The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA-07-01Page 1 of 1 Meredith Reckert From: Meredith Reckert Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:50 AM To: 'klpa@comcast.net' Cc: 'Gerald Dahl' Subject: RE: Billboard Ord. Hi, Karen I spent some time with Alan/Travis/Ken's billboard files and have a partial answer to your question. The prior research you reference in your email addressed how many billboards would be allowed if there were no maximum number. Using the 600' separation requirement in the ordinance, there would be 31 billboards allowed along the 1-70 corridor alone. Setbacks required are a minimum of 50' from the front property line and rear and side setbacks are based on sign height. Most of the parcels along the corridor should have sufficient room, assuming the required setbacks do not dictate that the placement of billboard is directly in conflict with an existing structure on the property. Does that help? Remember also that the number referenced above is for properties only along 1-70. It doesn't include properties off set from 1-70 along Ward, Wadsworth, Kipling, etc. M Meredith I2eckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2548 P` y y l?C-`-Ort 14.1ge Co, From: klpa@comcast.net [mailto:klpa@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:11 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: Billboard Ord. I am aware Ken will not be at the meeting this Monday and need a little more information on the history of the billboard ord. After checking Alan's files Ken informed me we have over 300 properties in the 132 zone. Please advise how many of the 341 properties have the possibility of meeting the set-back requirements. Alan had researched this info. Will you be handiling the questions this Monday if council decides to proceed with the public hearing? Karen Adams 7/14/2008 j9r" e ITEM NO: Oil REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 14, 2008 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 02 -2008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26 -711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B- 2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26 -71 LB (Public hearing continued from 2/25/2008, 4/14/2008, and 6/9/2008) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ BIDS /MOTIONS ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-judicial: ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (02/25/2008) ® ORDINANCES FOR 2 ND READING (06/09/2008) OO • City Man r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current section of the Zoning Code that regulates billboards is not specific in regards to implementation and permitting processes. The lack of specificity has resulted in a need to develop administrative procedures to deal with instances of billboard vacancies and the procedures for filling those vacancies. The administrative procedures used in the past have been called into legal question in some instances. Upon City Council's direction, the Community Development Department has drafted more specific and defined procedures and regulations, with the intent of alleviating some of the procedural uncertainties. The Zoning Code currently allows a maximum of 16 billboards in the B -2 billboard district. City Staff held a public stakeholders meeting in December to gain input, and has conducted working sessions with industry professionals. The proposed ordinance would increase the number of allowed billboards within the B -2 district from 16 to 18. The ordinance also creates an equitable system to determine who is entitled to erect a billboard in the event of a vacancy. COMMISSIONBOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on January 17, 2008 and recommended approval with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. Add B. Le which states: "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure ". 2. Remove all references to the 10 -day window and replace with `application period'. 3. Change the 30 -120 day lottery window to a 60 -90 day lottery window. 4. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B -2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn." Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 feet to 45 feet. 2. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 feet to 500 feet. The first four recommendations were included in the I SM reading ordinance as passed by City Council and published. The fifth and sixth recommendations are not included in the ordinance as currently drafted, and should be discussion items at the City Council public hearing. There were a few attendees at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in reference to the proposed ordinance. While some offered suggestions to the language or development standards proposed, all offered support of the ordinance. STATEMENT O F THE ISSUES: The first several paragraphs in this section of the report are repeated from the previous Council Action Form that was part of the February 24th public hearing. This section concludes with a staff summary and response to some of the issues that were raised at the previous public hearing and in subsequent correspondence from the billboard industry representatives. Throughout the billboard permitting and billboard ordinance code rewrite processes, there has perhaps been one primary underlying policy question under discussion: Who `owns' the permit or entitlement? In staff's research, surrounding communities handle permit ownership differently; some attach the ownership to the property owner, others to the permit holder. This issue is somewhat unique in respect to billboards, as the City has chosen to establish a maximum number of allowed billboards, making the ability to erect a billboard a valuable entitlement. The proposed ordinance was crafted with the assumption that the permit would belong to the property owner as is typical for most land use entitlements. When the property owner chooses to relinquish the billboard permit, thereby relinquishing the right to have a billboard, the permit and billboard right would expire. The billboard company who may own the actual billboard structure is able to secure any additional "ownership rights" through the leasehold contractual relationship they have with the property owner. As is typically the case in property issues, the City is not party to nor necessarily aware of the details of those private contractual relationships. As drafted, the advertising company who erects the billboard would not be able to transfer the billboard right to another willing property owner. The intent was that the lottery system would create a fair and equitable environment for all property owners in the B -2 district to have a chance at securing a billboard permit as vacancies become available. During the first reading of the ordinance, City Council adopted certain language amendments, including a section "K ", which read: Assignment of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Other first reading language amendments related to additional notification requirements to billboard advertising companies that are party to a permit. Community Development staff reviewed the I" reading ordinance with the City Attorney's office and we also received comments from some sign industry representatives who have been involved in the code rewrite process. Based on those discussions and clarification on the policy intent with Councilmember Berry, Staff has proposed 2 reading amendments that relate primarily to changes to Section K. Staff is proposing that Section K be removed and replaced with a new section K that establishes requirements that all existing billboards be "registered ". This will allow staff the ability to more easily notify property owners and billboard structure owners in the event of vacancies, abandonments, etc. Staff is also proposing that the definition of "property" be clarified and that two references to "location" be changed to "property" as defined in the ordinance. Staffs proposed 2nd reading amendments are included in a second version of the proposed ordinance, attached to this Council Action Form, with the proposed changes highlighted. In regards to the transferability of billboard property rights, staff believes that as a matter of general land use law in the City a valid billboard permit or registration is transferable from the existing property owner to a future property owner. It is Staff's belief that property rights, such as valid billboard permits, are automatically transferred upon sale of property and do not need to be assigned to a successor or future property owner. It should also be noted that the primary reason for including the "temporary removal" provisions in the proposed ordinance is to allow a property owner the ability to negotiate a new lease with a new billboard company if they so choose without losing their existing billboard entitlement. So long as the new billboard structure could be installed in compliance with the current zoning and building code requirements and any previously issued billboard permits, that change would be allowable without the City's approval of a new billboard permit through the lottery process. Building permits would be required. To the extent that staff has not captured City Council's intent in addressing the ownership of the billboard property rights, staff would request further discussion and direction at the public hearing. April 14 Staff updates follows: Heip,h t. Some members of the industry have requested an increase in the maximum billboard height from 32 to 45 feet. Staff believes that as the height of a billboard increases, the impact on adjacent property owners also increases. We believe it is appropriate to limit billboards to 32 feet and allow future billboard applicants the ability to request variances to that height requirement through the administrative or Board of Adjustment processes. The criteria for reviewing a variance would allow those future applicants to make the types of arguments for a height increase that are being argued in some of the correspondence from the billboard industry. Separation The Planning Commission recommended and staff concurs that making the spacing or separation requirement consistent with CDOT requirements is logical, and requires a decrease in the minimum spacing from 600 to 500 feet. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Setbacks Staff understands that the setback requirement proposed may make it difficult for some property owners to identify a permissible location for a billboard on their property. We also believe that the height of a billboard bears a direct relationship on the amount of impact the billboard structure has on adjacent properties and we support the existing setback recommendations. However, we do acknowledge that the intent of the temporary removal section of the proposed ordinance is to allow a replacement in like kind and location. To that end, we would recommend that an existing billboard that is non - conforming as to setbacks could be re- installed in the same location, subject to all of other requirements of this ordinance and applicable building codes and provided the level of non - conformity is not increased. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Li htin . There have been several issues that have come up in relation to different types of lighting technology that might be used to allow for the latest in technology, while preserving the City's desire to limit light spill and light pollution. Three specific technologies and/or installation approaches are worthy of additional discussion. o Downcast vs. Upcast Lighting The Planning Commission recommended requiring that only downcast lighting be used to illuminate Billboards, which is reflected in the versions of the ordinance before City Council. The intent of that requirement was to address the concern with overly illuminating the night skies. While the intent is appreciated, the sign industry would like the ability to use exterior up- lighting, which they believe can be installed in a less visually obtrusive manner than the down lighting, which must extend several feet out from the billboard structure in order to provide adequate illumination to the billboard. Staff can appreciate this concern and could support allowing up- lighting as an acceptable method of illumination in the ordinance, provided that the up- lighting be fully contained by the sign face and not spill off the edges of the sign face. If Council agrees that up- lighting would be appropriate, staff has provided an additional condition at the conclusion of this report, which could be included in your motion. o Internal Illumination or "Backlighting" At the February 25 public hearing a comment was made that internal illumination or backlighting of signs should also be allowed. This type of technology, while not typical for existing billboards in Wheat Ridge would be similar to the type of lighting used on most ground mounted monument signs that are typical along commercial corridors. While not currently a common approach to illuminating billboards in Wheat Ridge, staff does not believe it to be inappropriate, provided the level of illumination would not be excessive to the point of becoming a lighting nuisance. Staff has included a condition at the end of this report, which could be adopted in City Council's motion of Council desires to allow this type of illumination. o LED Lighting In previous discussions and correspondence, in particular testimony from Lamar Advertising, an interest in using digital light emitting diode (LED) technology has been expressed. The interest to use this lighting technology has been expressed primarily as a technical means of achieving changeable advertising copy through the technology referred to as Commercial Electronically Variable Message Signs (CEVMS), which are specifically prohibited in current drafts of the ordinance. While staff does not support the variable message signs at this time (see comments in next section), we do not object to the lighting technology itself, which can result in high quality images with illumination levels that adjust to variable ambient lighting conditions. If Council wishes to allow the LED digital lighting technology, staff has included at the end of this report a recommended condition that could be added to a City Council motion, which would allow digital LED lighting. Changeable Copy The City allows changeable copy on non billboard signs in the community, provided the copy does not change more frequently than every 15 seconds. However, changeable copy on billboards, which are oriented toward a highway driver operating at significantly higher speeds, raises the potential for additional traffic safety concerns. At the previous public hearing some members of the billboard industry requested that this issue be reconsidered. City staff has reviewed two traffic analyses provided by the sign industry and we have also obtained a Maryland State Highway Commission Traffic Study that reviews and is critical of the findings of the studies that have been commission by the sign industry. Based on the information available, staff does not believe the potential for traffic safety concerns has been sufficiently alleviated for us to be able to support changeable copy on billboard signs. As a side note, we are aware that the Federal Highway Administration is considering commissioning a study on this issue, the results of which might establish a federal standard. Correspondence from Daniel M. Scherer The basic issue Mr. Scherer raises in his letter is the notion that the ordinance is currently structured to give the property owner greater rights of ownership of the billboard entitlement than the billboard structure owner. He is correct. This was discussed in the Council Action Form for the 2/25/08 public hearing and repeated in a previous paragraph of this report. He is also correct in his review of the intent of the temporary removal provisions, which allow a property owner time to negotiate with and have a new billboard company install a new billboard under an existing billboard entitlement. His requested solution would allow a billboard structure owner the right to notify the City of an intent to abandon an existing billboard, thereby taking the billboard right away from the property owner and triggering a Billboard Vacancy and a subsequent open permit application process. Staff believes it is important to point out that this could then have an equal effect of taking the majority of a property owner's rights away, as a billboard structure owner would have significantly less incentive to negotiate in good faith with an existing billboard property owner if they had the leverage to declare the site abandoned and create a vacancy that they could apply to fill on another property. Staff does not disagree with the technical approach that Mr. Scherer has proposed to achieve their stated intent, but wanted to call attention to the policy implications of making that change, for City Council to consider. July 14 Staff updates follows: At the April 14 City Council meeting, the public hearing was continued without discussion. In the intervening time, City Council also gave staff direction to develop a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services to conduct a Billboard Impact Fee Study, in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for City Council to consider at the June 16 Study Session. At the June 9 continued public hearing, City Council continued the public hearing to a date not more than 30 days from one of two trigger points: 1) City Council's adoption a Billboard Impact Fee Study or 2) within 30 days of City Council deciding not to pursue a billboard impact fee 'study. At the June 16 study session, City Council passed a consensus motion NOT to move forward with a Billboard Impact Fee Study and associated ordinance. Based on scheduling and notice requirements, the July 14 City Council meeting was the first regular business meeting to schedule this public hearing. Public notice for this meeting has been re- established through publication. Since publishing for the initial February 25 public hearing, the following correspondences have been submitted regarding the ordinance: 1. A 5/20/08 correspondence from Mr. Robert J. Vermillion, a property owner in the B -2 zoning district. 2. An 4/28/09 correspondence from Mr. Mark W. Giordano, with United Advertising. 3. An undated letter received 4/2/08 from Mr. Daniel M. Scherer with CBS Outdoor. 4. A 2/27/08 correspondence from Chip Roehrig with Lamar Advertising. 5. A 2/20/08 correspondence from Richard P. Holme, representing CBS, Lamar and Mile High Outdoor. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed ordinance lays the groundwork for an administrative fee system for billboards. All new billboards would be subject to an application fee and inspection fee. An annual registration fee could also be established if City Council recommends. RECOM MENDED MOTION: OPTION `A' If Council desires to approve the Ordinance as published on 1 St reading: "I move to adopt Council Bill 02 -2008, case number ZOA- 07 -01, an ordinance amending Section 26 -711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." or OPTION 'B' If Council desires to include staff recommended changes on 2 "d reading: "I move to amend Council Bill No. 02 -2008, case number ZOA- 07 -01, an ordinance amending Section 26 -711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication, with the following second reading amendments: 1. Delete Section K, to be replaced with a new Section K reading as follows: "Registration of Billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form "; 2. Add a definition for "property ", reading: "Property. For the purpose of this section a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) "; 3. Change all references in the ordinance to the word "location" to the word "property "; and 4. Add a section B. Le to the ordinance, reading: "failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008." The following additional recommended second reading amendments are based on the staff recommendations in the updated information provided for this meeting. These would be additional conditions. 5. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 to 45 feet. 6. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 to 500 feet. 7. Section 711 -A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow exterior up- lighting of a billboard, provided no light spills off of the sign face. 8. Section 711 -A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow interior illumination of signs (backlighting). 9. Section 711.A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow digital LED lighting provided it is not used to achieve animation or any type of changeable copy. Copy shall be allowed to change up to once daily. OPTION `C' If City Council wishes to adopt some or all of the conditions listed in Option `B', but determines a need to review a new version of the ordinance reflecting said conditions: "I move to direct staff to amend Council Bill No. 02 -2008, case number ZOA07 -01, an ordinance amending Section 26 -711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, to reflect conditions , as written in the Council Action Form and to bring back the ordinance for final action at the City Council meeting." Report Prepared by: Ken Johnstone, Director, Community Development Report Reviewed by: Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Bill 02 -2008 (as passed on 1 St reading and published) 2. Council Bill 02 -2008 (with staff recommended 2 "d reading amendments as previously presented at the February 25 and April 14 City Council meetings) 3. The five correspondence noted in the text of the Council Action Form 1 sr READING ORDINANCE — AS PUBLISHED IED CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02 -2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Superscript, Highlight Formatted: Highlight TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26 -711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B -2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 1.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31 -23 -101 et M. and 29 -20 -101 et sue. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26 -711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26 -71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B -2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental, and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26 -711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26- 711.13, concerning billboards in the B -1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B -1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTar.WMFNT 01 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26 -702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non - conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the S -2 billboard district, , and —B-2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B -2 billboard district. Properties within the B -2 district must be zoned NC, R -C, C -1, C -2, 1, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billboard stfuetur-es afe allowed in the eity, as provided by this seefiOW, pr e-vide t eAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right -of -way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. S eke sh be as fequifed where lee eted. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v- style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back -to -back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. provided, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado- registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. S. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right -of -way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non- conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. , 13 1 disRier Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180 -day period as described in subsection C, C. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, d. Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term 'property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non - conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. 4 The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90J days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the gndin day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per Property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no complete applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing the Department will process applications thereafter on a first -come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43 -1 -401 et se( l., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location within the B -2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. I. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. 1<. Assienmenl of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paving applicable fees The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require aPproval Section 3. Figure 26 -711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B -1 District. �-- - - -- -- °- Deleted: <insert amended fig. 26- Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. " I '' Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28 day of January' 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of , 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: STAFF PROPOSED 2 ND READING EDITS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02 -2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26 -711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B -2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31 -23 -101 et seq. and 29 -20 -101 et seq. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26 -711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26 -71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B -2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26 -711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B -2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26 -71 LB, concerning billboards in the B -1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B -1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. AT7' A 1'%YRA1=k1V 07 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26 -702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (ZEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Property. For the purpose of this section, a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN). Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non - conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B -2 billboard district, di v i de d ' to t (2) Mill a a' + ' + B 1 ••--° Tircc. rviv - �c7�rrrvvurcr- arJrrrccr�v -r and B 2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B -2 billboard district. Properties within the B -2 district must be zoned NC, R -C, C -1, C -2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. 4 43 this se tien; ptevi ed hat aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, 4 relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right -of -way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. Setbaeks sh as required ze where leeated. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v- style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back -to -back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado - registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right -of -way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non - conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. .. e. On .. after januafy ., a99.., billbee&d vYiv auvasc.criii - the B ' dis Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if- 3 a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180 -day period as described in subsection C, C. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or d. failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. failure to .register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008. 2. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 3. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 4. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and M.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non - conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. If the number of legally permitted or registered billboards falls below the maximum number allowed as established in subsection A.3, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in 4 the B -2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, or if none of the submitted applications meet the minimum requirements of subsection E, the vacancy shall remain. In this instance, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first -come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43 -1 -401 et sec l., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single lseatien property within the B -2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single leent on property are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified 5 below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. I. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K. approval. shall be freely assignable to n sueeesser-, as owner- of the property where the W-11beard is leeated or of the leasehold of the billboard, subjeet to filing sueh appliention as the Community Development Direetor and paying applivable fees. The assignmefit shall be aeeomplished by filing and shall Hot Registration of billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of Apri11, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form. M Section 3. Figure 26 -711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B -1 District. e -z etlfnoara District 1 �I �x at $ i l I Ij L ' Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28"' day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 25 day of February, 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 8 �► LAKEMONT Center May 20, 2008 Me. Ken. Johnstone Community e 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: NEW BILLBOARD ORDINANCE Dear Ken Johnstone: Having a 20 year billboard lease that is coming due in a few years, I wish to express my very strong support for the City's current revised ordinance which allows the land owner control of the permit in accommodating future develop- ment, I have discussed this issue with Travis Crane and have written as well related to this need. Would appreciate your review. In my last letter, I stated that the B -2 Billboard Zoned area would experience the greatest growth resulting from Cabela's development after visiting the new Cabela's store in Lehi, Utah`in confirming their five million visitors the first year. The Planning Director in Lehi stated new development was occurring within a four mile radius to include 2 new hotels and 26 restaurant sites in front of Cabela's. This did sound exaggerated, until visiting the Pro -Bass facility off I -70 and Quebec. I've waited many years, "as have others within the B-2 Zone," for area growth to support bank funding for my project. The new development on my site may cause removal, relocation, and or the request for a second billboard to fund the State lease construction maintenance of the eight foot walkway around our lake required by the City's approved plat on: — . State Highway land along with the appropriate landscaping, It's quite possible new development around the Cabela's project will increase the City's tax base several fold with well planned growth and quality access. t sincerely, J Robert J. Y ermillioh' RJ /d cc: Wheat Ridge City Council 632 GOLD RUN ROAD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 TELEPHONE: 303 - 442 -7111 FAX: 303 -546 -9380 ATTACNFA Frjir,q UNITED ADVERTISING CORPORATION April 28, 2008 Wheat Ridge City Council 7500 West 29` Avenue Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Dear Council Members: It is with great urgency that I am writing you regarding the proposed revisions to Wheat Ridge's billboard ordinance. As you are aware, City Council, City staff and industry representatives have spent countless hours over the last 18 months working to craft these proposed revisions that reflect the compromises achieved by all parties involved. The single most important element of the revisions — and the very premise of the Ordinance — is the protection of the rights of Wheat Ridge property owners and their right to make an allowed use of their property, and to benefit from competition. This protection of property owners' rights is now under attack by one of the very parties who participated in all of the meetings and agreed to all of the revisions. I am writing to urge you to protect property owners' rights by passing the revised billboard Ordinance without changing the wording to the detriment of property owners. On April 11, 2008, an undated letter was sent to you over the signature of CBS Outdoor General Manager Daniel Scherer, urging you to further amend the previously agreed upon Ordinance changes so as to give billboard companies the power to declare an abandonment of the property owner's right to have a billboard on the property. This letter was filled with gross inaccuracies and overtly misleading statements — all in an effort to confuse you and to un -do 18 months of inclusive, transparent work by all of the stakeholders in this matter. I am extremely disappointed that one of my colleagues and competitors has resorted to such tactics in an attempt to take vested land use rights from citizen property owners. I own United Advertising Corporation. Over the last 18 years, I have worked for, or owned, billboard companies operating in Wheat Ridge, The City has always fostered competition, while protecting the land use rights of its property owners. Up until CBS' legal assault on the City starting in 2005, small billboard companies enjoyed competing in Wheat Ridge. In fact, five of the six most recent billboards in Wheat Ridge were developed and erected by small billboard companies. Now, CBS — largely through its attorney Richard Holme — seeks to stifle billboard competition and to steal part, or all, of a land use right so that the property owner cannot competitively bid his property. Denver Chicago Los Angeles New Jersey New York Page 2 CBS' letter — which by all appearances was likely written by their attorney, Mr. Holme — goes so far as to state that their newly proposed Ordinance wording "would give the billboard owner the equal right with the property owner." This would, in effect, prohibit a landowner from canceling a contract with a billboard company tenant and putting their permitted site out for competitive bid. Under CBS and Mr. Holmes' suggestion, these landowners would be forced back into the lottery system and risk losing their current City - permitted income. This notion is absolutely ludicrous! And, it is direct conflict with the most basic intention and wording of both the original Ordinance and the revised Ordinance as presented to Council on February 25, 2008. Why would City Council change their policy of the last 15 years when you are attempting to codify it? Why would City Council take away land use rights from a property owner? Why would City Council interfere in a private negotiation? Why would City Council force a property owner to work with only one company or risk losing valuable income from his property? Adding to the outrageous content of the CBS / Holme letter is the very nature with which it was submitted beyond the 11` hour. Mr. Holme had participated in all of the work sessions and was completely aware of the recommended changes — including the "temporary removal" provisions that were proposed in January. In fact, Mr. Holme was present at a January 14, 2008 meeting with Travis Crane, Ken Johnstone, and Gerry Dahl, during which the intent of "temporary removal" was described by staff in detail — and Mr. Holme agreed. The changes suggested in the CBS / Holme letter are not in line with the intent expressed by Council, the Mayor and staff. These changes will hurt your property owners and shut down a presently competitive marketplace. These changes do not benefit the City of Wheat Ridge and, in fact, will likely lead to further litigation for the City. Please don't let this happen. Again, I urge you to protect property owners' rights by passing the revised billboard Ordinance without changing the wording to the detriment of property owners. It would be my pleasure to discuss this letter and all of the facts surrounding the CBS / Holme letter with you. I hope that we can meet individually in the very near future. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark W. Giordano President Denver Chicago Los Angeles New Jersey New York Page 3 cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Randy Young Gerald Dahl, Esq. Jerry DiTullio Patrick Goff Janice Smothers Frank Bullock Steven Richards Richard P. Holme, Esq. Russell and Janice Anderson Copper Fields Land Holdings LLC /Cheryl Wise Jack and Berneice Major Thomas and Isabel Abbott Mariann Major David Stefanich Triad Real Estate /Ted Redling Wheat Ridge Industrial Park LLC /Steve Peckar MJB Motels LLC Daniel Dearing National Advertising Company Lake Front Partners /Robert Vermillion Public Storage Euro Partnership VII LLC 12505 W 44 Ave LLC /Hari Sachs 4800 Ward Road LLC Jack and Dannette Walker Denver Chicago Los Angeles Newlersey New York *CBS OUTDOOR Dear Council Member: --- j7,:- The three major billboard companies in Wheat Ridge have concluded that they must raise a serious objection they have to one part of the proposed amendments to the Wheat Ridge Sign Code (Council Bill No. 02 -2008; Ordinance No. 1408). As you will recall, because of the 1992 amendments to the Sign code, the billboard companies had to remove existing signs in Wheat Ridge without compensation and had to spend their own money to replace the billboards in the new billboard area along the interstate highways. Ever since, they have paid the permit fees and all operating costs. Recently, land owners have claimed that although they have made no investment of their own in the billboards, they should be the sole owners of any right to determine where new billboards could be located. In an effort to strike a balance between the competing claims, it was our understanding that the Council approved the concept of opening up the permitting process so that if any billboard were removed, all landowners in the B -2 Zone, including the owner of the property on which the recently removed billboard was located, would have the right to negotiate with all billboard companies and to compete in a fair lottery for the new, replacement billboard. Nonetheless, it now appears that the proposed ordinance destroys this balance and the fair and open opportunity to compete for new locations. This seems to have been done by the new and innocent sounding concept of "temporary removal." Most of us probably assumed that temporary removal is designed to give the landowner the right to take down a billboard in order to develop the land under or next to the present billboard location while protecting the landowner from losing the remainder of his lease revenue. However, protecting the landowner who is developing its property is not part of the temporary removal provision. In short, it appears that a landowner can obtain a "temporary removal' of an existing billboard simply in order to negotiate a new lease with another company. Thus, the landowner can prevent all other Wheat Ridge landowners from the chance to participate in an open lottery and deprive them of any fair chance to receive the revenues from the new billboard. Because temporary removal as stated in the proposed ordinance completely upsets the entire basis for the compromise that caused the billboard companies to agree to a fair and open lottery in place of further litigation, the companies feel this issue must be addressed or they must oppose the entire ordinance. There is an easy solution that re- levels the playing field for everyone in the City. That is to simply add the words 'or billboard" between "property" and `owner" in section § 26- 711.B.1.c. This would give the billboard owner the equal right with the property owner to abandon a billboard, which would open up a replacement location to the notice and lottery process. With this simple addition, this section would state: "A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if:... The property or billboard owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to 4647 LEYDEN STREET, DENVER, CO 802I6 - (303) 333-5400- FAX (303) 322.6520 - CBSOUTDOOR.COM *CBS OUTDOOR abandon'the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure." Alternatively, the provisions relating to temporary removal could be modified by adding requirements that temporary removal be allowed only where necessary for permitted development of the landowner's property under circumstances such as those stated above. We would be happy to work with you to reach a solution that will be fair to all Wheat Ridge residents. We would also like to request that any hearing on a revised ordinance be delayed until after May 15, 2008 so that Richard Holme, our attorney and the person most knowledgeable about the Wheat Ridge sign code situation can attend and provide his insight and input. At the last public hearing, the council asked the Community Development Department to report back with a revised ordinance in 60 days. That time will expire in mid - April. There is not, as far as we know, any deadline or pressure that the final hearing occur at exactly that time. Unfortunately, Mr. Holme has several days of day -long meetings and is going on a long - planned family reunion trip during that time. Specifically, he is unavailable from April 11 to May 14. There is simply no one else who can fill in for him during his absence, and we would be most grateful if the council could await his return and input. Thank you for consideration of this letter. Sincerely Daniel M. Scherer General Manager, CBS Outdoor, Inc. Also on behalf of Mile High Outdoor and Lamar Advertising cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Kenneth Johnstone Gerald Dahl, Esq. Frank Bullock Steven Richards Richard P. Holme, Esq. 4647 LEYDEN STREET, DENVER, CO 80216 - (303) 333 -5400 - FAX (303) 3221520 - CBSOMOOR.COM LAMAR February 27, 2008 Mayor, Council Members and Staff, On behalf of Lamar I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on Council Bill 02 -2008 at Monday's City Council meeting. I know that this bill as gone through many revisions and has been the subject of a lot of discussion. With this in mind I will only comment on Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) or Digital Displays. I left informational packets with Michael Snow to distribute to you after the Council Meeting on the 25 These packets include a DVD explaining Digital Displays, a summary of a recent safety study in Cleveland, as well as some recent articles explaining their use as a public service medium. Lamar currently operates over 600 Digital Displays across the country including 3 in Colorado Springs. These displays allow Lamar and its advertisers to utilize the latest technology in displaying their messages. The displays utilize LED technology similar to what is used in modern televisions. The use of these displays in outdoor advertising has often been misunderstood. The signs do not flash or blink and are never animated. It is only a new way to change copy more frequently allowing Lamar to work quickly with law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of emergencies or current Amber Alerts. The displays can be changed within minutes to post emergency information. They also allow Lamar to set aside spots for use in promoting community events. They can be used creatively to show election results, welcome new businesses and promote events such as your annual Carnation Festival. Obviously Lamar has a business interest in this as well. Digital Displays let our customers change their message quickly to reflect current sales and special promotions. They let us provide outdoor advertising to more customers and increase our revenue without building new signs. The safety study which was recently completed in Cleveland showed no increase in car accidents due to the use of digital billboards (CEVMS). The study was conducted on a belt highway surrounding greater Cleveland on which Digital Displays were prevalent. It used public records on accidents on the beltway for a period of 18 months before the boards were installed and 18 months after. The study found that there was no increase in traffic accidents in the presence of these signs. The State of Colorado currently allows these signs with message changes allowed every four seconds. Lamar typically uses a model where the message changes every six seconds. You will notice in the pictures that I have included in your packets that converting these signs improve the appearance of the signs. There is no external light source and the catwalks are no longer needed. One of the pictures shows a sign where one face was converted to digital and the other was not. The digital face is much cleaner looking and improves the overall appearance. This new technology puts off the same amount of light as a lighted billboard. The displays are designed to automatically dim based on the ambient light conditions. When the sun sets they dim and they also dim when it is cloudy or a thunderstorm blows through. Lamar and the broader industry have no interest in converting all of our signs to use this technology. It is very expensive to convert a billboard for this use. Our desire is to convert a small portion of our signs which could work in a network surrounding Greater Denver. A sign in Wheat Ridge would be an important link in this network. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss how allowing use of these displays would be beneficial to Wheat Ridge. The original intent of this ordinance was to address permitting issues. It does not seem necessary to address CEVMS in Council Bill 02- 2008. Sincerely, Chip Roehrig Lamar - Denver Davis Graham &Stubbs l.LP February 20, 2008 Re: Council Bill 02 -2008 — Amendment to Billboard Code Dear Council Member: The major outdoor advertising companies doing business in Wheat Ridge, CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and Mile High Outdoor, want to make the following comments and suggestions to the proposed ordinance that amends the existing Sign Code. (Although we do not speak on behalf of United Advertising, we do not believe that it will object to the suggestions we discuss below.) Because of time constraints during the public hearing on February 25, we thought it would be clearer and easier to understand our suggestions if we provided them to you in advance of the public hearing. (We assume that this letter will be made publicly available as well.) First, notwithstanding the position of the Community Development Department, it is our view that this entire ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. In the 16 years since the Wheat Ridge billboard code was adopted, there has been exactly one problem. Even in that one, the courts have upheld virtually all of the CDD's interpretations of the code. This proposed ordinance adds pages of detailed governmental regulation at a time when most citizens wish their government to engage in less regulation and attendant expense. Having said that, and because it appears that this Council is planning on proceeding anyway, we want to say that we sincerely appreciate the CDD's willingness to accept input and language suggestions that at least have reduced the number of potential regulatory nightmares and increased clarity of the proposed ordinance to the extent it must be adopted. There are a number of policy determinations that are incorporated within the ordinance, most of which remain from a 16- year -old code and a number of which we believe are outdated and inconsistent with regulations in surrounding counties and established by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Our major suggestions and issues are as follows: 1. Section 711.A.9 should be amended to increase the maximum height of billboards from 32 to 45 feet. Virtually all billboards in Wheat Ridge are along the interstate highways. Denver allows such billboards to be 45 feet high. CDOT does not regulate height. Many of Wheat Ridge's existing billboards are partially blocked or obscured by sound walls, buildings or other on- premise signs. Conversely, many of them block or obscure on- premise signs, to the detriment of Richard P. Hdme . 303 892 7340. rkhard.holmefdgslaw com 1 _ �� 5cwenii•e�r.h 1igw� Cuitr. 5l70 f h nct ^. C:oluaido 8020:' • .'•03 8'72 9400 • fax 30:3 E�?3 1. 3'9 829544 www.dgslaw.com February 20, 2008 Page 2 those business owners. Allowing greater height may well make it easier for motorists to read both on- premise and billboard signs more quickly and with less distraction. 2. Section 711.A.10 should be amended to decrease minimum spacing between billboards from 600 feet to 500 feet. CDOT regulations require only a 500 -foot spacing, as does Denver. A 500 -foot spacing would potentially make more landowners eligible to compete for and obtain new billboards and the resulting income. There appears to be no empirical reason requiring that the 600 -foot spacing requirement remain unchanged. 3. Section 711.A.8 should be amended to remove the side -lot setback requirement that a billboard be set back a distance equal to its height. First, this requirement will prohibit a number of prospective landowners from being able to compete for and obtain permits. Second, although the ordinance claims to allow existing billboard owners temporarily to remove and then replace or relocate billboards on their property, the requirement of § 711.0 that any replacement billboard must comply with all the standards of this ordinance will make the possibility of relocating a billboard on an owner's property largely illusory. Many existing signs could not be rebuilt in compliance with the side -lot setback requirement of the new ordinance. If this Council believes there is justification to limit the ability of new landowners to have access to billboard lease revenue, we at least suggest that when a temporarily removed billboard is replaced, the ordinance require only that that the new billboard not increase the previous billboard's non - conformity. 4. Section 711.A.12 should be amended to delete the word "downcast." This provision will require all new billboards to have light stanchions extending out over the top of the sign in a "T" configuration. Some older council members may recall that such lighting was normal in the first half of the 20 Century, but was abandoned (and outlawed) because it was so "ugly." Furthermore, the requirement that lighting be downcast may prohibit "back -lit" billboards, a new technology that casts even less ambient light than the existing lights and is easier to read and more pleasing to the eye. S. Section 711.A.13 prohibiting "CEVMS" should be tabled for reconsideration. There is no apparent reason for banning at this time the newest technology available for outdoor advertising. The Colorado Roadside Advertising Act specifically authorizes the use of these signs, only limiting the frequency of message changes to not less than 4 seconds per message. Wheat Ridge itself specifically allows on- premise signs of this type, only limiting the February 20, 2008 Page 3 frequency of message changes to not less than 15 seconds per message. These signs are not "animated" or "flashing, blinking or moving." The method of changing messages is most closely analogized to a Power Point presentation or a slide show. The intensity of lighting is normally reduced during the darker times of the day and at night. Other communities have found these signs indispensable for things such as Amber Alerts, traffic warnings, severe weather alerts, and other community- oriented messages. There is absolutely no evidence that changeable messages adversely impact traffic safety. Indeed, a major traffic study established that these signs have no impact on traffic accidents or safety. At the very least, the Council should undertake further study of this issue before enacting a permanent, total prohibition, without regard to the possibility of appropriate limitations on their use as well as their potential benefits. Of course, we will be happy to answer any questions and provide any additional information before or during the February 25, 2008 public hearing on this measure. Sincerely, Richard P. Holme for CBS Outdoor, Inc. Lamar Advertising Company Mile High Outdoor cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Travis Crane Kenneth Johnstone Gerald Dahl, Esq. Daniel M. Scherer Frank Bullock Steven Richards Mark Giordano Ronald L. Fano, Esq. A'A J ._11. 2008 6:59AM July lo, zoos TO: ALL WHEAT RIDGE CTTY COUNCILMEMSERS, VIA FAX # 303.234-5924 Dear Councilmembers: We own a property in Wheat Ridge that contains a billboard, and we are writing to ask for your support in protecting my land use rights as you consider changes to the billboard ordinance. We made the decision - and investment to own land that hosts a billboard; we sought out that property right and we wish to protect it. We understand that some of the billboard companies are claiming that they - as tenants - own or can control those land use rights. They are renters on our property. This is wrong! Please support us, and other landowners, in protecting the land use rights in which we have invested. Please do not turn our rights over to our tenants, os- No. 8914 P. 1 Thank very much, l Dannette and Jack Walker STUDY SESSION NOTES: June 16, 2008 Page -2- --Item 2. Billboard Impact Fee Study - Scope of Work for Consulting Services. Ken Johnstone presented the staff report. He stated that RFP's were sent to 4 potential vendors, but no proposals have been received. He outlined the 6 tasks that had been submitted to the vendors. Karen Berry asked for consensus to move forward with the Billboard Ordinance as outlined last Monday and that we decide not to move forward with an impact fee study. Karen Adams amended the consensus to hold further discussion with Billboard Companies and affected property owners in an open forum. Ms. Berry agrees that discussion at the dais should be held within 30 days. Mrs. Adams wants discussion prior to coming to the dais. Mrs. Adams amendment did not receive consensus. Ms. Berry's consensus was 6 in favor. Item 3. Historic Designation Ordinances. Ken Johnstone presented the staff report as attached to the packet. Discussion involved that the words .."or by a member of city council" be removed from the proposed Ordinance relative to who can apply for a historic landmark designation. There was general agreement that the property owner should be the only person who can submit an application for historic designation or removal of historic designation. There was general consensus that all references to the Wheat Ridge Historical Society be deleted from Section 26. Ms. Berry asked for consensus to have staff modify the draft to remove city council from being able to apply for a historic designation and to look at needed changes to the permit alteration of removal of historic designation section. The ordinance should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for the required public hearing and brought back to Council to a regular meeting for first reading. Consensus was 7 in favor. Study Session adjourned at 7:41 pm. Christa Jones, Deputy , ity Clerk 1 , City of Wheatjdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director DATE: June 16, 2008 SUBJECT: Billboard Impact Fee Study - RFP Update On April 28, City Council directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for a Billboard Impact Fee Study and to bring the RFP along with the proposals received back for their review at a June 16 study session. Staff finalized and sent out the RFP to 4 potential vendors on May 22 and posted on the City's website. In order to allow adequate time for those consultants to respond to the City's solicitation, we extended the submittal deadline to Tuesday, June 10 at 4:00 p.m. through an addendum to the RFP. No proposals have been received. Attachments: RFP 08-025 Addendum to RFP 08-025 (extended submittal deadline) City of eatWdge REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP-08-25 PROPOSAL DUE DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 BY 4:00 PM OUR CLOCK BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY SEALED PROPOSALS MUST BE MAILED OR DELIVERED TO: City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building Attention: Linda Trimble, CPPO, CPPB 7500 W 29P Avenue, Purchasing & Contracting Division Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-235-2811 IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ ENTIRE DOCUMENT Per the attached specifications, terms and conditions. FEIN/SSN (Required) COMPANY ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE FAX AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE This is required. Must be In Ink. TYPED/PRINTED NAME TITLE EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY & ALL ADDENDA. STATE NUMBER OF ADDENDA & INITIAL: Proposer is responsible forfollowing up on all addendums DO YOU ACCEPT VISA? IT IS THE PREFERRED PAYMENT METHOD. DO NOT CONTACT THE REQUESTING DEPARTMENT OR MEMBERS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE. Signature acknowledges that Proposer: has read the bid documents thoroughly before submitting a proposal, will fulfill the obligations in accordance to the scope of work or specifications, terms, and conditions, and is submitting without collusion with any other individual or firm. Do not submit more than one proposal from your firm or both proposals will be disqualified. Submit proposal with authorized signature. POINT OF CONTACT: Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent, Itdmble@ci.wheatddge.co.us or fax 303-234-5924. MUST SUBMIT THIS PAGE (SIGNATURE PAGE) WITH YOUR PROPOSAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE RFP-08-25 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY Protect Overview: The City of Wheat Ridge is considering implementing an impact fee in relation to billboard sign structures located within its jurisdictional boundaries. The intent of the impact fee would be to use the revenue generated to mitigate the negative visual impacts that billboards have on the community. The anticipated start date is July 2008 and the completion date is October 2008. The estimated budget is $10,000 Scone of Services: The Community Development Department is seeking a qualified consultant to research and develop a Billboard Impact Fee Study and to provide a recommendation for the City. Minimum Requirements: Must have or obtain a valid and current City Business/Use Tax license prior to doing business in the City of Wheat Ridge. This service requires compliance with the "Illegal Allen" Provisions of CRS8- 17.5-101. Proposals Due: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 BY 4:00 pm OUR CLOCK Submit to: Municipal Building, Purchasing & Contracting Division Attn: Linda Trimble, CPPO, CPPB 7500 W 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Submit sealed proposals: (1) marked original and (3) copies. Total of (4) complete sets. Late receipt of bids will not be considered regardless of postmark. No oral, phone, or fax responses will be accepted as a sealed proposal. Mark Envelopes: RFP-08-25 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY Comments: All proposals must be sealed and shall be validated. No proposals will be accepted after the due date and time. Proposals received after the due opening time will be filed unopened. The City of Wheat Ridge reserves the right to reject any and all qualifications or any part and to waive any formalities or informalities to make an award in the best interest of the City. RFP Documents: Available on the city website www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Point of Contact: Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent, Itrimble@ci.wheatridge.co.us or fax 303-234-5924 or phone 303-235-2811. Do not contact the requesting department or the evaluation committee. Publish Dates: Posted: 05/22/08 Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent RFP-08-25 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS/SELECTION CRITERIA BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY A. General The City of Wheat Ridge (COWR) Municipal Building is located in the northwest area of Denver metropolitan, 7500 W 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. It has a population of approximately 33,000 and consists of about nine square miles adjacent to the interstate 70 transportation corridor between Denver and the Rocky Mountains. The topography is somewhat unique, with a natural ridge traversing the City. The governing board is comprised of a City Council (eight members), Mayor and City Manager. The COWR has allocated $10,000 for this project. B. Background The City of Wheat Ridge, CO is considering implementing an impact fee in relation to billboard sign structures located within its jurisdictional boundaries. The intent of the impact fee would be to use the revenue generated to mitigate the negative visual impacts that billboards have on the community. C. Objectives The purpose of this RFP is to contract with a qualified consultant to recommend an impact fee structure as a result of research, survey, design workshop and other factors. . II. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following is a general description of the scope of services and project intent. The City is soliciting proposals from qualified consultants to research and develop a Billboard Impact Fee Study. In responding to this solicitation, proposers are allowed to refine the scope of services based on their professional background and experience in doing similar work. Task 1: Research. The consultant will conduct national research for examples of similar impact fees that have been implemented to mitigate the negative visual impacts of billboards or similar private structures. In addition, the research should focus particular attention on the State of Colorado and provide an overview of municipal development impact fees adopted in the past 10 years. The research should summarize the methodology used to quantitatively determine impacts and the manner in which fee revenues have been utilized to mitigate the identified impacts. Task 2: Citizen Survey. The consultant will conduct a mail or phone survey of Wheat Ridge residents and/or property owners to determine the degree to which residents believe billboards impact the visual aesthetics of the City and their perceived image of the City. The survey questions should elicit the community's perceptions regarding billboard advertising within the City, and, to the extent those perceptions are negative, should identify acceptable design mitigation techniques and quantify the costs required to mitigate those perceptions. Task 3: Design Workshop. The consultant will facilitate a design workshop with citizens and design professionals. The intent of the workshop is to implement the design solutions identified as potential mitigation measures in the Citizen Survey. The design workshop should define a range of design solutions that are depicted through sketches and concept drawings included in this project's scope of work, at a level sufficient to develop preliminary cost estimates. Task 4: Cost Estimates. Based on the drawings produced in the design workshop, consultant will develop costs estimates to implement the recommended mitigation measures and for ongoing long term maintenance and replacement of the same. Task 5: Recommended Impact Fee Structure. Based on the cost estimating, consultant will recommend an impact fee structure to apply to existing and future billboard structures within the City of Wheat Ridge. Deliver one hard copy and an electronic version. Task 6: City Council Study Session. In addition to the design workshop described in Task 3, the consultant should include in the budget costs to attend and present to City Council at a study session. In the event additional study sessions or other design workshops are required, the cost estimates for additional events such as those should be included as "add-ons" in the proposed scope of services. III. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Submit to: Provide one marked original and three (3) copies. Total of 4 complete sets. Address: City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building ATTN: Linda Trimble, CPPO, CPPB 7500 W 2e Avenue, Purchasing & Contracting Division Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mark outside of envelope: RFP-08-25 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY DUE DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 BY 4:00 PM OUR CLOCK. FAXES & EMAILS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. B. Evaluation Criteria To simplify the review process and to obtain the maximum degree of comparability, the proposal must follow the outline described below and, at a minimum, contain the required information. Respondents are encouraged to include additional relevant information. Your entire submittal shall not exceed sixty (60) pages. 1) Qualifications and Experience of the Firm (25%) • An overview of your company's history, firm size, number of employees, years in business, location of working office and financial stability • Describe and give examples of your experience doing similar work. • Provide information on current workload and how this project will be accomplished • List a minimum of three (3) current or within the past three (3) years references. Include contact name, firm or agency, phone number or email and a summary of similar scope of work provided. 2) Qualifications and Experience of the Team (25%) • Identify the team and roles • Provide resumes of essential staff assigned to perform services for this project • Describe individual experiences with the City or other government agencies • Include resumes of any sub-consultants and their role. • Provide any unique strengths or experiences 3) Project Approach (25%) • Demonstrate your understanding of the technical requirements. • Detail your approach and timelines • Identify any foreseeable problems in the implementation of the program • Describe how the objectives identified will be achieved 4) Fee Schedule (25%) • Provide a detailed statement of fees. Include cost per task, hourly rates and hours of positions relating to the tasks and reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses should be assumed to be billed at cost, without markup. Rates are negotiable. IV. SELECTION PROCESS The selection process will involve written submittals evaluated and scored. If requested, oral interviews with the highest-ranking firm(s). The City will attempt to negotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm. V. SCHEDULE The following is the anticipated schedule of events for this project Advertisement 05/22/08 RFP Due Date WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 by 4:00 pm, our clock Oral Interviews, if requested June 2008 Negotiation of Contract June 2008 Council Approval, if required June 2008 Start of Work July 2008 Completion Date October 2008 VI. CHECK LIST The following information and forms must be included with your submittal in this order. Did you include: YES NO • Signature Page (page i) _ • Acknowledge Addendum, if any _ • Qualification/Experience of Firm _ • Qualification/Experience of Team • Project Approach • Fee Schedule _ • Illegal Alien Certification Form _ VII. INFORMATION TO PROPOSERS 1. PROPOSAL OPENING AND AWARD Only the names of each proposer will be read at the opening. Proposals will be examined promptly after opening. An abstract will be provided upon request No proposal may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) calendar days of the Proposal Opening date. 2. TAXES The City of Wheat Ridge is exempt from City, County, State and Federal Sates/Excise Taxes. Certificates will be issued upon request. Any appropriate taxes shall be shown as a separate item in your Proposal. 3. PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS No proposal shall be accepted from and no contract will be awarded to any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears to the City of Wheat Ridge, upon debt or contract that is a defaulter, as surety or otherwise, upon any obligation to the City or that is deemed irresponsible or unreliable by the City. If requested, Proposers shall be required to submit satisfactory evidence that they have a practical knowledge of the particular supply/service bid upon and that they have the necessary financial resources to provide the proposed supply/service called for as described in the attached Section IV, Information for Proposals. 4. RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE The City reserves the right to investigate and confirm the proposer's financial responsibility. This may include financial statements, bank references and interviews with past consultants, employees and creditors. Unfavorable responses to these investigations are grounds for rejection of the proposal. 5. NO COMMITMENT BY CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE This Request for Proposals does not commit the City of Wheat Ridge to award any costs or pay any costs, or to award any contract, or to pay any costs associated with or incurred in the preparation of a Proposal to this Request, or to procure or contract for services or supplies. In acceptance of proposals, the City of Wheat Ridge reserves the right to negotiate further with one or more of the contractors as to any features of their proposals and to accept modifications of the work and price when such action will be in the best interest of the City. This includes solicitation of a best and final offer from one or more of the proposers. 6. PROPOSAL REPRESENTATION Each Proposer must sign the proposal with their usual signature and shall give their full business address on the form provided in this Proposal. Proposals by partnerships shall be signed with the partnership name by one of the members or by an authorized representative. Proposals by corporations shall be signed with the name of the corporation followed by the signature and designation of the President, Secretary, or other person authorized to bind it in the matter and shall have the corporate seal affixed thereto. ANTI COLLUSION CLAUSE No officer or employee of the City of Wheat Ridge, and no other public official, or employee, who may exercise any function or responsibilities in the review or approval of this undertaking shall have any personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or negotiation process thereof. The above compliance request will be part of all City of Wheat Ridge contracts for this Service. B. INSURANCE The successful Proposer shall, during the term of this Agreement and until completion thereof, provide and maintain the following types and minimum insurance coverages as follows: Type of Insurance Standard Workers' Compensation & Employers' Liability Including Occupations Disease Coverage Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Comprehensive Automobile Errors and Omissions Minimum Limits of Liability Statutory in conformance with the compensation laws of the State of Colorado $250,000 each person; $1,000,000 each occurrence $250,000 each person; $1,000,000 each occurrence The successful Proposer shall affect the insurance policies in a company or companies and in a form satisfactory to the Owner. Before commencing any performance under this Agreement, successful Proposer shall deliver, to the City, Certificates of Insurance issued by the insurance company, and/or its duly authorized agents pertaining to the aforementioned insurance, and certifying that the policies stipulated above are in full force and effect. All policies and/or Certificates of Insurance shall include each individual entity as an additional named insured, except for Workers Compensation and Auto. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any of the protections to which the Agencies may be entitled pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, sections 24-10-101, C.R.S., as amended. Workers' Compensation Insurance - The contractor shall provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for all persons employed to perform the work to be done under the contract and assure that all workers will receive the compensation for compensable injuries. A copy of the workers compensation policy is required to be submitted to the City as part of this Proposal. Professional Liability Insurance - Evidence of Professional Liability Insurance will be required upon award of the project. 9. PROPOSAL REJECTION OR PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals. The City further reserves the right to waive technicalities, formalities, and informalities, to accept in whole or in part such Proposal where it is deemed- advisable, and to make an award to the most responsive and responsible Proposer as deemed in the best interest of the City. 10. LAWS AND REGULATIONS All applicable State of Colorado and Federal laws, City and County ordinances, licenses and regulations shall apply to the award throughout and herein incorporated here by reference. 11. SUBCONTRACTING No portion of this Proposal may be subcontracted without the prior written approval by the City. 12. SALES PROHIBITED / CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall have a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment, material, supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision-making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be rendered. Soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has or is seeking to do business with the City of Wheat Ridge is prohibited. VIII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT No modification of award shall be binding upon the City unless made in writing and signed by authorized agents of both parties. 2. CANCELLATION Either party may cancel the award in the event that a petition, either voluntary or involuntary, is filed to declare the other party bankrupt or insolvent or in the event that such party makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors. 3. TERMINATION OF AWARD FOR CAUSE If, through any cause, the successful Proposer shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations or if the successful Proposer shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of the award, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate the award by giving written notice to the successful Proposer of such termination and specifying the effective date of termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished services, reports or other materials prepared by the successful Proposer shall, at the option of the Agency, become its property, and the successful Proposer shall be entitled to receive just, equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed, prepared documents or materials as furnished. Notwithstanding the above, the successful Proposer shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damage sustained by the City by virtue of breach of the award by the successful Proposer and the City may withhold any payments to the successful vendor for the purpose of set off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the successful Proposer is determined. 4. TERMINATION OF AWARD FOR CONVENIENCE The City may terminate the award at any time by giving written notice to the successful vendor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) working days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished services, reports, material(s) prepared or furnished by the successful Proposer under the award shall, at the option of the City, become its property. If the award is terminated by the City as provided herein, the successful vendor will be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the services actually performed or material furnished bear to the total services/materials the successful Proposer covered by the award, less payments of compensation previously made. If the award is terminated due to the fault of the successful Proposer, termination of award for cause, relative to termination shall apply. 5. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The successful firm will agree not to refuse to hire, discharge, promote, demote, or to otherwise discriminate in matters of compensation against any person otherwise qualified solely because of race, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry or physical handicap. It shall be a condition that any company, firm or corporation supplying goods or services, must be in compliance with the appropriate areas of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as enacted, and from time to time amended, and any other applicable Federal regulation. A signed, written certificate stating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act may be required, upon request, by the City. 6. COMMON LANGUAGE Unless otherwise specified in this document, all words shall have a common language unless the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning. Words in the singular number include the plural, and in the plural include the singular. Additionally, words in the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter, and when the sense so indicates, words of the neuter gender may refer to any gender. The word "firm/bidder/proposer' means any person, partnership, corporation or other entity. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION The evaluation committee will hold information provided by Proposers during the RFP process in confidence until the date of an award. After that date, proposals will become public record. Proposers may request parts of their proposals to remain confidential and shall indicate in the proposal and on the appropriate proprietary or financial pages. All information included in any Proposal that is of a proprietary nature must be clearly marked as such. The City shall be held harmless from any claims arising from the release of proprietary information not clearly designated as such by the proposing firm. 8. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTEGRITY The Purchasing Office maintains control of its internal and third party communications during the procurement process to prevent biased evaluations and compromises of confidential information and to preserve the competitiveness and integrity of such procurement efforts. Proposers should not disclose their pricing to any employees of the City other than the contact representative. Attempts by proposers to establish informal communication channels regarding this procurement will be viewed negatively and shall result in rejection of the offending firm's offer. 9. PROPOSALFORMAT All responses to this Request For Proposal shall use the respondent's format except for those pages, which have blanks to be filled in by the respondent or those pages marked for return with proposal. A proposal can be rejected by the City, if the firm fails to completely fill in all blanks for evaluation of the proposal or fails to answer all questions. Proposal should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. All proposals shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner as to content; however no necessity exists for expensive binders or promotional material. All costs, including travel and expenses incurred in the preparation of this proposal shall be borne solely by the Proposal. 10. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION: The City Of Wheat Ridge reserves the right to: • reject any and all proposals and to accept other than the low bid • waive minor defects or technicalities regarding the proposals, and • alter the scope of work and RFP documents until a contract is executed. 11. GOVERNING LAW: The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern any contract executed between the successful contractor and the City. Further, the place of performance and transaction of business shall be deemed to be in the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue and place of jurisdiction shall be the State of Colorado, and more specifically, Jefferson County, Colorado. 12. PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNTS: In determining the most responsive priced proposal(s), the City will consider all acceptable proposals on a basis of the net price to be paid after deduction of the discount specified in the respective proposals. Prompt payment discounts allowing less than 10 days for the discount to apply shall not be considered as a cost factor in the evaluation of proposals. In connection with any prompt payment discount offered, time will be computed from date of receipt of a correct invoice to include the receipt and acceptance of performance. 13. OWNERSHIP OF CONTRACT PRODUCTS: All products produced from the awarded contract shall be the sole property of the City. 14. FUNDING There is in effect within the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Section 2-4 of the City's Code of Laws which limits the amount for which the City shall be liable to the amount expressly appropriated by the City Council, either through budgeted appropriation, or contract or bid award. The Contractor is specifically advised of this Section 2-4 of the Code of Laws. This Contract is specifically subject to the provisions of said Code Section. Funding of this contract for any time period after January 1, of the year succeeding the date of entry of this contract is expressly contingent upon appropriations being made by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. No promise, expressed or implied, is made that such funding will be approved by the City Council, acting in its legislative discretion. 15. INDEMNIFICATION: The Consultant agrees to indemnify and to hold the City and its agents harmless for, from and against any and all claims, suits, expenses, damages or other liabilities, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs arising out of damage or injury to persons, entities, or property causes or sustained by any person or persons as a result of the negligent performance or failure of the Consultant to provide services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 16. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The firm is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any provision appearing in this RFP, all personnel assigned by the firm to perform work under the terms of this RFP and any subsequent agreement shall be, and remain at all times, employees or agents of the fine for all purposes. The firm shall make no representation that it is the employee of the City for any purpose. 17. DUE DILIGENCE Due care and diligence has been used in the preparation of this information and it is believed to be substantially correct. However the responsibility for determining the full extent to the exposure and the verification of all information shall rest solely with the proposer. The City is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the specification or for the failure on the part of the proposer in determining the full extent of exposure. 18. SECURITY ACCESS CARDS The City will issue security access cards to assigned workers. It will be the discretion of the City if the access cards are issued specifically for each worker or a guest card may be issued. 19. SAMPLE AGREEMENT: A sample agreement is provided for your review if your firm is awarded. Do not complete nor enclosed with your proposal. It is for information only. 20. COOPERATIVE PURCHASING EFFORT: Other governmental agencies including state agencies, special districts, counties, municipalities and school districts, etc., may be extended the opportunity to purchase off this Bid with the agreement of the successful vendor(s) and the participating MAPO Agencies and the WSCPA Group. Requests for participation of other Agencies and/or Groups will be coordinated by the MAPO Agency hosting this Bid. The Host Agency will notify the vendor(s) and the Agency and/or Group wishing to participate, in writing. Each agency/group desiring to participate shall establish its own contract, issue its own orders, be invoiced and make its own payments and issue its own exemption certficates as required by the Vendor. It is understood and agreed that the City is not a legally binding party to any contractual agreement made between a MAPO or WSCPA member and the Vendor as a result of this solicitation. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, CO CERTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, COMPLIANCE TO HB 1343 The Vendor, whose name and signature appear below, certifies and agrees as follows: 1. The Vendor shall comply with the provisions of CRS 8-17.5-101 at seq. 2. The Vendor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this purchase order or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien. 3. The Vendor represents, warrants, and agrees that it (1) has verified that it does not employ any illegal aliens, through participation in the Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, or (ii) otherwise shall comply with the requirements of CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(b)(I). 4. The Vendor shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If the Vendor fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS 8-17.5-101 at seq., the City may terminate the above referenced purchase order for breach and the Vendor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Wheat Ridge. CERTIFIED and AGREED to this day of BID NUMBER: 200 FIRM: (Print Full Legal Name) Authorized Signature: Print Name: Print Tale: Attestation: (A corporate attestation is required.) BY: Date: Corporate Secretary or Equivalent Place corporate seal here, if applicable VENDOR MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING OFFICE 10 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE RFP-08-25 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY SAMPLE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of JUNE 2008, by and between the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" or "Owner" and EAST, WEST, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WITNESSETH, that the City of Wheat Ridge and the Consultant agree as follows: ARTICLE 1- SERVICES The Consultant shall serve as the City's Consultant and provide as a minimum all of the professional services required as per RFP-08-25 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY, as more fully described in the Request For Proposal (Exhibit 1) and the response of the Consultant to the RFP (Exhibit 11) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ARTICLE 2-TERM The work to be performed under this Agreement shall commence promptly after receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement to the extent that the Consultant has been authorized to proceed by the City. Completion shall be by October 2008. ARTICLE 3 - PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that the City shall pay the Consultant for services provided and the Consultant shall accept a total of TINMAN, $LION or a Not to Exceed amount of TINMAN, $LION as full payment for such services. A. Invoices by Task Invoices will be submitted by the Consultant monthly for tasks performed and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement during the prior month. The processing of payment will be expedited by the Treasurer's Office through proper accounting procedures. Payment will be made to the Consultant within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the approved invoices for services rendered. B. Funding There is in effect within the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, a provision of the City's Code of Laws which limits the amount for which the City shall be liable to the amount expressly appropriated by the City Council, either through budgeted appropriation, or contract or bid award. The contractor is specifically advised of the provisions of this portion of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which was enacted pursuant to Ordinance 787, Series of 1989, and expressly incorporated herein. This contract is specifically subject to the provisions of said Ordinance and adopted Code Section. ARTICLE 4- INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR In performing the work under this Agreement, the Consultant acts as an independent contractor and is solely responsible for necessary and adequate worker's compensation insurance, person injury and property damage insurance, as well as errors and omissions insurance. The Consultant, as an independent contractor, is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on monies earned. The personnel employed by the Consultant are not and shall not become employees, agents or servants of the City because of the performance of any work by this agreement The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than bona fide employees working solely for the Consultant, any commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City will have the right to annul this Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11 ARTICLE 5 - INSURANCE In accordance with Article 4 above, the Consultant shall furnish a certificate of insurance upon notification of award and prior to performance. Work shall not commence under this Agreement until the Consultant has submitted to the City and received approval thereof, a certificate of Insurance showing compliance with the following minimum types and coverages of insurance. Type of Insurance Standard Workers' Compensation & Employers' Liability Including Occupations Disease Coverage Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Comprehensive Automobile Professional Liability (errors and omissions) Minimum Limits of Liability Statutory in conformance with the compensation laws of the State of Colorado $250,000 each person; $1,000,000 each occurrence $250,000 each person; $1,000,000 each occurrence All policies and/or Certificates of Insurance shall include the City of Wheat Ridge as an additional named insured. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any of the protections to, which the Agencies may be entitled pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, sections 24-10-101, C.R.S., as amended. ARTICLE 6 - INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to indemnify and to hold the City and its agents harmless for, from and against any and all claims, suits, expenses, damages or other liabilities, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs arising out of damage or injury to persons, entities, or property causes or sustained by any person or persons as a result of the negligent performance or failure of the Consultant to provide services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE 7 - CHANGE ORDERS OR EXTENSIONS The City may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services of the Consultant to be performed herein. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Consultant's compensation, must be mutually agreed upon in writing by the City and the Consultant. The Consultant shall be compensated for all authorized changes in services, pursuant to the Request for Proposal, or if no provision exists, pursuant to the terms of the Change Order. ARTICLE 8 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Consultant shall adhere to acceptable affirmative action guidelines in selecting employees and shall ensure that employees are treated equally during employment, without regard to their age, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship., The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices provided by the local public agency setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor, provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. ARTICLE 9-CHARTER. LAWS AND ORDINANCES The Consultant at all times during the performance of this Agreement, agrees to strictly adhere to all applicable Federal, State and Local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances that affect or govern the work as contemplated under this Agreement 12 ARTICLE 10-LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern as to the interpretation, validity, and effect of this Agreement. The parties agree that venue and jurisdiction for disputes regarding performance of this contract is with the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado. ARTICLE 11 -TERMINATION The Consultant acknowledges that his failure to accomplish the work as described shall be considered a material breach of the contract and entitle the City to consequential damages resulting from failures, acts, or omissions including but not limited to re-procurement costs, insufficient or improper work. The City and the Consultant agree that this Agreement may be canceled for cause, by either party with a fifteen (15) day prior written notice. The cost of completing the portion of the work which remains unperformed at the time of such termination, shall be deducted from the contract price before payment is made. The City may terminate the Agreement for its convenience upon thirty (30) days written notice. In the event of such termination, the consultant will be paid for all work and expenses incurred up until the time of such termination. All work accomplished by the Consultant prior to the date of such termination, shall be recorded and tangible work documents shall be transferred to and become the sole property of the City, prior to payment for services rendered. ARTICLE 12- NOTICES IN WRITING For the City: Name, Department 7500 W 29 ° Avenue. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone 303- Fax 303- For the Consultant: EAST, WEST Phone 303- Fax 303- ARTICLE 13-ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTORS The duties and obligations of the Consultant arising hereunder cannot be assigned, delegated, nor subcontracted except with the express written consent of the City. The subcontractors permitted by the City shall be subject to the requirements of this Agreement, and the Consultant is responsible for all subcontracting arrangements and the delivery of services as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall be responsible for the performance of any sub-consultant ARTICLE 14 - SEVERABILITY To the extent that the Agreement may be executed and performance of the obligations of the parties may be accomplished within the intent of the Agreement, the terms of this Agreement are severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason, such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof. The waiver of any breach of a term hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, or the same term upon subsequent breach. ARTICLE 15 -INTEGRATION OF UNDERSTANDINGS This Agreement is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force and effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein in writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the City and the Consultant ARTICLE 16 - ILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE ILLEGAL ALIENS - PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES. CRS 8-17.5-101 and Public Law 208, 100 Congress, as amended and expanded in Public Law 156, 108 Congress, as amended: 13 The Contractor certifies that he/she shall comply with the provisions of CRS 8-17.5-101 at seq. The Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien. The Contractor represents, warrants, and agrees that it (1) has verified that it does not employ any illegal aliens, through participation in the Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, or (ii) otherwise will comply with the requirements of CRS 8-17.5-101(2)(b)(I). The Contractor shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation by the CO Department of Labor and Employment, If the Contractor fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS 8-17.5-101 at seq., the City may terminate this contract for breach and the Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City. ARTICLE 17 - AUTHORIZATION Each party represents and warrants that it has the power and ability to enter into this Agreement, to grant the rights granted herein and to perform the duties and obligations described herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in two (2) copies, each of which shall be deemed an original on the day and year first written above. ATTEST: MICHAEL SNOW, CITY CLERK (Seal) OWNER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 (303) 234-5900 JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY (CORPORATE SEAL) ATTEST: TITLE DATE CONSULTANT EAST WEST SIGNATURE TITLE PRINT NAME 14 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ADDENDUM #1 BILLBOARD IMPACT FEE STUDY DATE: MAY 27, 2008 TO: PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS PROPOSALS DUE: TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 BY 4:00 P.M. OUR CLOCK The following information is provided to all prospective offerors and is hereby made apart of the above proposal. Proposers must acknowledge this Addendum with their submittal, a total of one (1) page. CLARIFICATION. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. CHANGES: 1. Extend Proposal Due Date to: TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 BY 4:00 PM 2. There is no public opening. 3. COPIES: Submit a total of 20 complete copies 4. Visit the City website for bid documents, addendum, project updates at www.ci.wheatridge.co.us POINT OF CONTACT: Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent, Itrimble@ci.wheatridge.co.us or fax 303-234-5924 or phone 303-235-2811. Do not contact the user department or evaluation committee. Publish Dates: Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent RMEPS 05/27108 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 9, 2008 4 Motion by Mr. Stites for approval of Consent Agenda Items A, B & D; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Womble to deny Consent Agenda Item 1.C. because Staff was asked to prepare a detailed review of this proposal for Council at a Study Session, but never did so; seconded by Mr. Gokey. Ms. Geyer presented the staff report and highlighted the features proposed for the new City website design in a PowerPoint presentation (attached to this packet). Substitute Motion by Mr. Gokey to approve Consent Agenda Item 1.C.; seconded by Mr. Womble; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Rotola to deny Item 1.E.; seconded by Ms. Berry. Hank Braaksma from the Senior Resource Center spoke in favor of the additional appropriation, citing that these funds would help to off-set increasing fuel costs and to obtain additional federal grant monies. Motion failed 5-3 with Council Members Womble, Berry and Rotola voting Yes. Motion by Mr. Stites to approve Consent Agenda Item 1.E.; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. Mayor DiTullio called for a break at 8:20pm; resuming at 8:29pm. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. Council Bill 02-2008 - An Ordinance Amending Code Of Laws Section 26- 711, Concerning Billboards in the B-2 Billboard District And Repealing Section 26-711.13 (Public hearing continued from 2/25/2008 with new public notice published for the continuation of the public hearing on 4/14/2008. Public hearing continued on 4/14/2008 until 619/2008.) Council Bill 02-2008 was introduced on second reading by Ms. Berry. City Clerk Michael Snow stated that Ordinance No. 1408 had been previously assigned to this Council Bill. Kenneth Johnstone presented the staff report and spoke of Staffs continued work to develop the Billboard Impact Fee program. Motion by Ms. Berry to continue Council Bill 02-2008 until 30 days following the completion of the Billboard Impact Fee Study or 30 days following action by City Council which fails to fund a Billboard Impact Fee study; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 7-1 with Mr. Gokey Voting No. - City of ~WheatRi~ge &M NO: RE UEST FO~(IY COUNCIL ACTION Q I 'J -10 ~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 9, 2008 7 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 02-2008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.11 (Public hearing continued from 2/25/2008 with new public notice published for the continuation of the public hearing on 4/14/2008. Public hearing continued on 4/14/2008 until 6/9/2008.) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-judicial: ❑ YES Pf irector of Commun' y Developme EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ® NO City Managiq The current section of the Zoning Code that regulates billboards is not specific in regards to implementation and permitting processes. The lack of specificity has resulted in a need to develop administrative procedures to deal with instances of billboard vacancies and the procedures for filling those vacancies. The administrative procedures used in the past have been called into legal question in some instances. Upon City Council's direction, the Community Development Department has drafted more specific and defined procedures and regulations, with the intent of alleviating some of the procedural uncertainties. The Zoning Code currently allows a maximum of 16 billboards in the B-2 billboard district. City Staff held a public stakeholders meeting in December to gain input, and has conducted working sessions with industry professionals. The proposed ordinance would increase the number of allowed billboards within the B-2 district from 16 to 18. The ordinance also creates an equitable system to determine who is entitled to erect a billboard in the event of a vacancy. ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (01/28/2008) ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (06/09/2008) COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on January 17, 2008 and recommended approval with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. Add B.l.e which states: "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure". 2. Remove all references to the 10-day window and replace with `application period'. 3. Change the 30-120 day lottery window to a 60-90 day lottery window. 4. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn." Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 feet to 45 feet. 2. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 feet to 500 feet. The first four recommendations were included in the 1" reading ordinance as passed by City Council and published. The fifth and sixth recommendations are not included in the ordinance as currently drafted, and should be discussion items at the City Council public hearing. There were a few attendees at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in reference to the proposed ordinance. While some offered suggestions to the language or development standards proposed, all offered support of the ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The first several paragraphs in this section of the report are repeated from the previous Council Action Form that was part of the February 24th public hearing. This section concludes with a staff summary and response to some of the issues that were raised at the previous public hearing and in subsequent correspondence from the billboard industry representatives. Throughout the billboard permitting and billboard ordinance code rewrite processes, there has perhaps been one primary underlying policy question under discussion: Who `owns' the permit or entitlement? In staff s research, surrounding communities handle permit ownership differently; some attach the ownership to the property owner, others to the permit holder. This issue is somewhat unique in respect to billboards, as the City has chosen to establish a maximum number of allowed billboards, making the ability to erect a billboard a valuable entitlement. The proposed ordinance was crafted with the assumption that the permit would belong to the property owner as is typical for most land use entitlements. When the property owner chooses to relinquish the billboard permit, thereby relinquishing the right to have a billboard, the permit and billboard right would expire. The billboard company who may own the actual billboard structure is able to secure any additional "ownership rights" through the leasehold contractual relationship they have with the property owner. As is typically the case in property issues, the City is not party to nor necessarily aware of the details of those private contractual relationships. As drafted, the advertising company who erects the billboard would not be able to transfer the billboard right to another willing property owner. The intent was that the lottery system would create a fair and equitable environment for all property owners in the B-2 district to have a chance at securing a billboard permit as vacancies become available. During the first reading of the ordinance, City Council adopted certain language amendments, including a section "K", which read: Assignment of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Other first reading language amendments related to additional notification requirements to billboard advertising companies that are party to a permit. Community Development staff reviewed the ls` reading ordinance with the City Attorney's office and we also received comments from some sign industry representatives who have been involved in the code rewrite process. Based on those discussions and clarification on the policy intent with Councilmember Berry, Staff has proposed 2"d reading amendments that relate primarily to changes to Section K. Staff is proposing that Section K be removed and replaced with a new Section K that establishes requirements that all existing billboards be "registered". This will allow staff the ability to more easily notify property owners and billboard structure owners in the event of vacancies, abandonments, etc. Staff is also proposing that the definition of "property" be clarified and that two references to "location" be changed to "property" as defined in the ordinance. Staffs proposed 2nd reading amendments are included in a second version of the proposed ordinance, attached to this Council Action Form, with the proposed changes highlighted. In regards to the transferability of billboard property rights, staff believes that as a matter of general land use law in the City a valid billboard permit or registration is transferable from the existing property owner to a future property owner. It is Staffs belief that property rights, such as valid billboard permits, are automatically transferred upon sale of property and do not need to be assigned to a successor or future property owner. It should also be noted that the primary reason for including the "temporary removal" provisions in the proposed ordinance is to allow a property owner the ability to negotiate a new lease with a new billboard company if they so choose without losing their existing billboard entitlement. So long as the new billboard structure could be installed in compliance with the current zoning and building code requirements and any previously issued billboard permits, that change would be allowable without the City's approval of a new billboard permit through the lottery process. Building permits would be required. To the extent that staff has not captured City Council's intent in addressing the ownership of the billboard property rights, staff would request further discussion and direction at the public hearing. April 14 Staff updates follows: Height. Some members of the industry have requested an increase in the maximum billboard height from 32 to 45 feet. Staff believes that as the height of a billboard increases, the impact on adjacent property owners also increases. We believe it is appropriate to limit billboards to 32 feet and allow future billboard applicants the ability to request variances to that height requirement through the administrative or Board of Adjustment processes. The criteria for reviewing a variance would allow those future applicants to make the types of arguments for a height increase that are being argued in some of the correspondence from the billboard industry. Separation. The Planning Commission recommended and staff concurs that making the spacing or separation requirement consistent with CDOT requirements is logical, and requires a decrease in the minimum spacing from 600 to 500 feet. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Setbacks. Staff understands that the setback requirement proposed may make it difficult for some property owners to identify a permissible location for a billboard on their property. We also believe that the height of a billboard bears a direct relationship on the amount of impact the billboard structure has on adjacent properties and we support the existing setback recommendations. However, we do acknowledge that the intent of the temporary removal section of the proposed ordinance is to allow a replacement in like kind and location. To that end, we would recommend that an existing billboard that is non-conforming as to setbacks could be re-installed in the same location, subject to all of other requirements of this ordinance and applicable building codes and provided the level of non-conformity is not increased. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Lighting. There have been several issues that have come up in relation to different types of lighting technology that might be used to allow for the latest in technology, while preserving the City's desire to limit light spill and light pollution. Three specific technologies and/or installation approaches are worthy of additional discussion. o Downcast vs. Upcast Lighting. The Planning Commission recommended requiring that only downcast lighting be used to illuminate Billboards, which is reflected in the versions of the ordinance before City Council. The intent of that requirement was to address the concern with overly illuminating the night skies. While the intent is appreciated, the sign industry would like the ability to use exterior up-lighting, which they believe can be installed in a less visually obtrusive manner than the down lighting, which must extend several feet out from the billboard structure in order to provide adequate illumination to the billboard. Staff can appreciate this concern and could support allowing up-lighting as an acceptable method of illumination in the ordinance, provided that the up-lighting be fully contained by the sign face and not spill off the edges of the sign face. If Council agrees that up-lighting would be appropriate, staff has provided an additional condition at the conclusion of this report, which could be included in your motion. o Internal Illumination or "Backlighting". At the February 25 public hearing a comment was made that internal illumination or backlighting of signs should also be allowed. This type of technology, while not typical for existing billboards in Wheat Ridge would be similar to the type of lighting used on most ground mounted monument signs that are typical along commercial corridors. While not currently a common approach to illuminating billboards in Wheat Ridge, staff does not believe it to be inappropriate, provided the level of illumination would not be excessive to the point of becoming a lighting nuisance. Staff has included a condition at the end of this report, which could be adopted in City Council's motion of Council desires to allow this type of illumination. o LED Lighting. In previous discussions and correspondence, in particular testimony from Lamar Advertising, an interest in using digital light emitting diode (LED) technology has been expressed. The interest to use this lighting technology has been expressed primarily as a technical means of achieving changeable advertising copy through the technology referred to as Commercial Electronically Variable Message Signs (CEVMS), which are specifically prohibited in current drafts of the ordinance. While staff does not support the variable message signs at this time (see comments in next section), we do not object to the lighting technology itself, which can result in high quality images with illumination levels that adjust to variable ambient lighting conditions. If Council wishes to allow the LED digital lighting technology, staff has included at the end of this report a recommended condition that could be added to a City Council motion, which would allow digital LED lighting. Changeable Copy. The City allows changeable copy on non billboard signs in the community, provided the copy does not change more frequently than every 15 seconds. However, changeable copy on billboards, which are oriented toward a highway driver operating at significantly higher speeds, raises the potential for additional traffic safety concerns. At the previous public hearing some members of the billboard industry requested that this issue be reconsidered. City staff has reviewed two traffic analyses provided by the sign industry and we have also obtained a Maryland State Highway Commission Traffic Study that reviews and is critical of the findings of the studies that have been commission by the sign industry. Based on the information available, staff does not believe the potential for traffic safety concerns has been sufficiently alleviated for us to be able to support changeable copy on billboard signs. As a side note, we are aware that the Federal Highway Administration is considering commissioning a study on this issue, the results of which might establish a federal standard. Correspondence from Daniel M. Scherer. The basic issue Mr. Scherer raises in his letter is the notion that the ordinance is currently structured to give the property owner greater rights of ownership of the billboard entitlement than the billboard structure owner. He is correct. This was discussed in the Council Action Form for the 2/25/08 public hearing and repeated in a previous paragraph of this report. He is also correct in his review of the intent of the temporary removal provisions, which allow a property owner time to negotiate with and have a new billboard company install a new billboard under an existing billboard entitlement. His requested solution would allow a billboard structure owner the right to notify the City of an intent to abandon an existing billboard, thereby taking the billboard right away from the property owner and triggering a Billboard Vacancy and a subsequent open permit application process. Staff believes it is important to point out that this could then have an equal effect of taking the majority of a property owner's rights away, as a billboard structure owner would have significantly less incentive to negotiate in good faith with an existing billboard property owner if they had the leverage to declare the site abandoned and create a vacancy that they could apply to fill on another property. Staff does not disagree with the technical approach that Mr. Scherer has proposed to achieve their stated intent, but wanted to call attention to the policy implications of making that change, for City Council to consider. June 9 Staff updates follows: At the April 14 City Council meeting, the public hearing was continued without discussion. In the intervening time, City Council also gave staff direction to develop a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services to conduct a Billboard Impact Fee Study, in an amount not to exceed $10,000. That RFP is currently out for bid and the responses to that solicitation will be presented to City Council at the June 16th Study Session. Consideration of conducting such a study would be done in anticipation of considering a Billboard Impact Fee Ordinance. Such an ordinance has not yet been drafted, pending the recommendations that would come from the study. Since publishing for the initial February 25 public hearing, the following correspondences have been submitted regarding the ordinance: 1. A 5/20/08 correspondence from Mr. Robert J. Vermillion, a property owner in the B-2 zoning district. 2. An 4/28/09 correspondence from Mr. Mark W. Giordano, with United Advertising. 3. An undated letter received 4/2/08 from Mr. Daniel M. Scherer with CBS Outdoor. 4. A 2/27/08 correspondence from Chip Roehrig with Lamar Advertising. 5. A 2/20/08 correspondence from Richard P. Holme, representing CBS, Lamar and Mile High Outdoor. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance lays the groundwork for an administrative fee system for billboards. All new billboards would be subject to an application fee and inspection fee. An annual registration fee could also be established if City Council recommends. Additional legislation has been discussed to establish an impact fee, but that is not part of this current ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: OPTION `A' If Council desires to approve the Ordinance as published on 1" reading: "I move to adopt Council Bill No.02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." or OPTION V If Council desires to include staff recommended changes on 2nd reading: "I move to amend Council Bill No. 02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication, with the following second reading amendments: 1. Delete Section K, to be replaced with a new Section K reading as follows: "Registration of Billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form'; 2. Add a definition for "property", reading: "Property. For the purpose of this section a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)"; 3. Change all references in the ordinance to the word "location" to the word "property"; and 4. Add a section B. Le to the ordinance, reading: "failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008." The following additional recommended second reading amendments are based on the staff recommendations in the updated information provided for this meeting. These would be additional conditions. 5. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 to 45 feet. 6. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 to 500 feet. 7. Section 711-A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow exterior up-lighting of a billboard, provided no light spills off of the sign face. 8. Section 711-A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow interior illumination of signs (backlighting). 9. Section 71 LA.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow digital LED lighting provided it is not used to achieve animation or any type of changeable copy. Copy shall be allowed to change up to once daily. OPTION `C' If City Council wishes to adopt some or all of the conditions listed in Option `13% but determines a need to review a new version of the ordinance reflecting said conditions: "I move to direct staff to amend Council Bill No. 02-2008, case number ZOA07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, to reflect conditions as written in the Council Action Form and to bring back the ordinance for final action at the City Council meeting." Report prepared by: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Report reviewed by: Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 02-2008 (as passed on 1st reading and published) 2. Council Bill No. 02-2008 (with staff recommended 2"d reading amendments as previously presented at the February 25 and April 14 City Council meetings) 3. The 5 correspondence noted in the text of the Council Action Form. ST CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sec. and 29-20-101 et seq. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Cade of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental: and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.B, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTACHMENT 1 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided into twe (2` billboard distriets, B 1 and -B 2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billbeard structures are allowed in the eity, as pfeAded by this section; provided, that aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. oR.e,e located. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (L& 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. providedhat nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. it. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. 11 district Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if. a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, d. Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or C. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 3. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than nine (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no complete applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et seq., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in 5 subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K Assienment of billboard hermit A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paving applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. e Deleted: -insert amended fig. 26- Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. nl."¶ Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28d' day of January. 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: STAFF PROPOSED 2ND READING EDITS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et M. and 29-20-101 et M. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. 1 ATTAM4MFNT 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Property. For the purpose of this section, a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN). Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, and m-2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billbeard struetufes are allowed in the eity, as pwAded by this seetion; provided, -'~aat aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, 2 relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. when d. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. p-^°'at rsNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. B . On and after ,,anu.y 1 1996, billboards . fohb:ted in the D B-1 distriet. Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if. 3 a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or d. failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008. 2. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 3. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 4. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as deemed herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. If the number of legally permitted or registered billboards falls below the maximum number allowed as established in subsection A.3, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in 4 the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, or if none of the submitted applications meet the minimum requirements of subsection E, the vacancy shall remain. In this instance, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sec l., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications, If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location property within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single loeation property are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K. Assignment of billboardpetwift; A eur-r-ent and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a r, as owner of the property where the billboard is loeated or- of the leasehold of the billboard, subjeet to filing sueh appheation as the Community Development Direetor may require and payin applieable fees. The assignment shall be neeemplished by filing and shall no require approval Registration of billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration' form.. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 281h day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 25a` day of February, 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. . Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: ® L.AKEMONT center May 20, 2008 r. Ken Johns`one Community Development 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: NEW BILLBOARD ORDINANCE Dear Ken Johnstone: i506 Having a 20 year billboard lease that is coming due in a few years, I wish to express my very strong support for the City's current revised ordinance which allows the land owner control of the permit in accommodating future develop- ment. I have discussed this issue with Travis Crane.and have written as well related to this need. Would appreciate your review. In my last letter, I stated that the B-2 Billboard Zoned area would experience the greatest growth resulting from Cabela's development after visiting the new Cabel'a's store in Lehi, Utah`:in confirming their five million visitors the first.year. The Planning Director in Lehi stated new development was occurring within a four mile radius to include 2 new hotels .and 26 restaurant sites in front of Cabela's. This did sound exaggerated, until visiting the Pro-Bass facility off I-70 and Quebec. I've waited many years, "as have others within the B-2 Zone," for area growth to support bank funding for my project. The new development on my site may cause removal, relocation, and or the request for a second billboard to fund the State lease constructionjand maintenance of the eight foot walkway around our lake required by the City's approved plat on L&' State Highway land along with the appropriate landscaping. It's quite possible new development around the Cabela's project will increase the City's tax base several fold with well planned growth and quality access. Sincerely, 632 GOLD BUN ROAD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 TELEPHONE: 303-442-7111 FAX: 303-546-9380 ATTACHMENT 3 a Ir" UNITED ADVERTISING CORPORATION April 28, 2008 Wheat Ridge City Council 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge CO 80033 Dear Council Members: edJ It is with great urgency that I am writing you regarding the proposed revisions to Wheat Ridge's billboard ordinance. As you are aware, City Council, City staff and industry representatives have spent countless hours over the last 18 months working to craft these proposed revisions that reflect the compromises achieved by all parties involved. The single most important element of the revisions - and the very premise of the Ordinance - is the protection of the rights of Wheat Ridge property owners and their right to make an allowed use of their property, and to benefit from competition. This protection of property owners' rights is now under attack by one of the very parties who participated in all of the meetings and agreed to all of the revisions. I am writing to urge you to protect property owners' rights by passing the revised billboard Ordinance without changing the wording to the detriment of property owners. On April 11, 2008, an undated letter was sent to you over the signature of CBS Outdoor General Manager Daniel Scherer, urging you to further amend the previously agreed upon Ordinance changes so as to give billboard companies the power to declare an abandonment of the property owner's right to have a billboard on the property. This letter was filled with gross inaccuracies and overtly misleading statements - all in an effort to confuse you and to un-do 18 months of inclusive, transparent work by all of the stakeholders in this matter. I am extremely disappointed that one of my colleagues and competitors has resorted to such tactics in an attempt to take vested land use rights from citizen property owners. 1 own United Advertising Corporation. Over the last 18 years, I have worked for, or owned, billboard companies operating in Wheat Ridge. The City has always fostered competition, while protecting the land use rights of its property owners. Up until CBS' legal assault on the City starting in 2005, small billboard companies enjoyed competing in Wheat Ridge. In fact, five of the six most recent billboards in Wheat Ridge were developed and erected by small billboard companies. Now, CBS - largely through its attorney Richard Holme -seeks to stifle billboard competition and to steal part, or all, of a land use right so that the property owner cannot competitively bid his property. Denver Chicago Los Angeles New Jersey New York Page 2 CBS' letter-which by all appearances was likely written by their attorney, Mr. Holme -goes so far as to state that their newly proposed Ordinance wording "would give the billboard owner the equal right with the property owner." This would, in effect, prohibit a landowner from canceling a contract with a billboard company tenant and putting their permitted site out for competitive bid. Under CBS and Mr. Holmes' suggestion, these landowners would be forced back into the lottery system and risk losing their current City-permitted income. This notion is absolutely ludicrous! And, it is direct conflict with the most basic intention and wording of both the original Ordinance and the revised Ordinance as presented to Council on February 25, 2008. Why would City Council change their policy of the last 15 years when you are attempting to codify it? Why would City Council take away land use rights from a property owner? Why would City Council interfere in a private negotiation? Why would City Council force a property owner to work-with only one company or risk losing valuable income from his property? Adding to the outrageous content of the CBS/Holme letter is the very nature with which it was submitted beyond the 11`" hour. Mr. Holme had participated in all of the work sessions and was completely aware of the recommended changes- including the "temporary removal" provisions that were proposed in January. In fact, Mr. Holme was present at a January 14, 2008 meeting with Travis Crane, Ken Johnstone, and Gerry Dahl, during which the intent of "temporary removal" was described by staff in detail - and Mr. Holme agreed. The changes suggested in the CBS/Holme letter are not in line with the intent expressed by Council, the Mayor and staff. These changes will hurt your property owners and shut down a presently competitive marketplace. These changes do not benefit the City of Wheat Ridge and, in fact, will likely lead to further litigation for the City. Please don't let this happen. Again, I urge you to protect property owners' rights by passing the revised billboard Ordinance without changing the wording to the detriment of property owners. It would be my pleasure to discuss this letter and all of the facts surrounding the CBS/Holme letter with you. I hope that we can meet individually in the very near future. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark W. Giordano President Denver Chicago Los Angeles New Jersey New York Page 3 cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Randy Young Kenneth Johnstopep Gerald Dahl, Esq. Jerry DiTullio Patrick Goff Janice Smothers Frank Bullock Steven Richards Richard P. Holme, Esq. Russell and Janice Anderson Copper Fields Land Holdings LLC/Cheryl Wise Jack and Berneice Major Thomas and Isabel Abbott Mariann Major David Stefanich Triad Real Estate/Ted Redling Wheat Ridge Industrial Park LLC/Steve Peckar MJB Motels LLC Daniel Dearing National Advertising Company Lake Front Partners/Robert Vermillion Public Storage Euro Partnership VII LLC 12505 W 44th Ave LLC/Hari Sachs 4800 Ward Road LLC Jack and Dannette Walker Denver Chicago Los Angeles Newlersey New York CBS OUTDOOR Dear Council Member: received a,1~11y The three major billboard companies in Wheat Ridge have concluded that they must raise a serious objection they have to one part of the proposed amendments to the Wheat Ridge Sign Code (Council Bill No. 02-2008; Ordinance No. 1408). As you will recall, because of the 1992 amendments to the Sign code, the billboard companies had to remove existing signs in Wheat Ridge without compensation and had to spend their own money to replace the billboards in the new billboard area along the interstate highways. Ever since, they have paid the permit fees and all operating costs. Recently, land owners have claimed that although they have made no investment of their own in the billboards, they should be the sole owners of any right to determine where new billboards could be located. In an effort to strike a balance between the competing claims, it was our understanding that the Council approved the concept of opening up the permitting process so that if any billboard were removed, all landowners in the B-2 Zone, including the owner of the property on which the recently removed billboard was located, would have the right to negotiate with all billboard companies and to compete in a fair lottery for the new, replacement billboard. Nonetheless, it now appears that the proposed ordinance destroys this balance and the fair and open opportunity to compete for new locations. This seems to have been done by the new and innocent sounding concept of "temporary removal." Most of us probably assumed that temporary removal is designed to give the landowner the right to take down a billboard in order to develop the land under or next to the present billboard location while protecting the landowner from losing the remainder of his lease revenue. However, protecting the landowner who is developing its property is not part of the temporary removal provision. In short, it appears that a landowner can obtain a "temporary removal" of an existing billboard simply in order to negotiate a new lease with another company. Thus, the landowner can prevent all other Wheat Ridge landowners from the chance to participate in an open lottery and deprive them of any fair chance to receive the revenues from the new billboard. Because temporary removal as stated in the proposed ordinance completely upsets the entire basis for the compromise that caused the billboard companies to agree to a fair and open lottery in place of further litigation, the companies feel this issue must be addressed or they must oppose the entire ordinance. There is an easy solution that re-levels the playing field for everyone in the City. That is to simply add the words `or billboard" between "property" and "owner" in section § 26-711.B.1.c. This would give the billboard owner the equal right with the property owner to abandon a billboard, which would open up a replacement location to the notice and lottery process. With this simple addition, this section would state: "A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if:... The property or billboard owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to 4647 LEYDEN STREET, DENVER, CO 80216 - (303) 333-5400 - FAX (303) 322-6520 - CBSOUTDOOR.COM *CBS OUTDOOR abandonthe billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure." Alternatively, the provisions relating to temporary removal could be modified by adding requirements that temporary removal be allowed only where necessary for permitted development of the landowner's property under circumstances such as those stated above. We would be happy to work with you to reach a solution that will be fair to all Wheat Ridge residents. We would also like to request that any hearing on a revised ordinance be delayed until after May 15, 2008 so that Richard Holme, our attorney and the person most knowledgeable about the Wheat Ridge sign code situation can attend and provide his insight and input. At the last public hearing, the council asked the Community Development Department to report back with a revised ordinance in 60 days. That time will expire in mid-April. There is not, as far as we know, any deadline or pressure that the final hearing occur at exactly that time. Unfortunately, Mr. Holme has several days of day-long meetings and is going on a long-planned family reunion trip during that time. Specifically, he is unavailable from April 11 to May 14. There is simply no one else who can fill in for him during his absence, and we would be most grateful if the council could await his return and input. Thank you for consideration of this letter. Sincerely Daniel M. Scherer General Manager, CBS Outdoor, Inc. Also on behalf of Mile High Outdoor and Lamar Advertising cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Kenneth Johnstone Gerald Dahl, Esq. Frank Bullock Steven Richards Richard P. Holme, Esq. 4647 LEYDEN STREET, DENVER, CO 80216- (303) 333-5400- FAX (303) 322-6520- CBSOU rDOOR.COM L,4 February 27, 2008 Mayor, Council Members and Staff, On behalf of Lamar I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on Council Bill 02-2008 at Monday's City Council meeting. I know that this bill as gone through many revisions and has been the subject of a lot of discussion. With this in mind I will only comment on Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) or Digital Displays. I left informational packets with Michael Snow to distribute to you after the Council Meeting on the 25th. These packets include a DVD explaining Digital Displays, a summary of a recent safety study in Cleveland, as well as some recent articles explaining their use as a public service medium. Lamar currently operates over 600 Digital Displays across the country including 3 in Colorado Springs. These displays allow Lamar and its advertisers to utilize the latest technology in displaying their messages. The displays utilize LED technology similar to what is used in modem televisions. The use of these displays in outdoor advertising has often been misunderstood. The signs do not flash or blink and are never animated. It is only a new way to change copy more frequently allowing Lamar to work quickly with law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of emergencies or current Amber Alerts. The displays can be changed within minutes to post emergency information. They also allow Lamar to set aside spots for use in promoting community events. They can be used creatively to show election results, welcome new businesses and promote events such as your annual Carnation Festival. Obviously Lamar has a business interest in this as well. Digital Displays let our customers change their message quickly to reflect current sales and special promotions. They let us provide outdoor advertising to more customers and increase our revenue without building new signs. The safety study which was recently completed in Cleveland showed no increase in car accidents due to the use of digital billboards (CEVMS). The study was conducted on a belt highway surrounding greater Cleveland on which Digital Displays were prevalent. It used public records on accidents on the beltway for a period of 18 months before the boards were installed and 18 months after. The study found that there was no increase in traffic accidents in the presence of these signs. The State of Colorado currently allows these signs with message changes allowed every four seconds. Lamar typically uses a model where the message changes every six seconds. You will notice in the pictures that I have included in your packets that converting these signs improve the appearance of the signs. There is no external light source and the catwalks are no longer needed. One of the pictures shows a sign where one face was converted to digital and the other was not. The digital face is much cleaner looking and improves the overall appearance. This new technology puts off the same amount of light as a lighted billboard. The displays are designed to automatically dim based on the ambient light conditions. When the sun sets they dim and they also dim when it is cloudy or a thunderstorm blows through. Lamar and the broader industry have no interest in converting all of our signs to use this technology. It is very expensive to convert a billboard for this use. Our desire is to convert a small portion of our signs which could work in a network surrounding Greater Denver. A sign in Wheat Ridge would be an important link in this network. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss how allowing use of these displays would be beneficial to Wheat Ridge. The original intent of this ordinance was to address permitting issues. It does not seem necessary to address CEVMS in Council Bill 02- 2008. Sincerely, Chip Roehrig Lamar-Denver Davis Graham &StubbS LLP February 20, 2008 Re: Council Bill 02-2008 - Amendment to Billboard Code Dear Council Member: The major outdoor advertising companies doing business in Wheat Ridge, CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and Mile High Outdoor, want to make the following comments and suggestions to the proposed ordinance that amends the existing Sign Code. (Although we do not speak on behalf of United Advertising, we do not believe that it will object to the suggestions we discuss below.) Because of time constraints during the public hearing on February 25, we thought it would be clearer and easier to understand our suggestions if we provided them to you in advance of the public hearing. (We assume that this letter will be made publicly available as well.) First, notwithstanding the position of the Community Development Department, it is our view that this entire ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. In the 16 years since the Wheat Ridge billboard code was adopted, there has been exactly one problem. Even in that one, the courts have upheld virtually all of the CDD's interpretations of the code. This proposed ordinance adds pages of detailed governmental regulation at a time when most citizens wish their government to engage in less regulation and attendant expense. Having said that, and because it appears that this Council is planning on proceeding anyway, we want to say that we sincerely appreciate the CDD's willingness to accept input and language suggestions that at least have reduced the number of potential regulatory nightmares and increased clarity of the proposed ordinance to the extent it must be adopted. There are a number of policy determinations that are incorporated within the ordinance, most of which remain from a 16-year-old code and a number of which we believe are outdated and inconsistent with regulations in surrounding counties and established by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Our major suggestions and issues are as follows: 1. Section 711.A.9 should be amended to increase the maximum height of billboards from 32 to 45 feet. Virtually all billboards in Wheat Ridge are along the interstate highways. Denver allows such billboards to be 45 feet high. CDOT does not regulate height. Many of Wheat Ridge's existing billboards are partially blocked or obscured by sound walls, buildings or other on- premise signs. Conversely, many of them block or obscure on-premise signs, to the detriment of Richard P. Holme.303 892 7340. richard.holme@dgslaw4om -Cycyrnlre!..I1 (ur. 'if I),n,wl CT .ado £,0'0 i350; 9400 (az 30 K-!3 !.l.>`~• 829544 www.dgslaw.com February 20, 2008 Page 2 those business owners. Allowing greater height may well make it easier for motorists to read both on-premise and billboard signs more quickly and with less distraction. 2. Section 711.A.10 should be amended to decrease minimum spacing between billboards from 600 feet to 500 feet. CDOT regulations require only a 500-foot spacing, as does Denver. A 500-foot spacing would potentially make more landowners eligible to compete for and obtain new billboards and the resulting income. There appears to be no empirical reason requiring that the 600-foot spacing requirement remain unchanged. 3. Section 711.A.8 should be amended to remove the side-lot setback requirement that a billboard be set back a distance equal to its height. First, this requirement will prohibit a number of prospective landowners from being able to compete for and obtain permits. Second, although the ordinance claims to allow existing billboard owners temporarily to remove and then replace or relocate billboards on their property, the requirement of § 711.C that any replacement billboard must comply with all the standards of this ordinance will make the possibility of relocating a billboard on an owner's property largely illusory. Many existing signs could not be rebuilt in compliance with the side-lot setback requirement of the new ordinance. If this Council believes there is justification to limit the ability of new landowners to have access to billboard lease revenue, we at least suggest that when a temporarily removed billboard is replaced, the ordinance require only that that the new billboard not increase the previous billboard's non-conformity. 4. Section 711.A.12 should be amended to delete the word "downcast." This provision will require all new billboards to have light stanchions extending out over the top of the sign in a "T" configuration. Some older council members may recall that such lighting was normal in the first half of the 20a` Century, but was abandoned (and outlawed) because it was so "ugly." Furthermore, the requirement that lighting be downcast may prohibit "back-lit" billboards, a new technology that casts even less ambient light than the existing lights and is easier to read and more pleasing to the eye. 5. Section 711.A.13 prohibiting "CEVMS" should be tabled for reconsideration. There is no apparent reason for banning at this time the newest technology available for outdoor advertising. The Colorado Roadside Advertising Act specifically authorizes the use of these signs, only limiting the frequency of message changes to not less than 4 seconds per message. Wheat Ridge itself specifically allows on-premise signs of this type, only limiting the February 20, 2008 Page 3 frequency of message changes to not less than 15 seconds per message. These signs are not "animated" or "flashing, blinking or moving." The method of changing messages is most closely analogized to a Power Point presentation or a slide show. The intensity of lighting is normally reduced during the darker times of the day and at night. Other communities have found these signs indispensable for things such as Amber Alerts, traffic warnings, severe weather alerts, and other community-oriented messages. There is absolutely no evidence that changeable messages adversely impact traffic safety. Indeed, a major traffic study established that these signs have no impact on traffic accidents or safety. At the very least, the Council should undertake further study of this issue before enacting a permanent, total prohibition, without regard to the possibility of appropriate limitations on their use as well as their potential benefits. Of course, we will be happy to answer any questions and provide any additional information before or during the February 25, 2008 public hearing on this measure. Sincerely, Richard P. Holme for CBS Outdoor, Inc. Lamar Advertising Company Mile High Outdoor cc: All Wheat Ridge City Council Members Clerk, Wheat Ridge City Council Travis Crane Kenneth Johnstone Gerald Dahl, Esq. Daniel M. Scherer Frank Bullock Steven Richards Mark Giordano Ronald L. Fano, Esq. Page 1 of 4 Kenneth Johnstone From: Holme, Richard [Richard.Holme@dgslaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:36 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Ronald L. Fano Cc: Kenneth Johnstone; Scherer, Dan; Posy, David H Subject: Wheat Ridge Billboard Permit drawing Gerry: As long as Ron believes that CBS's objections to the Copper Fields application will be mooted when United withdraws its application from the drawing, I assume he also believes that any issues with the original CBS application have been similarly mooted by the subsequent completion of the signatures on CBS's lease, submission of additional copies of the engineering drawings and testimony of the Walkers that they had a completed lease agreement with CBS before CBS filed its original application. Dick Richard P. Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 892-7340 Fax: (303) 893-1379 richard,holme dgslaw com / httr://dnslaw.com This E-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:38 AM To: Holme, Richard; Gerald Dahl Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 Gerry--just to close the loop here, we disagree with Dick's assessment as to the validity of Copper Fields application. Dick made this same argument to the trial court. The court did not see fit to throw out Copper Field's application and the City, upon doing the substantive review determined that the application was valid and met all criteria. The Court of Appeals certainly did not determine that there was anything defective with Copper Fields application. Indeed, it only determined that having two applications for one site while CBS only had one was unreasonable. Once United's application is withdrawn from the process, Dick's arguments become moot anyway. So, we believe the original CBS application and the original Copper Fields application can be put in the new lottery and that the ordinance as it existed (and presumably still exists) should govern. On the topic of the ordinance, is June 9 still the date on which the amendments will be taken up? Ron 5/28/2008 Page 2 of 4 From: Holme, Richard [mailto:Richard.Holme@dgslaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:42 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Ronald L. Fano Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 Gerry: On behalf of CBS Outdoor, I offer the following comments: (1) as to original applications or new ones (nunc pro tune to 1212/05), we suggest the City accept new ones from both parties. Although I believe the Court of Appeals effectively dealt with the alleged shortcomings of CBS's application, Copper Fields' original application was also fatally defective when filed because, at the time it was filed, Copper Fields had sold (leased) the "exclusive right" to construct any billboard on its property to 4 different entities all related to United or Mr. Giordano. As far as we know, those exclusive rights still belong to those companies. Presumptively, Copper Fields would want to submit terminations of those leases signed by Mr. Giordano's companies so that there is no question as to Copper Fields' right to construct (or contract for the construction of) a billboard, if it wins the new drawing. But if the City is going to be protected on this issue, it would seem appropriate to allow both parties the opportunity to clean up their applications. Ten days should be more than enough time to accomplish this. (2) as to what rules apply, CBS agrees that the ordinances applicable December 2, 2005 are appropriate. As to the "rules and policies" those, too, should be those the rules and policies that were generally published or at least provided in advance to both Copper Fields and CBS. Dick Richard P. Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 892-7340 Fax: (303) 893-1379 r chard.holmelo~dpslaw com / http://d-gslaw.com This E-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Richard P. Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 892-7340 Fax: (303) 893-1379 rtchard.holme@dgslaw.com / http:((dgslaw.com. This E-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:49 AM To: Ronald L. Fano; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 5/28/2008 Page 3 of 4 By copy of this message to all I am asking Ken Johnstone what he thinks about the points Ron makes: • Applications as originally submitted? Seems fair to me. • Rules and policies in place at that time? While I would not agree that the Court of Appeals' decision "froze" the then-current state of the City's billboard regulations, the fact is that they have not been amended since that time. The ordinance doing so is still in second reading, as we all know. Let me have your collective thoughts. Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. - From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@g rimshawharring.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:11 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 Gerry, We would probably have to see a draft of the motion before saying whether we would stipulate. It would be our position that the new drawing to be held would have to be based on the applications as submitted originally (i.e. new applications for the two sites at issue would not be allowed), and the rules/policies and ordinances in place at the time of the originally drawing would govern. So, it would be the application of CBS as submitted on the Kipling site in the drawing, along with the application of Copper Fields on the Marshall Street site as submitted. Given the ruling of the Court of Appeals we would withdraw the United Advertising application from consideration. As a procedural matter, I don't know if Judge Oeffler will have jurisdiction until the mandate is issued/returned from the Court of Appeals. If she doesn't, we probably would want to hold off filing any motion until the mandate issues. That doesn't mean it can't be drafted and approved by all involved. Given my stated reservations and my current oppressive work load, I would prefer not to take the laboring oar on the drafting should you 5/28/2008 Page 4 of 4 deem us all to be in close enough agreement to warrant such exercise. Ron From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:14 PM To: Ronald L. Fano; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: 08-CV -29 Gentlemen, In light of the Supreme Court's May 12 denial of the petition for cert, it looks to me as if it is time to submit a stipulated motion to the district Judge asking her to order a new drawing to take place. It is the City's view that the parties in that drawing would be one entry for each of the two properties that were in the first drawing, whether that be in the form of the property owner or a billboard company with an interest (lease) in the property. Please respond with your thoughts, including whether one of you will draft the motion. If not, I will. Regards. Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister 8s Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain nation belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally eged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any hments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in , please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the ial message without making a copy. Thank you. 5/28/2008 Schedule for submitting proposals for Billboard Impact Fee Study May 21 - Mail (e-mail) request f6r proposal and scope of work to list of vendors June 4 - Deadline for consultant submittal of proposal June 4-6 - Review consultant proposals June 9 - Finalize City Council packet with recommended consultant proposal June 16 - City Council Session to review consultant proposals Page 1 of 4 Kenneth Johnstone From: Gerald Dahl [gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:20 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: FW: 08-CV -29 Actually I think that Holme makes a good point about allowing the parties to clean up applications; they both have some defects. Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister 8v Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. - From: Holme, Richard [mailto:Richard. Holme@dgslaw.coml Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:42 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Ronald L. Fano Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 Gerry: On behalf of CBS Outdoor, I offer the following comments: (1) as to original applications or new ones (none pro tune to 12/2/05), we suggest the City accept new ones from both parties. Although I believe the Court of Appeals effectively dealt with the alleged shortcomings of CBS's application, Copper Fields' original application was also fatally defective when filed because, at the time it was filed, Copper Fields had sold (leased) the "exclusive right" to construct any billboard on its property to 4 different entities all related to United or Mr. Giordano. As far as we know, those exclusive rights still belong to those companies. Presumptively, Copper Fields would want to submit terminations of those leases signed by Mr. Giordano's companies so that there is no question as to Copper Fields' right to construct (or contract for the construction of) a billboard, if it wins the new drawing. But if the City is going to be protected on this issue, it would seem appropriate to allow both parties the opportunity to clean up their applications. Ten days should be more than enough time to accomplish this. (2) as to what rules apply, CBS agrees that the ordinances applicable December 2, 2005 are appropriate. As to 5/23/2008 Page 2 of 4 the "rules and policies" those, too, should be those the rules and policies that were generally published or at least provided in advance to both Copper Fields and CBS. Dick Richard P. Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 892-7340 Fax: (303) 893-1379 richard holme(a_dgslav cpm / http://dgslaw.com This E-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Richard P. Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 892-7340 Fax: (303) 893-1379 ric1-2.td:ho1me @dgalaw.com / http://dgslaw.com This E-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:49 AM To: Ronald L. Fano; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 By copy of this message to all I am asking Ken Johnstone what he thinks about the points Ron makes: . Applications as originally submitted? Seems fair to me. o Rules and policies in place at that time? While I would not agree that the Court of Appeals' decision "froze" the then-current state of the City's billboard regulations, the fact is that they have not been amended since that time. The ordinance doing so is still in second reading, as we all know. Let me have your collective thoughts. Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 5/23/2008 Page 3 of 4 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Ronald L. Faro [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:11 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 08-CV -29 Gerry, We would probably have to see a draft of the motion before saying whether we would stipulate. It would be our position that the new drawing to be held would have to be based on the applications as submitted originally (i.e. new applications for the two sites at issue would not be allowed), and the rules/policies and ordinances in place at the time of the originally drawing would govern. So, it would be the application of CBS as submitted on the Kipling site in the drawing, along with the application of Copper Fields on the Marshall Street site as submitted. Given the ruling of the Court of Appeals we would withdraw the United Advertising application from consideration. As a procedural matter, I don't know if Judge Oeffler will have jurisdiction until the mandate is issued/returned from the Court of Appeals. If she doesn't, we probably would want to hold off filing any motion until the mandate issues. That doesn't mean it can't be drafted and approved by all involved. Given my stated reservations and my current oppressive work load, I would prefer not to take the laboring oar on the drafting should you deem us all to be in close enough agreement to warrant such exercise. Ron - From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:14 PM To: Ronald L. Fano; Holme, Richard Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: 08-CV -29 Gentlemen, In light of the Supreme Court's May 12 denial of the petition for cert, it looks to me as if it is time to submit a stipulated motion to the district Judge asking her to order a new drawing to take place. It is the City's view that the parties in that drawing would be one entry for each of the two properties that were in the first drawing, whether that be in the form of the property owner or a billboard company with an interest (lease) in the property. Please respond with your thoughts, including whether one of you will draft the motion. If not, I will Regards. 5/23/2008 Page 4 of 4 Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister 8s Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 'his electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain nformation belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby iotified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in ;rror, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the >riginal message without making a copy. Thank you. 5/23/2008 The Debate over Digital Billboards: Can New Technology Inform Drivers Without Distracting Them? THIS FEATURE EXAMINES THE BACKGROUND AND CAPABILITIES OF DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND SIGNS; THE CURRENT REGULATIONS SURROUNDING THE TECHNOLOGY'S USAGE; AND THE CONTRASTING OPINIONS ABOUT THE BILLBOARDS' POTENTIAL EFFECT ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. MICHELLE S. BIRDSALL 22 INTRODUCTION Commercial electronic variable mes- sage signs (CEVMS), commonly known as digital billboards, are drawing atten- tion from more than just consumers. The increasingly popular technology enables outdoor advertising companies to cre- ate vivid displays that can change images at the stroke of a keyboard. The digital billboard medium is drawing accolades for its effectiveness in delivering real-time emergency and law-enforcement informa- tion as well as criticism for its potential as a traffic safety hazard to motorists. This feature examines the background and capabilities of digital billboards and signs; the current regulations surrounding the technology's usage; and the contrast- ing opinions about the billboards' poten- tial effect on traffic safety. The convenience as well as the contro- versy of digital billboards stem from the implementation of light-emitting diode (LED) technology. With the application of LEDs, off-premise billboards that once were constructed from paper and vinyl now can be programmed by a computer to change the appearance of a static image every 6 to 8 seconds, allowing multiple advertisers to use the same billboard on any given day. New designs can be updated and posted on a digital billboard in a matter of hours, making it easier for clients to update their advertisements on a more frequent basis. This capability is a breakthrough for the billboard industry, which goes through a production cycle of approximately one to two weeks to update an existing conventional billboard. The digital billboards and signs are capable of bright, broadcast-quality images that can be sequenced and can contain targeted messages specific to the demographics of travelers driving past them. In the public sector, many have em- braced digital billboard technology be- cause of its versatility and real-time capa- bilities in reaching people with important public safety messages. Several leading outdoor advertising companies, such as Clear Channel Outdoor, have forged part- nerships with local government agencies to display time-sensitive information such as Amber Alerts for missing children (see Figure 1). These partnerships already have produced compelling success stories. Fifteen minutes after the Minneapolis, MN, USA, interstate bridge collapse in Au- gust 2007, digital billboards were warning motorists to use alternate routes (see Figure 2). Clear Channel Outdoor's partnership with local Federal Bureau of Investigation offices to post high-profile "wanted" post- ers for criminals on its digital billboards already has helped contribute to the arrest of six fugitives since October 2007. As support for the technology has grown, so has the concern that the inno- vative billboards will increase driver dis- traction, negatively impacting traffic flow and increasing accident rates. Although a digital billboard posting in the city of Mobile, AL, USA, led to the capture of a suspect in a bank robbery, a Mobile City Council member proposed a temporary moratorium on erecting any more signs, citing the need for safety regulations. Concerns exist about the size and brightness of the digital billboards and the technology's ability to engage a motorist for a longer period of time than a conven- tional billboard. By its very nature as an advertising tool, digital billboard technol- ogy is designed to capture a motorist's at- tention. The question is, do the billboards capture attention for a time period signifi- cant enough to contribute to accidents? How can traffic engineers, government agencies, outdoor advertising companies ITE JOURNAL / APRIL 2008 and other stakeholders work together to ensure that this breakthrough technology benefits the public without compromising motorists' attention on the road? Although digital billboards are start- ing to appear across the United States in both large and small communities, only a small percentage of U.S. billboards are currently digital. According to the Out- door Advertising Association of America Inc., there are 700-plus digital billboards out of an estimated 450,000 total signs. That number is expected to increase dra- matically as costs continue to decrease and the technology becomes more accessible. In the meantime, new studies to evaluate the digital billboard's impact on safety are underway. BACKGROUND ON REGULATIONS When conventional billboards first be- gan dotting the landscape in increasing numbers during the first half of the 1900s, most arguments to regulate them were based upon aesthetics rather than driver safety. Without a concrete connection between billboards and safety, billboard regulations instead were prompted by an effort to preserve the natural beauty along U.S. highways. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 led to the control of outdoor ad- vertising and the removal of certain signs along the United States' growing Inter- state Highway System. The act requires states to regulate off-premise signs along federal-aid routes such as interstate high- ways, the National Highway System and federal-aid primary roads. Since then, advances in outdoor ad- vertising that could not be foreseen "in 1965 have prompted the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to issue updated guidance memorandums. One of the first changeable message signs developed was the tri-vision billboard, which displays three different images on one sign through the mechanical rotation of vertical slats. Tri-vision billboards display an advertise- ment for 6 to 8 seconds before rotating to the next image. A July 1996 FHWA memorandum, "Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs," permitted the tri-vision signs, stating, "Changeable message signs are acceptable for off-premise signs regardless of the type of technology used, if the interpretation of the state/federal agreement allows such signs."' The memo continues to state, "In nearly all states, these signs may still not contain flashing, intermittent, or moving lights."2 Soon after, electronic and digital billboards and signs emerged, bringing the controversy to the forefront yet again. While digital billboards are capable of using LEDs to display video footage and moving images, it is important to note that there are different regulations for off- premise billboards versus on-premise bill- boards and signs. Federally regulated off- premise digital billboards are not permitted to flash, scroll, or feature full-motion video or animation, unlike on-premise signs at locations such as movie theatres, which may contain these elements. Off-premise digital billboards must display a static im- age for 6 to 8 seconds before changing to the next advertisement. In this way, the digital billboards are similar to tri-vision or conventional billboards, except that their content can be changed electroni- cally rather than manually. Despite the fact that the images remain static for a set period of time, questions have been raised as to whether the use of LEDs constitutes a violation of existing regulations prohibiting moving lights. In response to this question, FHWA issued the 2007 memorandum, "Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs," which clarifies that the LEDs "do not violate a prohibition against `intermittent' or `flashing' or `moving' lights as those terms are used in the various Federal/State Agreements (FSAs) that have been entered into during the 1960s and 1970s."3 FHWA spokesperson Doug Hecox ex- plained, "This memo was specifically in- tended to clarify the issue of intermittent lights, as there is a misperception that the off-premise billboards contain LED lights that blink on and off."The memorandum explains why the digital billboards do not violate existing regulations, stating: The policy espoused in the July 17, 1996, memorandum was premised upon the concept that changeable mes- sages that were fixed far a reasonable time period do not constitute a moving sign. If the state set a reasonable time period, the agreed-upon prohibition against moving signs is not violated Electronic signs that have stationary messages for a reasonably fixed time merit the same considerations. Change- able message signs, including Digital/ LED Display CEVMS, are acceptable for conforming off premise signs, if found to be consistent with the FSA and with acceptable andapproved State regulations, policies and procedures.`' According to Tony Alwin, public rela- tions senior vice president of Clear Channel Outdoor, "Our company doesn't view the digital billboards as different from tradi- tional billboards. Our only goal here is to al- low for the immediate update capability." ITE JOURNAL / APRIL 2008 23 Figure 1. Digital billboard displaying an Amber Alert message. ILI The 2007 FHWA memorandum has intensified the debate over digital bill- boards and the need for more research to evaluate their safety. Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America, a nonprofit organi- zation dedicated to preserving and en- hancing the visual character of America's communities, emphasizes that digital billboards and conventional billboards cannot be treated as the same. Fry states, "Digital billboards have the ability to distract drivers in ways that traditional billboards do not." Describing the billboards as "slideshows in the sky," Fry points out that the signs are extraordinarily vivid and bright, and the continually changing images may cause many drivers to look at the signs for longer periods of time to see what comes up next in the rotation. Regarding the public safety benefits of using the digital billboards to post items such as AmberAlerrs, Fry warns, "The more important the message, the more distracting it will be to motorists. We should not introduce a new safety hazard in an effort to solve an existing one." Acknowledging the need to address safety concerns more thoroughly, Hecox confirmed that FHWA has begun a two- phase study to determine the potential safety risks of digital billboards. According to Hecox, the FHWA study will be the first study of its kind to provide a neutral examination of the potential safety risks of digital signs. Determining the studys methodology will be challenging because of the complexity of measuring driver dis- traction. It is difficult to isolate the impact of digital billboards when accidents are caused by a combination of factors. Although the 2007 memorandum has drawn criticism for permitting more digital billboards to be erected before the new study is completed, Hecox explains, "FHWA currently has no scientific basis on which to prohibit the signs. FHWA is not endorsing the billboards, but rather allowing states to make their own deci- sions about them." RESEARCH STUDIES Although studies to determine the rela- tionship between billboards and driver be- havior date back to the 1950s, results over the years have been deemed inconclusive, often due to insufficient data or possible bias. One of the first efforts, the Minne- sota Department of Transportation Field Study in 1951, concluded that an increase in commercial billboards would result in an increased crash rate.5 However, a study conducted by the Michigan State Highway Department in 1952 came to the opposite conclusion, stating that the signs did not correlate with the roadway crashes. As technology began to expand to in- clude changeable message signs, its impli- cations on safety remained an unproven concern. The 1980 FHWA report, "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Vari- able-Message Signage," reviewed the exist- ing studies on the topic and concluded: While some accident studies have re- ported a positive relationship between accidents, high driving task demands, and the presence of roadside advertis- ing, otherstudies have reachedopposite conclusions. Although a trend in recent findings has begun to point to a demon- strable relationship between Commer- cial Electronic Variable-Message Signs and accidents, the available evidence remains statistically insufficient to sci- entifically support this relationship.? In September 2001, FHWA published the report, "Research Review of Poten- tial Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction." This report, which reviewed literature on the topic generated after the 1980 study, states, "Determining the effect of road- way commercial advertising billboards on safety is a difficult endeavor for several theoretical and methodological reasons... Regardless of these difficulties, researchers have examined the effecrs of billboards on safety. The results are mixed and inconclu- sive."• Despite this, the report did note, "Studies were identified that verified that-. an increase in distraction, a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in legibility may cause an increase in the crash rate."9 Several studies since then have focused on the relationship between driver inattention and accidents. The "100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study' conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), showed that nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention just prior (within 3 sec- onds) to the onset of the incident. Lo Inatten- tion was a contributing factor for 93 percent of rear-end-striking crashes.l l Following this study, the 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration re- port, "The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk," found that "eyeglances away from the forward roadway, especially those that do not involve checking rear-view mirrors, may be contributing fac- tors to a high percentage of crashes."12 Specifically, the report states, "When the total time eyes were off the forward roadway was greater than two seconds, 24 ITE JOURNAL / APRIL 2008 Figure 2. Digital billboard alerting motorists of the Minneapolis, MN, USA, bridge Collapse. regardless of where the driver was looking, an increased risk of crash or near-crash in- volvement was observed.-13 Studies such as this one do not specifically address the issue of digital billboards, but they support concerns that digital billboards might pose a safety hazard by increasing driver distrac- tion, a proven contributor to accidents. In 2007, two studies commissioned by the Foundation of Outdoor Advertising Research and Education sought to answer this question by specifically. examining the relationship between digital billboards and driver behavior. The first study, "A Study of the Relationship Between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio," sought "to examine the statistical relationship between certain digital billboards and traffic safety and to determine if any correlation exists."14 After analyzing the traffic and accident data near seven existing digital billboards the year they were converted from a con- ventional format, the study found, At each of the digital billboards, and for periods of 12 months before and after the conversion (a total of 24 months), the accident sta- tistics and metrics are consistent, exhibit- ing statistically insignificant variations."15 The study found no statistical relationship between accidents and billboards, conven- tional or digital, and stated, "The accident statistics on sections of Interstate routes near billboards are comparable to the ac- cident statistics on similar sections that have no billboards.°16 The second study, "Driving Perfor- mance and Digital Billboards," conducted by VTTI, reports, "The results of a nam- ralistic study showed that several driving performance measures in the presence of digital billboards are on a par with those as- sociated with everyday driving, such as the on-premises signs located at businesses."17 In this particular report, however, the results are not as clear cut. The report notes a difference between digital and conventional billboards, stating, "The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conven- tional billboards and baseline sites."" The study does point out that the lon- ger glances did not approach the critical 2-second threshold, as "the mean glance length towards the digital billboards was less than one second. "19 While the VTTI study shows that digital billboards do not contribute to driver distraction more than anything else, it does not prove that they are safe either. The study states, "Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards."20 Despite this, advocates of digital bill- boards have referred to both of the 2007 studies as evidence that digital billboards with a 6- to 9-second change interval are safe because they are no more likely to cause accidents than conventional bill- boards. 21 Clear Channel Outdoor's Tony Alwin points out that the VTTI report discusses the possibility that areas of road- way with billboards may actually help with driver attentiveness. The report states, "When stimulation is extremely low, as when there is very little traffic and very little to look at or to decide, unusual envi- ronmental features such as road signs may increase the driver's arousal and improve driving performance. "22 In response to both of the 2007 studies, which had not been peer reviewed at the time of their release, the Maryland State Highway Administration commissioned Jerry Wachtel, a traffic safety expert who contributed to the 1980 FHWA study, to conduct a critical, comprehensive review of them. Wachtel's report notes that "these two studies have received wide press coverage in print, online and in the broadcast media. Without exception, this coverage has pre- sented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented, with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness."Z3 After examining the methodologies the studies use and their data, Wachtel's report concludes, "it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is in- appropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised."24 In discussing the issue with ITEjournal, Wachtel echoed the concerns of organiza- tions such as Scenic America about erecting more digital billboards before further safety studies are completed. Wachtel explained, "If you allow these signs to be erected and then determine that they need to be re- moved for safety reasons, the cost could be so high that the government might not be able to afford to do it." Current policies require the govern- mentto pay a company for revenue lost if a sign must be removed. Wachtel's report states, "Because FHWA remains con- cerned about the safety implications of electronic billboards (EBBS) on highways, and because of its stated intention to con- duct or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any such policy change await further de- velopments from research."25 Hecox responds to this concern, stating, "This is a difficult issue because advocates ITE JOURNAL / APRIL 2008 25 Figure 3. Digital billboard displaying an FBI "wanted" poster. on both sides make valid points. There currently is no scientific basis to prohibit the signs. If FHWA determines that there is a safety issue, then we will respond accordingly" Wachtel is quick to acknowledge the difficulties of designing a study that will measure the safety impacts of digital signs, as he has a long history of involve- ment with the issue. He is involved in the first phase of the new FHWA study, a 6-month effort that recently began to update the existing literature of the topic and identify the methodologies whereby the actual research portion of phase two can be conducted. He is also participating in the Na- tional Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study, "Safety Im- pacts of Emerging Digital Display Tech- nology for Outdoor Advertising Signs," which will expand its literature review to examine how other countries are re- sponding to digital signs. This study will be conducted as part of a subcommittee that the Transportation Research Board has formed on the topic. This subcommittee and FHWA's new study have captured the interest of stake- holders on both sides of the issue. Peter Kissinger, president and chief executive officer of the AAA Foundation for Traf- fic Safety , remarks, "Driver distraction has been acknowledged as a contribu- tor to accidents. The question remains, how significant of a distraction are digital billboards to motorists and what should be done about id" Kissinger adds, "The. topic deserves more research and I am pleased that FHWA is doing it." MOVING FORWARD Inconclusive and insufficient research data, varying interpretations of existing regulations and compelling arguments both for and against digital billboards have caused some decision-makers to issue moratoriums on digital billboards until the new research is completed, while oth- ers move ahead in erecting the signs. With state governments interpreting legislation that was written before these technologies were invented, there are wide variances in existing standards and practices. The 2001 FHWA report, "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Elec-' CONCERNS EXIST ABOUT THE SIZE AND BRIGHTNESS OF THE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND THE TECHNOLOGY'S ABILITY TO ENGAGE A MOTORIST FOR A-LONGER-PERIOD OF TIME THAN A CONVENTIONAL BILLBOARD. ironic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction," states: A review of state outdoor advertising regulations revealed that common bill- board guidelines governing electronic billboards (EBBS) and tri-vision signs do not exist. Implementation practices differ significantly from state to state. A broad spectrum of regulations exists, rangingfrom lenient control to the pro- hibition ofoutdoor advertising. 26 Many local governments are struggling to make informed decisions on the issue, as the highway standards that do exist may not apply to their roads, where elements af- fecting the driving conditions such as speed, traffic and pedestrians, are different. While the safety impacts of off-prem- ise digital billboards are scrutinized, on- premise digital signs that are not held to the same regulations are free to engage observers with animated displays. These on-premise digital billboards often can be seen from the roadway. Wachtel com- ments, "We are being short-sighted about the safety issue if we continue to give the on-premise signs a free ride." In looking at the big picture of driver distraction, all digital signs must be examined, not just the ones controlled by federal regulations. Many agree that common standards regard- ing the size, brightness and image rotation of the digital signs would benefit everyone, and spokespeople for the major outdoor advertising companies have expressed the industry's willingness to conform to stan- dards that will ensure safety. As with any new technology, the infra- structure must be put in place to provide the right foundation for its application. For traffic engineers, outdoor advertising'. companies, land-use planners, legislators and government agencies, the opportu- nity and challenge ofworking together for the safest application of digital billboard technology has arrived. ■ References 1. Orski, B. "Memorandum-Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs." Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Highway Administration THWA), 1996. 2. Ibid. 3. Shepherd, G.M. 'Memorandum-Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs." Wash- ington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 2007. 4. Ibid. 5. Highway Planning Survey, Minnesota De- partment of Highways. "Minnesota Rural Trunk Highway Accident, Access Point and Advertising Sign Study." Minnesota, USA: Minnesota De- partment of Highways in association with U.S. Department of Commerce, 1951. 6. Planning and Traffic Division, Michigan State Highway Department. "Accident Experi- ence in Relation to Road and Roadside Features." Michigan, USA: Michigan State Highway De- partment 1952. 7. Wachtel, J. and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Final Report)." Report No. FHWAI RD-80-051. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA,-1980. 8. Farbry, J, K. Wochinger, T. Shafer, N. Owens and A. Nedzesky. "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction." Washing- ton, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 2001. 