2003

Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations

.....
click here to return to September index

The opinions expressed in these articles and features are those of their author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of McANA or the opinion of its Directors or Officers.

The case for accepting the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance NOW and seeking a permanent ban on new billboards Later
by Nancy Meade 
[Facilitator of McANA's Signage Committee]

Mayor Peterson supported a temporary ban on billboards so that a Sign Revisions Steering Committee of neighborhood representatives and business (sign) representatives could revise the sign regulations, beginning with the “off-premise, outdoor advertising” signs (billboards). The charge was to “revise”—if a BAN on new billboards had been supported, neither a temporary ban nor a Steering Committee would have been necessary. The proposal would have needed only to proceed through City-County Council.

Given the above understanding, my personal goal was to “tighten” the language and increase “restrictions” to protect neighborhood interests in regard to New Signage Construction. In reading the most recent draft of the revisions (9/5/03) the neighborhood representatives have managed to get the following items more clearly written and more restrictive:

1. 1000 feet radial (from any point on a billboard or structure) distance between billboards will be necessary. (Currently it is 1000 feet linearly.)—This will limit billboards on cross streets from being too close.

2. 300 feet radial (increased from 100 feet) will be the necessary distance from a billboard to a protected district which includes any zoned Dwelling District, Park District, University Quarter District, Church (SU-1) District, or School (SU-2) District.

3. No billboards can be erected within the 660 foot protected area inside I 465.

4. No billboards will be permitted in an area zoned D-A—Agriculture Dwelling.

5. No billboards will be permitted in an area zoned C-S.

6. No billboards will be permitted in Central Business District (1,2,3,S)/RC.

7. Extensions to the size of the signs (i.e. currently billboards can extend from the permitted sized sign up to 4 ft. on the upper horizontal side and up to 1 ft. on the three other sides) are limited to 45% of the horizontal or vertical linear length.

8. Flashing, intermittent or moving lights on a billboard will not be permitted.

9. Animation and moving parts will not be permitted.

10. No signs with video or emitting graphics will be permitted.

11. No signs will be permitted to be erected above or below a principal building on a property.

Unfortunately in this draft, the billboard companies gained concessions primarily in the “Signs on freeways and expressways” (understood to be interstates) section. The following changes are proposed:

1.  The size of the signs on the Interstate can be 14’x 48’ (672 sq. ft.) (increased from 12’ x 25’) because in the last decade this is the size that has been permitted by variance already and it is considered to industry standard.

The two following concessions were made after the city’s signage staff assured the neighborhood representatives that very few, if any, sites for new billboards would be made available with these changes:

2.  Signs can be place within 500 ft. (formerly 1000 ft.) from the entrance or exit of an interstate ramp.

3.  Signs can be 1500 ft. apart (measured from the center line of the interstate and including signs on either side of the interstate) with no limit of 2 per mile.

4.  Tri-vision signs (signs that turn and show three different faces) will be allowed except on the interstate.

The sponsors of this proposed ordinance, Karen Horseman and Lance Langford, want to present it to the City-County Council as a compromise accepted by both the neighborhoods and the billboard companies. They do not think that a proposal to ban billboards would have enough votes to pass, based on the current council representation. I happen to agree.

However, there is still time to strengthen this proposal even more. Each of you can read the draft on the McANA website and send your comments to Todd Dorcas at tdorcas@indygov.org. In addition to your suggestions for tightening the ordinance, indicate to Todd if you would prefer a total ban on all new billboards.

But if we really want a BAN on BILLBOARDS, we need to make it an issue in the next mayoral and council election. We need to elect councilors who support this issue.

In the meantime, we need to support the proposal that has been developed by the Signage Revision Steering Committee.