On the agenda

1. 0.aRoll Call▶ 0:00
2. 0.b

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:38 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:39] If we could all stand, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:45] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, [00:00:49] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:52] one nation, under God, indivisible, [00:00:55] with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:58] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 0.cApproval of Minutes: March 17, 2016▶ 1:02
4. 1

   Code Amendment COD2016-05 – Sign Regulations

   discussed

   The Land Development Review Board held a public hearing on Code Amendment COD2016-05, the first phase of sign code amendments responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Attorney Susan Trevarthen presented the content-neutrality changes and legal background. The item was discussed with questions on billboards and vehicle signs; phase two addressing development standards will follow later in the year.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2078

   • direction:Board heard the phase-one sign code amendment and was asked to provide a recommendation at the end of the discussion. (none)

   🏢FedEx🏢Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman👤Dr. Cato👤Greg👤Lisa👤Susan Trevarthen#Code Amendment COD2016-05#First Amendment sign regulation#Land Development Code sign ordinance#Phase 1 sign code amendments#Phase 2 sign code amendments#Reed v. Town of Gilbert

   ▶ Jump to 1:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:16] Our first case, and only case I think it is, [00:01:19] is Code Amendment COD-2016-5, Assigned Resolution. [00:01:28] Applicant is City of New Port Richey, [00:01:30] and the request is to review and recommendation [00:01:33] of an amendment to the Land Development Code, [00:01:36] addressing the sign ordinance. [00:01:38] Lisa, are you leading this one? [00:01:40] Yeah, I just want to make a few introductory remarks. [00:01:43] Thank you, Dr. Cato. [00:01:44] The city retained the services of a consultant [00:01:47] to help prepare these amendments today. [00:01:50] This is a two-phased approach to the amendments to the code. [00:01:54] Today, we're hearing the first phase, which [00:01:57] addresses a Supreme Court decision that [00:01:59] was made last summer. [00:02:01] Later on this year, we'll get into the bulk [00:02:04] of the development standards in the sign code [00:02:06] on this part of phase two. [00:02:09] So today, we have joining us is Susan Travarthen. [00:02:12] She's an attorney with the firm Weiss, Sirota, Healthman, Cole, [00:02:17] and Bierman. [00:02:18] They're out of Fort Lauderdale. [00:02:19] And today, she's going to lead our discussion [00:02:21] with a PowerPoint presentation. [00:02:24] This is a public hearing. [00:02:27] And we are seeking a recommendation [00:02:29] from the board at the end of today's discussion. [00:02:32] Thank you. [00:02:33] Thank you. [00:02:34] Good afternoon, Chair, board members. [00:02:36] Thank you for having me here today. [00:02:38] I'm going to try to walk you through what is unfortunately [00:02:41] a fairly complicated subject and try to make it [00:02:44] as simple as I can for you. [00:02:46] Lisa has hit on the major theme that we should keep in mind [00:02:50] today, that this is just part one. [00:02:53] This is not intended to be a policy-driven rewrite [00:02:56] of your sign code. [00:02:57] Rather, it is intended to be a first step [00:03:00] to address the most recent changes in case law [00:03:03] so that we're on good, solid legal footing [00:03:06] before we start that process of public involvement [00:03:09] and considering changes to the policy of sign display [00:03:13] and regulation in your city. [00:03:15] So with that, I'll turn to my first slide. [00:03:18] So I'll give you a little bit of a primer on the law here. [00:03:22] It's not essential that you know all of this, [00:03:24] but often I find that board members and council members [00:03:27] want to know a little bit about why [00:03:30] we're having to do this now. [00:03:31] And some of the changes we make to these sign codes, [00:03:35] I fully understand to our citizens, our board members, [00:03:38] our councils, our administrations [00:03:40] seem very counterintuitive. [00:03:43] And people are like, why are we doing this? [00:03:46] So this is just a little bit of background [00:03:48] to help you understand why we're doing this. [00:03:50] So the first element to understand [00:03:52] is that signs are a use that's protected [00:03:55] by the First Amendment. [00:03:56] That's not true for everything you see. [00:03:58] If you're writing a setback regulation [00:04:01] for where a house can be built, [00:04:03] there's no special fundamental rights, [00:04:05] no constitutional protections. [00:04:07] And basically, if you're reasonable, [00:04:09] your decisions will be deferred to. [00:04:13] This is different. [00:04:14] This is a world just like our regulation [00:04:17] of things like religious uses, [00:04:19] where there are additional protections for these uses, [00:04:22] and we have to be more careful [00:04:24] how we go about regulating them. [00:04:27] And two of the key components of these protections [00:04:30] are that your regulations cannot change [00:04:33] based on the content of the speech. [00:04:35] And if we stop for a minute [00:04:36] and think about what that means, [00:04:38] it's pretty intuitively obvious. [00:04:40] If we as the government treated somebody differently [00:04:44] because we liked or didn't like the content [00:04:47] of what they wanted to say on their sign, [00:04:49] pretty much everybody recognizes [00:04:51] that's an un-American thing to do. [00:04:53] And that's the nub of the idea. [00:04:55] It sometimes plays out in very unexpected ways [00:04:57] in a sign code, but that's the nub of the concern, [00:05:00] is what the government doing, [00:05:02] the heavy hand of government, [00:05:03] is it actually targeting or discriminating against speech [00:05:07] or treating people differently because of their ideas? [00:05:11] Also, as I said, we cannot favor or punish points of view. [00:05:16] As a rule, content-based regulation [00:05:18] is presumed to be unconstitutional. [00:05:21] So that world with the setback regulation [00:05:23] where you get deference and the court will generally [00:05:26] defer to your legislative judgment, that's out the window. [00:05:29] The courts are going to be far more skeptical [00:05:31] and far more searching in their review [00:05:33] of whether you've drawn the regulatory line [00:05:36] in the right place. [00:05:37] And generally, you will have to justify [00:05:41] what you're doing with a compelling governmental interest. [00:05:44] Things like people will die, not just, [00:05:46] I might not like the way it looks. [00:05:49] It's got to be a much more strong [00:05:51] kind of governmental interest [00:05:53] if it is ultimately determined [00:05:54] that your regulation is content-based. [00:05:57] Sign regulations are also required to be narrowly tailored [00:06:01] to achieve the governmental purpose they seek. [00:06:04] And while there are many different ways to explain [00:06:07] in detail how these governmental purposes work, [00:06:10] and we have them in the ordinance in front of you, [00:06:14] most of them fall into one of two big categories. [00:06:18] The first category is safety. [00:06:20] And then you think about cars and pedestrians [00:06:23] and bikes and other vehicles [00:06:24] all interacting on our roadways. [00:06:26] That's a major safety aspect of sign regulation. [00:06:30] And aesthetics is the other big category [00:06:32] in which most of our governmental justifications fall. [00:06:36] And the hard part about narrow tailoring [00:06:39] is it's a little bit like Goldilocks. [00:06:41] You know, is the oatmeal too hot or too cold? [00:06:43] It has to be just right. [00:06:44] Well, narrow tailoring is the same way. [00:06:47] You can't be overbroad in your regulation, [00:06:50] regulating more than is necessary [00:06:52] to achieve your governmental purpose. [00:06:54] But neither can you be so tentative [00:06:57] that you're substantially under-inclusive [00:07:00] and thereby you create so many exceptions [00:07:03] and so many things that you don't regulate [00:07:05] that you have undermined any chance [00:07:07] of accomplishing your governmental purpose. [00:07:10] So if that sounds tricky, [00:07:11] and if that sounds not at all like a black and white line, [00:07:15] you've got the picture. [00:07:16] And the courts aren't necessarily predictable [00:07:19] how they read where that line is. [00:07:22] We also have the principle [00:07:23] that regulation of commercial signs, [00:07:25] which after all in most communities [00:07:27] is the bulk of signs that you deal with. [00:07:29] Most people who come to the counter and seek a permit [00:07:32] or seek to build and display a sign, [00:07:35] it has to do with identifying their business [00:07:38] or identifying some kind of sale. [00:07:41] It has some kind of commerce element to it. [00:07:44] And the principle that we face [00:07:46] is that those kinds of regulations for commercial signs, [00:07:50] we always have to be careful [00:07:52] that our treatment of non-commercial signs [00:07:55] is at least the same. [00:07:57] So here's how I would say that. [00:08:00] If you have a six square foot sign [00:08:02] that allows commercial speech, [00:08:04] the sign that allows non-commercial speech, [00:08:06] things like religious beliefs or anti-war sentiments [00:08:10] or political parties or elect a candidate [00:08:13] or pass a ballot measure or enact a tax, [00:08:16] all those kinds of things are non-commercial speech. [00:08:20] We would have to have at least six square feet. [00:08:22] We could be bigger, but we can't be less. [00:08:24] We can't treat non-commercial ideas more heavily [00:08:28] than we treat commercial ideas. [00:08:30] So that's a principle that runs throughout this ordinance. [00:08:34] Also, the problem that we face [00:08:38] is that courts have been so unclear [00:08:40] about what makes something content-based [00:08:42] so that we know that compelling governmental interests [00:08:44] are necessary to justify it. [00:08:46] The reason we're here before you [00:08:48] is the U.S. Supreme Court tackled this very idea [00:08:51] just last June. [00:08:53] And so we have some new law. [00:08:55] Your city was proactive. [00:08:56] They reached out, they recognized [00:08:58] that they wanted to come into legal conformance [00:09:01] as well as revisit the whole idea of the sign code [00:09:04] and hence we have this two-phase project. [00:09:06] So what is this case? [00:09:07] It's the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert. [00:09:10] And it involved temporary sign regulations. [00:09:14] I neglected to put the picture of the sign [00:09:16] in this PowerPoint, I apologize. [00:09:18] But think of a campaign sign by the side of the road [00:09:21] that's just cardboard stuck in the ground, [00:09:25] nothing that you would think a whole 10-year set [00:09:27] of litigation that ends up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. [00:09:30] That's the kind of sign we're talking about. [00:09:32] And the sign was posted by a small itinerant church. [00:09:36] And I say itinerant [00:09:38] because they didn't have a permanent home. [00:09:40] If they were a church with a permanent home, [00:09:42] the zoning code would have said, [00:09:44] here's the signage rights for the permanent home. [00:09:46] So they were in