Board of County Commissioners Leon County, Florida www.leoncountyfl.gov

Issue Briefing:

This agenda item requests the Board conduct the first of two Public Hearings required to adopt a proposed Ordinance (included as Attachment #1) that would have the effect of amending the County’s Land Development Code to revise regulations pertaining to off-site signs (billboards).  The proposed Ordinance closes loopholes related to locations where billboards are allowed on gateway roads; removes ambiguities in the regulations pertaining to the location and spacing of off-site signs; establishes more formalized requirements for applications for new billboards; adds precision as to location and spacing requirements between off-site signs along the same side of a street; increases the spacing requirements between signs to those being proposed by the City of Tallahassee; increases the setbacks between off-site signs and residential areas to more closely parallel standards proposed by the City; increases the number of additional digital billboard signs that may be erected from zero to six; increases the number of standard billboard signs that must be removed to obtain a new digital billboard sign from three to four; creates a new incentive for removing improperly located off-site signs (those determined to be non-conforming as to location) and for removing "multivision signs" by counting each such sign removed as equal to the removal of two conforming standard billboards, and by counting multivision signs that are also non-conforming as to gateway corridor location as equal to the removal of four conforming standard billboards.  In addition, the proposed Ordinance retains the current overall cap on number of billboards allowed within the unincorporated portion of Leon County; if the proposed Ordinance were adopted, the reduction in overall number of signs in the inventory is anticipated to continue.

Fiscal Impact:

This item has no fiscal impact to the County.

Staff Recommendation:

Option #1:  Conduct the first of two Public Hearings to consider the adoption of the Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to revise regulations for off-site signs and schedule the second of two Public Hearings to consider the adoption of the Ordinance for Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.

Report and Discussion

Background:

On October 14, 2008, staff presented a status report to the Board on the effectiveness of recent revisions to the Land Development Code pertaining to off-site signs.  The Board accepted staff’s report on the implementation of the “No New Net Signs” Ordinance and directed staff to draft a revised “No New Net Signs” Ordinance, communicate with affected stakeholders, and schedule public hearings on a proposed revised “No New Net Signs” Ordinance by June, 2009, subsequent to taking the Ordinance to the GEM User’s Group for review and recommendation, and the Planning Commission for consistency review. 

On November 25, 2008, the Board held the first of two Public Hearings to consider a proposed moratorium Ordinance for the approval of applications for certain off-site sign permits.  On December 9, 2008, the Board held the final Public Hearing to consider a proposed moratorium Ordinance for the approval of applications for certain off-site sign permits and adopted the proposed moratorium Ordinance, which continues through April 15, 2009, 11:59 p.m. local time.  

The moratorium was put in place in order to preserve the status quo while new regulations are being finalized and discussed with affected parties:  during this period of time, the County will not accept, process, or approve any applications for off-site signs.

Subsequent to the adoption of the moratorium, pursuant to the Board’s direction, staff conducted or attended the following meetings on the proposed Ordinance: 

1.      December 16, 2008 - Ad Hoc Group (Sign Industry Representatives and Neighborhood Interests)

2.      January 16, 2009 - Ad Hoc Group

3.      January 20, 2009 - GEM User’s Group Meeting (Ad Hoc Group members also invited; some attended and participated in discussions)

4.      February 2, 2009 - Planning Commission/LPA public hearing – Ordinance determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan

5.      February 16, 2009 - Meeting with City Commission Mustian, County Commissioner Desloge, City staff, County staff, and neighborhood interests

6.      February 20, 2009 - Ad Hoc Group

Analysis:

The proposed Ordinance is based upon the Board's direction to revise off-site sign regulations.  During the two and a half months since the adoption of the moratorium on off-site applications, staff held or attended several meetings with affected stakeholders regarding the content of the proposed Ordinance, as previously listed. 

In seeking to develop the Ordinance to amend the regulations, staff solicited input from both the sign industry and neighbors who had either expressed general interest or had specific issues with billboard regulation.  In addition, consistent with standard practice, the Ordinance was reviewed by the Growth and Environmental Management Users' Group (Board-appointed citizens' group that provides feedback and recommendations) and the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission (Local Planning Agency) which reviewed the Ordinance for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Florida Statutes.  

The Planning Commission found the Ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended: 

·       that in light of economic conditions, the ability to obtain additional digital billboards come sooner than March 31, 2011 (the Ordinance has subsequently been revised to make this opportunity available after December 31, 2010);

·       that "the deemer" clause contained within the Ordinance that would "automatically" render an application for an off-site sign approved if staff took more than thirty days to determine whether the application is complete (the Ordinance has subsequently been revised to provide staff 90 days in which to render their completeness determination; staff contends that regardless of the length of this time period, it does not constitute a "deemer"); and,

·       that the Board consider the impact of this Ordinance on small businesses, given that, as proposed it could result in the removal of more billboards, and in particular the removal of standard off-site billboards to obtain digital billboards, the concern being that the general reduction in supply would increase the cost of advertising space on billboards, and (the perception) that the cost of advertising space on a digital billboard being much higher than that of space on a standard billboard.

