Signs of Trouble in Laramie: A Photographic Essay
By Brett Glass
After attending the hearing on November 24, 1998 regarding a proposed
sign code for the City of Laramie, I toured the city with a digital
camera, looking for examples of signage that would not conform to the new
rules. What I found surprised me: I could hardly drive a block on any major
artery before encountering a sign that appeared to be in violation. Here
are 48 examples of familiar Laramie businesses whose signs, individually
or in combination, may be non-conforming. (There are many more, some of
which I've mentioned in the text below, but the ones pictured are representative.)
According to the proposed ordinance, the consequences of non-conformance
would vary depending on the nature of the sign. Some signs would be "grandfathered,"
but could not be updated to reflect a change in ownership, name, address,
or even telephone number. Repairs to many signs would also be limited.
The restrictions would create problems for owners who wished to sell, move,
or expand their businesses. New or relocating businesses would not be allowed
to update non-conforming signage, hurting their ability to compete and
to attract customers. A prohibition against billboards would limit supply
and drive up prices as existing ones reached the ends of their useful lives.
Some signs would have to be taken down or turned off immediately. (See
the ordinance for details.)
Copies of the ordinance are available at City Hall, or you may call
the Chamber of Commerce at 307-745-7339 to have one FAXed. A set of proposed
amendments to the ordinance, drafted by the Sign Code Working Group in
response to comments and to the issues cited below, has been scanned into
electronic form and is now available here
for viewing.
Few, if any, Laramie residents are opposed to the concept of
a sign ordinance; it is generally acknowledged that every city needs one.
However, the fact that so many existing signs would be out of compliance
suggests that this specific ordinance, as it's currently written,
may not be appropriate. There is concern that the version that was under
consideration by the City Council on December 1, 1998 might damage Laramie's
existing businesses and prevent the city from attracting and fostering
new ones. And any loss of sales and tourism tax revenues would drive up
taxes for residents and impact local services.
This photographic essay is intended to provide food for thought and
specific examples for discussion. Should all of the signs shown here be
illegal? Are all of them unsightly? Is signage the only factor -- or even
the primary one -- that's responsible for visitors' negative first impressions
of Laramie? Would landscaping -- including, perhaps, a tree planting program
and grassy medians on major approaches to downtown -- do more good? Could
shared signage reduce the total number of signs while allowing businesses
to direct travelers to their doors from all approaches to the city? Let's
discuss these issues and come up with the best all-around solution for
our community.
Calendar of Public Meetings Regarding the Proposed Sign Ordinance
Event |
Date |
Time |
Location |
Round Table Discussion with Sign Code Working
Group
(RSVP: Kathleen Baker 307-721-9664) |
Monday, December 7, 1998 |
7:00 PM |
Albany County Public Library (Large Meeting Room) |
City Council Public Hearing and Second Reading
(Special Meeting) |
Tuesday, December 8, 1998 |
7:00 PM |
City Hall (Municipal Courtroom/Council Chamber) |
[Note: To see a picture in more detail, click on the thumbnail and a
larger version will appear. If a photo seems dark, try adjusting the "Contrast"
setting on your computer monitor.]
Last updated: December 5, 1998 at 11:45 PM
The Brown 'n Gold Outlet, on University Avenue, has a roof sign (prohibited)
and too much sign area overall for the length of its storefront. Also,
the projecting sign exceeds the maximum allowed area and extends too far
from the building, according to the proposed ordinance. |
Corral West Ranchwear, on Third Street, has a roof sign (prohibited).
It also has signage on a side of the building that doesn't have any street
frontage. This makes sense, since it attracts customers from Third Street,
but it's not allowed by the new ordinance. |
Mountain Woods Furniture, on Second Street, has a very attractive sign
that fits nicely into a niche designed for that purpose by the building's
architect. However, the new ordinance does not concur with the architect's
sense of proportion; it says the sign is too big. |
Wyoming Automotive, at 2nd and University, is lucky enough to be located
on an alley, which is considered to be a "street" by the ordinance. So,
its wall sign facing Third Street would be legal. The roof sign, however,
would be prohibited. There are also three projecting signs visible here;
only one is allowed. |
The Cowboy Saloon and Dance Hall, on Second Street, attempted
to spruce up its building by adding a Western mural. However, that mural,
because it's considered to be a "wall sign" under the proposed ordinance,
would cause the business to exceed its maximum allowed sign area. (Even
an abstract mural is considered a commercial sign if it draws attention
to a business.) |
Nothing seems out of proportion about The Curiosity Shoppe's facade.
