Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7034 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7034 ^P T I A, mat s4RT�p To the Mayor and Members of the City Council July 9, 1985 us X Subject: BILLBOARD UPDATE 10 7'3 As a result of the recent legislative session, several significant changes have been enacted regarding the regulation of billboards and off-premise advertising which necessitates the updating of the City's regulatory proce- dures. Attached are Exhibits A (comparison of off-premise signs) and B (the proposed ordinance for on-premise signs) . The passage of H.B. 1330 has limited cities' options for regulating signs. Options currently available to cities are summarized below: Option 1 Amend current regulations so there will be no non-conforming signs but keep the off-premise sign overlay zoning. In this manner, future off-premise signs can be controlled. Include a clause that will not allow signs damaged more than 65% to be replaced and signs where ownerships change to meet adopted standards. Option 2 Keep current regulations and make all signs non-conforming without removal except those damaged 65% or more and signs where ownership remains. Option 3 Use Section 5 of the State Act as the method by which off-premise signs must be removed by one of.the following methods: A. By abatement of taxes on signs. The abatement would end when the total taxes on all signs by one owner equals the amount of cost that will pay for the removal provided such time does not exceed five years. Individual owner accounts would need to be established. B. By setting up a special fund through which all tax monies on signs are deposited and these monies are used to remove or re- locate signs. C. By issuance of abatement revenue bonds that can be used to re- move non-conforming signs. The State Act has mandated registration of signs. Each owner must register annually each sign . Failure to do so will cause a sign to become illegal and eligible for removal . These registration fees can be credited in a) above or deposited in b) above. The State of Texas, on signs it controls, will collect a $25.00 annual fee. The City of Fort Worth can institute a fee greater than that of the State of Texas. Option 4 Use the useful life regulations of the State Act. This provision allows non-conforming signs to remain in place during their useful life and then removed. The useful life of a sign is a pre-determined period from one to fifty years. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7034 - p.2 OR? To the Mayor and Members of the City Council July 9, 1985 Subject: BILLBOARD UPDATE Option 5 Pay cash as provided by State Law for removal and relocation. Option 6 The State of Texas Act has authorized cities to extend their ordi- nances and sign control to the ETJ. If the City chooses not to do so, the State will enforce the regulations of signs on interstate highways according to the Highway Beautification Act and on streets and rural roads as provided by the act. These provisions on streets and rural roads have been added. The staff believes that the State of Texas should enforce these provisions. Options 3, 4 and 5 will necessitate creating a Sign Board to handle non-con- forming sign removal or replacement. If any of-these options are chosen, the Board should be appointed immediately. There also must be a survey made of all off-premise advertising. The State Act requires notice be given to the owners of non-conforming signs. The City will be required to tell the owners the reason for non-conformance. These reasons include: illegal signs, non- conformance by spacing, non-conformance by zoning, non-conformance by height , non-conformance by sign area, non-conformance by type of sign or damage beyond 65%. The survey must be accurate. There are two ways that the sign survey can be performed. The first is by employing consultants to perform this task at a minimum cost of $100,000. The second is to use City of Fort Worth employees. The Sign Inspectors of the Building Inspection Division and the Inspectors in the Environmental Ser- vices Division could be assigned this task. The major part of the activities from that division can be suspended while the survey is being made. Equip- ment for measuring height and distance will be needed at a cost of approxi- mately $3,000. This equipment also will be used to enforce the zoning ordinance and other ordinances. The projected time frame includes two weeks of intensive training and an additional two months to complete the survey. Of the two methods available for completing the survey, staff believes the latter to be the most cost effective method of complying with the regula- tions. The survey must be completed immediately if either Options 3, 4, or 5 is chosen in order that deadlines imposed by the State of Texas Act can be met. Regardless of the option selected, the City of Fort Worth' s ordinance will need to be amended to include the 65% damage registration and regulations making all future off-premise signs ,temporary (not to exceed five years) . The staffing of the Sign Inspection Section of the Building Inspection Division will need to be increased to handle the proposed State Act and the proposed on-premise sign code as presented in Exhibit B. Currently, there is only a supervisor and two sign inspectors; therefore the City will need to add four more sign inspectors. The costs can be absorbed by increasing the -ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7034 - p.3 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council July 9, 1985 CO BILLBOARD REGULATION Subject: current sign fees and allocating a portion of the annual registrations of off-premise advertising to sign inspection costs. The cost of the first year would be $160,000 and could be offset by revenue generated from permit fees (estimated $80,000) and annual sign registration fees (approximately $100,000). Exhibit B includes the proposed on-premise sign provisions. The State Act also applies to signs as they become non-conforming. The proposed ordinance will make practically every business sign non-conforming. It is the staff's recommendation that all such signs be made non-conforming and made to be con- forming when damage is 65% or more, ownership changes, or the sign is removed by the owner. This can successfully work. In 1975, the sign code prohibited signs from projecting more than 2 feet beyond the property line. Even though there are still some non-conforming signs in the downtown area, a remarkable change has been brought about in the appearance of the downtown area. The staff needs City Council direction in two areas: 1) how to proceed on off-premise advertising; and 2) how to handle the proposed on-premise ordinance. The City Attorney's Office agrees that even though it would be best to handle all the signs the same, the State Act does provide alternates. The on-premise signs can be handled in a manner different from off-premise signs if the City Council so chooses. If additional information is desired, it will be furnished upon request. ouglas Harman City Manager DH:kcnn —ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS