I agree, these signs are very distracting. Here is the link to the sign ordinance in Raleigh: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10312 I doubt this was approved.

I agree. These things are so ridiculous and ugly. They are distracting and just so obnoxious I would never use them to handle any real estate!! It's like being in time square. Can we get them removed??

It's odd that the Mellow Mushroom at this same intersection had so much trouble getting the Mushrooms on their patio approved just a few years ago while this business can implement much more obnoxious advertising overnight. If this type of invasive signage is not addressed soon, we can expect more of the same.

It's a dangerous distraction to drivers at an already very busy intersection with cars and pedestrians. Besides that, it is distasteful and obnoxious.

Good analogy to MM's troubles, who went the proper route, btw. I am sure they did not have these approved.

Thanks! This is being referred to the Zoning Division of Inspections. When they have responded, we will post an update.

In case the signs are within the current regulations because they are inside a building, they seem to violate the spirit of the law. To paint the mural that was on the side of that same building, the neighborhood association had to go through all kinds of permitting and exceptions. Businesses all over the city have had to incur the expense of lowering and down-sizing their billboards and as someone mentioned, the art work at Mellow Mushroom was questioned. But now because this business has skirted the sign ordinance, they have no restrictions. It seems to be a precedent that would allow any business, regardless of zoning, to bypass the sign ordinance with the equivalent of a billboard from any window in their facility. And the signs seem to be reflective of a lack of respect for the neighborhood in which they operate...they are zoned for a business, but located across the street and next door to housing units where residents attempt to maintain the look and feel of an urban living space...certainly billboard-sized LED signs do not reflect good neighborhood relations.

An update to this complaint is that Zoning is working with the current tenant (CityGate Real Estate) to minimize the number of times these images change within a twenty-four (24) hour period. Presently our ordinance states “No changeable copy sign, except a changeable copy time and temperature sign, may have its copy changed more than four (4) times in any twenty-four (24) hour period”. It is our hope that this will be an easy resolution without having to take a more aggressive form of enforcement.

Legal or not, I hope the owners take note of how distasteful many in a very established and upscale corner of downtown Raleigh find them.

The solution the City is recommending may remedy the safety issues, but not the violation of the spirit of this business' being a good neighbor and avoiding assaulting those living in the neighborhood with large signs, regardless of how often they change . It would be ideal if the City communicated to this business owner how very dismayed the neighborhood is with this use of large LED signs that are much more appropriate as a display inside a retail store, a mall or shopping center, not the parameter of a fully functioning neighborhood inhabited by over 400 residents. This type of practice seems like it would mean the loss of business from their own neighbors, many of whom are homeowners who do need the services of a good real estate company. Do they really want that?

This sign was the fantastic idea of a person who has found several loopholes in city ordinances. he is also skirting the same laws constructing his own house. I believe its time we as citizens step up and finally shut this (@#% clown) down

Perhaps someone should print this entire thread and leave it for her? If she knew how upset so many people were, she might change it voluntarily.....

Maybe someone can get in touch with the local CAC heads and have them gather a petition from neighbors to deliver to them. Or, I suggest people walking by pop in and tell them how ugly it is. OR :) we should all leave a bunch of Post-It notes on their windows telling them how ugly and offensive it is.

Did the inspectors check the light? Its probably brighter than they are allowed for electronic signs.

While I didn't like it, I could accept that the sign was in compliance because it was internal signage, but now the business has the sign space for sale to others. How is this not a violation of the billboard ordinance?

I just saw that they are advertising space now--classless and appalling. These people just care about money and are happy to destroy to look our neighborhood. This needs to be shut down or else it will become a precedent for signs like this all over our city.

Yeah they could care less about being neighborly. Anyone interested in talking to Thomas crowder about it??? Anybody wanna picket outside and see how they like it??

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

To the City of Raleigh: thanks for your reply to us concerned citizens, but your solution (flashing no more than 4 times in 24 hours) is being ignored by Citygate.