In fact, it's one of downtown's prettiest storefronts -- especially during
the holidays. But its sign area exceeds the legal limit under the new ordinance. |
The legendary Buckhorn Bar uses up about two thirds of its allotment
of sign area on the words "The Old Buckhorn Bar and Parlor," which are
painted across the front above the windows. The projecting sign, the lighted
one that says "Parlor Bar", and additional window signs on the first and
second floors appear to put it over the limit. |
This nearly new awning sign, at Gallery West on Ivinson, looks
good, but it's pushing the size limit. Depending upon how it's measured
(the ordinance is vague on the proper way to do this), it could be too
large. |
The Whole Earth Grainery, on Ivinson, always has colorful painted signs
in the windows. Alas, if they're considered to be "wall signs" under the
new ordinance, they will count against the total sign area limit
for the business. So, when they've faded (which only takes a few months
at high altitude), the new ordinance might prevent them from being replaced.
There's no question, however, that the mural on the alley is out
of conformance; it's too large. |
Gillette Office Supply, slightly off the beaten path at Fourth and
Fremont, relies upon a roof sign (prohibited by the new code) for visibility.
The new law would prohibit replacement of the sign if it blew down or was
heavily damaged, and would prevent it from being reinforced to make it
last longer. If the business were bought, the sign couldn't be updated
to change the name. |
All of the stores in Gateway Plaza, on Third Street, are set far back
from the roadway. They therefore require signs with large letters
to be visible. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance does not allow sign
area to increase in proportion to setback. This may be why the area of
Hastings' main sign, which doesn't seem outrageously large, is nonetheless
far over the limit. And that's without counting the movie signs in
the windows. |
McClure Home Decorating, across the way from Gateway Plaza, is not
decorated properly -- at least according to the proposed code. It has a
roof sign (prohibited by the new ordinance). |
Optical Fashions of Wyoming, on Second Street, has an eye-catching
sign which, like many other downtown signs, fits the niche intended for
signage by the building's architect. But the new sign ordinance would deem
it too large. |
Coal Creek Coffee Company, on Grand near First Street, sports a tasteful
wall sign -- with icons depicting products and fanciful spirals in between.
The section of the facade in which the sign is located seems to have been
intended by the architect for signage, and has historically been used this
way. However, it also appears to have more area than the business is allowed
for all signage under the proposed ordinance. Thus, even without
the two window signs and the "Open/Closed" sign, this popular meeting place
seems to be over its limit. |
Dodds' Bootery is a local business that struggles gamely against "big
box" chains KMart and Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, its Second Street signage
exceeds the limits imposed by the new ordinance.
The Jaded Lair, on First Street (not shown), would not conform for the
same reason. Its hand-painted sign runs the length of the storefront and
is approximately three feet high. That's more than the 50 square feet allowed
it by the ordinance. |
Blitz Computers' low-key sign, located on Second Street, is aesthetically
pleasing, unlike the adjacent lot (which contains a barren
pit more than 10 feet deep). But the sign is very close to the 50 square
foot limit. (If it spanned the storefront completely, it'd be over for
sure.) Add the window signs, and Blitz appears to be over its limit. The
new ordinance would restrict this business, which brings in lots of mail
order dollars from out of state. But it would do nothing about the visual
blight next door. |
At first glance, it looks as if this Third Street Subway franchise's
signage conforms to the new ordinance's area limits. But Subway has "off-premise
directional signs" whose areas must be deducted from its allowance of on-premise
signage. This may push it over the limit. The pole sign also violates the
15 foot setback requirement in the proposed ordinance. Another franchise,
Papa John's Pizza (not shown), appears to have exactly the same problems.
The ordinance allows only two off-premise directional signs per business.
This limits businesses' ability to draw traffic from the highway or guide
travelers to their stores. |
For several years, First Interstate Bank, at Third and Ivinson, sported
a non-working electronic sign that said "YQFJZ" (or something similar).
This sign was an embarrassment, and when First Interstate Bank came under
new management it wasted no time in replacing the sign with two working
ones at substantial expense. The new signs flash messages such as "Happy
Thanksgiving," "Go Pokes," and "Vote Today," as well as information about
Jubilee Days and other community events. Unfortunately, under the new ordinance,
they would be considered "animated signs." They would have to be turned
off, or limited to displaying only the time and temperature, within 60
days. |
The bicycle cleverly used as a projecting sign by The Pedal House,
on First Street, extends too far from the building to be legal under the
new code. And because the wall sign on the side of the building (it's
truly beautiful; click the picture for a closer look) does not front on
a street and greatly exceeds the business's signage allotment, it would
have to go too. |
The proposed sign ordinance allows any business at most one "pole-style"
sign. The Sunset Inn has three to catch the eyes of interstate travelers
-- one of them the sign that shows its accreditation by the American Automobile
Association. Two exceed the height limit of 20 feet.