a nursing home. [00:09:48] They were in an elementary school. [00:09:50] They were going wherever anyone would rent them space [00:09:53] to have their services. [00:09:54] So in order to both identify how to get to where they were [00:09:59] as well as to publicize the existence [00:10:01] of their church services, [00:10:02] they used this series of event directional signs [00:10:06] that were allowed by the Town of Gilbert Code. [00:10:08] And the theory of these event directional signs was, [00:10:11] if you think of the old Barbasol signs, [00:10:13] where it was a series of signs. [00:10:15] And in this case, they were leading you to a direction [00:10:18] rather than telling you a poem or a story. [00:10:21] So that's the kind of sign we're talking about. [00:10:23] And the church was cited [00:10:24] because they posted the signs for too long a duration. [00:10:28] Town of Gilbert had a very brief duration. [00:10:30] And also because the signs were too large. [00:10:33] So the pastor and his church sued [00:10:35] and much litigation resulted. [00:10:38] They went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice [00:10:40] and in four different decisions, the town had prevailed. [00:10:43] They ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court last year. [00:10:47] At the U.S. Supreme Court, [00:10:49] all nine justices believed that the town [00:10:52] had struck the balance in the wrong place. [00:10:55] But they had different reasons for concluding that. [00:10:58] The general holding of the majority [00:11:01] was that government regulation of speech is content-based [00:11:03] if a law applies to a particular speech [00:11:06] because of the topic discussed [00:11:07] or the idea or message expressed. [00:11:10] And so the regulation was stricken, [00:11:12] ultimately, according to the majority opinion [00:11:15] by Justice Thomas, because it was under-inclusive [00:11:18] and not narrowly tailored enough. [00:11:19] Remember that Goldilocks principle? [00:11:22] Ultimately, that's where Gilbert fell. [00:11:25] That it wasn't narrowly tailored enough [00:11:27] to actually advance the interests of aesthetics [00:11:29] and traffic safety. [00:11:31] Basically, these small signs by the side of the road [00:11:34] were allowed in the right-of-way, but they were very small. [00:11:37] And the court pointed out [00:11:38] that other kinds of non-commercial speech, [00:11:41] like a political sign, a vote for Smith for State House, [00:11:47] or a ideological sign, [00:11:50] I believe in a particular religion, [00:11:53] those were allowed to be bigger [00:11:54] and they were allowed to be posted for a longer time. [00:11:57] So the nub of this decision is when you pick and choose [00:12:00] between different non-commercial signs, that's a difficulty. [00:12:05] And it was not the right way to handle it [00:12:07] according to the court. [00:12:09] So the court is not 100% clear [00:12:12] whether an event sign itself is content-based, [00:12:15] but we're left trying to apply it [00:12:18] as we move forward with your sign code. [00:12:20] There is a concurring opinion. [00:12:22] There's actually four opinions in the case. [00:12:24] And one concurring opinion in particular [00:12:27] is quite relevant and extraordinary [00:12:29] because most Supreme Court opinions, [00:12:32] they read kind of dense, you know, [00:12:33] it's like you're reading some kind of PhD thesis [00:12:36] or something, it's very high rhetoric. [00:12:40] In this case, the opinion is remarkable [00:12:43] because the justice says, calm down, everybody, it's okay. [00:12:47] Reasonable sign regulation is not going to disappear [00:12:51] just because of what we've done here. [00:12:52] And they actually give cities a bulleted list [00:12:55] of the kinds of things that they think will be fine [00:12:58] even though they've decided this decision. [00:13:01] That's pretty unusual for the court to do. [00:13:03] So we know not only based on that concurring opinion, [00:13:07] but also on the cases that have been decided [00:13:09] since last summer, [00:13:10] that things like treating commercial speech differently [00:13:13] from non-commercial speech is okay, [00:13:15] even though you kind of have to encounter the idea [00:13:17] of the sign to understand [00:13:19] if it's commercial or non-commercial, but that's safe. [00:13:22] Off-premise versus on-premise, [00:13:24] your sign code bans new billboards. [00:13:26] The ability to continue doing that is okay. [00:13:28] That's explicitly blessed by the case. [00:13:31] The continuing distinctions [00:13:33] between temporary and permanent signs are fine. [00:13:35] And also regulating by zoning districts [00:13:37] and regulating by land use appear to be fine. [00:13:40] Another big area of good news [00:13:42] is that the governmental speech doctrine [00:13:45] is very strong following this case. [00:13:47] And so if we think of all of the public properties [00:13:50] in our community, we have rights of way, [00:13:52] we have the complex on which the city hall is located, [00:13:56] all different kinds of public properties. [00:13:59] The key thing to know about that [00:14:01] is the First Amendment is completely irrelevant. [00:14:04] There's no one on public property [00:14:07] who has a First Amendment right that needs to be protected. [00:14:09] The government doesn't have a First Amendment right [00:14:12] to be protected. [00:14:13] The people posting the signs don't. [00:14:15] So those kinds of signs, [00:14:16] what are called governmental signs [00:14:18] and governmental speech on public property, [00:14:21] are just what left to the broad discretion [00:14:24] of your city how to handle. [00:14:25] So that's a good thing. [00:14:26] That allows us to have reasonable signs [00:14:30] for our public facilities, [00:14:31] wayfinding