Drove by it yesterday. Still on, each of the two LED signs still change several times a minute. Incredibly distracting at one of the busiest intersections downtown, especially at night. I could see this causing an accident eventually.

Saw them advertising their own ad space with the number 919-675-2338 listed underneath.

After nearly TWO WEEKS they have not reduced the time between transitions to 4 times per 24 hours. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like 100 times per day currently. City of Raleigh: I think it's time for the "more aggressive form of enforcement".

Downtrodden--You need to check yourself before you call someone out publicly on a gross misrepresentation of what that person said. Nowhere did I say "rich;" that is your implication, which is incorrect. Also, I beg of you to quote where I said that it belonged in SE or SW Raleigh, where the unestablished and downscale live. Get your facts straight.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Ha. Just so you know, the automatically edited word was nothing nearly as harsh as what it probably appears.

Folks, we should not feed the troll going by the name "The Downtrodden," it's just trying to stir up controversy where none exists. It must need the attention, let's just flag the comments and move on.

Here's how it looks at night. Practically blinds anyone driving by. The brightness alone has to be cause for a violation as its right by the intersection and just as bright at night (if not brighter) than the traffic lights.

About three minutes ago, in a discussion with the City Council about the Unified Development Ordinance, Planning Director Mitchell Silver told the council that these signs comply with the municipal code. For better or worse, that settles the matter for the time being.

Then I guess the next step would be to ask the city council to consider changing the sign ordinance to not allow obnoxious signs like these.

They seem to change every 20 or 30 seconds.

The Director of Transportation can override this per Sec.10-2083.3:
"The following signs are expressly prohibited within all zoning districts:

(2)
Illuminated, highly reflective signs, or spotlights which the Director of Transportation determines hampers the vision of motorists or bicyclists."

Also found in Sec. 10-2083.1:
Any conforming sign, unless otherwise specifically regulated, may be illuminated provided the following standards are met:
(1)
No illuminated sign shall cast light to exceed four-tenths (.4) maintained footcandle illumination onto a residential zoning district.
(2)
Any light from any illuminated sign or flood light used to illuminate a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that the light intensity or brightness shall not interfere with the safe vision of motorists, or bicyclists, as determined by the Director of Transportation of the City. Any light source used to illuminate a sign shall not be visible from a residential zoning district.
(3)
All internal illumination shall not exceed ten (10) footcandles measured at a distance of ten (10) feet from the sign.
(4)
All electrically illuminated signs shall have a disconnecting switch located in accordance with the provisions of the National Electric Code.
(5)
For all illuminated signs, applications for both a sign permit and an electrical permit shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the installation of any illuminated sign.

I have a calibrated light meter, I'll try to check the foot-candles. I'm pretty sure the sign exceeds the standard.

@JGuth - thanks for checking the output of those lights. I normally could care less about any advertising going on downtown but when I drove by it last night, it got my attention more than the red light did. If we can't get rid of the ads, they should be able to dim the ads at night to avoid taking over the intersection like that.

Sure

The house diagonal across from it is zoned residential, so I'm not sure how it geta buy with that (not allowed to light residential), but I'll check the output.

What happened to the requirement that these signs only change 3-4 times in a 24 hour period because of the safety distraction to motorists? Certainly this has not been done. While I realize that Mr. Silvers has responsibility for the inspectors who enforce the code, I do not necessarily believe that this issue has been fully vetted by the city attorney. Could the city attorney please be consulted? And if we get the same response from the attorney, is there someone on city counsel that will work with the community to develop a proposal that will tightening the sign ordnance to better protect communities against this type of assault.

Thanks. This is being referred to the Zoning Division. When they have responded, an update will be posted.

The Raleigh City Council met on Monday to discuss the UDO, the new development regulations for the City of Raleigh that go into effect on September 1. The CityGate sign issue was discussed for approximately 12 minutes. You can view this discussion by clicking on the link below and then moving the slider to 27:25.

http://raleigh.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=24&clip_id=3587

It appears the new regulations will prevent this fiasco from happening again.