A 20-foot height limit is problematic for businesses located near highway
interchanges, because most overpasses are more than 20 feet tall. The new
I-80 overpass at Snowy Range Road, for example, has a clearance --
not a total height -- of 17 feet 5 inches. Thus, a pole sign that did conform
to the height limit would likely be invisible to traffic at this and other
interchanges. |
This animated sign, also called a "reader board," advertises the 1st
Inn Gold (formerly the Laramie Inn) to passersby at the I-80/US 287 interchange.
Under the new sign code, it would be illegal for not one but five reasons:
because it is animated; because the bulbs point at the reader; because
it's more than 20 feet tall; because it does not have a 15 foot setback;
and because the hotel has at least one other "pole-style" sign on the premises.
(Note: All of the signs in this picture, including Motel 8's, would be
illegal due to insufficient setback.) |
The Travelodge at Third and University is a locally owned franchise.
The new owners have done a wonderful job of improving the property and
refurbishing the rooms. However, they would have trouble if they wanted
to leave the franchise, because their pole sign violates height and setback
requirements and could not be legally changed. The value of the business
would likewise be impacted if it were put up for sale. The reader board
on the sign, currently turned off, could never be made operational under
the new ordinance. |
Kentucky Fried Chicken's distinctive rotating bucket, a piece of classic
Americana, would have to be stopped within 60 days. Even then, the sign
would still be illegal because it is too tall and has insufficient setback.
And that's not all. Because the restaurant is on 21st Street, which is
not a major traffic artery, it relies upon off-premise directional signs
plus this "pole-style" sign to guide customers to its door. Unfortunately,
the area of off-premise signs is deducted from the allowance for on-premise
signs. So the restaurant, with its limited street frontage, may not
be able to keep enough signage to direct customers effectively. |
Joe Vitale, who at great expense transformed an ugly abandoned service
station into a popular Italian restaurant called Vitale's, has two "pole-style"
signs. The sign code implemented by the proposed ordinance would only allow
one, and it would have to be no more than 20 feet tall. (His largest sign
is much taller.) He would also have to stop operating an animated sign
that beckons customers.
Some other Laramie establishments with pole signs that appear to violate
the proposed ordinance's height and/or setback requirements include Hardee's,
Mini-Mart (more than one location), Shari's, Kum & Go, The Mane Event,
KMart, US Bank, The Ranger, Travel Inn, Comfort Inn, Bagelmakers, Parts
America, Reed's Liquors, Crown Liquors, The Alibi, Mulligan's, Ann's Pawn
Shop, The Tack Room, Foster's Country Corner, UniqueLee Ewe, C K Chuck
Wagon, Holiday Inn, Motel 6, First National Bank, Laramie Lumber, and The
Loyal Order Of Moose (all not shown). |
Kinko's wraparound awning, on Grand Avenue, would be deemed too
large by the new code. Kinko's has street frontage, so its parking lot
frontage isn't allowed any signage at all. |
UW's animated sign on Grand Avenue once rallied fans and directed them
to UW athletic events. Now unsightly because it is broken, it could never
be fixed if the University obeyed the new code (which it might or might
not feel obliged to do). |
Fresh Flower Fantasy was recently voted the Chamber of Commerce's Business
of the Year. But the proposed sign code would consign its main sign --
which is large so as to be seen easily from the road -- to eventual oblivion.
The portable sign at the right of the picture, which directs customers
to the store, would be illegal due to the flashing arrow; it would
have to go within 60 days. Even if the sign were modified so it did not
flash, it could only be used for two months each year -- by permit -- thereafter. |
Teriyaki Bowl was formerly a Long John Silver's, but is now a locally
owned and operated business that serves delicious and healthy Japanese
food. Unfortunately, its signage, while it's just about the right size
to draw customers without being obtrusive, would run afoul of the proposed
sign code. Too much area, and the pole sign appears to be more than 20
feet tall. The nearby McDonald's and Burger King restaurants also have
signs that appear to exceed the height limit. |
Applebee's is relatively new in town. The sign code would make this
business feel welcome by making its pole sign and roof sign illegal. The
pole sign would violate both height and setback requirements. The roof
sign, which currently bears no copy, could not be used again. |
Blockbuster Video's awning sign, plus the lighted sign at the far right
and other signs in the windows, appear to exceed the allowed area
limits. Like Kinko's (above), Blockbuster has some street frontage, so
its parking lot frontage isn't allowed any signage. But if it were, it
still might be over the area limit. |
Amazingly, the new sign code contains no provision for theater
marquees. The Wyo theater's classic sign has too much surface area and
protrudes too far from the building to be legal under the proposed code.
