New Rules on Island Signs
Ordinance Gets OK
By Karen Gould

The impact of Mackinac Island's revised sign ordinance and the design of a proposed Hubbard's Annex cottage, and their potential repercussions on the Island's character and its National Historic Landmark status, sparked concerns with some community members, who have addressed the issues through letters to the Mackinac Island City Council.

Following five months of wading through visitor complaints, shop owners' concerns, a public hearing, letters to Council, and efforts to maintain the Island's historic ambiance, the city council adopted the revised sign ordinance Wednesday, November 7. Letters concerned over the appearance of the proposed Annex cottage of Len and Sue Webster and a response from the city's architect were put on file.

Store windows will be less cluttered and tent signs will not be part of the downtown landscape when many Mackinac Island business owners reopen their shops next spring. They will be required to comply with the city's revised sign ordinance, which places limitations on window displays, bans the use of temporary free-standing signs, and clarifies awning signage, which now will be regulated.

The sign ordinance that regulated Island businesses until now was adopted in 1998 and was last revised in 2002.

The latest changes to the ordinance had been tabled for two weeks to allow Council more time to review revisions made to the regulation following an October public hearing.

Since the last council meeting, two letters were received on the issue. In his letter, Dennis Cawthorne, who helped draft the revised ordinance, supported the new regulation, while a letter from Mary Dufina, who had helped write an earlier sign ordinance, expressed concern for enforcement of the new document and opposed limitations placed on signage, saying that business owners need all available space to advertise products. Neither Mr. Cawthorne nor Mrs. Dufina attended the council meeting.

"Every square inch of space is vital to a business," wrote Mrs. Dufina. "Outdoor signs as well as window display areas have a monetary value. The owner, as well as a lessee, expect that they will use these spaces to the advantage of their business."

Along with her letter, Mrs. Dufina included historic photographs of Main Street, highlighting signs used in past years on the Island, including roof signs, full awnings, and banners draped above the street.

In his letter, Mr. Cawthorne said sign practices previously allowed on Main Street now are a deterrent to visitors who seek the historic nature of the Island.

"Given the intense competition we face from other resort destinations and the current emphasis on retaining our natural beauty, would we really want to go back to allowing that kind of signage?" he asked. "It should be noted that the current issue of National Geographic Traveler magazine ranks Mackinac Island number five among the world's islands, but notes an element of 'tackiness' in our downtown. That may be too strong a phrase," he wrote, "but it should serve as a reminder to us all that we must be vigilant in maintaining standards worthy of a great destination and a great community."

Prior to the council's vote, Alderman Mike Hart said, "It is important for us to remember, we are in competition with a whole slew of other communities seeking tourism business, and the more we can improve our image, the better it is for everybody."

The revised sign ordinance passed with no opposition. Armand "Smi" Horn and Frank Bloswick did not attend the meeting and did not vote.

The revised ordinance imposes new regulations for window displays, including requiring that at least 50% of an opening facing the street is not obstructed with merchandise. Temporary freestanding signs, including sandwich boards, have been eliminated. Size limits are set for awning signs and lettering. The ordinance also limits price tag size to four square inches.

Violations of the ordinance are considered civil infractions, and businesses found in violation could face losing a license to operate on the Island.

Council placed on file a letter from city Architect Richard Neumann in response to letters of complaint regarding his architectural review of plans for Len and Sue Webster's Annex home. Mr. Neumann visited the Island and stood by his earlier review that the cottage meets required architectural review standards.

"I have visited the Annex," wrote Mr. Neumann in his letter to Council, "and considered the proposed house in the context of that neighborhood. The proposed house is large, but it would meet the height and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance."

Letters from Annex residents Lorna Puttkammer Straus, Cordie and Charlie Puttkammer, and Christopher Straus expressed concerns over the size and architectural details of the proposed Webster home.

"The integrity of the cottages represents a key element in the Island's status as a National Historic Landmark and why our Island draws visitors," wrote Mr. Straus. "Yet another construction project that is incompatible with the neighboring structures, violating our own rules, will significantly threaten our historic status by directly indicating that our Island is unwilling to take the required steps to protect what has to be considered one of the highest national honors a community of our type can receive."

Mr. Neumann agreed that the Neo-Queen Anne design of the Webster's cottage in the Annex, which contains late Victorian and early 20th century homes, is problematic.

"My only reservation about the house," said Mr. Neumann, "is the height level of period details proposed, as this would tend to confuse the typical casual observer, who unknowingly may assume it to be an historic house. As I stated in the review, '..designing new to be too similar to the original blurs the distinction between old and new.' And for a community that trades on its history, do overly wrought copies of historic styles contribute to a sense of artificiality?"