Are these legal?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Ed Fitzgerald/Building Department

Are these legal?



While walking by Harrison's and watching them load new furniture in the back of their store. I couldn't help but look up and see banners crudely fastened to the front of the building. We have heard through various rumors that Harrison's plans on staying for the duration of their lease, another two years. More than one observer has seen furniture coming into the place, which makes us wonder if it is a clearance sale that would empty the store. Right across the street once again we have one of Lakewood largest businesses and one that is active in Mainstreet, just spent a ton on renovations, and I think we would all agree is an anchor and destination, Lakewood Hospital.

Where once was a tasteful, but I believe illegal banner, that eventually blew done. I saw these banners instead. Now one of my clients Revelations had asked about a banner earlier while her sign was being ready, and another time to celebrate their anniversary, and I could of sworn the rules were did not include fastened to awnings, or loosely attached to a building.

On their credit they used screws and nails to attach them, but wouldn't that push the sign from temporary to more permanent?

As last time with Moe I led with accusations, today I merely ask is this legal.

Planning Commission - Has this ever been talked about in planning meetings?

Mainstreet - LCPI - What are your feelings on this in your footprint?

Chamber of Commerce - Any thoughts on this?

just curious.


.

[Grace O'Malley]

Harrison's also has a car plastered with bright signs and some rooftop sign that I've seen parked on Detroit Avenue near Webb.

They had a guy with a sign at McKinley and the highway as you exited the freeway. He sat on the overpass with the day-glo sign.

Very tacky, but I guess he figures if the Matress place got away with it, he can, too.

[dl meckes]

The Board of Building Standards/Architectural Board of Review/Sign Review, rather than Planning, looks at sign issues.

The Building Department also issues temporary variances.

[Michael Fleenor]

I also wonder about the legality of the signage at Walgreens at 117th and Detroit. Where once they had multiple windows with small "Walgreens" signs mounted in each, they now have the equivalent of a billboard--each first floor window totally covered with multi-colored signage.

Did this go through the appropriate review? If the ABR insisted on a certain number of windows in the building when its design was approved, it seems to me the current treatment goes against that intent and in effect is like bricking the windows in or covering the facade with a billboard. I also wondered if not blocking this signage was the reason trees were never replanted along that section of walk on Detroit after the West 117th St. repaving project was completed.

Harrisons doesn't bother me because it appears to be temporary. Walgreens bad signage appears to be permanent. If it is legal, our sign ordinance needs to be revised, and I would not want to see a similar treatment at the Walgreens at Madison and Warren.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Harrisons doesn't bother me because it appears to be temporary. Walgreens bad signage appears to be permanent. If it is legal, our sign ordinance needs to be revised, and I would not want to see a similar treatment at the Walgreens at Madison and Warren.

Temporary would be one thing, but we hear two years. I must say I only want local businesses to succeed. But not at the cost some of this signage represents. Mainstreet is ready to dump hundreds of thousands into the area and... I have to think this siognage would make any amount of other beautification invisible.

Will check out Walgreen's.


.

[Joan Roberts]

I totally agree. I spoke up for Moe, on the basis that he was a new, small business that may not have had the means or guidance to do something better than his crude sign.

Harrison's has no excuse. If this is allowed to stand, Lakewood in effect has no sign ordinance.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I totally agree. I spoke up for Moe, on the basis that he was a new, small business that may not have had the means or guidance to do something better than his crude sign.

Harrison's has no excuse. If this is allowed to stand, Lakewood in effect has no sign ordinance.

Joan


Spoke with Ed Fitzgerald and his wife the other night at the Mayor's Birthday Party. He explained like Moe, the Building Department was all over the problem. They had cited the liquidator, who was the group putting up the signs. If you drive by today, the banners are down.

Once again a thanks and a tip of the hat to the building department and Ed Fitzgerald.



.

[Jeff Endress]

Speaking of ugly signage.....the beauty shop on the SW corner of Larchmont and Detroit has headshots plastered all over the eastside plywood facade...looks like a bunch of posters for the circus. Surely that is not permissible.

Jeff

[Phil Florian]

Speaking of ugly signage.....the beauty shop on the SW corner of Larchmont and Detroit has headshots plastered all over the eastside plywood facade...looks like a bunch of posters for the circus. Surely that is not permissible.

Jeff

Those have been there for a long time. If the city was going to do something they would have a while ago. Maybe because the business is the entire building they can't do anything about it?