@RaleighMochaMan, thank you for that link. Looks like things are going in the right direction.

Inspections has responded. We have not been able get City Gate to maintain the changing of the signs to (4) times within a (24) hour period. I have been advised to proceed with enforcement; therefore we will be issuing a notice of violation that these signs are prohibited under our section identifying them as a flashing sign. This notice should be issued 07/10/13 by the end of business day. They will have a deadline date to comply by, failure to comply will result in fines. Thanks.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks!!

Thanks for fixing this issue!

I don't consider this fixed, although enforcement of the timing of the flashing is definitely a good thing!

"Fixed" to me regarding this issue means it's taken down, and while I see this may indeed be mandated once the UDO is put into action, does this all mean we get to see an advertising free-for-all on the corner of Peace and Glenwood (one that only changes 4 times a day) until that unspecified date?

It's obvious now that CityGate is not in the least interested in what we in the neighborhood thinks about anything (see also painting over the mural). I believe we need to pursue further getting the signing taken down completely, the sooner the better.

Whether we do that though the city council, or some kind of consumer action, we should try. I'm sure CityGate wouldn't enjoy being portrayed in the press as the bane of neighborhoods in the city they propose to service... yes?

Thanks for fixing this issue!

The Zoning Division has responded. A notice of violation has been processed and mailed to the property owner and the tenant (CityGate) by first class and certified mail. In the notice we state: City of Raleigh Code Section 10-2083.3 (7) Prohibited Signs.

The following signs are expressly prohibited within all zoning districts:

(7) Any newly created flashing signs. Travelling lights, or signs animated by lights or changing degrees of intensity, except signs in public rights-of-way.

At present, there are two large TV screens positioned behind the windows at 700 Glenwood Avenue. It has been determined by the Zoning Administrator that the constant flashing of the TV screens advertising CityGate Real Estate, as well as other services from other companies, is considered a prohibited sign.

To resolve the violation, the TV screens must be programmed to not flash by the changing of information or images by 07/18/2013.

I will update you on 07/18/2013 on the status of the case.

Thanks!

Thanks

I noticed that the signs have now been removed.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks for fixing this issue!

First, I'd like to thank the folks here at SeeClickFix for reopening this issue so we can continue working for our desired outcome. The following is from an email thread started last night, please pardon the repetition if you've received this already ;-)

The obnoxious flashing signs in the old CityGate building on Glenwood and Peace are turned off, but the property owner is appealing the designation by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Yeah. There must be some advertising money involved.

From the Board of Adjustment Agenda for next Monday's meeting:

=====
7)A-69-13 WHEREAS, Dee Four LLC, property owner appeals for an Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and/or appeal from an action of the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding the interpretation of Code Section 10-2002 as to the definitions of “Flashing sign” and “Signable area”; and Code Section 10-2083 which prohibits: “(7) Any newly created flashing signs, travelling lights, or signs animated by lights or changing degrees of intensity, except signs in public rights-of-way.”

The applicant asserts that two large electronic screens positioned behind windows are not flashing signs as interpreted by Staff.

The property is located in the Neighborhood Business zoning district with Pedestrian Business Overlay at 700 Glenwood Avenue.
=====

This agenda is available here: http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/BoardsCommissions/Documents/BoardOfAdjustment/BOAAgenda.doc (Sorry, this is a Word doc, that's what the city is providing)

=====

Has a neighborhood presence been planned for this hearing? I assume we can have a say at the hearing, I've never been part of this process before. I know not everyone can make a midday meeting on a Monday, but some of us can. What are your thoughts, neighbors?

RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Monday, August 12, 2013, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in the Council
Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building located at 222 W. Hargett Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Additional information will be posted after the meeting.

I cannot BELIEVE that they would even fathom standing up in front of the City and arguing that the signs were not flashing. To appeal the issue even though no one wants them there... Wow, they are great members of the community.

When I got the email I quoted above, I was floored too. I think everyone who can be at the hearing should be there. Sounds like a building owner needs to be knocked down a few pegs.

Wish I could make it to the hearing. This is absurd. Seems like they rented out the building purely for those LED boards to advertise, since they also have a much larger building only a couple of blocks South.

If anyone can make it, please point out that the flashing is not their only violation. They signs are 1) brighter than allowed by municipal code, and 2) light a residential zone in violation of municipal code

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

This is inaccurate information. The City is not contemplating any changes to the use of SeeClickFix. We encourage all citizens to use this tool. Our record of response to SCF inquiries is quite good, with a median time to resolve of about 3 days. Some items take longer, but this tool has been valuable to the citizens as well as to our organization and we just want to make sure that's clear.

Seems like "Love Wins Ministries" is spamming the site with these bogus comments.

City Staff: Please note that the sign in the window at 700 Glenwood is an ad for Glenwood South. It is not an ad for their business. I understood that they were not allowed to use the signs for anything except their business. If my understanding is true, could you please advise them to use the sign only for the approved purposes. While the sign still violates the spirit of the law, especially on the parameter of a residential area, and the resolution is not ideal, but let's enforce the ruling if we have to live with the sign.

@Annette and everyone else, the Historic Glenwood-Brooklyn Neighborhood Association is appealing the ruling by the Board of Adjustment that allows the sign as long as it doesn't change more than four times in a 24-hour period and only advertises for their own business.

The biggest reason it is allowed is that it's inside the window. HGBNA is appealing that this is a sign like any other and is not allowed in the special Peace Street zoning area. I'll quote from the agenda:

"8) A-76-13 WHEREAS, Historic Glenwood Brooklyn Neighborhood Association, a historic neighborhood association, appeals for an Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and/or Appeal from an Action of the Zoning Enforcement Officer with regard to signs with changing copy located within the property known as 700 Glenwood Avenue.

The Association asserts the signs are not permitted in the Pedestrian Business Overlay district and the Peace Streetscape Plan.

The subject property’s owner is Dee Four LLC and CityGate Real Estate Services, LLC, and is located in the Neighborhood Business district with Pedestrian Business Overlay. "

This appeal will be heard at the next Board of Adjustment meeting on Monday, September 9, 2013 at 1 pm.

Again, if others can attend as support for the representative for HGBNA, it will help show support.

I'll post here if they change the date and time. Last hearing they changed it 3 hours before the meeting :-(

I used to work with her and the woman who runs that business is a witch, she is ruthless, she would throw her own baby under a bus to make a buck. I hope you all can reclaim your neighborhood from the Las Vegas lighting.

City of Raleigh, in response to your statement about SEECLICKFIX, I would like to express my appreciation-I have been amazed at how quickly issues have been addressed, and many resolved. Can't thank you enough!

Thanks for taking the time to post your comment, we appreciate it.

@JGuth can u please email me ASAP!!! Packpimpin@g m a i l dot com

Want to talk about light reading today

@Glenwoodian--What happened with the appeal?

From what I've heard the issue is deferred until October's Board of Adjustment meeting. Not sure about concrete steps we can take just yet.

Thank you so much for using SeeClickFix to connect with the City of Raleigh. Over the past few months, SeeClickFix has been working with Raleigh integrate with their existing work order system, which will route issues directly to City staff in the field. This solution will improve the speed of communication and issue resolution throughout the City. We are really excited about the improved service this will provide.

In order to transition successfully, we need your help. This comment has been posted to notify you that the issue you submitted has been closed. If your issue still exists, please open a new issue via SeeClickFix. We wholeheartedly recognize this inconvenience, and strongly believe that this transition will improve citizen services in Raleigh for years to come.

Thank you so much. Your support means the world to us.