sign programs, and so forth. [00:14:36] What it means, though, [00:14:37] is that allowing private signs onto public property [00:14:40] becomes something that is really important not to do [00:14:43] because once you open that up, [00:14:45] you kind of open up the floodgates [00:14:47] and you may end up with unintended consequences [00:14:50] where people have allowed incrementally private signs [00:14:54] in public property. [00:14:55] Once you say yes to one, [00:14:57] you can't say no to others [00:14:58] just because you don't like. [00:15:00] they're going to say. So it might say something, you know, particularly offensive to your community. [00:15:06] Think of your favorite target of hate speech. You know, there's all the kinds of things [00:15:10] that come to mind, whether we think of the protests at veterans' funerals that have been [00:15:16] in the last few years or, you know, a KKK or anything. That comes in if you open up [00:15:23] your public property to any private speech. So our sign ordinance continues to keep the [00:15:28] public realm free of private signage. The ordinance does change temporary and permanent [00:15:34] sign regulations to improve the legal defensibility and to respond to the Reed case. You'll find [00:15:39] that we removed regulations that are based on the content or function of the sign. So [00:15:44] a grand opening sign. What is that but a definition of a sign that is defined precisely by the [00:15:51] words that are going to be on that sign. That's just not something we can do anymore after [00:15:55] Reed. So instead we have things like temporary commercial signs, temporary non-commercial [00:16:01] signs. The other things that we have done include reducing the number of different sign [00:16:06] types. There were many cases, as is often the case with a sign code, where over time [00:16:11] the definitions start to encrust on top of each other and maybe you have three or four [00:16:15] different definitions that really are talking about the same thing. So a lot of the work [00:16:19] that was involved in this rewrite was, you know, pruning through that and, okay, what [00:16:24] is the concept you really care about regulating? Let's just keep that one and get rid of the [00:16:28] other deadwood that's in the code. It also helps us to defend your code when it's clear [00:16:33] like that. And we also revised and removed some definitions to be consistent with the [00:16:38] regulations and case law. We've added extensive provisions for purpose, intent, and scope. [00:16:45] Your code already had a lot of very good provisions regarding its defensibility and its intent, [00:16:50] but we've bolstered it even more. We reference the cases in this area. We reference the fact [00:16:56] that you are required by Florida statute to have sign regulations in your code. We reference [00:17:01] the fact that the Florida Constitution actually has a provision that protects the scenic beauty [00:17:06] of the state of Florida and that's advanced by the practice of having sign regulation. [00:17:12] And we reference many individual goals, objectives, and policies of your comprehensive plan. These [00:17:17] all form part of the beefed up, the more muscular statement of what the governmental [00:17:24] purposes are that are being achieved by your sign code. Also, there were a couple of tweaks [00:17:29] that were thrown in to the downtown district sign regulations working with our staff, but [00:17:34] the bulk of that is going to happen during phase two, as was mentioned. So that concludes [00:17:39] my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you. [00:17:45] Any questions? [00:17:51] Lisa, are we going through this completely, or just open it up to questions? [00:17:57] However you'd like to handle it. [00:18:00] I do have one question, and you addressed it a little bit, and that has to do with billboards, [00:18:06] because reading through it, it looks like billboards are not to be allowed within the [00:18:12] city, but I think you said the ones that are there now would be grandfathered. Is that [00:18:17] what I'm hearing you say? Because there are some billboards within the city, aren't there? [00:18:22] Yes. This is actually not a change in your code. You already had a ban on off-premise [00:18:28] signs or billboards. That remains in place. You already had a provision for non-conforming [00:18:34] signs, and we didn't touch that. It's very important not to touch that, because there's [00:18:40] a special statute out there that says if the city requires the removal of an existing [00:18:45] billboard, you're on the hook for a very big paycheck. You have to pay a very generous [00:18:51] set of compensation if you try to remove an off-premise sign. So we would respect those [00:18:58] non-conforming rights, and those signs would be in place. [00:19:01] There would just be a ban on any new billboards? [00:19:04] Exactly, as you had before. [00:19:06] One other question I had, too, was on vehicle signs. [00:19:09] Okay. [00:19:10] I see vehicle signs in the city all the time, and people ride through. They're not necessarily [00:19:16] even city residents that have businesses on the side of their vehicle. Exactly what do [00:19:22] you mean by vehicle sign? [00:19:24] So we have a definition of vehicle signs, and if you turn to page... let me see if I [00:19:30] can find it quickly here. It's page 14 of 36 in your backup, and that's actually not [00:19:36] being changed at all. It was a pretty good definition of vehicle sign. But to your question, [00:19:44] because it's one I often get on this, if you look at the middle of this definition, it [00:19:49] says, this definition is not to be construed to include those signs that identify a firm [00:19:56] or its principal products on a vehicle unless it's parked in such a manner that it's intended [00:20:01] to provide advertisement. So this is a very good and very common provision, and the example [00:20:07] I always use is the FedEx truck. They're driving through here on their way to Tampa. [00:20:12] How on earth are you going to affect that? And really, there's no reason to affect that [00:20:16] because they're just driving through. They're advertising the purpose of the vehicle, and [00:20:21] in that sense, it's almost like on-premise speech, and it's being used in the day-to-day [00:20:25] business. What you're more worried about with a vehicle sign regulation is somebody [00:20:29] prepares a vehicle with big signs on the side, and then they park it, usually out at the [00:20:35] front of the parking lot right next to the lane of travel, and it doesn't move for days. [00:20:40] That's where you can say, okay, this is being intended to be used as an advertisement. [00:20:45] It's not just incidental signage that you're seeing as the vehicle goes about its business. [00:20:51] So if Greg drives his truck, parks it on Main Street, and it's got his name on it, [00:20:57] is that a violation, or is that...? [00:21:00] Not unless he just leaves it there as a billboard, essentially. [00:21:04] And as far as how your city has enforced this in the past, I know we have representatives [00:21:11] from planning staff who are involved in enforcement, as well as your city attorney. [00:21:15] But the one principle to keep in mind is perfect code enforcement is never possible. [00:21:21] We work within our available resources, and things happen that don't necessarily get cited. [00:21:26] You will see that happen. [00:21:28] So if you see a, I know of a trailer that gets parked down by 19 a lot, first, long distance of time. [00:21:36] That's what we're speaking about. I just seen one actually in Pinellas County at a storage facility, [00:21:42] and they had it all decked out and made sure they were parked specifically in one area, [00:21:46] so you'd always see that ad. [00:21:48] And so that's what we're talking about, and not the ones that are on a traveling moving vehicle. [00:21:52] Right. And I suspect that your staff would probably be complaint-driven on a violation of this kind. [00:21:59] I mean, sometimes you'll have somebody just drives by and sees it, but you may want to address that. [00:22:06] In fact, our vehicle sign prohibition only refers to our downtown currently, [00:22:10] but we expect to get into that detail when we get to phase two of our sign code. [00:22:14] We see a lot more instances of it where they're specifically parking, [00:22:19] intended to be viewed by the passers-by as an additional sign. [00:22:23] So we'll get into that with phase two. [00:22:28] Question. Do we have any, perhaps since you've looked at this intently, [00:22:34] you can give the board maybe a little feel on what some of the problem areas might be that we're looking at? [00:22:41] Because when I read this, there's so many opportunities for there to be interpretation, so to speak. [00:22:54] An example would be the illumination portion, where they're saying only 15-watt bulbs can be used. [00:23:02] Now, I don't know what we currently have out there, but I can guarantee you there's some that are out there that are more than 15 watts. [00:23:09] And so I just, again, anytime we get into something of this nature, [00:23:15] it looks to me like we are opening the door for a lot of interpretation, a lot of concern, and a lot of issues. [00:23:23] And without continual guidance, the opportunity to make inappropriate decisions may be there. [00:23:33] So can you give us an idea about what you've seen that you think are going to be some problems that we're going to have to deal with? [00:23:40] Well, first I would say that that very concern, another way to state your concern, [00:23:46] is that you would like to not see the regulations be ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations [00:23:54] so that it's left more to staff discretion. [00:23:58] I understand exactly what you're saying. [00:24:00] And in fact, a goal of a properly drafted sign regulation is to minimize that kind of discretion as much as possible, [00:24:09] because it becomes a source of potential legal liability. [00:24:14] So I think actually there's quite a lot that's good about the sign code. [00:24:18] Already there was, and with the draft that there is. [00:24:21] The 15 watt is actually a great example of something that's 100% objective. [00:24:26] You know, that is an objective standard, and either it is or it isn't. [00:24:30] It's unavoidable to have some standards in any regulation that have some level of interpretation. [00:24:40] But as much as we can, we've tried to reduce that, and that's a major goal of any sign code rewrite. [00:24:46] So I think on balance, you're in pretty good shape with regard to that problem. [00:24:50] The other thing I would point out is that there's very strict procedural requirements associated with a First Amendment-related permit like this. [00:25:00] And you already had some very good concepts in your code, [00:25:03] but there's a very defined path from the moment that they seek a permit to when they either get an approval or a denial, [00:25:09] and that's required by the First Amendment. [00:25:12] And it's required that the code say you can only make a decision on the permit based on a requirement of the sign code. [00:25:19] You have to actually say that and do that. [00:25:21] So I think if you were going to look at the whole land development regulations, [00:25:26] this is the area that is least susceptible to those kinds of abuses [00:25:31] because we have these additional legal requirements to be very specific about what we're doing and avoid discretion. [00:25:38] Okay. So in the example that I just used, [00:25:40] although we're talking about grandfathering in billboards and signs that are already existing, [00:25:47] if they don't meet the code that we're setting, they're going to have to be altered. [00:25:54] No, that's the meaning of having a non-conforming sign provision, [00:25:57] that even though they don't meet the new regulation, [00:26:01] they are tolerated and left in place until the theory of all non-conforming uses is eventually they go away. [00:26:09] Eventually there's some kind of redevelopment or change. [00:26:12] But you do have two provisions in here for preserving non-conforming uses, [00:26:20] and I don't think we touch those at all. [00:26:22] So I do think that'll be an important topic to discuss in Phase 2 with the changes you're going to make then. [00:26:28] If I could add a few comments. [00:26:30] I probably should have said this from the outset. [00:26:32] We've given you a pretty sizable ordinance to review. [00:26:35] It's 36 pages. [00:26:36] It represents the entirety of the sign code. [00:26:40] The only changes that we're suggesting under this ordinance are those which are shown either through strikethrough, [00:26:46] which is where we're eliminating language, or underline where we're adding. [00:26:50] And those changes only relate to the read case that Susan had mentioned earlier. [00:26:56] So the bulk of the questions you may have about how we're dealing with vehicle signs and those kind of things, [00:27:02] they're really not touched in this view. [00:27:04] They're really going to be part of Phase 2. [00:27:06] That's where all the fun's going to come in. [00:27:10] That's a two-hour meeting. [00:27:11] That's a very broad definition of fun. [00:27:18] I thought we had a pretty good sign regulation we had gone through before, [00:27:22] but my understanding, we're just doing this because of Supreme Court ruling then, [00:27:26] and that's where you have to go back and look at everything and tighten things up and draw similarities. [00:27:33] The reason for this is just to try and ensure we don't get sued. [00:27:37] No policy is being changed at this point. [00:27:39] It's just to make sure we're in compliance with the law. [00:27:42] There's no doubt in anybody's mind why we were doing it. [00:27:46] And, Mr. Chair, if I can add to that, we are starting to see opportunistic lawsuits filed in Florida and Alabama. [00:27:54] Ten, 15 years ago, there were a lot of those sign code challenges out there, [00:27:58] and it kind of quieted down over the last few years. [00:28:01] Some of the same people who were out there suing 80 or 90 local governments at once are starting to hit the courts again, [00:28:08] and it's going to be easier for them to potentially get at least attorney's fees with those challenges. [00:28:15] So your city is to be applauded in terms of being proactive before you're on the hook for attorney's fees. [00:28:22] Any other questions? [00:28:24] So then in Phase 2, we're going to discuss like the air puppet dancers and the people out with the sign. [00:28:34] Yes, we made some changes in that area for clarification to try to be clear which definitions related to which kinds of signs, [00:28:43] but that's a big topic. [00:28:45] And you have selected other consultants who aren't just lawyers but also have planning expertise, [00:28:52] have design expertise in terms of your wayfinding signage. [00:28:56] They're going to bring different skills to bear, and they'll have substantive recommendations for you about, [00:29:01] this is how to achieve your goals about how you want your community to look. [00:29:08] Any other questions? [00:29:10] Have we addressed or changed any of the signs from a standpoint of size at this point, [00:29:16] or will we address that at the next meeting? [00:29:18] There were some changes to assure that we had comparability. [00:29:22] You may remember in my presentation at the beginning I made the point about if we treat commercial signs a certain way, [00:29:29] we have to treat noncommercial signs at least as liberally as that. [00:29:33] We can allow them even more. [00:29:35] And so with some of the changes of categories and the collapsing of categories, we had to adjust. [00:29:41] But we always adjusted to what was already in the code. [00:29:45] So, you know, before maybe there was this commercial sign and there were three kinds of other noncommercial signs. [00:29:50] Now they're just the same. [00:29:52] But we didn't try to rethink, is that the right number, whether it's six square feet or if it's this height or this location on the property. [00:30:00] to preserve the DNA of the sign code as it's currently written. [00:30:06] One other question. On page 21, we're looking at non-conforming signs, and there's some [00:30:13] dates there. Signs existing on December 7, 2004, signs existing, et cetera, et cetera. [00:30:25] Is that, I see July 21, 2003, is that because that's when we passed the last ordinance, [00:30:31] and so they were grandfathered in at that point? And is there any situation that has [00:30:36] occurred since then that would also be addressed here, and we may need to address those dates? [00:30:42] Well, I think we'll have to rethink that in phase two. We're going to have an amnesty [00:30:49] or amortization period, if you will, if we're going to go forward with enforcement on existing [00:30:54] non-conforming signs. That'll be part of the next discussion. [00:30:58] I believe that all of the changes that have been made have been in the direction of liberalization [00:31:06] rather than restriction. So if there was a choice, whether to shrink something to the [00:31:12] lesser or to grow to the larger to make the comparability, we were more liberal. So I [00:31:18] don't think we're actually denying anything in this ordinance that was not already denied [00:31:26] before this ordinance. But we can think about that more. It's a good comment. And as this [00:31:31] goes to counsel, if we see the need to add a new non-conforming provision, we can discuss [00:31:36] that with your attorney and so on. I really just addressed it from the standpoint [00:31:39] of the date, that we may need to address it from the standpoint of, from a verbiage standpoint, [00:31:44] and we'll have a new date on it. [00:31:46] It's a very good point that if we were, let's say, for example, that this was a community [00:31:53] that did not already ban billboards. Just make that up. And we didn't, and we added [00:31:59] a billboard ban in this ordinance, and we did not add a new non-conforming clause. You're [00:32:04] absolutely right. That would not apply. So there would need to be a non-conforming clause [00:32:10] related to the date of this ordinance. However, I can't think of anything in this ordinance [00:32:17] that takes away anyone's existing sign rights. They're more like reclassified, recategorized, [00:32:24] and where there were changes that needed to be made, they were liberalized rather than [00:32:27] restricted. [00:32:28] I guess the only comment I would have is if somebody, if at some point we had something [00:32:33] slip through the cracks, and we left the verbiage as it is, then someone would have a case to [00:32:39] bring that the new language was introduced at this time, but this particular date did [00:32:46] not address that. So again, I'm really just throwing it out there for us to consider, [00:32:53] and I'm sure at the next meeting we can address that more. [00:32:58] Anybody else have any comments? [00:33:10] Not for what we're doing. [00:33:13] Do we have a motion? [00:33:16] Oh, I know what it was, I'm sorry. One last question. So addressing the comment that you [00:33:23] made last, and that is that we've been very generous with our interpretation and we've [00:33:28] gone to the higher extent, it would be nice for the board to look at those individual [00:33:35] situations to see if that's indeed where we would like to go, or if we would like to go [00:33:40] maybe to a more restrictive situation, and I'm not saying we do, but I would like to [00:33:46] see what it was. For example, if we had a huge sign in a business area, and we've now [00:33:51] had a huge sign in a residential area in all phases of our R1, R2, etc., that may be [00:33:59] something we want to address also so that we don't just take the interpretation as being [00:34:04] the largest of all, the least restrictive of all signs. It would be nice to go back [00:34:11] through that and at least look at it at the next meeting so that we can address that to [00:34:15] see if there's anything that we want to have at a more minimal type of situation. Does [00:34:23] that make any sense? [00:34:24] It makes very good sense, and the first point I would make is the legally driven changes [00:34:32] have not increased the allotment of signage, whether that be area or height or number, [00:34:39] anything about the amount of signage. There's no reason to increase that for commercial [00:34:45] signs, so we haven't touched any of that. It's been more where we found that either [00:34:51] previously or because of changes we were having to make to combine sign categories, we ended [00:34:57] up with the commercial sign was six square feet and the non-commercial was four square [00:35:01] feet. Rather than bring the commercial down to four, we brought the non-commercial up [00:35:06] to six. [00:35:07] I understand that, and that's exactly why I made the comment, because we may or may [00:35:10] not want to do that. And I'm not saying we do or we don't, I'm just saying that that's [00:35:14] something we need to address from a board standpoint and have some conversation about [00:35:20] to see if truly we want to have six square foot signs in our residential area or do we [00:35:26] maybe want to be a little more restrictive. And again, I haven't looked at each individual [00:35:30] case, so I can't give you an example of what I'm talking about. But to your point, I think [00:35:37] you said there was an opportunity to address signage by code or regulation in different [00:35:48] areas of the city, i.e. R1 versus R2 versus R3. So it may be that we want to address that [00:35:55] at least so that we have something hard and fast so that we don't have large monstrosities [00:36:00] in some of our areas. Businesses, yes, we want to include them, but we may not want [00:36:05] to include all of the areas with these large signs. [00:36:10] So I do have a couple of more comments I can add. This is also something where I don't [00:36:16] know if staff wants to chime in and that they've worked with us on these changes, but just [00:36:22] interrupt me if you have anything to say. [00:36:24] Susan, I was going to refer to page 20 of the ordinance where we did... [00:36:28] That's exactly where I am. [00:36:30] ...construct some changes, as you just mentioned to them, under construction site signs, real [00:36:35] estate signs, and temporary commercial signs. [00:36:39] Exactly. So previously, if you look at paragraph 1 on page 20 of 36, we removed the content-based [00:36:46] language where it said the sign had to have exactly these words on it. And previously, [00:36:52] it said a maximum of 16 square feet for each firm. So when you ask me what that is, I don't [00:36:59] know. What if there's two architects and three engineers and four contractors? It could [00:37:03] be quite a lot of signage. So in the simplification of it, now it's just a construction site sign [00:37:10] up to a total area of 6 square feet per side of double-face sign in a residential area [00:37:17] and 32 square feet in a non-residential area. So that's one where you do end up with less [00:37:23] potential signage, but it's written in such a way that the comparability is preserved. [00:37:29] And I guess that's what I'm asking