9. Ibid. 10. Dingus, T.A. et al. "The 100-Car Natu- ralistic Driving Study: Phase II - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment." Report No. DOT 26 - ITE JOURNAL / APRIL 2008 HS 810 593. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, Na- tional Highway Traffic Safety. Administration (NHTSA), 2006. 11. Ibid. 12. Matter, S.G., T.A. Dingus, V.L. Neale, J.D. Sudweeks and D.J. Ramsey "The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk." Report No. DOT HS 810 594. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, NHTSA, 2006. 13. Ibid. 14. Tantala, A. and M.Tantala. A Study of the Relationship Between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio." Philadelphia, PA, USA: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, 2007. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Lee, S., M. McElheny and R. Gibbons. "Driving Performance and Digital Billboards." Blacksburg, VA, USA: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, 2007. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Outdoor Advertising Association of America. "Ground-Breaking Studies Determine Accidents Not More Likely To Occur Because of Digital Billboards." Accessible via wwwoaaa. orgl. 22. Lee, McElheny and Gibbons, note 17 above. 23. Wachtel, J. A Critical, Comprehensive Review ofTwo Studies Recently Released by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America." Berkeley, CA, USA: Maryland State Highway Administration, 2007. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Farbry, Wochinger, Shafer, Owens and Nedzesky, note 8 above. MICHELLE BIRDSALL your company products and f.AY\///AI'. L Placing a banner ad is a great way to reach ITE's more than 16,000 members and other Web site guests. Target Your Market When you place a section banner ad on the ITE Web site, you choose where your advertisement is placed. If you are hiring a new employee you may want to place your banner ad within the Employment Center. Have a new prod- uct line you're looking to promote? Look no further than the Technical Information section. Increase Your Exposure Vertical banners are displayed on the left side of the screen within the navi- gation bar. This means your ad will be seen on almost every page of the ITE Web site! Only one advertiser uses the designated space at a time, and there are only two vertical spaces available. Ads are placed in the order that they are received. Please visit www.ite.org/marketing/bannerads.asp for ad specifications. For availability, please contact Christina Gameski, Marketing Sales Manager, at +1 202-289-0222 ext. 128 or cgarneski@ite.org. Visit www.ite.org/marketing/bannerads.asp to download an order form today! ITE JOURNAL/APRIL 2008 27 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: April 14, 2008 Page -3- Item 1. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Award SOQ-08-12 Annual Surveying/GIS On-Call Services to various firms. B. Approval of Award of RFP-08-11 On-Line Map Location Project to Sixtus Publishing, Colorado Springs, in the not-to-exceed amount of $50,000. C. Approval of City Contributions to Outside Agencies for Fiscal Year 2008 in the amount of $10,000. D. RESOLUTION 19-2008 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AND THE JEFFERSON COUNTY E-911 AUTHORITY BOARD CONCERNING THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMBINED INCIDENT DISPATCH TEAM. Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Mr. Stites. Motion by Mr. Stites for approval of the Consent Agenda Items A-D; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. COUNCIL BILL 02-2008 - ORDINANCE 1408 - AN ORDINANCE Council Bill 02-2008 (Ordinance 1408) was introduced by Ms. Berry on second reading. Mr. Johnstone presented the staff report and recommended postponement, for one of other reasons, that key Billboard company representatives could not be in attendance. Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing. Motion by Mrs. Berry to continue the Public Hearing on this item to the June 9, 2008 Council Meeting; seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 8-0. AMENDING WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.13. continued from 2!25/2008 with new public notice published for the continuation of the public hearing on 4/14/2008). (Public Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. ♦'I-i l Wheat~idge ITEM NO: Oil REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION C VY< . COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 14, 2008 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 02-2008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B- 2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-71 LB (Public Hearing continued from 2/25/2008 with new public notice published for the continuation of the public hearing on 4/14/2008.) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (01/28/2008) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (02/25/2008) ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi judicial: / ❑ YES ® NO City Managg~- t~ The current section of the Zoning Code that regulates billboards is not specific in regards to implementation and permitting processes. The lack of specificity has resulted in a need to develop administrative procedures to deal with instances of billboard vacancies and the procedures for filling those vacancies. The administrative procedures used in the past have been called into legal question in some instances. Upon City Council's direction, the Community Development Department has drafted more specific and defined procedures and regulations, with the intent of alleviating some of the procedural uncertainties. The Zoning Code currently allows a maximum of 16 billboards in the B-2 billboard district. City Staff held a public stakeholders meeting in December to gain input, and has conducted working sessions with industry professionals. The proposed ordinance would increase the number of allowed billboards within the B-2 district from 16 to 18. The ordinance also creates an equitable system to determine who is entitled to erect a billboard in the event of a vacancy. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on January 17, 2008 and recommended approval with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. Add B.l.e which states: "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure". 2. Remove all references to the 10-day window and replace with `application period'. 3. Change the 30-120 day lottery window to a 60-90 day lottery window. 4. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn." Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following conditions of approval: 5. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 feet to 45 feet. 6. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 feet to 500 feet. The first four recommendations were included in the 151 reading ordinance as passed by City Council and published. The fifth and sixth recommendations are not included in the ordinance as currently drafted, and should be discussion items at the City Council public hearing. There were a few attendees at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in reference to the proposed ordinance. While some offered suggestions to the language or development standards proposed, all offered support of the ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: L5 The first several paragraphs in this section of the report are repeated from the previous Council Action Form that was part of the February 2 ublic hearing. This section concludes with a staff summary and response to some of the issue that were raised at the previous public hearing and in subsequent correspondence from the billboard industry representatives. Throughout the billboard permitting and billboard ordinance code rewrite processes, there has perhaps been one primary underlying policy question under discussion: Who `owns' the permit or entitlement? In staff s research, each surrounding community handles permit ownership differently; some attach the ownership to the property owner, others to the permit holder. This issue is somewhat unique in respect to billboards, as the City has chosen to establish a maximum number of allowed billboards, making the ability to erect a billboard a valuable entitlement. The proposed ordinance was crafted with the assumption that the permit would belong to the property owner as is typical for most land use entitlements. When the property owner chooses to relinquish the billboard permit, thereby relinquishing the right to have a billboard, the permit and billboard right would expire. The billboard company who may own the actual billboard stricture is able to secure any additional "ownership rights" through the leasehold contractual relationship they have with the property owner. As is typically the case in property issues, the City is not party to nor necessarily aware of the details of those private contractual relationships. As drafted, the advertising company who erects the billboard would not be able to transfer the billboard right to another willing property owner. The intent was that the lottery system would create a fair and equitable environment for all property owners in the B-2 district to have a chance at securing a billboard permit as vacancies become available. During the first reading of the ordinance, City Council adopted certain language amendments, including a section "K", which read: Assignment of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Other first reading language amendments related to additional notification requirements to billboard advertising companies that are party to a permit. Community Development staff reviewed the 1" reading ordinance with the City Attorney's office and we also received comments from some sign industry representatives who have been involved in the code rewrite process. Based on those discussions and clarification on the policy intent with Councilmember Berry, Staff is proposing 2nd reading amendments that relate primarily to changes to Section K. Staff is proposing that Section K be removed and replaced with a new section K that establishes requirements that all existing billboards be "registered". This will allow staff the ability to more easily notify property owners and billboard structure owners in the event of vacancies, abandonments, etc. Staff is also proposing that the definition of "property" be clarified and that two references to "location" be changed to "property" as defined in the ordinance. Staffs proposed 2"d reading amendments are included in a second version of the proposed ordinance, attached to this Council Action Form, with the proposed changes highlighted. In regards to the transferability of billboard property rights, staff believes that as a matter of general land use law in the City a valid billboard permit or registration is transferable from the existing property owner to a future property owner. It is Staff s belief that property rights, such as valid billboard permits, are automatically transferred upon sale of property and do not need to be assigned to a successor or future property owner. It should also be noted that the primary reason for including the "temporary removal" provisions in the proposed ordinance is to allow a property owner the ability to negotiate a new lease with a new billboard company if they so choose without losing their existing billboard entitlement. So long as the new billboard structure could be installed in compliance with the current zoning and building code requirements and any previously issued billboard permits, that change would be allowable without the City's approval of a new billboard permit through the lottery process. Building permits would be required. To the extent that staff has not captured City Council's intent in addressing the ownership of the billboard property rights, staff would request further discussion and direction at the public hearing. April 14 Staff Update follows: Height. Some members of the industry have requested an increase in the maximum billboard height from 32 to 45 feet. Staff believes that as the height of a billboard increases, the impact on adjacent property owners also increases. We believe it is appropriate to limit billboards to 32 feet and allow future billboard applicants the ability to request variances to that height requirement through the administrative or Board of Adjustment processes. The criteria for reviewing a variance would allow those future applicants to make the types of arguments for a height increase that are being argued in some of the correspondence from the billboard industry. Separation. The Planning Commission recommended and staff concurs that making the spacing or separation requirement consistent with CDOT requirements is logical, and requires a decrease in the minimum spacing from 600 to 500 feet. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Setbacks. Staff understands that the setback requirement proposed may make it difficult for some property owners to identify a permissible location for a billboard on their property. We also believe that the height of a billboard bears a direct relationship on the amount of impact the billboard structure has on adjacent properties and we support the existing setback recommendations. However, we do acknowledge that the intent of the temporary removal section of the proposed ordinance is to allow a replacement in like kind and recommend that the situation be allowed, provided the level of non-conformity is not increased. This recommendation is reflected in the additional staff conditions included at the conclusion of this report. Lighting. There have been several issues that have come up in relation to different types of lighting technology that might be used to allow for the latest in technology, while preserving the Cities desire to limit light spill and light pollution. Three specific technologies and/or installation approaches are worthy of additional discussion. o Downcast vs. Upcast Lighting. The Planning Commission recommended requiring that only downcast lighting be used to illuminate Billboards, which is reflected in the versions of the ordinance before City Council. The intent of that requirement was to address the concern with overly illuminating the night skies. While the intent is appreciated, the sign industry would like the ability to use exterior up-lighting, which they believe can be installed in a less visually obtrusive manner than the down lighting, which must extend several feet out from the billboard structure in order to provide adequate illumination to the billboard content. Staff can appreciate this concern and could support this recommendation provided that the up- lighting be fully contained by the sign face and not spill off the edges of the sign face. If Council agrees that up-lighting would be appropriate, staff has provided an additional condition at the conclusion of this report, which could be included in your motion. o Internal Illumination or "Backlighting". At the February 25 public hearing a comment was made that internal illumination or backlighting of signs should also be allowed. This type of technology, whiletypical for existing billboards in Wheat Ridge would be similar to the type ig d bn most ground mounted monument signs that are typical along commercial corridors. While not currently a common approach to illuminating billboards in Wheat Ridge, staff does not believe it to be inappropriate, provided the level of illumination would not be excessive to the point of becoming a lighting nuisance. Staff has included a condition at the end of this report, which could be adopted in City Council's motion of Council desires to allow this type of illumination. o LED Lighting. In previous discussions and correspondence, in particular testimony from Lamar Advertising, an interest in using digital light emitting diode (LED) technology has been expressed. The interest to use this lighting technology has been expressed primarily as a technical means of achieving changeable advertising copy through the technology referred to as Commercial Electronically Variable Message Signs (CEVMS), which are specifically prohibited in current drafts of the ordinance. While staff does not support the variable message signs at this time (see comments in next section), we do not object to the lighting technology itself, which can result in high quality images with illumination levels that adjust to variable ambient lighting conditions. If Council wishes to allow the LED digital lighting technology, staff has included at the end of this report a recommended condition that could be added to a City Council motion, which would allow digital LED lighting. Changeable Copy. The City allows changeable copy on non billboard signs in the community, provided the copy does not change more frequently than every 15 seconds. However, changeable copy on billboards, which are oriented toward a highway driver operating at significantly higher speeds, raises the potential for additional traffic safety concerns. At the previous public hearing some members of the billboard industry requested that this issue be reconsidered. City staff has reviewed two traffic analyses provided by the sign industry and we have also obtained a Maryland State Highway Commission Traffic Study that reviews and is critical of the findings of the studies that have been commission by the sign industry. Based on the information available, staff does not believe the potential for traffic safety concerns has been sufficiently alleviated for us to be able to support changeable copy on billboard signs. As a side note, we are aware that the Federal Highway Administration is considering commissioning a study on this issue, the results of which might establish a federal standard. Correspondence from Daniel M. Scherer. The basic issue Mr. Scherer raises in his letter is the notion that the ordinance is currently structured to give the property owner greater rights of ownership of the billboard entitlement than the billboard structure owner. He is correct. This was discussed in the Council Action Form for the 2/25/08 public hearing and repeated in a previous paragraph of this report. He is also correct in his review of the intent of the temporary removal provisions, which allow a property owner time to negotiate with and have a new billboard company install a new billboard under an existing billboard entitlement. His requested solution would allow a billboard structure owner the right to notify the City of an intent to abandon an existing billboard, thereby taking the billboard right away from the property owner and triggering a Billboard Vacancy and a subsequent open permit application process. Staff believes it is important to point out that this could then have an equal effect of taking the majority of a property owner's rights away, as a billboard structure owner would have significantly less incentive to negotiate in good faith with an existing billboard property owner if they had the leverage to declare the site abandoned and create a vacancy that they could apply to fill on another property. Staff does not disagree with the technical approach that Mr. Scherer has proposed to achieve their stated intent, but wanted to call attention to the policy implications of making that change, for City Council to consider. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance lays the groundwork for an administrative fee system for billboards. All new billboards would be subject to an application fee and inspection fee. An annual registration fee could also be established if City Council recommends. Additional legislation has been discussed to establish an impact fee, but that is not part of this current ordinance. OPTION `A' If Council desires to approve the Ordinance as published on 1St reading: "I move to approve Council Bill 02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, An Ordinance Amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." Or, OPTION 'B' If Council desires to include staff recommended changes on 2nd reading: "I move to approve Council Bill 02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, An Ordinance Amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication, with the following second reading amendments: 1. Delete Section K, to be replaced with a new Section K reading as follows: "Registration of Billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form"; 2. Add a definition for "property", reading: "Property. For the purpose of this section a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)"; 3. Change all references in the ordinance to the word "location" to the word "property"; and 4. Add a section B.l.e to the ordinance, reading: "failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008." The following additional recommended second reading amendments are based on the staff recommendations in the updated information provided for this meeting. These would be additional conditions. 5. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 to 45 feet. 6. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 to 500 feet. 7. Section 711-A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow exterior up-lighting of a billboard, provided no light spills off of the sign face. 8. Section 711-A.12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow interior illumination of signs (backlighting). 9. Section 71 LA. 12 of the proposed ordinance shall be amended to allow digital LED lighting provided it is not used to achieve animation or any type of changeable copy. Copy shall be allowed to change up to once daily. OPTION `C' If City Council wishes to adopt some or all of the conditions listed in Option `B', but determines a need to review a new version of the ordinance reflecting said conditions: "I move to direct staff to amend Council Bill 02-2008, case number ZOA07-01, An Ordinance Amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, to Reflect Conditions _ to and to Bring Back the Ordinance for Final Action at the City Council meeting." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill 02-2008 (as passed on I" reading and published) 2. Council Bill 02-2008 (with staff recommended 2" reading amendments as presented at the February 25 City Council meeting) 1sT READING ORDINANCE - AS PUBLISHED CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 1n INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER 13 e'k c Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sec . and 29-20-101 et seMc . to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTe['_ 4MFNT I NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided i nt: ,w (2) billboa 1 distfiets B 1 and B 2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. ' 2. Billboard sty-aetiffes cu., allowed the city, ,ided by Ns n4:..n. provided, that aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. Settee where leeated. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. proPi hat nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. B ' istK . On and after r........_.. 1, 1996, billbear-ds are prohibited in the B' Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, d. Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 3. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. 4 The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no complete applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et seq., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K. Assignment of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. in i A Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28 h day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: STAFF PROPOSED 2ND READING EDITS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO_ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER S F-~-QA Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. I " R_ Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et seq. and 29-20-101 et sue. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-71 LB, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTAC14MENT 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Property. For the purpose of this section, a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN). Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided i-te t-- e ""-inboard distw^ts, B ' ands as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billbee&d ..t.uet.. allowed the eit'r provided by t1fi et:,n; previded, tkat aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, 2 relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. cnthn whef~. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. pfevided, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. 1 distfia. Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if- 3 a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or d. failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008. 2. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 3. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 4. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and M.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. If the number of legally permitted or registered billboards falls below the maximum number allowed as established in subsection A.3, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, or if none of the submitted applications meet the minimum requirements of subsection E, the vacancy shall remain. In this instance, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sew., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single leeatieu property within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single leeatien property are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K. shall be fr-eely assignable to a sueeessor-, as owner- of the pr-opel4y wher-e the billboard is loeated or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing sueh applieation as the Community Development Dir-eeter may require and paying applieable fees. The assignment shall be iteeomplished by filing and shall no require approvalL Registration of billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form. 6 Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. B-2 Billlwartl District s _ Imp tl a , I 11 77IITIT 1 - 1 II T- i - J III ;I,; 4 I. ~-1-TT-- I - III r' - ~ 171 I - F19um 16lT1 TOIfieUl B916oard ZCmng Map- I Jl, i ~ ` Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28th day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 25th day of February, 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, IMPOSING AN IMPACT FEE ON BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado (the "City"), pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-20-104.5, conducted a study to determine the impact of billboards within the City on the City's capital facilities (the "Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the results of the Study indicated that billboards do affect the City's capital facilities; and WHEREAS, the Study further quantified the reasonable impacts of billboards on the City's capital facilities and established an impact fee at a level no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to said billboards; and WHEREAS, the impact fee level is designed to defray the cost of continued use of billboards and not to remedy any current deficiency in City capital facilities without regard to the continued use of billboards; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Code of Laws as it governs billboards within the City, to impose an impact fee on the continued use of billboards within the City; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-711 is amended by adding the following subsection D: Sec. 26-711. Billboards; specifications and regulations D. Impact fee: There is hereby imposed a billboard impact fee which shall be due and payable in full by the owner of any billboard within the City. The billboard impact fee is in addition to any and all other fees and charges associated with the location, relocation or rebuilding of a billboard. (1) The amount of the billboard impact fee due shall be equal to two percent (2%) of the gross revenue received by or on behalf of the billboard owner as a consequence of its ownership of the billboard during the previous calendar year. (2) Gross revenue means (3) The billboard impact fee for each calendar year or portion thereof shall be paid to the City Treasurer on or before February 1" of the following calendar year. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by vote of to , this day of 2008. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 2 to time at its sole discretion as additional franchising authorities join, or separate from, the GMTC. 1.24 "Gross Revenues" means any and all revenue received by the Grantee, or by any other entity that is a Cable Operator of the Cable System including Grantee's Affiliates, from the operation of the Cable System to provide Cable Services. Gross Revenues include, by way of illustration and not limitation, monthly fees charged Subscribers for Basic Service; any expanded Tiers of Cable Service; optional Premium Services; installation, disconnection, reconnection and change-in-service fees; Leased Access Channel fees; all Cable Service lease payments from the Cable System; late fees and administrative fees; fees, payments or other consideration received by the Grantee from programmers for carriage of programming on the Cable System and accounted for as revenue under GAAP; revenues from rentals of converters, remote controls or other Cable System equipment used to receive Cable Service; revenues from the sale of Cable System equipment used to provide Cable Service that is not available from retail outlets; advertising revenues; the fair market value of consideration received by the Grantee for use of the Cable System to provide Cable Service and accounted for as revenue under GAAP; revenues from program guides; revenue from data transmissions to the extent these transmissions are considered Cable Services under federal law; additional outlet fees; revenue from Cable Internet Service to the extent this service is considered a Cable Service under federal law; franchise fees; revenue from interactive services to the extent they are considered Cable Services under federal law; revenue from the sale or carriage of other Cable Services on the Cable System; and revenue from home shopping, bank-at-home Channels and other revenue-sharing arrangements. Gross Revenues shall include revenue received by any entity other than the Grantee where necessary to prevent evasion or avoidance of the obligation under this Franchise to pay the franchise fees. Gross Revenues shall not include (i) to the extent consistent with GAAP, Bad Debt; provided, however, that all or part of any such Bad Debt that is written off but subsequently collected shall be included in Gross Revenues in the period collected; (ii) the Capital Contributions specified in subsections 9.1 and 9.2; or (iii) any taxes on services furnished by the Grantee which are imposed directly on any Subscriber or user by the State, City or other governmental unit and which are collected by the Grantee on behalf of said governmental unit. The franchise fee is not such a tax. The parties intend for the definition of Gross Revenues to be as inclusive as possible consistent with existing applicable law. If there is a change in federal law subsequent to the Effective Date of this Franchise, such change shall not impact this Gross Revenues definition unless the change specifically preempts the affected portion of the definition above. 1.25 "Headend" means any facility for signal reception and dissemination on a Cable System, including cables, antennas, wires, satellite dishes, monitors, switchers, modulators, processors for broadcast signals, equipment for the -4- Section 3. FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT AND FINANCIAL CONTROLS 3.1 Franchise Fee (A) As compensation for the benefits and privileges granted under this Franchise and in consideration of permission to use the City's Rights-of-Way, Grantee shall pay as a franchise fee to the City, throughout the duration of this Franchise, an amount equal to five percent (5%) of Grantee's Gross Revenues. Accrual of such franchise fee shall commence as of the Effective Date of this Franchise: (B) The City recognizes that, in the future, Grantee may allocate revenue between Cable Services (which are subject to the Franchise Fee) and non-Cable Services (which are not subject to the Franchise Fee but may be subject to other fees and/or taxes), when these two types of service are bundled together in a discounted package offered to Subscribers. Due to the ambiguities that currently exist both in the business and regulatory environment on this issue, thwvCity and, the Grantee hereby reserve all rights, claims; defenses and remedies regarding the City's authority to .pose and/or enforce requirements related to the revenue allocation methodology to be used when Cable Services and non-Cable Services are offered to Subscribers in a discounted package, for the purpose of calculating Franchise Fee payments. (C) In the event that the City believes that Grantee has unlawfully or unfairly allocated revenue between Cable Services and non-Cable Services for the purpose of calculating Franchise Fee payments, the City and the Grantee shall meet upon advance notice from the City to discuss the allocation methodology. If the City and the Grantee cannot agree on the matter within a reasonable period of time, the City and Grantee shall submit the matter to a mutually-agreeable third party for mediation. The cost of the mediation shall be shared equally between the City and the Grantee. If the mediation is unsuccessful or if the City and the Grantee are unable to mutually agree on a mediator, then either the City or the Grantee can bring the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction, or pursue any other remedies available to them in this Franchise or by law. 3.2 Payments Grantee's franchise fee payments to the City shall be computed quarterly for the preceding calendar quarter ending March 31, June 30; September 31D, and December 31. Each quarterly payment shall be due and payable no..later than thirty, (30) days after said dates., 3.3 Acceptance of Payment and Recomputation No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord by the City that the amount paid is, in fact, the correct amount, nor shall any acceptance of -11- Mrs. Sang recommended Council consider an Ordinance to change the code prohibiting glass bottles in City parks to allow for the Parks Director or City Manager to permit such containers on certain occasions; all Council Members were in support of staff drafting and bringing forth the amendment to a future City Council meeting. I- Item 2. Billboard Impact Fee Mr. Dahl advised Council on the implications of the proposed Impact Fee relative CI to the Billboard Ordinance hearing on April 14th, speaking to the importance of bringing forth the Ordinance to adopt the fee program on first reading at the same meeting of the Billboard Ordinance hearing. Mr. Dahl suggested three options in determining the fee amounts and the fee structure: 1. an Impact Fee 2. an application or re-application fee, or 3. a billboard use tax (would require Tabor election). Mr. Johnstone spoke to staffs considerations and led discussion with Council on how to determine the monetary or value impact of billboards in the City in order to justify a fee amount and to structure the Impact Fee program so as to use its revenues in accordance with that impact. Ms. Berry asked for consensus to direct the City Manager to prepare a budget amendment for the Impact Study and, on April 14th, to bring back a revised timeline for implementation and completion of the Impact Study, and that Council would move, on April 14th, to continue the Billboard Ordinance to that completion date; Council Members Womble, Gokey and Sang indicated they would not support the proposal. Mayor DiTullio called for a break at 7:49pm; to resume at 8:00pm. City Attorney Jerry Dahl left the meeting at 8:00pm. Item 3. SAFER Wheat Ridge Presentation Chief Brennan spoke to the efforts and results of the Police Department's use of proactive crime analysis studies and practices through the Strategic Analysis For Effective Response program (presentation attached to this packet). Chief Brennan encouraged Council Members and citizens to form and support Neighborhood Watch Programs in their area. Interested citizens may contact Sergeant Paula Balafas at the Wheat Ridge Police Department at 303-235-2941. City of ~Wheatidge CommuNrry DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, Ey <Uager FROM: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director DATE: Apri12, 2007 SUBJECT: Billboard Impact Fee Ordinance Study Session April 7, 2008 Item 2. As directed by City Council at the February 25 public hearing on Council Bill 02-2008 (Billboard Ordinance), staff has drafted a billboard impact fee ordinance, which is scheduled for first reading at City Council's April 14, 2008 meeting. Public notice has also been published for a continuation of the public hearing for the Billboard Ordinance. Attached is a 1,t reading draft of the Billboard Impact Fee Ordinance as well as the 2nd reading draft of the Billboard Ordinance with proposed 2"d reading amendments recommended by staff. Staff can provide additional input at the meeting, including an update on the preparation of a development impact fee study. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 07-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, IMPOSING AN IMPACT FEE ON BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado (the "City"), pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-20-104.5, conducted a study to determine the impact of billboards within the City on the City's capital facilities (the "Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the results of the Study indicated that billboards do affect the City's capital facilities; and WHEREAS, the Study further quantified the reasonable impacts of billboards on the City's capital facilities and established an impact fee at a level no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to said billboards; and WHEREAS, the impact fee level is designed to defray the cost of continued use of billboards and not to remedy any current deficiency in City capital facilities without regard to the continued use of billboards; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Code of Laws as it governs billboards within the City, to impose an impact fee on the continued use of billboards within the City; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-711 is amended by adding the following subsection D: Sec. 26-711. Billboards; specifications and regulations. D. Impact fee: There is hereby imposed a billboard impact fee which shall be due and payable in full by the owner of any billboard within the City. The billboard impact fee is in addition to any and all other fees and charges associated with the location, relocation or rebuilding of a billboard. (1) The amount of the billboard impact fee due shall be equal to two percent (2%) of the gross revenue received by or on behalf of the billboard owner as a consequence of its ownership of the billboard during the previous calendar year. (2) Gross revenue means: (3) The billboard impact fee for each calendar year or portion thereof shall be paid to the City Treasurer on or before February 1st of the following calendar year. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPT on this day of full in a newspaper of general circulation in and consideration on final passage set f o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, Colorado. ED on first reading by a vote of to , 2008, ordered published in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing or , 2008, at 7:00 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2008. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor 2 Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: STAFF PROPOSED 2M READING EDITS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et SeMc . and 29-20-101 et s M. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (ZEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Property. For the purpose of this section, a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN). Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided into twe (2) billboard a:-'i°'° a r and-11-2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. ; previded that aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. where located. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. grevided, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way, the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. a 'Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or d. failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. failure to register an existing. billboard by June 30, 2008. 2. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 3. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 4. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and M.D. C. Temporary billboard removal, The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. If the number of legally permitted or registered billboards falls below the maximum number allowed as established in subsection A.3, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in 4 the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, or if none of the submitted applications meet the minimum requirements of subsection E, the vacancy shall remain. In this instance, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sea., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single leea&n property within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single leeetiea property are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified 5 below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. I{ Assignment of Whean4permik. A eurr-ent and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a r as owner- of the pf opeFty where t billboard is located or- of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing su& applicable fees. The assignment shall be neeomplished by filing and shall no require approvali- Registration of billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 286i day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 256i day of February, 2008. 7 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of .2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Kenneth Johnstone From: Mark W. Giordano [mark@unitedadv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:28 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: OAAA CONTACT Ken: The Director of Legislative Affairs for the OAAA is Myron Leible. His phone is 202-776-1844. He c should be ablt to provide a wealth of knowledge. Mark Mark W. Giordano United Advertising Corporation Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. T1,^~J%1"% FINAL REPORT A CRITICAL, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TWO STUDIES' RECENTLYRELEASED BY THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Prepared for: Maryland State Highway Administration Under Project AX137A51 Through and with full concurrence of: Positive Guidance Applications, Inc. Gerson J. Alexander, President By: Jerry Wachtel, CPE, President The Veridian Group, Inc. Berkeley, California Consultant October 18, 2007 3- //-o A. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION. Outdoor advertising has been a fixture on America's roadways since there were roadways. From the "Burma Shave" signs and "Mail Pouch Tobacco" signs of the 1920s, to the jumbo neon spectaculars and computer controlled images on skyscraper curtain walls that grace Times Square, Hollywood and Las Vegas today, outdoor advertising has always been present in our built environment. Although the pros and cons of billboards have been debated for more than 50 years, it is perhaps their influence on traffic flow and safety that has been most controversial. Now, a "perfect storm" is brewing that is bringing this issue to the forefront once again. Regulators and traffic safety experts are increasingly focused on driver distraction as a major factor in crash causation. Private roadway managers, together with traditional turnpike and toll road operators seeking new sources of revenue to support needed maintenance and safety improvements, are turning to advertisers to provide some of that revenue. And new technologies have brought large-scale, extremely bright, high resolution signs to the roadside - signs that can display a frequently changing series of images and are capable of presenting full motion video. Even more advanced technologies enable the advertiser to target roadside advertisements to the specific demographics of drivers passing these signs and to create signs that actually interact with drivers by presenting personalized messages on the billboard or contacting the driver's mobile phone. Legal battles between advertisers and government agencies over the safety impacts of roadside billboards have taken place for more than two decades, and have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. After a hiatus of some years, these battles are looming again, but the stakes are now much higher because of the costs and revenues involved and the heightened concern about driver distraction. B. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW In July 2007, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) announced on its website the issuance of two "ground-breaking studies" that addressed the human factors and driver performance issues associated with real-world digital (or electronic) billboards (EBBs), and the impact of such billboards on traffic accidents (Outdoor Advertising Association of America, 2007). The OAAA website stated, in part, that this research "offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence." Since neither of these two studies had received public peer review at the time of their issuance, it was premature, at best, for the OAAA to make any claims of the validity of the findings. Also, since the accident study did not compare accidents in the presence of EBBs to accidents in their absence, the study presented no evidence, no less conclusive evidence, to justify the OAAA's claim. In addition, since even a cursory inspection of the human factors study showed that driver performance and behavior did, in fact, deteriorate when EBBs were present vs. when they were absent, the OAAA claims seem difficult to support. Finally, the OAAA's claim that its Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) commissioned these studies to specifically examine whether there exists "a cause and effect link between outdoor digital billboards and driver behavior" demands scrutiny since the research methods and statistical analyses employed in these two studies were incapable of determining causality. Nonetheless, news media throughout the country picked up on the OAAA web posting, and the debate over the pros and cons of these new billboards took center stage in many State and local government offices. In several cases, Government agencies at all levels came under immediate pressure to promulgate new regulations or amend existing codes and to permit the construction of new electronic billboards along their roads. As a result of the issuance of these two studies and the claims made for them, and because of the need to address this technology by Government agencies nationwide, the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) asked this reviewer to perform an independent peer review of each of the two studies. This report represents the results of that review. The two studies are: "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio," by: Albert Martin Tantala, Sr., and Michael Walter Tantala, Tantala Associates, Submitted to: The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, July 7, 2007", and "Driving Performance and Digital Billboards: Final Report," by: Suzanne E. Lee, Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, Prepared for: Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, March 22, 2007." C. HOW THIS REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED. Each of the two reviews that follows was conducted by thoroughly reading the report, performing independent verification, where possible, of the accuracy of statements made and data provided, reviewing the statistical analyses that were performed and the conclusions drawn from them, checking cited references and identifying important references omitted, and looking for signs of possible bias that might have influenced the decisions made or the conclusions reached. For both documents, our review, followed the same sequence: (1) Decisions and Assumptions Made in Support of the Research; (2) Methodology; (3) Review and Application of Cited Literature; (4) Statistical Methods, Controls, and Analyses; (5) Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting, and Evidence of Bias. Because the strength of any research project rests heavily on the decisions and assumptions made in advance (a priori) by the researchers about what to study and what to exclude, and on the research methodology that rests, in large part, on those decisions and assumptions, we have given the greatest weight in our review to subsections (1) and (2) as listed above. D. REVIEW OF THE TANTALA REPORT. 1. Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research This study is based upon an after-the-fact (post-hoc) review of police traffic collision reports. The weakness of trying to understand issues of driver inattention or distraction (which is the real focus of this research) through a post-hoc review of summary crash data is discussed in detail in Subsection 2, below. In this Subsection, we address the decisions and assumptions made by the researchers that led to their determination of which crashes to include in the study, and which to exclude. The decision of which crashes to study and which to ignore depends on two critical assumptions made by the researchers. The first assumption is based on their justifiable focus on those crashes that occurred in the vicinity of EBBs, i.e. within those roadway sections when an approaching driver could first see, and subsequently read the message on such billboards. In other words, the crashes of interest would be those that were initiated during the interval that an EBB was within the visible or legibility range of an approaching driver; and we would want to compare such crashes to those that occurred on comparable roadway sections where no EBBs were present. (As will be discussed below, however, such comparisons are not possible because of another assumption made by the researchers). Thus, the critical assumption underlying this decision is how to determine which crashes were, and which were not, within the visibility and legibility ranges of the seven (7) EBBs evaluated in this study. The second critical decision by the researchers that leads to the scope of included vs. excluded crashes for study is whether to include all crashes reported in these study and control sections of roadway, or whether to exclude some of the crashes for certain reasons. The researchers made the decision that certain types of crashes should be excluded from study because they were subject to certain types of biases. Below, we address each of these decisions, and the assumptions on which they were based. a. Assumptions about the visual range and legibility range of EBBs Let us first address the researchers' assumptions about the visibility and legibility distances of the seven (7) EBBs addressed in this study, which, in turn, led to their decisions about roadway sections for which to include and exclude crash data. The authors use several different terms in their report to identify those roadway sections where approaching drivers might be able to initially see an EBB ahead and later read a message displayed on that EBB. Their terms include: "visible range from route," "viewer reaction zone," viewer reaction distance (VRD)," "viewer reaction distance zone", and "viewer reaction time (VRT)." Unfortunately, the authors neither define these terms nor describe how the measures based on them were developed. The closest they come to providing this information is in their discussion of VRD, which they describe as follows: Viewer Reaction Distance (is) how far from a billboard that the driver is potentially within the "influence" of the billboard" (p. 45, and similarly on p. 79). In other words, viewer reaction distance is the distance in which the viewer can react. The authors further state that "reasonable values for VRD were previously determined in previous studies, and are a function of the driver's speed." This statement is incorrect. Viewer reaction distance is not affected by the driver's speed - the distance at which a driver can first see, and then read, any sign is independent of speed; it is only viewer reaction time that would be affected by speed. Further, the authors provide no citations for the previous studies mentioned, and offer no other basis for their development of their VRD formula. They report that, at 65 MPH, the VRD is approximately 0.2 miles with a VRT (Viewer Reaction Time) of 10 seconds (p. 79). A simple calculation demonstrates that, at 65 mph (95 feet-per-second or fps), 0.2 miles is traversed in 11 seconds, not 10. It is possible, therefore, that although this formula would yield an error approaching 10% (an assumed VRD of 10 seconds vs. a calculated VRD of 11 seconds at an assumed 65 mph speed), this may be the source of their assumption that VRD is 10 seconds. The merit of the researchers' values assigned to these critical measurements is further eroded by their failure to account for the fact that billboards on the opposite side of a multi-lane highway from an approaching driver provide a longer viewing time than those on the near side, and by their commingling of VRD with their measurement of "distance to the nearest billboard" (pp. 45-46) - a term which they do not define. Surprisingly, the researchers' assumptions about VRD discussed above are directly contradicted by Table 2-3 on p. 15 of the report. This table is titled: "Visible Range of Billboards Along Interstate Routes;" it is never referred to in their report. The table shows the "visible range," in miles and feet, for each of the seven EBBs in the study. Although visible range is never defined, it would appear that these distances (which range from a low of 0.28 to a high of 2.15 miles) represent the maximum distance from which each of the EBBs can be seen by an approaching driver. Translating these distances to time, it can be seen that the billboard with the shortest visible range (#4) would be within an approaching driver's visual range for 15.6 seconds, whereas the billboard with the longest visible range (#5) would be visible to an approaching driver for 118.9 seconds, or nearly two minutes. (Note that both of these calculations are based on the researchers' claim that the Speed Limit was 65 mph). These data suggest that the researchers' decision to review only those crashes within 10 seconds upstream of any billboard is insufficient even to assess the potential influence of billboard #4, no less any of the other six, all of which were visible for greater distances. The consequences for the validity of the data of this study are significant because the reviewers' assumptions led them to exclude all (an unknown number) crashes that were likely initiated in roadway segments further upstream from each of the billboards that they chose to study. For example, if the researchers determined that a particular EBB's zone of visual influence extends for 850 feet, they would exclude from their consideration any reported crash that took place outside this boundary. And the effect of these assumptions on the data considered by the researchers is substantial. It should be obvious that every EBB visible along the route will have a different VRD and VRT depending upon numerous factors - sign size, height, and location, sight distance, size of characters in the display, roadway geometry, etc. Nonetheless the authors chose to assign each EBB the same VRD of 0.2 miles and the same VRT of 10 seconds. We believe that this is indefensible, especially given their data, in Table 2-3, showing the dramatically variable distances from which each of the seven EBBs can be seen. To take one example, if we assume (based on accepted industry practice) that 1" of letter height supports a legibility distance of 40', and a 14' tall billboard (all digital billboards in this study were 14' high z 48' long) with a character height of 75% of the available height or 10 feet 6 inches (a reasonable assumption based on the EBB images captured in Figures 2-4 and 2-8 of their report), then the legibility distance of such a sign would be 5040 feet, or 0.95 miles, nearly five times the VRD assumed by these authors. More significantly, the visibility distance is far greater than the legibility distance, and given the size, brightness, and frequently changing imagery on EBBs, it is reasonable to assume that crashes initiated within a given sign's visibility distance must also be considered. We have measured the visibility distance (day and night) to a recently erected EBB as greater than five (5) miles, and even though typical roadway sight distances would not permit such a lengthy visibility distance, it is reasonable to assume that the gaze of an approaching driver might be attracted to, and that such a driver might be capable of reading, an EBB at far greater distances, and for a far longer period of time, than the authors chose to evaluate in this study. We conclude, therefore, that the crash data accepted for inclusion in this study, based on the researchers' artificially constrained assumptions of VRD, has resulted in a substantial understatement of the true number of crashes that have occurred within the visibility and legibility range of the EBBs studied. Because Viewer Reaction Zone is never satisfactorily defined, all of the results reported in Tables 4-1 to 4-4 must be considered suspect. Similarly, because the Visible Range is never satisfactorily defined, all of the results reported in Figures 4-2 to 4-9 must also be questioned. b. Assumptions about bias in crash causes The researchers made the assumption that certain classes or types of crashes should be excluded from study because they represent "bias". They use the terms "data-bias" and "interchange-bias." Data bias is discussed here; interchange bias is discussed below. Unfortunately, in 90 pages, there are no clear statements that identify exactly which types of biases were excluded, or why. Throughout the report, "examples" of such biases are mentioned in various contexts, but the list of excluded crash types changes from page to page, and a complete list is not provided. Thus, the reader is left to question whether other categories of crashes were also excluded from the data set. Excerpting from the examples given, the following crash types were excluded from the database: - Deer hits (also called animal related) ' - Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol' - Adverse weather2 - Speeding3 - Senior related3 It is puzzling that the researchers chose to exclude crashes that occurred in adverse weather, and crashes that were "senior related." Since adverse weather is a known contributor to increased driver task demands, it represents the very kind of traffic/environmental condition for which one would want to study the potential distracting effect of such signs. Similarly, it has long been known that novice drivers and older drivers may have difficulties in highly demanding driving situations. For this reason, the decision to eliminate "senior related" crashes (no mention is made of crashes involving young drivers), raises additional concerns about the validity of the authors' approach. c. Assumptions about interchange bias The decision to eliminate crashes in the vicinity of interchanges (discussed by the authors on pages 49 and 77) is particularly troubling for several reasons. In their own words, they excluded interchange-related crashes because interchanges are "where drivers may undertake additional tasks, such as changing lanes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions." Since these demanding tasks associated with intersections are the very situations that are of concern to the traffic safety community, and since they are among the prime locations for high visibility billboards (because such locations may allow the billboards to be seen by traffic on multiple roadways), their a prior removal from this study is a cause for concern. It should be noted that the most recent billboard study published by FHWA (Farbry et al, 2001) and cited by these authors, specifically noted that intersections and interchanges were highly demanding road locations, and that such locations should be included in any study of electronic billboards. ' Discussed in Tables 4-5, 4-6. pp 45, 49, 77 2 Discussed in Table 4-5, pp. 49, 77 ("snowfall" and "icy roads" on pp. 49, 77) ' Discussed in Table 4-6 (age 65 and above) Decades of research into driver distraction demonstrates that alert experienced drivers can tolerate some distraction when their task demands are not high, but that all drivers have different cognitive capacities, and that there are certain road, traffic, and environmental conditions that may increase cognitive demands to the extent that additional sources of distraction should be avoided. Thus, the exclusion of some of the very types of crashes that might be expected to occur in the vicinity of EBBS is troubling, and, as with the decision to severely limit the distance upstream of EBBs in which crash data was collected, results in a likely substantial understatement of the actual crash statistics that took place in these roadway sections. Taken together, the choice of crash types to exclude is a serious weakness of this study, given that the very kinds of crashes excluded are those that would be of direct relevance to the potential for distraction caused by billboards. Although the decision to exclude crashes in the vicinity of interchanges is problematic for the "temporal" study, it is far more harmful in that section of the report that deals with "spatial" factors. In Section 4.4, the researchers describe the "spatial analysis as having been performed to study "whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near digital billboards on specific routes." The same crash factor exclusions apply as elsewhere in the report, but here the reader is further misled because the researchers define the "exclusion zone" related to interchanges in two conflicting ways within the same sentence. They state that they excluded "those accidents and billboards on interchanges (entrances/exits) within one mile (1/4 mile on each side of an interchange)" (p. 78). Regardless of which distance was actually used, it is clear that any resulting findings are confounded by the fact that at least three of the billboards chosen for study (#3, Figure 2-8; #4, Figure 2-10; #7, Figure 2-16) are in close proximity to interchanges. Thus, if some percentage of accidents in the vicinity of these billboards was excluded due to the signs' proximity to the nearby interchanges, this artificially lowers the true number of crashes that may have been contributed by driver distraction due to these EBBs. As a result, the data for "bias adjusted" crashes in Tables 4-7 through 4-10, and in Figures 4-11 through 4-17 must also be considered suspect if not clearly insufficient. Figure 1, (taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website) shows the researchers' Billboard Number 3 and its proximity to an 1-90 interchange. As can be seen, this sign is within mile of the interchange. So, regardless of what distance from an interchange was actually excluded in the data collection, this sign, and most likely, Billboards 4 and 7 as well, would have been excluded. Unfortunately, because the authors do not provide the reader with any information regarding the distance from the nearest interchange to any of their studied EBBs, there is no way to measure their proximity objectively. In summary, the researchers' decision to exclude from study crashes that may have been affected by certain "biases" is essentially and critically flawed because it overlooks the most basic understanding of traffic crashes -that they are frequently multi-causal - and it is precisely when such multiple factors are at play - adverse weather, older drivers, complex interchanges, speeding) that the likelihood grows that the cognitive demands on the driver are increased and that irrelevant distraction cannot be tolerated. In other words, one should not exclude such factors because they cause "bias" - these are exactly the factors that interact to increase the likelihood of a crash when other factors such as inattention or distraction are present, and they must be investigated. d. Assumptions about crash baseline data Finally, one key assumption that colors the entire research paradigm is explained in two successive questions posed by the authors on p. 4 of the report. The first question asks: "...what is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety?" This is a logical question to ask, and the one that should have guided this research. However, the next sentence, also posed in the form of a question, Figure 1. Proximity of EBB #3 to an 1-90 interchange. This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-8, p. 16, of the Tantala study. It is also Site # 22 from the Lee study. (Source: htto //www.clearchanneloutdoor com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index htm) asks: "Are accidents more, less, or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards?" Unfortunately, it was this second question that guided the research, not the first. In other words, this study was not designed to investigate the safety of digital billboards compared to the absence of billboards; rather, it made the baseless assumption that conventional billboards were the acceptable baseline for comparison with EBBS. As a result of this assumption, the research methods failed to include true comparison sites where billboards were absent, and made any assessment of the contribution to crashes from EBBs against a true baseline impossible. Further, the announcement on the website of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) that accompanied the introduction of this report erroneously stated that this study "offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence." Clearly, since no comparisons were made between crashes in the presence and absence of EBBs were made, this claim is false, 2. Methodology. This is a post-hoc accident study, meaning that the researchers reviewed summary reports of accidents that had been prepared by investigating police officers. Any such investigation is limited by the detail and accuracy of the reports reviewed, and by certain significant limitations in the accident reporting system itself, which the authors should have, but did not, acknowledge. For example, the majority of traffic collisions are never reported to, nor investigated by, the police, and thus any effort to determine a crash rate in the roadside areas studied will result in under-reporting. Second, and of critical importance for this study, unless a particular crash involves major property damage, serious injuries, or fatalities, the police investigation will most likely be rather cursory. In most States, a serious crash, and only a serious one, will require a specialized investigative team to examine the precursors to the accident (by reviewing evidence such as skid marks, debris fields, etc., and preparing a supplemental accident report); but for the vast majority of police investigated accidents, no in-depth investigation is performed. The result is that information on the traffic collision report form regarding the actual crash location is often incorrect, and leads to a serious weakness in the conduct of post-hoc accident investigations such as the present one. Specifically, police reports will almost always identify the location as the position where the involved vehicles came to rest after impact, since the costly and time-consuming in-depth investigations necessary to identify the originating location of the crash are simply not performed for the vast majority of crashes. Although the researchers are silent on this issue, it is almost certain that the crashes studied for this report are based on post-crash, at-rest vehicle positions rather than the upstream locations where the driver or drivers initially lost control or failed to pay attention. If our interest is in the "cause" of the crash, as it must be in a study such as this, the point of rest after collision is essentially meaningless - in other words, what we are concerned with when we study issues of distraction or inattention is not where the vehicles came to rest but where the crash sequence first began. As stated above, with the rare exception of 10 serious crashes where supplemental investigations are performed in an effort to "reconstruct" the event, the researcher simply cannot know this information - and thus every identified crash location used for data analysis is suspect. In short, it is most likely that the traffic collisions evaluated in this study do not relate the triggers or precursors to billboard or EBB locations - they relate only the end result of such crashes to EBBs or billboards and thus they tell us nothing about the possible distraction effect of such roadside objects. This is enough to render these findings suspect. The methodology included a "temporal analysis" which examined the incidence of crashes at locations where billboards had undergone conversion from traditional to digital display. Data was collected for 18 months prior to, and after, the conversion. Although this before and after analysis is necessary, it is not sufficient. Missing is any analysis of comparable sites in which there were either no billboards present, or billboards that were present but not converted. As has been shown in previous research in this field (e.g. Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board, 1976), it is possible that crash rates remained essentially the same in road sections featuring converted billboards, but actually decreased in sections that included non- converted billboards, or for non-billboard locations, during the same before-and- after study period. Another key methodological weakness concerns the lack of definition and description of the assessment of "accident density" and the commingling of digital and conventional billboards in such an assessment. 3. Review and Application of Cited Literature. The authors' include a list of 17 references, but none of these are actually cited in the text. Accordingly, the "References" section of the report is better identified as a bibliography. In addition, references made within the report of prior research are not accompanied by any citations, and thus it is not possible for the reader to know the source of the authors' claims. 4. Statistical Methods and Analyses Used The researchers' discussion of crash statistics, including counts and rates, is misleading and erroneous. They rely on a review of police traffic collision reports but, as discussed above, fail to note that most accidents are not reported. On page 33 they define annual average daily traffic (AADT) as "the total volume of traffic in both directions of a highway or a road for one year divided by 365 days." Then on Page 47, in their discussion of Table 4-5, the authors discuss the number of collisions per year in the "digital-billboard locations" (which they do not define), and calculate the accident rate. However, because the EBBs studied for this report were single-sided (i.e. facing only one direction of travel), the authors have overstated the actual AADT by a factor of two, and the actual accident rate is therefore twice as high as reported. 11 In a section titled "Accident Density and Billboard Density," the researchers violate the basic tenet of their research objective by commingling digital with conventional billboards along the route. By including all billboards in their metric for billboard density, they invalidate any opportunity to compare, as their research objective says they will, digital billboards with conventional billboards, as well as any opportunity to compare digital billboards with the absence of billboards (which we believe to have been the proper comparison to have been made). Further, the authors' statement: "If a noticeable correlation between billboards and accidents exists, then one would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high billboards densities" (p. 78). Aside from their misuse of the words "noticeable" and "significantly" in this context, this statement is incorrect because of the researchers' failure to control for the roadside environment (geometry, location of interchanges, presence of other roadside objects that might attract a driver's attention, etc.) in which billboards were present from areas where they were not, as well as their failure to separate digital from conventional billboards which might present quite different attention-getting characteristics. The researchers misinterpret their own data. An examination of their Figure 3-5, for example, does not corroborate the authors' conclusions that "the median age of drivers involved in an accident are 23" (sic) or that "the winter months of 2005 had the most accidents on Interstates" (p. 33). Similarly, Figure 3-7 does not show that "the majority (of crashes) occurs during dawn and daylight hours" as stated on p. 34. The authors misuse terms relating to their statistical analysis in an apparent effort to bolster their arguments. For example, they discuss a "noticeable correlation" - a term with no meaning. And, despite the fact that the authors know that correlation cannot imply causation, they nonetheless inappropriately suggest otherwise in several statements throughout the report (see, for example, pp. 2, 98). Indeed, the researchers' entire discussion of correlation is apparently intended to suggest that no correlation less than 1.00 is indicative of any relationship. On page 81, for example, they state: "Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate 'weak' correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero." On the contrary, any researcher who has studied traffic safety in a real world environment would be grateful to achieve results where correlation coefficients of 0.7 were found. Because of their faulty assumptions discussed above, one of their major conclusions is simply unsupportable. They state: "if a noticeable correlation exists between billboards and accidents, then one would expect significant changes in the number of accidents between the 0 and 0.2 mile range and between the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range; the correlation coefficient would be large (close to 1.00)." We take issue with this statement for two reasons. First, as discussed elsewhere in this review, because large, bright, colorful, changing EBBS can be seen, especially at 12 night, at far greater distances than these researchers examined, and because it is likely to be these very sign characteristics that capture the attention of drivers long before a sign's message can be read, their potential to distract may occur far earlier (upstream) than the 0.2 mile cutoff used in this study. Second, it is generally understood that, in real world traffic safety studies, "strong" correlation coefficients rarely reach 0.6, no less approach 1.0. The analysis performed in this study is based on what the authors call "commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to billboard density, to 'viewer reaction distance,' and to billboard proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest billboard)." But none of these terms is defined, no references to prior research are provided, and the conceptual drawing used to explain these assumptions in Figure 4-1 (p. 46) provides nothing more than a visual illustration of this vague narrative. Thus, the reader simply cannot form an independent opinion of what was actually done, what assumptions were made, and how the data was collected. 5. Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting, and Evidence of Bias. There are internal errors and inconsistencies throughout the report. Repesentative examples include: - The key for Figure 2-1 is incorrect. - Table 2-1 misstates the direction of the face of Billboard No. 3 - The description of Figure 2-2 (p. 8) is completely wrong - The caption for Figure 2-2 does not depict what is in the Figure - Figure 2-2 is identical to Figure 2-1 with key information missing - All Latitude and Longitude data presented in the report is reversed - The numbering system for the billboards studied is described as "arbitrary" (p. 10). This is not true. The numbering system (and all other descriptive information) is taken directly from the Clear Channel website. - Data presented in the text disagrees with data in Figures and Tables. - There are two tables each labeled Table 2-3 (pp. 11 and 15). The authors base some of their calculations (e.g. "viewer reaction distance" and "viewer reaction time") on their statement that the posted Speed Limit was 65 MPH (p. 79). This is false. As clearly shown in their own Figure 2-10 (p. 17), the posted Speed Limit for at least one of their sites was 60 MPH. Although the authors provide no information about the posted speed limits at the other six sites, there is no reason for the reader to believe that they are other than 60 MPH. Of course, at 60 MPH, a driver approaching an EBB will be able to see and read the billboard for a longer period of time than would be the case at 65 MPH, thus further challenging the researchers' choice of an upstream cut-off point for crash statistics. Figure 2, taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website, depicts the same EBB (No. 4) shown in the Figure 2-10 of the study. In addition to showing the posted speed limit, 13 this figure clearly shows another billboard within the approaching driver's field of view, and the proximity of this EBB to the 1-77 interchange ahead. Figure 2. Image showing EBB #4 adjacent to posted Speed Limit signs. This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-10, p. 17 of the Tantala study. 1-77 interchange signs can clearly be seen, as can an additional billboard in the driver's view. This is the same sign represented as Site No. 42 in the Lee report. (Source: http://www.clearchanneloutdoor com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index htm) The authors present considerable data that are completely irrelevant to the study, while ignoring data of central importance. They take five pages (23-27) to provide superfluous information about the Interstate Highway System, provide data in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that has no relevance for the study, and, on pages 29-31, repeat, verbatim, information previously provided on pp 10-11. The irony of this presentation is that the report is completely lacking in vital information about these EBBs and the studied road sections. For example, the authors provide no information about horizontal and vertical curvature, merges or lane drops, presence of official signage, or intersection characteristics such as entrances, exits, gores, etc. They don't even tell us how close any of the studied billboards are to the nearest interchange, despite the fact that their figures clearly show such proximity in at least three of the seven studied locations. A number of the Figures and Tables in the report are taken directly from the website of ClearChannel Outdoor, the owner of the seven billboards studied. As indicated above, despite certain statements made by the authors, such as: "The 14 numbering of the digital billboards in this study are (sic) arbitrary' (p. 10) this numbering system and other information relevant to each billboard is actually that provided by the billboards' owner, ClearChannel Outdoor, LLC. Further, in an article reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer (Slobodzian, 2007), a ClearChannel Outdoor executive stated that his company "hired" the researchers to perform this study in Cleveland. E. REVIEW OF VTTI REPORT. 1. Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research a. The decision to collect data for an 8-second interval prior to passing a site The researchers chose a time period of 8-seconds in advance (upstream) of a billboard, and, indeed, all sites, to record driver performance and eye glances. This interval was chosen, according to the authors, because this was the message- change cycle for the digital (electronic) billboards studied at these sites. The assumption that 8 seconds was a reasonable data capture interval raises several concerns, discussed below under Methodology. b. The choice of "control" sites The researchers selected four types of "events" or "sites" at which to collect data. For the main (daytime) portion of this study, there were 5 digital (electronic) billboard locations, which we have called "study sites," and three other types of locations, which we have called "control sites." These included conventional billboards (N=15), baseline sites (N=12), and comparison sites (N=12). The study authors provide no images or schematics of any of the 44 locations, and their descriptions and definitions of the site characteristics, particularly for the baseline and comparison sites, are vague and inconsistent, making it difficult for the reader to determine just how these site types compared. Baseline sites, according to a statement in the study Abstract, contained "no signs" (p. 6). But we later learn that this was not the case. Some baseline sites (the authors never state how many) in fact, contained signs. But the most serious problem is with the assumptions made for the comparison sites. On page 8 we are told that comparison sites are "similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving." On page 21, they are described as "areas with visual elements other than billboards." Later on the same page we are told that some of these sites included on-premise signs, variable message signs, and "digital components." Then, in Table 2 (p. 22) the reader can see that one comparison site is described as a "tri-vision billboard" and three others as an "on premise LED billboard." In reality, then, the comparison sites may have been just as visually compelling, if not more so, than the EBB sites that were the principle focus of this study. This intentional confounding of study and control sites seems designed to further the researchers' purpose of diminishing any adverse findings from EBBs by showing them to be no worse than existing sources of distraction. 15 As expected, the report's findings tend to bear out this concern in that, for many measures, EBB and comparison sites elicited similar results, and these results differed, often significantly, from those obtained at conventional or baseline sites. The problem for the researchers is how to treat these findings given their a priori site selection decisions; the problem for the reader is how to interpret them. In our opinion the approach adopted by the researchers is seriously flawed. It takes the clear evidence found in this study that digital billboards are associated with adverse driver performance, and twists these conclusions in such a way to suggest that there is no problem with digital billboards because drivers are already distracted by other "comparison" sites. The net effect of this is to avoid directly addressing the research objective, which was: "to assess the effects, if any, of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance" (p. 8), and instead answer a question that was not asked - how does driver behavior and performance compare for digital billboards vs. similarly distracting on-premise signs? In short, the authors' assumption that their carefully chosen comparison sites were appropriate control locations against which to compare the effects of EBBs enables them to slant their findings to suggest that, because driver performance in the presence of digital billboards is similar to their performance in the presence of these equally distracting "comparison" sites, there is no cause for concern regarding the safety of EBBs. Looking at the data, this seems to be a serious error. c. The decision to minimize nighttime data collection. Digital billboards are of particular concern to traffic safety experts at night, due to their ability to achieve high brightness and contrast levels, their high resolution imagery, and their visually compelling message changes, all of which can act to capture the attention of the driver at the expense of other targets in the scene (such as official signs and signals, pavement markings, and other vehicles). Thus, we question why the researchers chose to perform only a limited night-time study, one which included, by design, too few participants to enable them to analyze the data statistically. This decision is particularly troubling because, as might have been hypothesized, the researchers found indications of greater distraction by digital billboards vs. control sites at night with all of their measures, and, they suggest, at least some of these findings "would show statistical significance" in a larger study (p. 64). They state: "The overall conclusion (of the nighttime data), supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital billboard and by longer glances in the direction of these billboards)" (p. 10). They also report that both performance measures, speed maintenance and lane keeping, were poorer at night for digital billboards (and conventional billboards) than for comparison or baseline sites. 2. Methodology a. Lack of control locations. 