Input from the "neighbors" and "sign industry representatives" generally reflected predictable and consistent opposing philosophies toward policy on billboards:  the neighbors generally wanted more restrictive regulations, particularly to require billboards further away from residential areas and further away from one another; the billboard industry wanted the ability to erect additional digital billboards in exchange for removing other existing billboards, and at the same or less rigorous ratio than presently required (the current standard requires three standard billboards to be removed for the erection of one digital billboard).  The parties arrived at few areas of agreement during the several meetings in which successive drafts of the Ordinance were reviewed.  Attachment #2 provides illustrative examples of standard off-site signs, multivision signs, and digital billboards.

Some of the neighbors met with City of Tallahassee staff and City Commissioner Mustian and Leon County Commission Chair Desloge and urged that both the County and City synchronize the requirements of their off-site sign regulations as closely to one another as possible.  Based upon this meeting, it was thought that bringing the requirements of the two local governments would benefit both neighborhood interests and the sign industry by providing a single, universal standard set of regulations, if possible, or, if not possible, regulations that are much more similar.  In addition, the establishment of similar regulations could help provide greater flexibility as to where billboards could be removed from or constructed by providing the future basis for the "cap and replace" concept (where some number of existing billboards must be removed to allow the erection of a new billboard) to be applied over a geographic scope comprising both the City's and County's regulatory jurisdictions.

While the affected parties could not agree on any “harmonious middle ground” it is important to note that such concordance is a mere nicety; the County could, per its legislative prerogative, absolutely prohibit any new billboards or alternatively, allow a virtually unlimited number of billboards.  Similarly, per the Florida Statutes, the County cannot compel the removal of any existing billboards, except through their outright purchase at significant cost. 

Therefore, this Ordinance essentially attempts to refine the Board’s current policy on billboards, striking a balance between maintaining harmony with neighborhoods and the aesthetic qualities of specified highway corridors in exchange for maintaining the ability to use billboards to effectively communicate information to the community.  

The Ordinance revises the current regulations, through: removal of internally inconsistent provisions, resulting from multiple revisions of these regulations over the last five years; requiring more standardized, professional-quality applications, to head off error resulting from sloppy applications; eliminating loopholes in gateway corridor location limitations (specifically, along Thomasville Road); providing an incentive to remove additional existing signs by providing for a limited number of digital billboards; retaining the existing cap/limit on overall number of signs; providing an incentive for removing multivision signs and billboards located in areas that do not conform to the location standards in the proposed Ordinance; and, establishing new location standards that more closely reflect those used by the City of Tallahassee, for purposes of standardization and to protect neighborhoods by limiting the location of new signs. 

The following is a list of the significant changes to the Off-site sign regulations contained in the proposed Ordinance: 

·         Modifies gateway road overlay restrictions to clarify that off-site signs are prohibited along any portion of Thomasville Road within unincorporated Leon County (i.e., not allowed within 200 feet of the right-of-way) and to specify more precisely that off-site signs are prohibited within 200 feet of the right-of-way of that segment of Mahan Drive, extending from a point approximately 500 feet to the west of Lagniappe Drive generally eastward to the Jefferson-Leon County Boundary, except for that segment between Thornton Road and I-10.  [The City of Tallahassee has also proposed an Ordinance regulating billboards; as of      February 27, 2009, the Ordinance did not contain a provision similar to the gateway road overlay restrictions]

·         Adds a new provision that no off-site sign would be allowed in any location where existing trees in the public right-of-way, or trees proposed to be planted as part of an already-approved publicly-funded beautification project, would have to be cut, trimmed, or removed so that the sign face is visible from the public right-of-way.  [As of February 27, 2009, the City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance did not contain a similar provision]

·         Increases the standard minimum setback between residentially-zoned property and standard off-site signs from 100 feet to 150 feet; between residentially-zoned property and multi-vision signs from 100 feet to 200 feet of any residentially zoned property (and retains the current minimum standard of a 300 foot separation between the residentially-zoned property and digital billboards). [As of February 27, 2009, the City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposed standards of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 200 feet, respectively.] 