for for all of the areas. [00:37:32] And that, I think, is consistent spirit in how we've handled all of these changes. You'll [00:37:38] see, for example, we took out in paragraph 3 political signs or election signs. That [00:37:43] used to be up to 32 square feet for each premises, and then it was one temporary sign for each [00:37:50] candidate or issue per frontage. Now we have just the free expression signs, and let me [00:37:59] give you the page reference for that. That's first on page 22, that it's an exempt sign [00:38:07] type, and then the dimensions are on page 9. Yes, in the definition. And you'll see [00:38:19] that it's not in the site visibility triangle, not within rights of way, not more than 6 [00:38:27] square feet, not taller than 4 feet, one per parcel is, I believe, where we ended up. Let [00:38:33] me just verify that as I flip back. Yeah, 16 square feet, 6 feet tall. So you can see [00:38:46] this isn't like dozens and dozens of square feet. [00:38:49] And I think that we're all on the same page here. I think it's a very good first step. [00:38:54] I think it's exactly what we needed to do. But just so that we can address it, because [00:39:01] I know in going through this and reading it the first time, I'm sure I missed some things. [00:39:06] And this conversation has opened the door to some of those things. Had I had that conversation [00:39:10] first, I might have looked at it a little differently in reading it first time. I'm [00:39:19] just looking if I can find quickly some other examples. To your point that you just mentioned, [00:39:24] the way this is written right now, then I would have one sign that could be placed in [00:39:29] my property for a candidate. And that would be limited to one sign. Is that the way this [00:39:34] reads? No, it doesn't have a number limitation. It has a square footage regulation. And so... [00:39:41] But I could have 27 signs. Well, as long as it's not more than 16 square feet in size, [00:39:49] no more than 6 feet off the ground. Okay, I'm just being facetious. You guys know that. [00:40:01] Okay. Basically, I think what we're saying is we might not be eligible. That's my point. [00:40:11] The other reference is page 28, where it says free expression on any lot or parcel on private [00:40:20] property, not within rights of way, not more than 16 square feet, not higher than 6 feet. [00:40:27] Now, I know that one of the things we talked about, I believe, tell me if I'm remembering [00:40:34] this correctly, is we could set an overall cap greater than that for signage on the property. [00:40:41] So you could do, if each sign can be up to 16 square feet, you could have no more than [00:40:48] some number larger than that. Or some communities I've seen have done, you know, maybe it's [00:40:53] 20 square feet, but each sign can be no larger than 4 square feet. There is an element of [00:41:00] policy and appearance and size in that. And I think generally the city's approach to these [00:41:05] kind of questions is they're really phase 2 problems. Let's get the input of the designers [00:41:10] and the planners before we make that final decision. Is that a fair characterization [00:41:17] of your position? That's right. [00:41:24] So the chance of adopting Hilton Head's signage criteria is not really out there at this point? [00:41:32] Well, we can certainly entertain that with our next discussion in the future. What kind [00:41:39] of qualitative standards do you want to adopt? And the thing I would say on that, it wasn't [00:41:45] part of my slides, because I have slides that go three hours on this stuff. But just [00:41:50] because we're trying to be legal does not mean we have to tolerate more signage. We [00:41:57] just have to calibrate everything appropriately. You can have a highly restrictive regime of [00:42:02] sign control and have it be perfectly legal. But the relationships between the different [00:42:08] regulations have to be right for it to be defensible. [00:42:12] And I think as in all cases, we're just trying to move in the right direction. And we continue [00:42:17] to try to do that. And obviously, we have to work with what is already existing. So [00:42:24] I think it's only fair for us to at least consider those kind of things and talk about [00:42:29] them as we move forward to see what we want to do. [00:42:37] Any other questions? Are you sure? [00:42:43] Any other questions on board members? [00:42:44] I think it's well covered on what this is. And phase two will be the nuts and bolts. [00:42:49] That's what we're getting to. Anybody like to make a motion that we move forward? Approve? [00:42:56] Motion to approve. [00:42:58] Motion. Do we have a second? Have a roll call vote, please. [00:43:05] Ms. Moran? [00:43:06] Yes, to the motion. [00:43:08] Mr. Smith? [00:43:09] Yes, to the motion. [00:43:10] Ms. Michael? [00:43:11] Yes. [00:43:12] Mr. Masellas? [00:43:13] Yes, to the motion. [00:43:14] Dr. Cato? [00:43:15] Yes, to the motion. [00:43:16] Thank you. It passes. [00:43:19] Lisa, I think that's all we have on our agenda today. Is that correct?

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 2

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “May 19th meeting” — transcript expanded below

   2016 Meeting Dates

   The board concluded the meeting with a reminder that the next meeting will be held on May 19th.

   #May 19th meeting

   ▶ Jump to 43:23 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:43:23] That is all we have. We'll see you back here on May 19th.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 3

   Adjourn

   Adjournment of the meeting.

   ▶ Jump to 43:26 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:43:26] Okay. [00:43:27] Very nice job. [00:43:28] Thank you. [00:43:29] Thank you very much. [00:43:30] Okay.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.