Worried about bright signs on the city skyline? Changes on hold

(February Alki Community Council meeting photo by Karen Berge for WSB)
Just in from the City Council: They’re shelving proposed sign-code changes that could have allowed large illuminated signs on downtown buildings. The changes had drawn concern from the Alki Community Council, which heard from President Richard Conlin about the proposal just a month ago (here’s our coverage) – and here’s a statement he just sent out:

“The Executive’s legislation of proposed revisions to the sign code is on hold for the rest of the year. When the Regional Development and Sustainability (RDS) committee first discussed the issue last December, many Councilmembers and stakeholders raised questions and concerns.

“Those questions were forwarded to Department of Planning and Development (DPD) in early January and they responded to our questions in late February. In light of the DPD’s detailed response and the need for ongoing public discussion about this type of signage, several possible amendments to the legislation must be considered by Councilmembers and various stakeholders.

“The proposed legislation combined with all possible amendment options would require a significant time commitment from the Council. As several major initiatives are already before Council this year, the proposed sign code changes will likely not come back to the RDS committee until late 2011 or early 2012.”

More to come.

ADDED EARLY TUESDAY: Here are more details in coverage from our partners at the Seattle Times.

7 Replies to "Worried about bright signs on the city skyline? Changes on hold"

  • Diane March 28, 2011 (11:22 am)

    This topic does need more & better-informed public discussion, about current signage rules, truth about what this new rule would allow, and feedback; so far most of the negative comments I’ve heard have been based on misinformation; I attended a meeting downtown few months ago, organized by opponents, many architects; they presented a great power point with info about current sign ordinance and how advertisers currently wiggle around/through the laws that we have now to plaster huge obnoxious signage on downtown walls that are far more visible, in your face, than any of the lighted signage being proposed in this new ordinance

  • DW March 28, 2011 (12:15 pm)

    WHO CARES?!?! Let them put signs on buildings. There are more important issues to tackle and this would simply mean revenue to the city. I’m so sick of Seattle letting esoteric and artistic concerns take the upper hand over the practical.

  • Diane March 28, 2011 (1:12 pm)

    apparently a lot of folks care, and have been fighting this
    I am in favor of the illuminated signs on downtown buildings, but there are very vocal groups opposed, which is probably why this got shelved
    if you think it’s a good thing for Seattle, could be helpful to contact City Council, so they know that not everyone is opposed

  • nulu March 28, 2011 (3:49 pm)

    I would be happy to pay additional taxes to reduce corporate signage in Seattle.

  • redblack March 28, 2011 (9:38 pm)

    i’m opposed, and i care.
    i’m sick of constant reminders that everything in this country is for sale – provided you can afford it.

  • Neighbor March 28, 2011 (9:54 pm)

    How about that new orthodontic sign on California? It’s grotesque, just like the Petco signage. Why should we not regulate the use of energy for purposes like advertising? Why should our rivers and our air be polluted so that some business can put up signage? Why allow the limited resources to be used for such a thing? Seven generations….

  • WS fan March 28, 2011 (10:34 pm)

    Oh, my goodness! I am totally opposed to these new signs. They are a visual blight across our beautiful NW Seattle Skyline. We can find the money elsewhere to fund these very worthwhile projects. I absolutely do not want advertising signs, no matter how discrete or upscale or wonderful they may be, to be plastered on the buildings of our beautiful skyline. Don’t do this! Think of the long term consequences! Artistic consequences are valid concerns.

Sorry, comment time is over.