And the ordinance would forbid traditional theater light displays, including
chasers and alternating neon lights. |
Holliday's Furniture, directly across from the Wyo, uses a roof sign
as its primary sign so that it is visible from Grand Avenue. If the sign
were one day damaged or blown down, it could not be replaced under the
new code. |
All of the outdoor signs belonging to Ludwig Photo, a family-owned
downtown business managed by Anne Brande, would become non-conforming under
the proposed code. Note that one is a roof sign (prohibited), while the
lighted wall sign exceeds the code's area limitation. The signs inside
the windows could not be changed or updated if the new code were to take
effect as written. |
This new sporting goods store, located on Third Street, will
need lots of good advertising to build a clientele because it is outside
of established shopping areas. But with a wall sign on a side of the building
with no street frontage, and more sign area than is allowed for its building
frontage, it would be out of conformance from the start. |
Artech Appliance, on South Second, is locked in a constant battle with
Sears (Cheyenne) and other out-of-town vendors for residents' appliance
dollars. This impressive awning sign was obviously expensive to install.
However, it is far over the size limit set by the ordinance.
All Terrain Sports, on Grand (not shown), appears to be in the same
situation. |
Plains Tire, on South Second, keeps dollars in Laramie's local economy
by offering aggressive prices to local customers. Its vendor signs consume
too much area to conform to the new code. |
A&C Feed, in West Laramie, has a sign on the side of its quonset
hut for visibility from Snowy Range Road. This sign would not be allowed
by the ordinance because it does not front on a street. The signage for
this business also exceeds area limitations. |
The Cowboy Car Wash, on North Third, has informative and attractive
signage -- but too much, alas, to conform to the proposed code. Competitor
Robo-Wash, on South Third (not shown), has two pole signs (the limit is
one), both of which are non-conforming. |
A to Z Tire, on Snowy Range Road, has three pole signs bearing the
names of tire vendors. Only one is allowed by the ordinance. There appear
to be problems with height restrictions as well. |
According to the new code, Westbrook's Pawn Shop would have too much
sign area. When the building was next painted, informative writing would
have to be replaced by an expanse of blank cement wall. |
This gunslinger may be headed for his last showdown. He's a pole sign,
son -- and the Gunslinger 66 station, at the Snowy Range Road interchange,
already has another. (That sign, at the left of the picture, appears to
violate the new setback requirement.) So, the Law might say this pardner
has ta git outta town (though he would be "grandfathered" for a spell). |
This large sign, owned by the Pilot truck stop, was damaged by wind
and is being repaired. If it were heavily damaged again after the ordinance
was passed, it might not be legal to repair it, making it an embarrassing
eyesore. Nor could Pilot change the sign if, for example, there was no
longer a Wendy's restaurant there. |
Petro's reader board, at the Curtis Street interchange, would go dark
if the proposed ordinance passed. The sign would be doomed by all of the
same rules that would make 1st Inn Gold's sign illegal (see above). |
Kotby Motors, on North Third Street, has three pole signs (only one
is allowed) and a roof sign (prohibited). All of the pole signs violate
the setback requirement in the proposed ordinance. |
The West Laramie Fly Store, on Snowy Range Road, is also a Conoco station
and has a total of three pole signs. The ordinance allows only one. At
least two of the signs appear not to meet the new code's setback requirement.
The majority of service stations in town -- including Knight Oil's recently
acquired "Quick and Easy" property at Fourth and University (not shown)
-- face similar problems. And Knight Oil's video rental sign, which has
chaser lights, would have to be modified or removed within 60 days. |
The Artisans' Gallery, on Second Street, appears to have more sign
area than the new ordinance would allow. |
This off-premise directional sign, in West Laramie, is shared
by the tenants of Northridge Center. Unfortunately, it's a billboard, which
means it couldn't be rebuilt to extend its useful life. Since each business
would be limited to two off-premise directional signs, it could not place
a sign at each entrance to the city. What's more, each would have to deduct
the area of its portion of this sign from its on-premise sign allowance.
Under the ordinance, off-premise directional signs can't contain phone
numbers, so travelers can't call ahead with food orders or to ask for directions. |
Gramma's Olde Ice Cream Parlour beckons travelers enroute to and from
the Snowy Range and has a loyal following of local customers. But it has
too much signage for its street frontage, according to the proposed ordinance.
It also has a prohibited roof sign. |