The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP 110 (BUUU gn U MU MMr71KM dillr. ot -ear � t I �.� Its 7■� POLICY PROPOSAL DATE FILE NUMBER SUBJECT Review of Sign and Billboard ►AGE OF 3 3/20/84 C.P. 110 Regulations PROPOSAL PROPOSED BY:Councilmember Y MANAGER'S REV EW Listed Below Background Over the years, the number of billboards in the City of Fort Worth has stead- ily increased. Approximately six billboard permits are being issued per month, for an average of 72 new billboards per year. Placed along a major freeway under the existing spacing limitations, these seventy-two new bill- boards would stretch over seven miles. At present, the issuance of sign permits for billboards is governed by two City ordinances. The Sign Code, enacted as Ordinance No. 7247, attempts to regulate structural and sight hazards, projections over public property, and setbacks, and provides for legal, nonconforming use until the sign is removed by the owner. Zoning Ordinance No. 3011 further regulates the placement of billboards according to zoning classification, and upholds State standards for spacing of billboards and placement near parks and schools. The Zoning Ordinance also provides for the removal of abandoned or discontinued signs. These combined regulations place same controls on billboards but do very little to limit the prolif- eration of signs, other than through spacing limitations. The State law currently requires that billboards along freeways be a minimum of 500 feet apart. on scene freeways, such as Highway 80 West and the Airport Freeway, this requirement effectively rules out additional billboards—nearly all the available slots are filled. With the widening of interstate highways passing through rbrt Worth, many existing billboards will have to be removed to acccu odate highway construction. The Federal Highway Beautification Act appears to require reimbursement for billboards removed along federal high- ways, and under this provision, the State of Texas has previously paid $10,000 and upward per sign in reimbursement costs. Therefore, the erection of each new sign contributes to the administrative difficulties and increases the cost of widening these highways. Many sign operators, looking ahead to this construction phase, are already relocating their billboards along other major thoroughfares. The current spacing limitation for City thoroughfares is one sign every 100 feet. Stated more graphically, this spacing would permit fifty-two billboards per mile, so that a driver traveling at a rate of 45 miles per hour would view a billboard every second and a half. Given this degree of latitude and the impending upheaval along interstate highways, the number of billboards within permitted zoning classifications along City thoroughfares may increase dramatically within the next several months. OWL LEGALITY 0 FISCAL NOTE CITY MANAOER'S COMMENTS POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'u) PAGE_OF In order to revise the City's regulation of billboards, City staff would need to conduct extensive research into recent developments in this area of regu- lation. Uncertainty over the rights of the billboard industry has generated considerable activity in the courts. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals held in 1978 that cities may enforce "reasonable" amortization schedules for the removal of billboards which have been rendered nonconforming. In July 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court in a close decision with no majority opinion labeled the San Diego, California ordinance unconstitutional on its face; the San Diego ordinance discriminated between commercial and non-commercial mes- sages. After the ten-year amortization period for nonconforming billboards expired in May 1983, one of the largest billboard firms cited the San Diego decision to challenge the constitutionality of the Dallas ordinance. This suit, and a second similar suit filed by the Small Business on Premise Sign Foundation of Texas, are to be heard in the U. S. District Court. These recent cases and the pending case in Dallas point out the need for thoroughly researching the legal inmplications should the City of Fort Worth choose to more strictly regulate billboards. Proposal It is proposed that the City Council of the City of Fart Worth adopt the attached ordinance, appointing a special committee of the City Council to consider, for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, the City's regulation of billboards. To prevent any worsening of the problem while this committee deliberates, the ordinance provides that the Department of Development be instructed, effective immediately: 1) Not to issue any permits for erection or alteration of off-premise commercial advertising signs for which applications are already on file; and 2) Not to accept any additional permit applications for erection or alteration of off-premise commercial advertising signs. R,W 3) a4ut t 1a In o Ih ut -s „L -ig., !u d uuij -}� 4,t,6-r-, � & �.eA =tt-k-LA � Legality The City Attorney has reviewed this proposal and there are no known legal impediments. Fiscal Note If this proposal were adopted, it is estimated that revenue from sign permit fees in the mount of $7,200 would be Lost. City Manager's Ccmmments The municipal regulation of signs and billboards is a problem that exists in most cities throughout the country. Because of sign and billboard prolif- eration in Fort Worth, we strongly concur with this policy proposal. CITY OF FORT WORTH POLICY PROPOSAL (cont'd) PAC3E 3 OF 3 Lows J. Zapata, District 2 Dwaine Jdu m, District 3 Russell Lancaster, District 4 Kathy Wetherby, District 6 Richard C. Newkirk, District 7 Hentan F. Stute, District koq Adopted Ordinanze Rd:4.`� APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 9by, MAR 2U 1984 az�aN City S*crst"of the City at Eta M6w2t;YtWaa CITY OF FORT WORTH