·         Requires off-site signs to be located within 50 feet of the right-of-way of a street classified as a principal arterial, minor arterial, or major collector in the Comprehensive Plan.  [The City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposes that signs be located within    35 feet of the right-of-way]

·         Expands the spacing between two standard off-site signs from 1,500 to 1,800 feet [The City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposes a standard of 2,000 feet]

·         Expands the spacing between a standard off-site sign and a multi-vision sign or two multi-vision signs from 1,500 to 2,000 feet.  [The City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposes this same 2,000 foot standard]

·         Provides a 2,000 foot spacing requirement between digital billboards and a standard off-site sign. [This is consistent with the City of Tallahassee's proposed Ordinance]

·         Provides a 3,500 foot spacing requirement between a digital billboard and a multi-vision sign.  [The City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposes a distance of 4,000 feet, except for signs permitted prior to July, 2006; a distance of 3,500 feet is proposed for these signs]

·         Provides a 3,000 foot spacing requirement between two multi-vision signs  [The City of Tallahassee's pending Ordinance proposes a distance of 4,000 feet, except for signs permitted prior to July, 2006; a distance of 3,500 feet is proposed for these signs]

·         Applies spacing requirements between off-site signs to those signs located within 660 feet of the same street’s right-of-way boundary, when these signs are located on the same side of that street.  [This is consistent with the City of Tallahassee's proposed Ordinance]

·         Requires two standard off-site signs or one sign non-conforming as to location to be removed to obtain an approval for a new multivision sign.  [The City of Tallahassee's proposed Ordinance requires one multivision sign, or two double-faced signs (or four sign faces) to be removed to obtain a multivision sign, essentially equivalent to the County's proposed standard.  The County's proposed Ordinance would not limit the number of multivision signs that may be erected so long as a sufficient number of other signs are removed, but the City's proposed Ordinance would allow only four more multivision signs]

·         Allows six additional digital billboard signs after December 31, 2010; thereafter, no more than six digital billboard signs shall be allowed.  Presently, two digital billboards have been approved, with one constructed; current regulations do not allow any more digital billboards.  [The City of Tallahassee's proposed Ordinance allows six additional digital billboard sign faces (equivalent to three double-faced digital billboards) essentially half of what the County would allow]

·         Requires four standard off-site signs or two multivision signs or two off-site signs non-conforming as to location, or one multivision sign also non-conforming as to gateway corridor location to be removed to obtain an approval for a new digital billboard sign.  At least one of the signs removed must be from the County Commission district in which the new digital billboard sign is to be permitted and constructed.  [The City of Tallahassee's proposed Ordinance requires four double-faced signs (or eight faces) to be removed to obtain a digital billboard, essentially equivalent to the County's proposed standard.  The City does not provide any additional bonus or incentive for removing multivision signs or signs that do not conform to location standards, but does provide a similar incentive for removing multivision or other signs as may be requested at the discretion of the City.]

Direction from the Board regarding the Ordinance has not been specific, and it has been presumed by staff that in the least, the Board anticipates that the proposed Ordinance would remedy the apparent oversight contained within the present regulations allowing billboards to be erected within an exceptionally small area along Thomasville Road and remain consistent with the direction from the Board regarding amendments adopted last year; that is, to balance community interests by capping the overall number of billboards so that no new additional billboards would be allowed while providing incentives to obtain a very limited number of digital billboards in exchange for the removal of a greater number of existing billboards. 

Additionally, staff has incorporated changes to the application process necessary to reduce the likelihood of substandard outcomes (as had occurred in 2008, when an applicant filed multiple applications attempting to exploit shortcomings in the regulations), particularly related to ambiguities in the spacing requirements between signs and priority for approval when multiple applicants vie for the same general location.  This incident resulted in much time spent arguing with the applicant and the utilization of significant resources in responding to the applicant's resulting five appeals of the Development Services Division Director's interpretation of the Code to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.  Although the Director prevailed in all of the challenges, the plaintiff is currently seeking relief with regard to one of the contested applications through litigation against the County in the Circuit Court (John Ting Tui Ho and Mei I. Ho and Buoy, Inc. v Leon County, 2nd Circuit, #09-CA-00001).  A copy of a sub-professional quality application is provided as Attachment #3.

Summary.  The Ordinance provided to the Board for this Public Hearing eliminates the exception that allows that billboards along Thomasville Road, adds more precision to the description of the portion of US 90 where billboards are prohibited, establishes more formalized requirements for applications for new billboards, adds more precision as to location and spacing requirements between off-site signs along the same side of a street, increases the spacing requirements between signs to be the same as those being proposed by the City of Tallahassee, increases the setbacks between off-site signs and residential areas, allows for six more digital signs to be erected, establishes a new ratio requiring four standard off-site signs, two location-non-conforming or multivision signs, or one multivision sign also non-conforming as to gateway corridor location to be removed for each digital sign, and retains an overall cap on the number of billboards allowed within the unincorporated portion of Leon County.  In summary, the Ordinance attempts to clean up omissions and strike a balance between neighborhood interests and those of the sign industry.

Options:

1.      Conduct the first of two Public Hearings to consider the adoption of the Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to revise regulations for off-site signs and schedule the second of two Public Hearings to consider the adoption of the Ordinance for Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.

2.      Conduct the first of two Public Hearings to consider the adoption of the Ordinance amending the Land Development Code and do not schedule the second public hearing to consider the adoption of the Ordinance.

3.      Board Direction.

Recommendation:

Option #1.

Attachments:

1.      Proposed Off-Site Signs Ordinance 

2.      Illustrative examples of standard off-site signs, multivision signs and digital billboards

3.      Example of a sub-professional quality application