They will make them in the meeting tomorrow.

bill-agenda

 

I have heard that the final recommendations DO NOT include any residential concerns for distances, even though there was tons of public input about keeping a good distance from residences. Can’t wait to hear the debate that occurs at the meeting tomorrow.

5 Thoughts on “Billboard Committee to make final recommendations

  1. Greg Neitzert on July 13, 2015 at 10:13 pm said:

    A separation distance from residential *IS* proposed – see below for details.

    The current proposal (subject to final changes at the meeting after public input and discussion):
    1. NO CHANGE – Keep the 600 foot radius between billboards. There was thought about increasing it to 1000 or more feet, but the proposal is to keep it the same as it was, that distance really wasn’t brought up as a problem or a concern.
    2. CHANGE – Remove Board of Adjustment power to vary spacing between signs. Right now we have a number of signs that are 300 feet apart (what the code was until it was revised to 600 feet I think in 2002). The Board has granted variances to reconstruct these, and its keeping us from getting to the 600 foot standard. This power is proposed to be removed.
    3. CHANGE – No billboards allowed in a required buffer yard. This makes total sense, the buffer yard required to buffer between a commercial/industrial use and a sensitive use (like a home) is totally inappropriate for a billboard.
    4. CHANGE – Add 250 foot separation distance between billboards and ‘sensitive uses’. A sensitive use in Shape Places is defined as a DD form (single family home), AD form (attached dwellings like twin homes), churches, schools (K-12), parks, day cares, and public use facilities. Under the 1983 ordinance and Shape Places there was NO SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIRED between billboards and sensitive uses. Drive on Minnesota and look at all of the billboards right next door to a house. This would add 250 feet of separation distance. That would make by the way about 42% of current billboards non-conforming. Meaning, they’d be allowed to stay (Grandfathering) but couldn’t be reconstructed at that location. There was discussion about a bigger separation distance like 500 feet but that would make just about all billboards nonconforming and I think the main concern was that we’d be de facto banning billboards which is illegal in South Dakota. Note that in South Dakota state law says we CANNOT ban them. We can regulate them ‘reasonably’. And we cannot discriminate against electronic billboards. We can’t ban those. Rapid City did it by initiative, and a federal court judge overruled that because State Law says billboards are allowed “regardless of the technology used” so we cannot ban digitals.
    5. CHANGE – Add billboard ‘overlay’ or ‘opportunity’ districts. I also call tehse ‘corridors’. These are stretches of certain roadways where they will be allowed. In essence, it covers areas where there are billboards already, like Cliff from I-90 south to Rice Street, I-29 in the city limits, I-90 in the city limits, Minnesota from the airport down to I-229, etc.
    This change basically puts us back to the 1983 ordinance which only allowed them in C-2 which was basically parcels in the “core” of town. This change would make them no longer allowed to pop up around town where they aren’t already.
    These districts could be revised, changed, or new ones added in the future. The notification for these changes is proposed to be the same as a rezone. So, if a new area was proposed, like a new stretch of a road, it would have written notice to land owners within 300 feet of that stretch of road, posted signs, and public hearings.
    6. CHANGE – Animation is explicitly prohibited (Blinking and flashing already is). Only static is allowed.

    We have discussed a number of other ideas. Public input has been EXCELLENT.

    The addition of the overlay districts and sensitive use protection will make a big difference. I think the final proposal will be something we can be proud of. It will be interesting to see how the council responds to the proposal.

    The ‘overlay’ districts alone would put us back to what we had with the 1983 ordinance. Everything else is an improvement over and above what we had before.

    I think the big thing people need to understand is that state law limits what we can do. Even if you wanted to ban electronic billboards for example, we simply cannot. We can only impose ‘reasonable’ regulations. We had to work within that constraint.

  2. The Daily Spin on July 14, 2015 at 9:16 am said:

    Still, city ordinances do not allow appeals into court. You can ignore billboard regulation and the city can’t force you to take it down. Per case history, they have no power or authority because cases brought are constitutionally dismissed.

  3. l3wis on July 14, 2015 at 10:24 am said:

    Someone who attended the meeting told me that the group recommended a 500 foot buffer from residential.

  4. Greg Neitzert on July 14, 2015 at 10:30 am said:

    A few changes were made at the last meeting:
    1. In addition to sensitive uses, cemeteries will be listed as a use requiring protection and separation distance.
    2. The separation distance will NOT apply to the CURRENT billboard districts we are creating. For example, those on Minnesota Ave in the proposed corridor. Reason being it would make 42% of them nonconforming and making almost half of the existing billboards nonconforming was deemed ‘unreasonable’ and state law requires ‘reasonable’ regulations.
    3. HOWEVER, newly proposed opportunity districts or expansions of current ones will require a 500 foot separation distance from sensitive uses. So, if for example someone proposed later to make a stretch of 85th street an opportunity district, that entire stretch would have to be 500 feet away from sensitive uses like homes. If it was not it could not be approved. If a new one is proposed, there will be public input and notification since it is treated the same as a rezone.
    3. Board of Adjustment power to vary sign spacing (between signs it is 600 feet but we can vary it down) has been added back. The idea is that sign companies will have the opportunity to argue why they should be able to replace an old sign with a new one.

    The upshot is that where signs exist NOW ALREADY, they will continue to be able to exist, with basically the same regulations as before. In any newly proposed areas any new opportunity districts will have to be 500 feet from sensitive uses, and any proposal to add them will require public notice. That hopefully will let the current signs exist and maintain the status quo, but help to prevent pockets of signs showing up in newer developing areas, and in the future if they want to add a new sign corridor it will need to be somewhere that won’t be near sensitive uses.
    I think its a reasonable compromise given the constraints we have.

  5. l3wis on July 14, 2015 at 12:01 pm said:

    Thanks Greg for the update. I think State Law hamstrings you a lot. As I explained to a person today, the city has already lost a case in the SD SC over limiting distances for use (with VL casinos).

Post Navigation