INC NEWS - flashing billboards

[John Dagenhart]

I'm at home recovering from some surgery and am following this out of
curiosity and to fight boredom.  I doubt that I would be able to attend any
meeting on this subject in the near future.

 

I noticed that the proposed Appearance Commission text does not mention who
would monitor or measure the light output of such signs, nor by what
standard or measurement criteria the output would be measured.  I would
imagine the City has neither the equipment nor the personnel to do so. I
would think the sign owner would need to bear this expense and hire a
competent independent consultant ( I would suggest a licensed engineer) to
provide such certification, both initially and on an agreed upon interval.

 

I'm curious as to where these proposed light output levels came from. How do
the night levels compare with typical signs illuminated by floodlights? 

 

Just my two cents.

 

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mullen, Julia
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Tom Miller; inc-list at rtpnet.org
Cc: Medlin, Steve; Austin, T.E.
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - flashing billboards

 

Hello INC,

 

The Planning Department would welcome the opportunity to present to the INC
on the proposed billboard text amendment.   We are happy to appear at your
convenience.   

 

We have received requests for the actual text that is being proposed, so
attached is the version that was recently provided to the Appearance
Commission.  The original proposed text, which the Joint City-County
Planning Committee reviewed in August, was withdrawn.  Also attached is UDO
Article 11, Sign Standards.  Sections that relate to this proposed amendment
include Sec. 11.2.7, Changeable Copy on On-Premise Signs; Sec. 11.2.8B,
Nonconforming Off-Premise Signs; Sec. 11.3.1, Animated or Motion Signs [in
Sec. 11.3, Prohibited Signs]; and Sec. 11.3.5, Off-Premise Signs [in Sec.
11.3, Prohibited Signs].  Billboards are off-premise signs but we believe
this could have ramifications for on-premise signs as well.  Please let me
know if you need anything further at this point.

 

Regards,

Julia

 

 

Julia Mullen, Planner

Durham City-County Planning Department

560-4137 ext. 255

 

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Miller
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:07 PM
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: INC NEWS - flashing billboards

 

I agree with Kelly.  I suggest that our January INC meeting we have someone
from the city attorney's office and someone form the planning department to
present the less shiny side of this penny.  When I asked city staffers today
what their take is on this, I was told that the manager is opposed and that
the city staff is prepared to present the other side.  I know that there are
few better informed people about billboard regulation than Karen Sindelar.
She is the city attorney who handled all of the litigation with these guys
when they thought they could litigate themselves into a deal.  Steve Medlin
and his staff know how the UDO works today.  If we have to hear the
"You-have-to-see-it" boys in December, I want equal time for the home team.

 

Tom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20081206/dd101d36/attachment.htm>