT&PF | 3/10/2006 1:59:37 PM |
| The Alaska Department of Transportation objects to this change in the sign ordinance because of the affect on highway safety. Distractions such as dynamic scrolling and bright LED's should not be aimed at drivers while driving at higher speeds >= 50 MPH on highways. | |
| David Laughton | 3/3/2006 8:30:12 AM |
| It is my belief that the sign ordinance as it currently exists is a very good towards improving the visual character of our city. Please do not make any changes to the existing ordinance. We do in fact need to move forward with it as it currently stands, businesses have had time to adjust to the new restrictions and need to comply per the ordinance. | |
| Jake Lister | 3/2/2006 4:58:42 PM |
| I oppose any reductions in the current sign regulations. As Anchorage matures, we should be leaning toward BEAUTIFYING the City, not wrecking it. I absolutely do not believe the size of the sign regulates the profit of the business, as was said in a recent ADN article by the manager of the Pepper Mill/Sea Galley. I do not believe Used Car Lots cannot be in business unless they sport banners and pennants and tethered balloons and flashing signs. Besides, if THEY can erect these fluttering nuisances, so can any business anywhere. What a mess. I also do not believe non-conforming current signs should be grandfathered "forever". And "forever" is the correct word. Even an occasional coat of paint will "forever" preserve the pole of a pole sign. Extend the conforming deadline? OK, but "forever" must not happen. A superb example of a beautiful new sign: Romano's, at the corner of C St. and Fireweed. Excellent taste - and excellent advertising. Keep Anchorage beautiful. Make every attempt to ENHANCE our standards of living, not reduce them. | |
| Miles Fujimoto | 2/26/2006 8:26:22 AM |
| I oppose the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. I moved to Anchorage from Los Angeles thirty years ago. I moved my family to get away from the smog, congestion and urban blight like huge ugly signs all over the city. | |
| Katharine Adams | 2/13/2006 8:17:13 PM |
| Please enter my objection to all of the proposed changes to the current sign code. None of the changes contribute to enhancing the look of any business - quite the contrary. No convincing evidence has been presented that the current code is either onerous or stifles competition. On the other hand, the citizens of Anchorage have on numerous occasions supported efforts to beautify and/or restrict blight; clearly the proposed changes contribute to maintaining and extending unattractive business features. | |
| Larry Rundquist | 2/13/2006 7:44:07 PM |
| A good sign ordinance was enacted several years ago after having significant public input. Now it is proposed to weaken this ordinance by grandfathering currently ugly signs forever. The new ordinance also weakens the size restrictions and allows distracting signs that move or are on balloons, both of which can distract drivers and create a hazard. If this new sign ordinance goes into effect, we will deserve the Los Anchorage name, and it will not be complimentary. If businesses can not get customers with good products and service, then maybe they should not be in business. Larry Rundquist | |
| Carl Sagert | 2/13/2006 6:12:36 PM |
| I believe Assemblyman Sullivan's proposed changes to the sign ordinance are good for business, and therefore Anchorage as well. The proposed Ordinance No. 2005-163(S)should be adopted and approved. Thanks, Carl | |
| Patrick Lavin | 2/13/2006 4:27:19 PM |
| I oppose the proposal to change the sign ordinance passed in 2003. The current rules reflect a major investment of time and effort to work out a reasonable phase-in of desperately needed aesthetic improvements to enhance the appearance of our city. Now, at the first juncture of something having to actually happen, comes an attempt to undo it. I support implementing the components of the Anchorage comprehensive plan in an orderly fashion, including implementing our sign ordinance, and urge the Planning and Zoning Committee to stay focused on this goal as well. | |
| Tom and Jane Meacham | 2/13/2006 10:30:39 AM |
| We very strongly OPPOSE any attempt to amend the existing sign ordinance. We are unable to attend the P&Z hearing tonight. We believe that the existing ordinance gives business owners a reasonable time to amortize the cost of their existing non-conforming signs. If non-conforming signs are grandfathered forever, then owners of new signs will soon clamor for exemptions to allow them them to "compete" with the non-conforming signs of their grandfathered competitors. The balance sheet of any private business clearly shows when an item has been fully amortized, and is no longer carried as an expense. This principle should apply to advertising signs -- they are no different from any other piece of business property or equipment. The proposal to allow movable signs, inflatable signs, and banners that are now illegal should not be endorsed. These types of signs are trashy, ugly, and a distraction to drivers on the roads. In fact, they are specifically INTENDED to distract drivers by taking their attention away from their driving responsibilities. The argument that car dealers need to fly banners so that people know that their business are not parking lots is pretty ridiculous. Using the same argument, why couldn't a bank demand to fly banners so that people would know it was not a post office? Or why couldn't an office building fly banners so that people would know that it was not a municipal building? The effort to encourage the physical appearance of Anchorage, its built environment, to