Laserfiche WebLink
� I ;i <br /> April 23,1986 165 iT <br /> 3S <br /> Nr.e[vine reviewed the Billboard issues as follows: 't,„ <br /> 1. Clustering: I:`'. <br /> Billboardsre currently clustered key high volume hp. <br /> intersections throughout the city. This atvisual � ' <br /> clutter and is distracting orlets who should be <br /> devoting <br /> cnir full attention to maneuvering through those I <br /> vtersetioe <br /> 2. Proliferation: <br /> the time the City declared the moratorium on billboard <br /> installation in theCity aPproxiaatelY one yea[ago the City Ike, <br /> a being d with billboard permit appllcatione. <br /> sae includedrmits for two new billboards on Smith <br /> Island,one new billboard.a the central business district, <br /> ordinance vergreem wa and on Broadway. The current <br /> permits bilo lboardsa 150 foot pacing with the <br /> proposed ordinance requiring a minimum spacing of.00 feet on i1 `- <br /> opposite sides of the tweet. <br /> 3. Weight:.. {l'',11,d <br /> To minimize the aesthetic impact of billboards, the Cit <br /> proposing to reduce the maximum height of billboards from 65 M <br /> set to 25 feet in the proposed ordinance. 1�y <br /> 4. Setback.from Residential: II` IDA;. <br /> The current ordinance only requires a 50 foot setback from II I1 . <br /> residentially zoned properties which allows billboards to 'III <br /> visually impact adjacent residential areas. The roposed <br /> 1.1 <br /> ordinance would increase that setback to 200 feet to minimize <br /> the.visual impact of billboards on adjac residentially <br /> xoned areas. <br /> 5. Setback from Intersections. g IS'. <br /> The current.ordinance provides a general language that E I <br /> m <br /> billboards cannot block views tintersections with the ill <br /> proposed ordinance being more specific creating a view I \III <br /> corridor 100 feet back from the intersection in all I I <br /> directions, This language will guarantee a clear view the N <br /> intersection for all motorists insuring proper traffic safety 1 ,II[' <br /> 1.maintained. <br /> 6. View Blockage: <br /> The..current ordinance indicates that no view blockage is II 1 j1 <br /> permitted, with the proposed ordinance again being more !I j <br /> eeclfic, eliminating billboard. on key a eta, including <br /> witt, Colby and Marine w Drive. rThese specific ' <br /> mainCaines 1n the <br /> insure View <br /> view corridors are �=; <br /> 1. Historic Structures, that I 1 14 <br /> I, <br /> The ve code a not address the impact of billboards o <br /> histo ,with the code suggesting a 500-foot <br /> setback. Thissetbackx111 insure that there re a clear <br /> unobstructed view of historic structures with billboards <br /> setback at least one block in all di[eetions. ' I I <br />