My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-07 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
07-12-07 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2008 1:37:34 PM
Creation date
5/1/2008 1:34:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Meeting of June 14, 2007 Page 8 <br />Subject: Dynamic Signs <br />Public Comments <br />At the writing of this report, the city had received comments about the proposed <br />ordinance from Clear Channel Outdoor and from Roger Brown of Daktronics (see pages <br />A55-56, a manufacturer of dynamic signs. The following summarizes Clear Channel's <br />comments and staff's responses: <br />It is inappropriate to say that outdoor advertising signs are distracting when the <br />city's own consultants have concluded that there can never be definitive proof of <br />a causal connection between dynamic signs and highway accidents. <br />Response: This comment does not recognize that there are two different <br />concepts. No single study has conclusively proven that a particular dynamic <br />display caused particular traffic accidents that otherwise would not have <br />occurred. Because of the number of variables involved and the impossibility of <br />recreating all of them in a laboratory-type setting, that level of proof is impossible. <br />However, studies performed thus far provide more than sufficient support for the <br />City to conclude that outdoor advertising signs are in fact distracting to drivers, <br />and that distractions can lead to traffic accidents. <br />2. The company usually occupies property as a tenant, and it may not have the <br />authority to excavate to remove foundations. <br />Response: The city requires that foundations be removed as part of all other <br />demolition permits. This is done to protect public safety (from tripping over them) <br />and to avoid problems in the future. <br />The surrender of the state permit should be required upon removal of the sign, <br />not upon issuance of the enhanced dynamic display permit. <br />Response: This makes sense, and the change has been made in the <br />ordinance. An additional sentence is added that provides that the enhanced <br />dynamic display cannot begin to operate until proof is provided that the state <br />permit has been surrendered. <br />4. An enhanced dynamic display permit requires the sign company to commit to <br />never put a dynamic display on another existing sign. What happens if that <br />existing sign is subsequently removed? <br />Response: Subsequent events do not affect the permit. The permit is judged <br />by the circumstances existing at the time the permit is issued. Language was <br />added to the ordinance to clarify this. <br />8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.