live up to its natural surroundings has been a long, hard road. It seems like each little advance, like undergrounding of utilities or reasonable controls on advertising signs, is met with backsliding, stubborn resistance, and the belief that Anchorage exists solely to meet the desires of the lowest common denominator of outdoor advertisers. It does not. Anchorage exists to met the hopes and dreams of ALL of its residents, including the hope that the physical appearance of Anchorage can someday reflect something more than the blatant desires of the hucksters for more and more attention. The streets and sidewalks of Anchorage are public property, and it is up to the public to decide the degree to which these public spaces are to be made available for use by advertisers. No advertising sign has value if it is not visible from a public space, a sidewalk or street. Please recommend rejection of any attempts to alter Anchorage's existing sign ordinance. Thank you all! Tom and Jane Meacham | |
| Melanie Bladow | 2/13/2006 8:59:10 AM |
| I am writing today in support of the current municipal sign ordinance as it stands, wihtout amendment. As a lifelong resident of Anchorage, I am proud of our city, and would resist any changes that would detract further from its natural beauty. The changes in the sign ordinance made two years ago took a great step forward in helping to improve the aesthetics of our town. As a town that is host to many visitors when they first arrive in Alaska, it is crucial that our town be attractive and that signs not detract from the landscape that surrounds the Anchorage skyline. We must do more to encourage these travelers to stay, enjoy, and spend thier money in Anchorage, instead of leaving to enjoy "the real Alaska." The current ordinance allows for businesses to adequately advertise thier location. Business and economic development continue to expand in the Anchorage area under the current ordinance. I do not see the need to expand the use of temprorary signs or the addition of rotating, moving or inflatable signs. The current rate of amortization for non-conforming signs should give businesses sufficient time to plan how to come into compliance without causing undue financial burden. | |
| Cory Hinds | 2/13/2006 8:53:24 AM |
| I like the sign law as it is and I do not like the proposed changes. Anchorage does not need more large signs sticking in your face. | |
| Cory Hinds | 2/13/2006 8:50:47 AM |
| Cory Hinds | 2/13/2006 8:50:17 AM |
| Robert Palmer | 2/13/2006 7:56:54 AM |
| The exisiting sign ordinance should stay in place and businesses should comply. As a businessman in Anchorage for 30 years I meet my requrements because it has been decided that it is in the best interests of the town. Car dealers or anyone else does not have a right to make themselves a special case at the expense of the rest of the city. It is time to improve the way we look and standards for signs are great ways to start. | |
| Steve Fleischman | 2/12/2006 11:58:25 PM |
| I oppose reversing the existing sign ordinance, which was carefully crafted after a long and involved public process. Let's not take a step backward here and end up in a situation we will regret later. | |
| Doug Van Etten | 2/12/2006 10:23:37 PM |
| I have never heard it said that the built environment of Anchorage could begin to be as attractive as the natural environment in which we are fortunate to live. The sign ordinance as passed in 2004 was one step toward improving the visual element of our built environment. Please vote to retain the sign ordinance as it now stands. In a global economy Anchorage has to compete with every other community to gain and retain businesses and individuals. One way we CAN compete is with natural beauty – let’s begin to compliment Nature’s work in our built environment. | |
| Mary Hertert | 2/12/2006 10:11:16 PM |
| The sign ordinance as it stands now is a reasonable compromise. Retire the pole signs and help small business create signs that work and are visably pleasing. There is no reason to perpetuate ugly signs. | |
| Mark Butler | 2/10/2006 7:47:06 PM |
| I am against the ordinance as proposed by Assemblyman Sullivan. There is no reason to change the sign law as it is currently written. New signs are sprouting up all over Anchorage that are much, much better than what was allowed before the existing sign law was enacted about two years ago. Those communities around our country that have required better signs tend to be those communities that are doing better economically. A simple fact. The existing sign law was created with a long and involved process that engaged the public at both the Planning and Zoning and Assembly levels. Numerous business owners and community activists from neighborhoods all over Anchorage testified. P&Z member Dan Coffey led the effort to find a sign law that was acceptable to all concerned. We should not question his leadership and all the public input that went into the law. I ask you to vote against any changes to the sign law. Thank you very much. Mark B. Butler | |
| Ruth Fahl | 2/9/2006 2:27:01 PM |
| Many dedicated people spent long hours to reach a concensis on Title 21 sign standards. The proposed changes weakens the standards, addressing the desires of businesses more heavily than that of citizens safety and enjoyment of out city. I am strongly apposed to the "S" version of the draft ordinance amendment. | |
| Ruth Fahl | 2/9/2006 2:20:10 PM |
| Turnagain Community Council | 2/6/2006 11:17:34 PM |
| From: Turnagain Community Council Board of Directors Comments: Case 2005-152 "S" Version of Draft Ordinance Amending Title 21 Sign Standards February 3, 2006 On December 1, 2005, Turnagain Community Council passed a resolution opposing the proposed Assembly Ordinance AO 2005-163, changes to non-conforming signs. It is the intent of Turnagain Community Council that this resolution should also to apply to the related item, Case 2005-152 that was before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the time our resolution was passed, a substitute ordinance was proposed by Assemblyman Sullivan, # 2005-152 S. After reviewing #2005-152 S, the resolution opposing the proposed changes is still valid. We submit it at this time. We would like to remind the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Sign Ordinance currently in use is the result of several years of meetings, both committee meetings and a number of public meetings, to which the general public and the business community, specifically, were invited, encouraged, and urged to participate. The ordinance adopted by the Assembly included compromises agreed to by those participating in the process. The proposed #2005-152 S negates much of the intent and work that went into the existing Sign Ordinance. What we have today, when compared with other cities of our size, while being one of the least stringent ordinances, is beginning to have a positive effect in the community of Anchorage. Please do not adopt the proposed amendments. New businesses are applying this ordinance and a number of existing businesses have already made changes to their signs in compliance with this ordinance. Let's not undo what has been a positive ordinance for the Anchorage community. At the end of these comments, you will find the resolution passed by the Turnagain Community Council.(unable to attach-resolution will be faxed) Submitted by Pat L. Redmond for the Turnagain Community Council Board of Directors. Pat L. Redmond 2434 Foraker Drive Anchorage, AK 99517 240-5585 cellular 646-3004 wk 243-3193 hm plredmond@acsalaska.net | |
| Elizabeth Belgard O'Malley | 1/9/2006 12:55:25 PM |
| I am against the amendment to the sign ordinance. The existing ordinance was forged with public input and the advice of consultants hired by the city. Large signs are ugly. They detract from the beauty which surrounds us. This ordinance serves the common good. The problem in Anchorage is not that we don't plan or make good plans for the future, we do. We just amend them for individual financial interest at every turn. I do not support this amendment. | |
| metis riley | 12/29/2005 2:40:24 PM |
| Anchorage needs to focus on the future of our city, including some basic measures against looking like the strip mall we became in the eighties. We must protect our world class views starting now, and not a second too soon. Tourists and residents alike do not come here for the giant neon signs. The signs also contribute to light pollution. I have witnessed a major increase in light pollution north of Anchorage over the last ten years. | |
| steven ellis | 12/16/2005 10:53:55 AM |
| The current sign ordinance went through a lengthy review with the public (sign companies, business owners and private citizens). Now when we actually go out and enforce the ordinance our political leaders lack the guts to stick to what they approved and what the public wanted. All of this is based on a the complaints of a few people who probably didn't get invloved in the original ordinance anyway. Grandfathering the signs will not effect the changes we want for our streets and business areas. For once, listen to the silent majority. No grandfather rights for the signs | |
| Charlie Horsman | 12/10/2005 8:46:57 AM |
| At its' last meeting, Eagle River Community Council voted to oppose the ordinance AO 2005-51 which amends AMC 21.47 regarding sign standards, non-conforming signs, & other minor revisions. If the main objection to the current sign ordinance is that pole signs and non conforming signs must come into compliance or be removed within a time frame that places undo financial burden on business owners, rather than grandfather those signs in, as a compromise give the owners of non conforming signs more time (up to five years) to come into compliance. If this amendment passes, it gives an unfair advantage to existing and established business owners of non comforming signs over new and just getting started business owners. Charlie Horsman ERCC President | |
| Leonard Lamb | 12/8/2005 1:43:00 AM |
| Who needs bigger signs. The ones we allow are already too large. Our city is not that large that you cannot find what you are looking for by just looking. | |
| Joseph Vidal | 11/3/2005 3:59:53 PM |
| I an firmly against changing the current sign ordinances. Large signs really make a city ugly. I really like the current sign rules and protest any laxing of the current sign regulations. | |
| Maryann Rowe | 10/28/2005 7:45:53 PM |
| I believe there needs to be regulations for signs in Anchorage. The regulations have definitely improved the appearance of our city. In the early 80's there were ugly electric signs on every corner..please do not return to the days of a cheap frontier town. Anchorage has the potential of being a beautiful city with spectacular scenery.Do not ruin it once again with ugly signs. | |
| Joan Diamond | 10/28/2005 4:13:48 PM |
| I do not agree with any change in the sign ordinance that loosens the standards presently in place. The current sign ordinance was developed because of the unsightly mix that made Anchorage ugly. Residents and MOA Community planning department worked together for years to pass an ordinance that improve the appearance of Anchorage. We need to continue enhancements that improve the way Anchorage looks to tourists and the business community. | |