16 The researchers selected some study sites on the right side of the road and some on the left, then recorded and analyzed whether drivers glanced in the direction of these sites as they approached and passed them. In some cases they found examples of participants looking in the direction opposite to the site being studied. When such behavior occurred in the presence of billboard sites, they interpreted this to mean that the billboard was not attention-getting. But there is no evidence to suggest that they sought to identify or control for the possible presence of billboards or other visually attention-getting targets that may have existed along the roadside opposite their study sites. In other words, when they selected a study site on the right, they provide no information to suggest that they made sure that there was nothing on the left that might capture the driver's attention. If, in fact, they did not identify and control for such opposing sites, , then the eye glance data that they captured are suspect.. Since they do not report any efforts to evaluate and control for such conditions, one must assume that they did not do so. In short, it is entirely possible that glances to the left when a billboard was on the right (or conversely) were made because there was a competing, perhaps compelling, site across the road from the study site that was neither controlled nor evaluated.. A similar concern exists for uncontrolled sites that might exist on the same side of the road as a site of interest, and within a driver's field of view as he or she approached that site. Given the coarseness of the eye gaze data, there was likely no way for the researchers to know whether a particular participant was looking at the study site or an unidentified site for which they did not control. As one example, a review of Figure 1 shows the EBB of interest on the right side of the road, but the figure also shows a large billboard on the left side of the road that appears in the center of the image. If the researchers captured eye glances straight ahead or to the left at this location, they might have been due to the participant looking at this uncontrolled billboard. b. Lack of controls within and across study sites. Although the five EBBS studied each measured 14' high by 48' wide, we are given little information about other important characteristics of these signs; characteristics that could have had a direct impact on their attention-getting qualities, such as their height, angle to the drivers' line of sight, and proximity to the road. Further the reader is told little about roadway geometry, prevailing traffic speeds and volume, etc. Any of these factors may have affected the comparability of sites. Even though all five EBBs were 14' high and 48' wide (although mounted at very different heights relative to the road surface elevation) there was no consistency of sizing of conventional billboards or signs on the comparison sites. Indeed, we are told on page 21 that conventional billboards included a "few" that were of other sizes, including "standard poster, junior paint, and 10'6" x 36' bulletins." Since the size of a billboard or other sign likely has a direct relationship to the distance from which it can be seen and the size of lettering that it can accommodate, this failure to control for sign size and other characteristics relative to a sign's visible and legibility range is an important oversight. In our opinion, without any effort to control these basic 17 site and sign characteristics, it is difficult for the researchers to defend any interpretations they may have made from their data. c. The implications of the 8-second data recording period. As discussed above, the authors describe four different types of "events" to which they studied driver response. Driver response to each event was recorded for a period of 8 seconds, ending at the time that the instrumented vehicle passed the event, and beginning 8 seconds upstream of that location. However, there are several methodological problems both with their choice of an 8-second interval, and with their ability to define and measure it. At 65 MPH, the presumed speed on the freeways studied, a vehicle travels approximately 95 feet per second. Thus, during an 8-seoncd interval, a vehicle will travel 760 feet. The accepted practice for highway signs is that 1" of letter height can be read from approximately 40 feet away. So, for a billboard with 24" letters, the sign can be read from approximately 960 feet. In other words, a billboard can be read by the average driver at distances greater than those covered by the 8-second interval. When we recognize that letters on such signs may be considerably larger than this, and that such signs may display images of products or services dramatically larger than the size of letters (the signs studies are typically 14 feet tall), it should be obvious that these messages can be read at distances far greater than the authors' 8-second interval could accommodate. (Applying a scale to the word "Digital" in the signs shown in Figures 1 and 2 shows that these letters are 48" in height, indicating a legibility distance of 1920 feet. It takes more than 20 seconds to traverse this distance at 65 mph). In addition, because of the brightness, contrast, and image quality of digital billboards, and the fact that (in Cleveland) their message changes every 8-seocnds, it should be obvious that driver attention to the billboard may be initially attracted at far greater distances than those at which the message can actually be read. As a result, the choice of an 8-second data recording interval is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the distracting effects of digital billboards compared to other roadside sites including more traditional billboards and on-premise signs. The authors state that they chose an 8-second data collection period because the "digital billboards were programmed to change messages instantaneously once every 8 seconds; an event length of 8 seconds thus made it highly likely that a message change would be captured during the event" (p. 21). This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, as described immediately above, the sight distance and legibility distance, coupled with the size of the signs studied and their letter height, strongly suggests that digital billboards can be seen and read far earlier than 8 seconds upstream of the sign, thus strongly suggesting that the data recording interval should have been much longer. Second, it is obvious that had the researchers selected any data recording interval longer than 8 seconds, it, too, would have permitted them to capture a message change during each driver's approach to the event. Finally, despite their implicit recognition of the possible 18 significance of a driver actually observing a message change during his or her approach to the EBB, the researchers apparently never actually recorded any data on message change, and therefore had no way to evaluate any possible driver response to it. The seeming precision of the 8-second recording interval is also belied by the imprecision of the site characteristics. If a site contains a single billboard, one can measure the point in time when a driver passes that billboard. But how does one identify and measure the point of passage for the other types of sites studied? Since many of the comparison sites contained multiple objects, including multiple signs, there is no obvious end point. Similarly, for baseline sites which were devoid of any signs, one must question how an end point was defined. Because of what is often called the driver's cone of forward vision, signs on the left (billboards or otherwise) can generally be seen for a longer time and distance than can signs on the right. Given that the same 8-second interval was applied to signs on both sides, this raises questions for the viability of the start time for data collection at each site, given that this start time was defined as 8-seconds prior to the end point. Some signs are located perpendicular to the driver's direction of travel. Others, such as some two-sided billboards and many on-premise signs, may be located at other angles, including parallel to the driver's direction of travel (such as when mounted on a building fagade). In addition, the lateral distance of each sign from the driver's line of sight varies greatly as a result of factors such as: lateral distance from the road edge, and the number and width of lanes, medians, and shoulders. If the same 8-second point for passing a sign was applied regardless of sign angle to and lateral distance from the road, then some signs would be visible to drivers for less time than others, thus rendering the 8-second recording interval inconsistent across the studied sites. In summary, the researchers' choice of an 8-second data recording interval was inappropriate for many reasons, and resulted in unequal exposure to signs of interest across sites. A more appropriate way to determine the data collection interval would have been to identify the point at which a billboard or other sign of interest fell outside a predetermined angle of view from the driver's line of sight along the road axis, and defined the recording interval upstream from that point. This would have assured a more equitable, and comparable, identification of sight distance and would not have had the effect of artificially reducing the available glance times and control measurements made for the signs of interest in this study. Of course, it also would have made data actual collection more challenging. d. Measurement of nighttime luminance levels The authors measured the luminance levels of different sites at night. They took these measurements from the participant-driver's eye position, a decision which 19 masked and minimized the actual brightness differences between the EBBs and the other sites. A more appropriate comparison would have been directly in front of each of the signs of interest so that the authors could be sure that they were comparing sign to sign without the contribution of the general ambient environment. Further, the authors do not state whether some of the (non-EBB) sites measured at night were those on surface streets, and whether there were fixed luminaires within the range of the luminance meter at such sites. The presence of fixed lighting would also have reduced the actual luminance differences between EBBs and other sign sites. Despite these limitations in measurement strategy, and despite the fact that the digital billboards were automatically dimmed at night, the authors recorded nighttime luminance levels at the driver's eye position that were, on average, 10 times greater for digital billboards than for baseline sites, approximately 3 times brighter than sites with conventional billboards, and approximately 2.5 times brighter than comparison sites. The authors' state: "this probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital billboards" (p. 68). e. Different route types and control of variables The authors conducted their on-road studies on "interstate, downtown, and residential road segments" (p.. 27) Given that all five (5) digital billboards (study sites) were on interstate highways, the decision to include some of the control sites (baseline, conventional billboards, comparison sites) on roads other than interstates confounded the data collection and made meaningful comparisons across sites impossible. When conducting field research, the goal must be to reduce, wherever possible, extraneous sources of variability. In this study, the decision to include study sites (EBBs) on interstates and some (we are not told which or how many) control sites on surface streets leads to additional uncontrolled sources of variability. Some of the significant differences between these two classes of roadways, any or all of which may have affected the data, are: traffic speeds and flow; lighting levels; sight distances; access control; at grade vs. grade separated intersections; traffic control devices; and divided vs. undivided traffic. Even for the five EBBs that were the principal focus of this research, the authors seem to have made no attempt to identify, no less control, extraneous variables such as traffic speeds and volume, horizontal and vertical curvature, or other roadway and traffic characteristics that might have interacted with the variables of interest. Further, the distance between adjacent study sites was often very short. For example, using the Haversine formula, we calculated the distance between Site 37, an EBB, and Site 36, a baseline site, as less than 1.2km. Other studied sites might have been even closer to one another. Thus it is likely that the visibility ranges for adjacent sites overlapped, confounding eye gaze and vehicle performance comparisons. f. Precision of eye gaze recording 20 The equipment and methodology used for recording eye gaze of the participant drivers was apparently chosen because it is more "naturalistic" (i.e. less intrusive for the participant). The downside of this choice is that this approach yields data that are less reliable and less accurate than would have been attained using more sophisticated equipment. As a result of the speed of vehicle movement, the distances of the vehicle from the EBBs and other sites of interest, the lack of careful calibration of the equipment prior to each run, and, especially, the vague definition of site boundaries, it is highly unlikely that the eye gaze data yields results with sufficient precision that enables the researchers to know whether any given glance was made to a site of interest, another vehicle, or another site that was not specified for data collection. Eye glance location of one degree of accuracy or better is probably necessary for a study where accuracy is critical; but the equipment and method used by these researchers most likely has accuracy of 10 degrees or worse. g. Other methodological issues The authors describe this project as a "naturalistic" driving study, modeled after a much larger and broader-based study conducted at the same institution - generally known as the 100 car study' (Dingus, et al, 2006). Although they used an instrumented vehicle with on-board cameras, and although their test subjects drove the route without a researcher present in the vehicle, the present study differs significantly from the 100 car study in several key ways. First, the four on-board cameras used to record views of the road and of the drivers' glances were not hidden as they were in the 100 car study. Rather, they were prominently located on the driver's side A-pillar and on and adjacent to the rear view mirror. These camera locations are shown in Figures 8-10 of the report (pp. 32-33). Second, the duration of the present study was typically less than two (2) hours, whereas, in the 100 car study, participants kept their instrumented vehicles in their possession and used them daily for months. Third, participants in the present study had to follow a prescribed route, with instructions taped to the dashboard, whereas in the 100 car study, participants were free to drive when and where they chose in the course of performing their activities of daily living. In short, whereas the participants in the 100 car study may well have become acclimated to their test vehicles over time and ignored the fact that they were participating in a research study, the participants in the current study were fully aware that their performance and behavior was being monitored and recorded - thus their behavior could not reasonably be described as "naturalistic." The authors report that, for each participant, they calibrated the eyeglance equipment in a hotel parking lot after the participant had driven the route. Given that eyeglance recording equipment can "drift" over time, that vibration could have changed the mounting position of one or more cameras, or that the driver could have adjusted the seat or otherwise changed position, this calibration should have been performed, for each participant, both before and after their drive. Without this 21 comparison, the researchers had no way of knowing whether any recording parameters may have changed during the run. 3. Review and Application of Cited Literature There is a long history of published literature examining the relationship of roadside billboards to crashes and to driver behavior. Relevant studies dating as far back as 1934 have been identified and reviewed by others. And research continues to be conducted and reported to the present day. The authors chose to discuss only a small, non-representative subset of studies. As will be seen below, it is clear that the studies reported, particularly of the early work in this field, were selected because they were supportive of the authors' position. When they cite studies that reported findings at odds with their position, these authors dismiss them as poorly done or irrelevant; conversely, studies that report findings consonant with those of these authors are praised with inappropriate descriptors such as "rigorous." The authors report at length about their own previous research study conducted with conventional billboards in North Carolina. That project used the same basic methodology as the current effort, with the same inherent flaws, and its findings are equally suspect. Their reporting about two early epidemiological studies is illustrative of their approach to the literature. The authors cite an article by Rykken (1951), a two-page interim progress report on a roadside study conducted in Minnesota. They quote from Rykken: "...no apparent relationship was found between accident occurrence and advertising sign type or location" (p. 12). What they do not say, however, is that Rykken called this result "a very preliminary study of approximately 170 mi. of the 500 mi. study segment (p. 42). Significantly, they fail to cite the final report of the subject study (Minnesota Department of Highways, 1951) which concluded, in part: "An increase in the number of advertising signs per mile will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accident rate" (p. 31), and "intersections at which four or more (advertising) signs were located had an average accident rate of approximately three times that for intersections having no such signs." This final report has been extensively cited and reviewed by previous researchers. Wachtel and Netherton (1980), in particular, discussed it at length. It is puzzling, therefore, why these authors cited the interim progress report and ignored the final document. The researchers followed the same approach in their review of a parallel study conducted in Michigan. They cite an interim study report by McMonagle (1951) that looked at only partial findings (p. 12), and ignored the study's final report (Michigan State Highway Department, 1952) which found that illuminated advertising signs showed "an appreciable association with accident locations" (p. 6). In a confusing examination of a study by Rusch (1951) which analyzed crash reports on Federal and State highways in Iowa, the authors fail to report on Rusch's 22 published results, and offer no evaluation of his study. Instead, they cite a brief review by Andreassen (1985) [ignoring other independent review of the Rusch work] which stated, in part: 'the greatest number of inattention accidents occurred on the sections where business and advertising predominated as the roadside property usage, but this does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence' (p. 13). Given that Rusch's findings, despite methodological weaknesses that often affected these early field studies, demonstrated that the number of accidents was more than double in the study section (where 90 percent of the businesses and roadside advertising signs were located) than in either of the two control sections, given that "inattention" accidents predominated over both "business" and "other" accident categories in this study section, and given that the results held when corrected for mileage per segment, the researchers' treatment of this study is puzzling. Indeed, there were numerous examples of bias present in the authors' literature review. The four cited here are merely illustrative. 4. Statistical Methods And Analyses Used a. Long duration eye glances A major weakness of this study is the authors' failure to follow the very guidance that they recommend in their review of the work by Wierwille (1993), Horrey and Wickens (2006), and the '100 car study," (Dingus, et al., 2006), and their resultant misinterpretation of their own data. This failure is exacerbated by their decision not to present certain key data. Because this issue is central to their findings as well as to their apparent bias, it is discussed more fully in the paragraphs below. As early as the Abstract the authors state: "Various researchers have proposed that glance lengths of 1.6 seconds, 2.0 seconds, and longer may pose a safety hazard. An examination of longer individual glances showed no differences in distribution of longer glances between the four event types" (p. 6). They restate this conclusion on page 9: "An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds showed no obvious differences in the distribution of these longer glances across event types." As will be seen below, this is simply not true. In their introductory description of eyeglance results (p. 52) the authors list the seven (7) questions that they sought to answer. The seventh was: "Are longer glances (longer than 1.6 s) associated more with any of the event types?" This is followed by a summary and analysis of the findings relative to these seven questions. In all cases except one, the researchers performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the data, and reported their tests of statistical significance in both graphical and narrative form. The one exception was with regard to Question 7, longer glance durations. Despite restating Wierwille's recommendation that 1.6s be used as a criterion representing a long glance away from the roadway, and despite explaining that their approach in analyzing this data 23 follows that provided by Horrey and Wickens, "who suggest analyzing the tails of the distributions whenever eyeglance analysis is performed" (p. 59), these authors failed to do any such analysis. Instead, they apparently performed only a visual inspection of the data contained in their Figure 23 (p. 59) which depicts the distribution of glance durations for the four different event types. As a result of this visual inspection, they state: "As shown in Figure 23, the distributions of glance duration were similar across all event types, and there was no obvious pattern of longer glances being associated with any of the event types" (p. 59). Figure 3, below, reproduces the authors' Figure 23 together with its original caption. Base3ne 30°,% 25% 20% 0 15% 5% O 0. 9~ k x x x5 x. x M1 ti' ti M1~ Glance Length Is) Sam➢uds~n 30% 25% 20% `u 15% 10% w 5 'i. 4 •]A x i. M1- V-• r N v Glance Length [s) Conaenzlanei &Ilbaard 30% ?5% 20% q 15% 10% a SYo o% o • a° a> aT o 0 xx q a^ 1p 0 n5 v G3 nee Length js) Oijaa€ Billboard 30% b c 25% 205. t9 `a 15%. & 10% m g5 o P a5 d a' 1 ° + a 41 0 ti Glaxoe Length (s) Figure 23. Tails analysis for the distribution of glance duration, (method described in Hot-rev and Wickens, 2007). Figure 3. A reproduction, in original size, of the authors' Figure 23, together with its original caption. Because the authors do not provide data on the actual glance durations that were used to prepare these four bar charts, the reviewer cannot perform an independent review of their conclusions. However, enlarging the four charts enables at least a rudimentary independent review of their findings, with the following results. Using only the tails analysis as suggested by the authors (following Horrey and Wickens), and using both 1.6 seconds (the Wierwille criterion) and 2.0 seconds (based on findings from the 100 car study), we find the following: For glances of 1.6 seconds or longer, approximately 5.5% of baseline sites and 7.5% of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 13% of digital billboards and 16% of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. 24 For glances of 2.0 seconds or longer, approximately 2% of baseline sites and 4.5% of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 7% of digital billboards and 8% of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. Indeed, both EBBs and comparison sites captured glances longer than 3 seconds, behaviors not experienced with either baseline or conventional sites. Given that this visual inspection of the researchers' data suggests that long glances seem to occur two-three times more often with EBBs and comparison sites than they do with baseline or conventional sites, such results suggest important differences for the longest glances, the ones that highway safety experts are most concerned with. One must ask why the authors chose not to perform a statistical analysis of this data, particularly when they did so for every other set of eyeglance data, why their visual inspection of these data did not identify the dramatic differences reported here b. Findings of the nighttime study In the authors' abbreviated nighttime data collection effort, a shorter route with fewer signs and fewer participants, they examined four different eyeglance measures - eyes-on-road percent, overall glance frequency, mean glance duration in the direction of an event, and mean number of glances in the direction of an event. In all four cases they found that EBB and comparison sites showed differences from conventional billboard and baseline sites - always in the direction to suggest that the EBBs and comparison sites were more attention-getting and more distracting (pp. 64-66). Surprisingly, especially given their emphasis on longer glance durations based on the 100 car study" and the work by Wierwille, they apparently made no attempt to capture data for long glance durations, no less report it. c. Obfuscation of correlation with causation Throughout the report, the authors confuse the terms correlation and causation. Although it is clear that they well understand the important differences between these two types of statistical analysis, they often slip into the erroneous mode of citing a study whose sole purpose was to measure correlation, and criticize that study because it failed to prove causation. These fallacious comments are in line with a long tradition in the outdoor advertising industry of suggesting that there can be no relationship between billboards and traffic safety because billboards have never been shown to cause accidents. 5. Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting, and Evidence of Bias 25 Beginning with the first sentence of the Abstract, and continuing throughout the report, the authors construct their language in such a way as to intentionally mislead the reader. This was not a "naturalistic" study as stated in the Abstract (see our discussion of Methods) and it should not be reported as such. The stated purpose of this study was to "assess the effects, if any, of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance" (p. 8), not, as implied in the Abstract, to ascertain whether driving performance in the presence of digital billboards was on a par with driving performance in the presence of on-premise signs that were also bright, electronic, and changing. The researchers clearly found that EBBS did have an adverse impact on driving performance, and the fact that this adverse impact was similar to the adverse impact from other distracting signs does not diminish this finding nor make it acceptable. The authors admit that "there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards" (p. 6), and, as demonstrated in the body of the report, these changes are adverse, but such adverse impacts cannot be deemed acceptable merely because they "are on a par" with the adverse effects of other digital, flashing, and changing signage located on the premises of roadside businesses. Baseline sites should have been, as stated in the abstract, "sites with no signs." But, as described elsewhere in the report, an unidentified number of them did contain signs, thus diminishing their potential to serve as intended control sites. In direct conflict with a statement in the Abstract, longer individual glance patterns (greater than 1.6 and 2.0 seconds) did show differences (actually, rather dramatic differences) between the event types. In fact, per the authors' own statements elsewhere in the report, these differences at the tails of the distributions for glance duration may be critically important in assessing the true impact of digital billboards on driver performance and behavior. Similar misstatements are made throughout the Executive Summary, and will not be repeated here. However, the expressed "finding" that: "An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds indicated that these longer glances were distributed evenly across the digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events during the daytime" (p. 7) is plainly false, as is discussed at length in our section dealing with Statistics. Significantly, the data discussed in this "finding" was not analyzed by the researchers in accordance with their own data analysis recommendations, nor was such data even collected for the abbreviated nighttime study, when we would have expected such findings to be even more dramatic than they were in the daytime study. The authors identified five (5) EBBS for study. These are identified by latitude, longitude, route number, and side of road in Table 2, and shown graphically on a map in Figure 2. With this information, that reader can view images of these 26 EBBs from either the Tantala report or from the website of Clear Channel Outdoor, at http //www clearchanneloutdoor com/products/digitalidon,/cleveland.,/index htm . Examination of Figures 1 and 2 in our report, must lead the reader to question the accuracy of the authors' statement on p. 19: "The Cleveland digital billboards... were located off to the side of the roadway in straight-away sections of interstate with no interference from hills, curves, or intersections." The authors provide voluminous data for irrelevant issues (e.g. 124,740 video frames analyzed, 96,228 data points collected, 8,678 eye glances identified, etc.) but offer no information useful to readers who might want to know what was actually studied (for example, there are no images of any of the billboards or other sites studied, there is no indication of the precision with which eye gaze was captured, etc.). It appears as if the researchers intended to overwhelm the reader with useless information in an attempt to avoid questions about the real issues. There are numerous statements throughout the report that, on the one hand, are irrelevant to the study, and, on the other, demonstrate a clear pro-billboard attitude. Some examples: "The lead author of this report recently participated on an expert panel charged with providing recommendations for a minimal data set to be included on police accident reports; billboard were never raised as a possible distraction..." (p. 11). "After a long gap in research, there were a few additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards were unsafe." (p. 11) "The national crash databases do not mention billboards in their list of driver distractions." (p. 14) The authors have coined the term safety neutral (p. 10). They state: "Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on-premise signs located at businesses" (p. 6). In other words, the authors seem to be saying, because other roadside distractions such as their "comparison sites" (which, the authors note elsewhere, may contain multiple signs, changeable message signs, and digital signs) may also attract drivers' attention and are associated with speed and lateral placement difficulties as well as long glances away from the forward roadway, EBBs should be considered safety neutral because their adverse effects are little different than these other sources of distraction.. The authors continually obfuscate the difference between correlation and causation. In reporting on a study by Garvey, et al. (1995), they state: "the common problem with these studies is attributing accident causation..." (p. 13). Given that 27 the studies quoted generally made no attempt to establish causation, this is not a problem with these studies, but rather an accusation by these authors that such studies claimed to be something other than they actually addressed. Similarly, in their review of work by Andreassen (1985), they state: "almost all studies have relied on correlations and/or subjectively assigned 'inattention' factors, which can only produce very tenuous evidence for a causal link between advertising and accident frequency" (p. 13). As discussed earlier in this report, there was a serious confounding in the visual and attention-getting characteristics of the EBBs which were the subject of this study, and the "comparison sites" which were used as one of the three types of control sites. This confounding was due directly to the researchers' choice of such comparison sites which, in their own language, often included digital signs, changeable message signs, and flashing signs. That the researchers' often found quite similar driver performance and behavior in these two types of sites, and that these performance and behavior variables typically differed from the two other types of sites studied (conventional billboards and baseline sites) should have sent a clear signal that sites containing digital imagery with changing messages were more demanding and more distracting than sites devoid of such sign characteristics. Yet, the authors took this obvious conclusion and twisted it in favor of their biases by simply assuming that the "comparison sites" formed part of the normal driving environment and, therefore, that the presence of EBBS was no worse than this normal environment and therefore was no problem. This conclusion demonstrates obvious bias, and flies in the face of efforts to promote highway safety by reducing, not increasing, the number of irrelevant, distracting, roadside stimuli. (By way of analogy, if we know from prior research that the use of mobile telephones in vehicles contributes to driver inattention, and we find that the use of some newer technology leads to a similar degree of inattentiveness, we would be hard pressed to find this newer technology acceptable merely because it is no worse than the distraction from telephone use). F. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first independent peer review of these two reports to have been prepared. There may be others underway or planned, and the authors of the two reports may well wish to respond to any such peer review. Because of the public relations campaign with which the OAAA released and publicized these two studies, they have received wide press coverage in print, online, and in the broadcast media. Without exception, this coverage has presented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented, with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness. As a result, numerous States and local government agencies have begun to modify their codes and ordinances that address the use of digital billboards along the roadside: a_'Ving completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data;i and that ordinance or code: changes based on their findings is ill advised. Even the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 28 issued a recent policy memorandum in which DBBs are given tacit acceptance under certain conditions, possibly based in part on the release of these two studies. Because FHWA remains concerned about the safety implications of EBBS on highways, and because of its stated intention to conduct or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any such policy change await further developments from research. This reviewer, after careful review of different research methodologies that have been undertaken or suggested to answer these questions, recognizes that the design and conduct of such research is challenging, and that no research yet published can fully answer the question of whether EBBs create a sufficient distraction of drivers' attention that they should be banned or strictly regulated under certain roadway, environmental, and traffic conditions. Such research is needed to guide future policy and regulation. At the forthcoming 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, to be held in Washington, DC starting on January 13, 2008, this reviewer will conduct a day-long workshop titled: "Digital Billboards on the Highway: A Bright Future?" This workshop will provide a forum for a discussion of the complex issues involved in this field of inquiry. In addition, this reviewer will hold the first meeting of a new TRB Subcommittee on this topic during the TRB meetings, and interested parties are invited to attend. Finally, it is suggested, given the interest in this subject expressed by many State and local government agencies, that interested States seek funding to support the conduct of an objective, independent research project at the earliest possible time. G. REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2007). Proposed Policy Resolution - Outdoor Advertising. Highways Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. Andreasen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No. 1: Traffic Accidents and advertising signs. Australian Road Research Board, 15(2), 103-105. Dingus, T.A.., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, Al, Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A., Hankey, J., Rasey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z.R., Jermeland, J., & Knipling, R.R. (2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase II - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Report No. DOT HS 810 593. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N., & Nedzesky, A. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and 29 distraction - Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Horrey, W.J. & Wickens, C.D. (2007). In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions, tails and a model of crash risk. Proceedings of the 2007 Transportation Research Board Meeting. Washington, DC: TRB. Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board (1976). Decision in the matter of John Donnelly & Sons, Permittee, Telespot of New England, Inc., Intervener, and Department of Public Works, Intervener, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260, As Amended. Boston, Massachusetts. McMonagle, J.C. (1951). Accident analysis - Telegraph road 1947-1948. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 29-41. Michigan State Highway Department (1952). Accident Experience in Relation to Road and Roadside Features, Minnesota Department of Highways (1951). Minnesota Rural Trunk Highway Accident, Access Point and Advertising Sign Study. Outdoor Advertising Association of America (2007). Ground-breaking Studies Determine Accidents Not More Likely To Occur Because of Digital Billboards. http://www.oaaa.org/(July 11, 2007). Rykken, K.B. (1951). Minnesota roadside survey: progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30, 42-43. Rusch, W.A. (1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30m 46-50. Shepherd, G.M. (2007). Memorandum - Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Slobodzian, J.A. (2007). "Video billboards coming this way - Police praise them. Conservationists and driver-safety groups oppose them." Phily.com (Obtained from the internet at http://www.phiIly.com/phiIly/business/9278261.html) Wachtel, J., & Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and Environmental Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Final Report). Report No. FHWA/RD-80-051. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 30 Wierwille, W.W. (1993). Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In B. Peacock and W. Karwowski (Eds.)., Automotive Ergonomics (pp. 307-316). Amsterdam: North Holland Press. 31 The History of Changeable Message Signs & Evolution to Digital Billboards Digital technology is changing the delivery of information. There are digital cam- eras; digital phones; digital TV; and, yes, digital billboards. On billboards, digital technology produces static images that are changed via. computer. Typically, a digital billboard advertisement is displayed for six or eight seconds, and then disappears. A new static message then appears. Digital billboards do not scroll, flash, feature motion pictures or emit intermittent light. From the beginning, communication with the public via roadside billboards involved changing "copy." Painters with buckets and ladders painted new ads. Bill-posters glued printed paper onto billboards. Then, researchers at MIT figured out how to print large high quality images on vinyl. Paint, paper, and vinyl are manual methods of installing new messages. In addition to these manual methods of changing billboard ads, digital technology is a new non-manual way to post static billboard advertisements. Public policy reasons for employing modern technology to deliver static messages on to bill- boards include: • Digital billboards deliver useful commercial and non-commercial information to the public. • Digital technology allows multiple advertisers to communicate from one loca- tion. • Digital technology speeds delivery of emergency information about public safety or "Amber Alerts" to find missing children. "We need the (digital) bill- boards," said Major John Tharp of the Lucas County (OH) Sheriff's Office. The government relies on digital signs for quick communication with motorists. For example, when a fuel truck exploded on heavily traveled Interstate-95 in November 2005, roadway signs immediately alerted motorists from Maine to Virginia. Regulations Hundreds of digital billboards are operating across the country, in communities large and small, from Altoona, PA, to Wichita, KS. Regulators accept this technol- ogy because it is a change of static copy which does not flash, feature motion pictures, or emit intermittent light. "Messages change on nearly all signs," said the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) in 2002 when it issued a policy accepting digital billboards. "It is appropriate that the Department establish a policy regarding safe and rea- sonable change intervals to promote the orderly display of outdoor advertising." Billboards are heavily regulated. The Highway Beautification Act (HBA), enacted in 1965, requires states to regulate off-premise signs along federal-aid routes (Interstate highways, National Highway System, and federal-aid primary roads). As technology advanced, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a policy in 1996 to allow use of new technologies for billboards: Changeable message signs are acceptable for off-premise signs, regardless of the technology used, if the interpretation of the State/ Federal Agreement allows such signs. In nearly all States, these signs may still not contain flashing, intermittent or moving lights the frequency of message change and limitation of spacing for these signs should be determined by the State. . Changes in Society and Advertising Digital billboards-an important tool for businesses - reflect changes in communi- cation and overall culture: • Consumers are tech-savvy, and put a premium on time. • Advertisers want to deliver concise information that is easily understood. • Advertisers like to reach consumers when they're making decisions (such as media promoting news and programming). Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message billboards can be placed into two basic categories: mechanically-changed and electronically-changed. Mechanically-changed A most common form of mechanically-changed billboards is known as tri-action displays, which have been installed in most states. Tri-action billboards can show three static advertisements. Messages are printed on vertical slats that rotate mechanically, by a motor. Typically, a static message is displayed for six seconds, and then the vertical slats are turned to show another advertisement. Electronically-changed Like the widely accepted tri-action billboard, a digital billboard typically displays a static message for six seconds, and then transitions to another advertisement. These energy-efficient digital billboards display electronic images that resemble billboard ads printed on vinyl or paper. Digital billboards are controlled via elec- tronic communication and are on a secure network. Advertising "copy" is created on a computer. Traffic Safety Independent research shows that billboards, including eye-catching roadside signs, do not affect driver behavior. "There appears to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs repre- sent a safety hazard," concluded Dr. Charles (Ray) Taylor, professor at Villanova University, after analyzing traffic data. Summary Outdoor advertising is, by its very nature, a medium involving changeable signs. Today, communication is evolving, with expanded use of digital technology to deliver information. Digital technology provides just another means of changing billboard "copy." Appendix A: Helpful Information Regarding State Statutes State Model Statute Language for Digital Billboards Existing Federal policy respect state flexibility. Indeed, states have adopted static message times, from four seconds to as long as 10 seconds. The model state statute below summarizes time allowed for static digital messages and the time allowed for transition between messages. The definitions included below are intended to clarify that digital billboard messages are a "change of copy" and are not considered intermittent, flashing, or moving lights. In addition, several state statutes are included as a reference. Below are several definitions to consider when constructing a state statute: Definitions: "Blinking" means a form of flashing where the pattern of sudden illumination changes occurs with more than two on-off cycles per second. "Dissolve" means a transition between static message displays that is achieved with varying light intensity and where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneous to the gradual appearance and legibility of the subsequent message. 111 "Digital Billboard " means a sign displaying static images controlled by electronic communica- tions. "Fade" means a transition between static message displays that is achieved with varying light intensity and where the first message gradually loses light intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. "Flashing" means a pattern of changing light illumination where the sign illumination alternates suddenly between fully illuminated and fully non-illuminated in a time frame of less than four seconds. (Static "dwell" time is typically 4-10 seconds.) "Intermittent" means a pattern of changing light intensity, other than that achieved with immedi- ate, fade or dissolve transitions, where any message remains static at least four seconds. "Moving light" means the physical change in position of any visible illumination source while lighted or the simulation of movement achieved with a pattern of sequentially illuminating visible illumination sources within close proximity to each other. (Static "dwell" time is typically 4-10 seconds.) Suggested State Language: Digital billboards are permitted, regardless of the technology used, within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right of way on any Interstate, federal-aid primary as of June 1, 1991, and the National Highway System provided such billboard: A. Has a static commercial or noncommercial image or message lasting no less than four seconds; B. Achieves a transition to another static image or message over a period of at least one second; C. Has spacing between conforming billboards consistent with existing state requirements; D. Does not include animated, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or full-motion video elements; E. Will appropriately adjust display brightness as ambient light levels change. State Statutes - Resource Guide Connecticut Sec. 32, Section 13a-123 (f) (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (e) of this section, signage that may be changed at intervals by electronic or mechanical process or by remote control shall be per- mitted within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right-of-way of any interstate, federal-aid primary or other limited access state highway, except as prohibited by state statute, local ordi- nance or zoning regulation, provided such signage (1) has a static display lasting no less than six seconds, (2) achieves a message change with all moving parts or illumination moving or changing simultaneously over a period of three seconds or less, and (3) does not display any illumination that moves, appears to move or changes in intensity during the static display period. Florida Section 14-10.0009 F.A.C., Chapter 479 The FL DOT interprets the lighting provisions of the State/Federal Agreement (as enunciated it Section 14-10.0009 F.A.C.) and Chapter 479, F.S. to allow the permitting of off-premise, changeable message signs under the following conditions: 1) Changeable message signs will be permitted regardless of the technology that is used, except, if such signs contain, include o are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights (other than signs giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or similar information), they are prohibited; 2) Permitting of changeable message signs will be limited to conforming signs, since applying the modern technology of such signs to nonconforming signs is consid- ered a substantial change not allowed by subsection 14-10.0007 (2) (a) and 23 CFR 750.707 (d) (5); 3) Changeable message signs will be required to meet the remaining regulatory criteri< of Chapter 479, F.S. and Chapter 14-10 F.A.C. including limitation of spacing to 1,000 feet on the federal-aid primary highway system and 1,500 on the interstate highway system; and 4) Frequency of message change will be limited by Rule to six (6) second minimum display time, with a two (2) second maximum change time. Ohio Chapter 5501: 2-2-02 Admin. Code (B) (B) "Multiple message and variable message advertising devices: such advertising devices may be permitted on the interstate system or the primary system under the following conditions: (1) Each message or copy shall remain fixed for at least eight seconds; (2) When a message or copy changes by remote control or electronic process, it shall be accomplished in three seconds or less; (3) No such advertising device shall be placed within one thousand feet of another multiple message or variable message advertising device on the same side of the highway visible in the same direction of travel; (4) Such advertising devices shall contain a default design that will freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs; (5) Any maximum size limitations shall apply independently to each face of a multiple message or variable message advertising device; and (6) Only one multiple message advertising device shall be permitted at a single location facing the same direction." Appendix B: Model Sign Code Provisions for Digital Billboards The need for a local ordinance should be analyzed on a case by case basis, including whether changes are needed to comply with state law. Municipal Ordinance Resource Guide An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Wheeling Modifying and Clarifying Part Thirteen of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Wheeling--Section 1359.11 (d) 2 and (h) Off-Premise Signs. Be It Ordained by the Council of the City of Wheeling: Section 1. The Codified Ordinances of the City of Wheeling are hereby modified and clarified by making the following changes to Section 1359.11 (d) 2 and (h) Off-Premise Signs: 1359.11 OFF-PREMISE SIGNS (d) Type, Design, and Illumination 1. Back-to-back or V-Type signs will be permitted and shall be treated as one sign provided that the interior angle between the two signs does not exceed sixty degrees. 2. No advertising sign shall be erected or maintained which involves rapid motion or rotation of the structure or any part thereof with the following exceptions: Changeable Message Signs (CMS) and Smartboard Technology Signs are permitted as defined in section 1359.03(f) of this code. 3. No advertising sign shall contain lighting that is not shielded, and any lighting shall be of such low intensity as not to cause glare or impair the vision of the operator of any motor vehicle. 4. No advertising display or device shall be illuminated by any rapid flashing, intermittent light or lights. Section 1359.03(f) Definitions: Changeable Message Signs (CMS)--An off-premise advertising sign, display, or device which changes the message or copy on the sign by means of electronic rotation or panels or slats. CMS's are considered outdoor advertising signs and must comply with all requirements applica- ble to outdoor advertising signs. CMS's may not include lighting devices forming part of the message or border, video or scrolling messages. Each message displayed shall remain fixed for at least eight (8) seconds. When a message is changed, it must be accomplished within an interval of two (2) seconds or less. CMS must contain a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs. Smartboards--An off-premise advertising sign, display, or device that changes the message or copy on the sign by means of a liquid crystal display. Smartboards may not incorporate anima- tion in the copy or change of copy. Smartboard signs must contain a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs. 7 TANTALA ASSOCIATES C0N$VLF1MG ENGWEM 4903 FRANKFORD AVENUE PHILADELPHIA, PA 19124-2617 (T)215.289.4600 (F)215.288.1885 www.TANTALA.com lS 50we `r r ..y ko fe rt bad a 9o© ,mr-vie Qlz -4- 1-,,-4-- STRUCTURAL GEOTECHNICAL SITE/CIVIL RISK MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURAL TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Item Cover Sheet Executive Summary Table of Contents 1 General Comments 1.1 Purpose 12 Study Region 1.3 Overview of Methods and Analysis 2 Digital Billboards 2.1 Locations 22 Billboard Characteristics 2.3 Digital Billboard Technology 2.4 Copy Information 3 Route 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 s and Accidents Interstate Routes in Cuyahoga County Interstate Route Characteristics near Digital Billboards Traffic-Count Data Accidents Records and Data 4 Analysis 4.1 Overview 4.2 Temporal-Analysis Methodology 4.3 Temporal-Analysis Results 4.4 Spatial-Analysis Methodology 4.5 Spatial-Analysis Results 5 Conclusions References Appendix Credentials and Firm Profile 3 1_0 GENERAL Digital billboards are a relatively new technology in outdoor advertising. Digital billboards display static messages which, when viewed, resemble conventional painted or printed billboards. With digital technology, a static copy "dwells" for typically eight seconds, and includes no animation, flashing lights, scrolling, or full-motion video. It is logical to ask what is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety? Are accidents more, less, or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards? 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between certain digital billboards and traffic safety. For this study, a study area was identified, data was collected, and an analysis was made of the area's digital billboards, traffic, and accidents. Specifically, this study analyzes the traffic and accident data near seven existing, digital billboards on the Interstate routes in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. These seven billboards are located along four major, Interstate Routes (I-77, I-90, I-271, and I-480), and were converted in July 2005 to digital billboards from conventional billboards. 1.2 Study Region. Cuyahoga County was used as the region for this area, because the county has multiple digital billboards in service for more than two years in the same market area (5% of the Interstate billboards in Cuyahoga County are digital), and the Interstate routes adjacent to these billboards are heavily traveled (approximately 12.6 million vehicle-miles traveled per day on these Interstate routes). Cuyahoga County is the most populous county in Ohio with 1.4 million people, with a population density of 3,040 people per land-square-mile, and with a median age of 37. The county is south of Lake Erie, and is contiguous with six other counties in Ohio. Cuyahoga County's seat is Cleveland City, and is part of the Greater Cleveland metropolitan area. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1,246 square miles with a 4 land area of 458.3 square miles; 36.8% of the total area is land, and the remainder of the county is mostly Lake Erie. Cuyahoga County has 571,000 households with an average household size of 2.39 people. In Cuyahoga County, approximately 623,000 workers commute, with a mean travel time of 24.4 minutes. Cuyahoga County has three commercial airports. Cuyahoga County's transportation infrastructure serves 1.2-million registered, motor vehicles of which 821/6 are passenger vehicles. The County has 132.07 Interstate-highway miles, 18.90 turnpike miles, 107.21 U.S.-highway miles and 232.56 State-highway miles. In 2005, the estimated daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) was 28.3 million, of which 12.6 million (44.5%) was on Interstate routes. In 2005, the number of reported traffic accidents was 37,039, of which 5,400 (14.6%) were on Interstate routes. Section 2 of this study is a detailed discussion of the seven, digital billboards in Cuyahoga County. Section 3 includes a discussion of the routes and accidents in the county. Section 4 discusses the methodology and analyses of this study. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions. 1.3 Overview of Methods and Analysis. The methods of this study incorporate a unique union of disciplines: engineering, traffic safety analysis, and applied statistics. First, the project methodology was formulated. This included a review of research methods, digital-billboard characteristics, and the study of regional and local details for potential study areas. Second, data was collected for the study region. This included the review, acquisition, and compilation of traffic flow and accident data, transportation geometry, aerial and oblique imagery, available sign design, specifications and construction documentation, content-history information, inter alia. This included on-site confirmation of each digital billboard during morning, day, and night conditions, for observation of traffic flow, location verification, site characteristics, etc. Third, an analysis of the data was conducted. This analysis of the study data included two parts: a temporal analysis and a spatial analysis. The fast part, a temporal analysis, examines the incidence of traffic accidents at the converted digital billboards and for an equal period of time both before and after the conversion of the billboards. Metrics analyzed included the traffic 5 volume, the accident rates (APV) values and the maximum number of accidents in any given month. Each part of the analyses accounts for various situations studying the results, with and without known statistical biases, such as, bias due to interchanges, and bias from known specific, accident causes (for example, a deer-bit accident as recorded in the police reports). The second part, a spatial analysis, establishes statistical correlation coefficients between advertising signs and accidents along the Interstate routes in Cuyahoga County. The results were analyzed for a variety of scenarios relating accident density to sign density (the number of signs), to Viewer Reaction Distance (the distance from a billboard that the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a billboard), and to sign proximity (the distance from the accident is from the nearest billboard). 6 2_0 Digital Billboards Digital billboards display static messages that resemble conventional painted/printed billboards when viewed, and include no video animation, no flashing lights, and no scrolling messages. The digital billboard is very much like its conventional-print counterpart, with a convenient changeover to the next message. 2.1 Locations This study focuses on the seven, digital billboards in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that advertise in the Cleveland Metropolitan market. These digital billboards are owned by Clear Channel, were converted from existing conventional billboards, and are located along major Interstate routes (I-77, I-90, I-271, and I-480). The digital billboards replaced existing conventional billboards that used printed vinyl stretched across their display faces. The digital-billboard locations are shown in Figure 2-1, and are listed with location information in Table 2-1. t 8 N 30.3 miles Figure 2-1. Location of Digital Billboards in Cuyahoga County, Ohio 7 BILLBOARD ROUTE REFERENCE DIGITAL APPROXIMATE LATITUDE No. FACE STATE LONGITUDE MILEMARKER West side of 1-271 North 2418 81°30'46.784"W " I 125 feet South of Solon Road N 41°23`05.471 (Clear Channel Location Number 215) South side of 1480 East 12.59 81°46'59.516"W 2 2 miles East of I-71 41°25'11.988"N (Clear Channel LoeationNumber 421) es= South side of hmerbelt Freeway South 171.78 81°41'15.405"W 3 ~1r 100 feet East of West 3rd Street 41°29'24.147"N ;V (Clear Channel Location Number 456) ® West side of I-77 North 16033 81°39130.54"W 4 0.3 tulles South of Pershing Avenue 41°27149.34"N W (Clear Channel Location Number 461) South side of I-90 West 168.91 81°43126.5261'W 5 70 feet East of West 55th Street 41°28'23.621"N (Clear Channel Location Number 468) ~a South side of I-90 East 178.07 8196143.407"W 6 . , 0.5 ndles West of Eddy Street 41°32147.13"N (Clear Channel Location Number 489) North side of I-480 East 24.92 81°34105.964"W 7 • ` 0.5 ndles East of Broadway Avenue 41°25130.594"N (Clear Channel Location Number 493) Table 2-1. Digital Billboards Location Data along Interstate in Cuyahoga County, Ohio In addition to the digital billboards, conventional billboard locations along the Interstate routes were noted, geocoded, and confirmed by aerial imagery and on-site observation. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of the 131 billboards in Cuyahoga County. Most of the conventional billboards are double faced, have faces that measure 14-feet high and 48-feet wide, are freestanding structures, and have a parallel-face or Vee configuration. A few billboards are irregularly faced or stacked 8 A Figure 2-2. Location of Conventional and Digital Billboards in Cuyahoga County, Ohio Interstate Route 71 has 26 conventional billboards; none are digital. Interstate Route 77 has 22 conventional billboards; one is digital. hrterstate Route 90 (including the Innerbelt Freeway, Route 456) has 36 conventional billboards; three are digital. Interstate Route 271 has eight conventional billboards; one is digital. Interstate Route 480 has 39 conventional billboards; two are digital. The Interstate routes have many other types of visible signage, to include directional, informational, regulatory, accessory, inter alta. 2.2 Billboard Characteristics. Each of the seven digital billboards is a freestanding, single-pole, double-faced structure with one digital face that measure 14-feet high and 48-feet wide (a face area of 672 square feet). 9 KEY t Table 2-2 summarizes the digital-billboard, face characteristics. The numbering of the digital billboards in this study are arbitrary. Table 2-3 summarizes the digital-billboard geometry characteristics, including overall height, height above grade level (FIAGL), distance to nearest advertising and opposite lanes. Sign-location photos, aerials, and references for each billboard number are included within this section. BILLBOARD ROUTE SIGN DIGITAL FACE FACE READ No. CONFIGURATION ADVERTISES SIZE TO DIRECTION (FEET) 1 Free Standing, Southbound 14x48 Right Hand Vee Flag Reader Double Faced 2 Free Standing, Westbound 14x48 Cross Reader Parallel Faced Double Faced Free Standing, Eastbound 14x48 Right Hand AMEM 3 • Parallel Faced Reader Double Faced Free Standing, Southbound 14x48 Right Hand Parallel Faced Reader 4 Double Faced Free Standing Eastbound 14x48 Right Hand A3nM 5 • Vee Flag Reader Double Faced MWM_ Free Standing, Westbound 1448 Cross Reader 6 • Vee Flag Double Faced ft.Mlr Free Standing, Westbound 14x48 Right Hand 7 . Vee Flag Reader Double Faced Table 2-2. Digital Characteristics of Digital Billboards along Interstate in Cuyahoga County, Ohio Billboard No. 1 advertises to traffic on the southbound lanes of Interstate route 271 south of the Solon Road overpass. Billboard No. 1 is a right-hand reader and a vee, flag configuration with an overall height of 66 feet and an offset distance of 85 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-3 shows the location in an oblique aerial taken l0Apr06. Figure 24 is a photo of the digital face taken on 1May07. 10 Height Distance Distance Interstate Number Interstate Overall Above from Upright to Billboard from Upright Route of Width Height Grade Nearest Lane in No. to Nearest No. Lanes Breakdowns Line Opposite Lane (HAGL) Direction (feet) (All dimensions in feet t) 6 total 10-364 1 I-271 3 NB 181 97 83 88.0 304.4 3 SB 4-36-10 8 total 10-48-11 2 I-480 4 WB 4 50 36 106.1 178.7 4 EB 11-48-10 8 total 0-52-6 3 I-90 4 NB 4 180 166 55.4 111.5 4 SB 6-52-0 6 total 10-364 4 I-77 3 NB 2 83 69 80.4 126.0 3 SB 4-36-10 10 total 10-60-3 5 I-90 5 WB 70 115 101 144.4 315.0 5 EB 3-60-10 8 total 10-48-3 6 I-90 4 WB 3 65 51 136.1 195.6 4 EB 3-48-10 8 total 10-48-6 7 I-480 4 WB 26 87 73 174.6 246.0 4 EB 6-48-10 (Note: Interstate width breakdowns include widths in feet of outer shoulder, lanes, inner shoulder, median and then opposite direction inner shoulder, lanes and outter shoulder.) Table 2-3. Digital Billboard Geometry Characteristics in Cuyahoga County, Ohio 11 Billboard No. 2 advertises to traffic on the westbound lanes of Interstate route 480 about two miles east of I-271. Billboard No. 2 is a left-hand cross-reader and has a parallel-faced configuration with an overall height of 50 feet f and an offset distance of 178.7 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-5 shows the location in an oblique aerial taken 9Apr06. Figure 2-6 shows a photo of the digital face taken on 1May07. Billboard No. 3 advertises to traffic on the eastbdund lanes of Interstate route 90, east of West 3rd Street. Billboard No. 3 is a right-hand reader and has a parallel-faced configuration with an overall height of 180 feet t and an offset distance of 55.4 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-7 shows the location on an oblique aerial taken I lApr06. Figure 2-8 shows a photo of the digital face taken on 1May07. 12 Figure 2-3. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 1 on I- 271 13 IJ Digital Billboard 7 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-4. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 1 on I-271 Figure 2-5. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 2 on I-480 Figure 2-6. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 2 Display on 1-480 14 12 r-- Digital Billboard 2 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Billboard No. Interstate Route Visible Range from Route including Viewer Reaction Zone miles feet 1 I-271 0.69 3,622 2 I-480 0.33 1,751 3 I-90 0.52 2,753 4 1-77 0.28 1,489 5 1-90 2.15 11,331 6 I-90 0.45 2,387 7 1-480 0.83 4,387 Table 2-3. Visible Range of Billboards along interstate Routes Billboard No. 4 advertises to the traffic on southbound lanes of Interstate route 77, south of Pershing Avenue. Billboard No. 4 is a right-hand reader and has a parallel-faced configuration with an overall height of 83 feet t and an offset distance of 80.4 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-9 shows the location on an oblique aerial taken I lAprO6. Figure 2-10 shows a photo of the digital face taken on IMay07. 15 Figure 2-7. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 3 on I-90 16 03T Digital Billboard 2 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-8. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 3 on I-90 Figure 2-9. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 4 on I-77 17 E Digital Billboard 4 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-10. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 4 on I-77 Billboard No. 5 advertises to traffic on the eastbound lanes of Interstate route 90, east of West 55th Street. Billboard No. 5 is a right-hand reader and has a vee, flag configuration with an overall height of 115 feet t and an offset distance of 144.4 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-11 shows the location on an oblique aerial taken 13Apr06. Figure 2-12 shows a photo of the digital face taken on 1May07. Billboard No. 6 advertises to traffic on the westbound lanes of Interstate route 90, west of Eddy Street. Billboard No. 6 is a left-hand cross-reader and has a vee, flag configuration with an overall height of 65 feet t and an offset distance of 195.6 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-13 shows the location on an oblique aerial taken 13Apr06. Figure 2-14 shows a photo of the digital face taken on IMay07. Billboard No. 7 advertises to traffic on the westbound lanes of Interstate route 480, east of Broadway Avenue (Route 14). Billboard No. 7 is a right-hand reader and has a vee, flag configuration with an overall height of 87 feet f and an offset distance of 174.6 feet to the nearest lane to which it advertises. Figure 2-15 shows the location on an oblique aerial taken 11AprO6. Figure 2-16 shows a photo of the digital face taken on 1May07. The location of the billboards was confirmed by on-site investigation and GPS recording. The following were also used to analyze the location and characteristics of the billboards: Obio Department of Transportation route straight-line diagrams (SLD), high-resolution orthographic and oblique aerial photographs, GIS information, and other on-site data 18 Figure 2-11. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 5 on I-90 Figure 2-12. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 5 on I-90 19 15 r Digital B111board 5 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-13. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 6 on I-90 20 061+ Digital Billboard 6 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-14. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 6 on I-90 Figure 2-15. Oblique Aerial of Digital Billboard No. 7 on I-480 21 ' T T Digital Billboard 7 from Direction of Advertising Lanes Figure 2-16. Photo of Digital Billboard No. 7 Displav on 1-480 2.3 Digital Billboard Technology. The digital billboards were designed and manufactured by Daktronics, are the ProStar® model, and use red, green, and blue light-emitting-diode (LED) technology to present text and graphics. The digital billboards feature a 20 mm pitch with a 208 by 720 matrix, and were designed to compensate for varying light levels, including day and night viewing, by automatically monitoring and adjusting overall display brightness and gamma levels. A photocell is mounted on each of the digital billboards to measure ambient light. Light levels are continuously monitored and communicated back to the control system. Temperature sensing and other diagnostic capabilities are also included within the display systems. These seven digital billboards have no animation, flashing lights, scrolling, or full-motion video. 2.4 Copy Information. The static display on each of these digital billboards has a "dwell time" of eight seconds. The images which are displayed, are remotely created and downloaded to each digital billboard remotely through high-speed internet connections. The control system is comprised of a central V-Net(R) controller located at the Daktronics headquarters in Brookings, South Dakota, with remote controllers at each display. The VNet(R) control system is used to create, upload, display, schedule, and log the content shown on the seven digital billboards. The VNet(R) controller offers advanced scheduling and logging features. 22 3.0 Routes and Accidents The United States Interstate system is part of The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Even though Interstate routes have substantial federal funding and comply with federal standards, they are owned, built, and operated by their state. Traditionally, east-west highways were assigned even numbers (increasing from south to north), and north-south highways were assigned odd numbers (increasing from east to west). Traffic signs and lane markings on Interstates are specified and detailed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Ohio has a highly developed network of Interstate highways; many major west-east highway corridors go through Ohio. In Ohio, exit numbers correspond to the mile markers on the Interstates. In Ohio the statutory speed limit, unless otherwise posted, is 65 mph; trucks have a statutory speed limit of 65 mph on the Ohio Turnpike and 55 mph on all other freeways. Figure 3-1 shows the Interstate routes and county boundaries in Ohio; the routes are coded by the amount of daily traffic they carry. 3.1 Interstate Routes in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County is served by three primary (two-digit) Interstate routes (I-71, I-77, and 1-90) and three (three-digit) auxiliary Interstate routes (I-271, I-480, and 1-490). The length of all Interstate routes within Cuyahoga County total 183.22 miles. Figure 3-2 shows the Interstate routes in Cuyahoga County; the routes are color coded by annual average daily traffic that they carry. 23 KEY Interstate Route by AADT High AADT oalues in red) Low AADT c cv h N yPalg,; „v ;SM1LIArfi - © - ~ ~ ~ OTGSV>, ~ C MOdr9 FURRN ~P11ifRf ~)S)8 AVW tEA:£R GWE ion:" $P.`8.G P&JTON P.P.xiP 507~ Y~ ~b RMDT W,6t40nO F IRn'+Ps $pKif P WN 43 LR9CPr +AY•r£a PA7r+R0 1CEFN IPdCY ti UWN POSfvCOTJN ow:ssrN o 2 ifl£Plf P.L'YTG Y® ej Fj~gxp FRS G ,pp RffiE 'O $700 _ arNAV✓AY r~x^P.cw £uRfW ¢dl}UN ,dr7oN csr ms~ d~ 8 r.£fGS J~ SYY u:0240N fAmwi sLFm3 Fm7O saxes Figure 3-2. Counties, Interstate Routes and Traffic Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in Ohio I E Cr+tb`f - ;ssNUarag. :PAS =7 M- ...d {Ql(A.$iSWt asarax Y9r5C P.~rwGai P,CMiO£ 24 KEY Interstate Route b} AADT High AADT (N alues in red) ? . f 4, ~f Interstate 90 Lour AADT 0 ,a A~ Digital Billboard No. 1s° asao ~s o 39 ~o ® Billboard Location (Com entional or Digital) 90 11pg6 108520 OFF 00 Figure 3-2. Interstate Routes with Traffic Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) within Cuyahoga County Interstate 71 begins just southwest of the downtown of Cleveland and is the major route from Cleveland to its airport. I-71 rums through the southwestern suburbs and eventually connects Cleveland and Columbus. 1-71 has a length of 19.12 miles in Cuyahoga County. Interstate 77 begins in downtown Cleveland and extends due south through the southern suburbs. I-77 has the lowest traffic count of the three primary Interstates routes, and connects Cleveland and Akron. I-77 has a length of 15.97 tniles in Cuyahoga County. I-77 largely supplants the 25 old U. S. Highway 21 between Cleveland, Ohio, and Columbia, South Carolina, as one of the best north-south corridors through the middle Appalachians. The northern terminus of I-77 in Cleveland is at its junction with I-90. I-77 is ]mown as the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway". Interstate 90 is the longest interstate route in the United States. In Cleveland, I-90 connects the two sides of Cleveland, serves as the hmerbelt at the confluence of the northern termini of I-71 and I-77, and is called the Lakeland Freeway. In Cuyahoga County, I-90 has a length of 30.20 miles. Running due east and west through the west suburbs, 1-90 runs northeast at its junction with I-71 and I490, and is known as the Innerbelt Freeway through the downtown. At its junction with the Shoreway, I-90 makes a 90-degree turn, then runs northeastward. Even though many large directional signs and flashing lights alert motorists to this turn, the tam has a large number of accidents. Interstate 271 is a major spur highway in the suburbs of Cleveland and Akron, Ohio, and is officially designated the Cleveland Outerbelt East, but is rarely referred to by that name. I-271 extends from its junction with I-71 in Weymouth, Ohio, to I-90 in Willoughby Hills, Ohio, and intersects I-480 (and running jointly with it for a short length). I-271 has a length of 30.00 miles in Cuyahoga County. The roadway width varies, but is mostly four to six lanes, south of I-480, and eight to twelve lanes wide north of 1-480, where I-271 has express and local lanes. The I-271 local and express lanes begin at the complex I-480 and U.S. 422 interchange, and continues northward slightly beyond the terminus of 1-271. The northbound express lanes allow access to all exits (excluding Chagrin Boulevard, Harvard Road, and OH 175). The southbound express lanes bypass all exits and have only one combined exit for Chagrin Boulevard, Harvard Road, Richmond Road and the U.S. 422 (west) interchange. Interstate 480, which enters Cleveland at a few points, is a busy, loop highway that connects the Ohio Turnpike (I-80) with suburban Cleveland, and is officially designated the Outerbelt South Freeway, but is rarely referred to by that name. The roadway width varies from four to ten lanes. I-480 has a length of 30.00 miles in Cuyahoga County. I-480 provides access to the Cleveland 26 Hopkins International Airport via OH 237. I-480 runs concurrent with 1-271 for several miles. I-271 and I-480 are the only two auxiliary (three-digit) interstates in the U.S. to be concurrent with each other. They run concurrent near Bedford Heights in Cuyahoga County. The most notable portion of 1-480 is the Valley View Bridge which is 212-feet high and spans 4,150 feet across the Cuyahoga River valley. Interstate 490 is a 2.43-mile highway in Cleveland. The western terminus is its junction with I-90 and I-71 on Cleveland's west side. After spanning the Cuyahoga River, the eastern terminus is its junction with East 55th Street, just east of I-77. I-490's entire length of 2.43 miles is in Cuyahoga County. 3.2 Interstate Route Characteristics near Digital Billboards. The location of the digital billboards and the Interstate routes to which they advertise are shown in Figure 2-1. The geometry, characteristics, and lengths of the sections of Interstates routes near the digital billboards are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. 27 Interstate Number Interstate Surface Median Recent ODOT Precious Billboard Route of Breakdown Type and Base Type Width Project Project Project No idtt h s and Width . No. Lanes Width (Feet) Year No. Years t ) (Fee 6 total 10-364 - 1983 1 I-271 3 NB 181 G36AG36' P36'4P36' 181 1993 687 1962 3 SB 4-36-10 8 total 1048-11 2 I-480 4 WB 4 G48'OG48' L4 AI,48' 4 1997 621 1983 4 EB 1148-10 8 total 0-52-6 3 I-90 4 NB 4 G5TAG52' P52'AP52' 4 1972 546 - 4 SB 6-52-0 6 total 10-364 N12',P24'A ' 2 1993 117 1990 4 1-77 3 NB 2 G36AG36 P24',N12' 1972 3 SB 4-36-10 10 total 10-60-3 5 I-90 5 WB 70 G69AG60' P60'AP60' 70 1999 180 1975 5 EB 3-60-10 8 total 10-48-3 1993 6 I-90 4 WB 3 G48'AG48' P48'4P48' 3 2002 21 1975 4 EB 3-48-10 8 total 10148-6 1987 7 I-480 4 WB 26 G48'AG48' P48'AP48' 26 1999 525 1971 4 EB 6-48-10 (Note: Interstate width breakdowns include widths in feet of outer shoulder, lanes, inner shoulder, median and then opposite direction inner shoulder, lanes and outter shoulder. Surface types are denoted as G as bituminous concrete surface, P as reinforced concrete base and L as plant mix bituminous concrete or penetration macadam base.) Table 3-1. Characteristics of Interstate Routes near Digital Billboards 28 Digital Billboard No. 1 advertises to a section of the southbound lanes of I-271 and is near the common underpass of Solon Road, the N&W Railroad, and Metropolitan Park Road. This billboard is near state log milemarker 24.28 (county log 2.46). The adjacent, Interstate-route has three lanes (36 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a 181-foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 1993 as part of Project No. 687, with previous work in 1983 and 1962. Billboard No. Interstate Route State Wide Length (miles) in Cuyahoga County Section at Digital Billboard 1 I-271 46.06 16.65 0.89 2 I-480 42.97 30.00 0.68 3 I-90 244.75 3020 0.95 4 1-77 162.00 15.97 1.10 5 I-90 244.75 3020 0.89 6 I-90 244.75 3020 2.66 7 1480 42.77 30.00 0.69 (Note: Section lengths are portions of Interstate with common features as recorded by the Ohio DO'I) Table 3-2. Lengths of Interstate Routes near Digital Billboards 29 Digital Billboard No. 2 advertises to a section of the westbound lanes of I-480 (the Outer South Freeway). This billboard is east of Ramp BR-2 connecting SR 17, and east of the underpasses for West 130th Street and the Conrail Railroad line. This billboard is near state log milemarker 12.59 (county log 10.42). The adjacent, interstate-route section has four lanes (48 feet wide) in each direction, is separated on a 4-foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a bituminous-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 1997 as part of Project No. 621, with previous work in 1981 Digital Billboard No. 3 advertises to a section of the eastbound lanes I-90 (the elevated bridge portion of the Irmerbelt Freeway). This billboard is east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad (1,2 tracks), the Cuyahoga River, and West 3rd Street, and is west of Canal Street. This billboard is located near state log mdemarker 171.78 (county log 15.86). the adjacent, Interstate-route section has four lanes (52 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a four-foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 1972 as part of Project No. 546. Digital Billboard No. 4 advertises to a section of the southbound lanes of I-77 (the Willow Freeway). This section is south of the Pershing Avenue overpass and the Ruffin Street underpass, and near the W&LE (formerly Norfolk Southern) rail line; this billboard is north of a pedestrian overpass. This billboard is near state log milemarker 160.33 (county log 13.25). The adjacent, Interstate-route section has three lanes (36 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a two-foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 1993 as part of Project No. 117, with previous work in 1990 and 1972. Digital Billboard No. 5 advertises to a section of the eastbound lanes of I-90 (the Northwest Freeway). This section is east of the West 65th Street overpass and west of the West 53rd Street underpass. This billboard is near state log milemarker 168.91 (county log 12.99). The adjacent, Interstate-route section has five lanes (60 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a 70-foot- wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 1999 as part of Project No. 180, with previous work in 1975. 30 Digital Billboard No. 6 advertises to a section of the westbound lanes of I-90 (the Lakeland Freeway). This section is east of the East 105th Street underpass, and west of the Eddy Road underpass. This billboard is near state log milemarker 178.07 (county log 22.15). The adjacent, Interstate-route section has four lanes (48 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a three- foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODOT reports resurfacing of this section in 2002 as part of Project No. 21, with previous work in 1993 and 1975. Digital Billboard No. 7 advertises to a section of the westbound lanes of I-480 (the Outer South Freeway). This section is east of the Lee Road underpass, and west of the Camden Road overpass; further west are ramps for Greenhurst Road and McCracken Road. This billboard is near state log milemarker 24.92 (county log 22.75). The adjacent, Interstate-route section has four lanes (48 feet wide) in each direction, is separated by a 26-foot-wide median, and has a bituminous concrete surface on a reinforced-concrete base. ODQT reports resurfacing of this section in 1999 as part of Project No. 525, with previous work in 1987 and 1971. 33 Traffic-Count Data Traffic-count data for Cuyahoga County was obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation (DOT) and the County Engineer's Office. Traffic-monitoring data includes vehicle volume, vehicle classification, and weigh-in-motion data Data was collected using manual, portable (road tube), permanent Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR), and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) methods. The metrics of traffic flow provided by ODOT include short-term (hourly) traffic counts, annual average daily traffic (AADT), and daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT). 31 AADT kDVMT ' (thousands DV MT) on Route Percentage Billboard Interstate Passenger Truck Total on Route within of County to No. Route Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles within State County State 1 1-271 110,750 15,090 125,840 2,939 2,278 77.5% [88.00/o] [12.0%] 2 1-480 116,800 13,050 129,850 3,915 3,469 88.6% [90.00%] [10.10/0] 3 I-90 118,090 10,590 128,680 6,233 3,518 0 56.4/0 [91.8%] [8,2%] 4 177 113,037 10,545 123,582 6,860 1,542 22.5% [91.5%] [8.5%] 5 I-90 108,200 10,190 118,390 6,233 3,518 56.4/0 [91.4%] [8,61%] 6 1-90 125,670 7,880 133,550 6,233 3,518 56.4% [94.1%] [5.9%] 7 1-480 145,320 13,330 158,650 3,915 3,469 88.6% [91.6%] [8.4%] Table 3-3. AADT and DVMT values near Digital Billboards 32 The annual average daily traffic (AADT) is the total volume of vehicle traffic in both directions of a highway or road for one year divided by 365 days. AADT is a useful measurement of how busy the road is, and is sometimes also called "average annual daily traffic". Short-term traffic counts are adjusted to the Average Daily Traffic (AADT) values by ODOT using seasonal adjustment factors (by functional classification). Daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) is a measure of how much traffic flows along a roadway during an average 24-hour period. DVDT is a multiple of the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and the length of the roadway. The AADT and DVMT values of the sections of Interstate route adjacent to the digital billboards are summarized in Table 3-3. 3.4 Accident Records and Data In Ohio, the majority of Interstate accident reports and crash photos are recorded, and maintained by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. These crash reports are retained for five years. Ohio uses the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) Standard D16.1 - 1996, Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle. The reports are also provided annually to the Ohio Department of Public Safety, which compiles statistical data on crashes that occur on roads and highways. Figure 3-3 summarizes the traffic accident data of the past six years in Cuyahoga County, including the Interstate routes I-71,1-77 and 1-90,1-271,1480, and 1-490. Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of accidents on Interstate routes by day of week and time of day and illustrates that more accidents occur on weekdays and at rush hour (before and after work). Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of the age of drivers involved in accidents on Cuyahoga Interstates (upper) and the distribution over time between 2001 and 2007 of accidents. These figures show that the median age of drivers involved in an accident are 23 and that the winter months of 2005 had the most accidents on Interstates. 33 A statistical anatomy of Cuyahoga County accidents by Interstate are illustrated in Figures 3-6 through 3-12. Figure 3-6 shows the occurrence of accidents by intersection type, the majority of interstates accidents occur along the route, relative to ramps and crossings. Figure 3-7 shows the frequency of accidents by Interstate and light conditions at the time of accident; the majority occurs during dawn and daylight conditions. Figure 3-8 shows the frequency of Interstate accidents by weather condition; the majority occurs during clear conditions. Figure 3-9 shows the frequency of Interstate accidents by the condition of the road; dry road conditions are the predominate category. Figure 3-10 shows accident frequency by road geometry and Figure 3-11 shows accidents by impact type; most accidents occur on straight and level conditions and are predominately rear-end collisions. Figure 3-12 shows the year and month occurrence of accidents by specific Interstate route. 34 7000 6000 N 5000 c m a U m 4000 0 m a E 3000 z 2000 1000 0 Year N C m a m m `o `m E E 3 Z J F M A M J J A S O N D Month Figure 3-3. Summary Statistics of Interstate Accidents within Cuyahoga County: Total by Year (upper), Total by Months aggregated between 2001 and 2006 (lower) 35 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5 4 4 3 m v 3 m 6 2 `m E 2 3 z 1 I N C 0I U U A O d a E 0 Z Figure 3-4. Summary Statistics of Interstate Accidents within Cuyahoga County: Total by Day of Week (upper), Total by Time of Day aggregated between 2001 and 2006 (lower) 36 Su MO Tu We Th Fr Sa Day of Week a a N N (O N ~ Time of Day i 1 N N 1 -`o 0 d EE z z Y3 c a~ a m d EE z z Months between 2001 and 2007 Figure 3-5. Summary Statistics of Interstate Accidents within Cuyahoga County: Total by Age of Drivers involved (upper), Total by Months (lower) each aggregated between 2001 and 2006 37 10 20 30 40 50 90 70 80 nu 100 Age of drivers involved in accidents - w in v u> m 0 0 N N N N N N N 2006 I 2005 AMMM 2004 Not at Intersection NP 2003 near Local Road Intersection 2002 On Ramp 2001 Off Ramp Unknown 2006 Unspecified categories 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001.... 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 .2006... w 2005 "z5 2004 2003 2002 p 2001 2006 ' l 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-6. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Intersection Type of Accident 38 2006 2005 ■ Daylight 2004 Dawn 2003 Dark - Lighted road 2002 Dark - Roadway not lighted 2001 Dark-Unknown Lighting 2006 Glare 2005 Other 2004 ® Unknown 200, SEE= 2002 2001 2006 2005 ® 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 V 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 + 2004 2003 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-7. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Light Conditions at Time of Accident 39 2006 2005 Clear dam= 2004 Cloudy 2003 Fog 2002 Rain 2001 Sleet s3€ ~ Snow 2006 ' Blowing, Crosswind 2005 2004 2003 1 ® Other Unknown 2002 2001 2006 2005 . M 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 TV 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 •f 2004 2003 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-8. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Weather Conditions at Time of Accident 40 2006 2005 2004 Dry 2003 Wet 2002 Snow 2001 Ice 2006 Mud 2005 Standing Water 2004 Slush Other 2003 2002 Unknown 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 • 1 2004 2003 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-9. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Condition of Road at Time of Accident 41 2006 2005 Straight Level 2004 Straight Grade 2003 2002 Curved Level Curved Grade ..2001 Unrecorded 2006 ~i 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 - 2006 2005 A'SOM IV 2004 2003 2002 - 2001 2006 2005 f 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 " 2003 2002 2001 2006 1 2005 2004 - 2003 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-10. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Road Contour Geometry at Location of Accident 42 2006 1 2005 Not between 2 vehicles WAIF 2004 Rear-End 2003 Head-on 2002 Rear-to-Rear 2001 Backing 2006 Angle r r 2 2005 Sideswipe (same) m m 2004 Sideswipe (opposite) 2003 Unknown 2002 Other . 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 1 200 2006 2005 IV 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 W * i 2005 2004 N 2003 W 2002 2001 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 3-11. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year within Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Manner of Impact at Location of Accident 43 1-71 ® 1-71 1-77 1-77 1-90 1-90 ' 1-271 1-271 1-480 1-480 1-490 1-490 2006 2005 c 0 2004 2003 2002 2001 Number of Accidents Figure 3-12. Summary Statistics of Accidents by Color Stacked Interstate within Cuyahoga County and by aggregated Months (left) and by Year (right) 44 Number of Accidents 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4 .0 ANALYSIS 4.1 Overview. . Evaluation of the relationships between the digital billboards and traffic safety requires careful study of the interaction of many parameters, to include billboard characteristics (size, height, illumination), accident characteristics (when, where, weather conditions, contributory causes), location and geometry, flow (traffic volumes, frequency, speed, seasonal effects), traffic control measures and devices, viewer reactions (times and distances from signs). The analysis in this study includes two parts: a temporal analysis and a spatial analysis. Each part of the analyses accounts for results with and without statistical bias factors, such as, bias from interchanges, bias from known accident causes (for example, a deer-hit accident as recorded in the police report, or an accidents caused by a driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol). The first part is a temporal analysis which examines the incidence of traffic accidents at the specific and recently converted digital billboards and for a length of time before and after the conversion of the billboards (using 36 and 24 month "windows"). From information collected from police accident reports, the temporal analysis uses metrics such as traffic volumes, the accident rates values (APV) and the maximum number of accidents during any given month. The second part is a spatial analysis which establishes statistical correlation coefficients between advertising billboards, and specifically digital billboards, and accidents along the Interstate routes in Cuyahoga County. The results are analyzed for a variety of scenarios relating accident density to billboard-density (the number of billboards), to Viewer Reaction Distance (how far from a billboard that the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a billboard), and to billboard proximity (how far the accident is from the nearest billboard). Figure 4-1 shows a conceptual view of the viewer reaction distance zone. 45 ACCIDENT No. 0\5-05\90 ~.~~~~~4~ q /jj 0 0 VIEWERREACTIONO6TANOEry )ZONE DISTANCE TO NEAREST &LLRO Figure 4-1. Conceptual View of Sign Accident Range to include Visible Range, and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) zone. 4.2 Methodology: Temporal Analysis. The objective of the temporal-comparison part of this analysis is to examine the incidence of traffic accidents at locations of the recently converted, digital billboards, for an equal length of time before and after the conversion of the billboard, and to determine if traffic accidents occurred more frequently or less frequently with the presence of the digital billboard. Digital billboard data are statistically compared using histograms, average accident-per-volume (APV) ratios, and accidents per vehicle-miles-traveled ratios for one year before the billboard was converted and for one year after the billboard was converted; a larger 18 month before and 18 month after analysis was also studied. Variations for seasonal traffic flow and vehicle-miles traveled are accounted for, raw accident counts are weighted by these values. It should be 46 emphasized that there were no other, substantial changes at the locations where the digital billboards are located, other than the conversion of the digital billboards, a slight increase in traffic volume, and seasonal effects. The accident data assembled for this part of the study are based on the proximity to the billboard and on when an accident occurred. To examine how a specific location is impacted by the conversion of the billboard, comparisons were made of • changes in traffic accidents-per-volume (APV) ratios, • changes in percentage of traffic accidents-per-million-daily miles traveled (PMDVMT) ratios, • histograms of the accident data on a temporal basis, and • similar analysis for a data set excluding known statistical bias effects- A quantitative measure of comparing traffic safety is to use accidents-per-volume (APV) ratios. The APV ratio is calculated by APV = Number of accidents Annual Traffic Volume The Annual Traffic volume is approximated by the AADT multiplied by 365 days. AADT values include both a single traffic count for both directions in all lanes; flow in lanes m a single direction is approximated by half of the AADT. Table 4-5 summarizes accidents, annual traffic volumes and APV ratios for the digital-billboard locations with and without bias for a year after the billboard was converted. The number of accidents within the seven signs visible ranges for one year was 174 accidents for an estimated 85 million vehicles that drove by; this represents one accident for every 481,000 vehicles. H we exclude statistical bias (accidents from (mown causes), there are only 53 accident in the year after the seven signs were converted for 85 million vehicles; this represents one accident for every 1.5 million vehicles. The values per sign suggest an average of 7 accidents near a digital billboard per year for the same 85 million vehicles; this represents a rate of one accident per 12 million vehicles per year. 47 4.3 Results: Temporal Analysis. Using the summarized accident-report data, Tables 4-1 through 4-6 and Figures 4-2 through 4-9 shows the summary statistics and composite distribution of accidents before and after the conversion of the billboards (on or about July 1, 2005) as monthly histogram; these figures represent 36 and 24 month windows and accidents with and without statistical bias. A comparison of the histograms of accidents at the location 18 months before the digital conversion and 18 months after the digital conversion indicates no substantial change in accident patterns. Comparing a year before and after, the peak number of accidents on any given month decreased from 247 to 174, after the introduction of the digital billboard at the location; the peak number on arty given month decreased from 14 to 8. Similar results were obtained for the longer 36-month windows. Based on the data and analysis, no significant change in accident occurrences can be attributed to the conversion of these billboards to digital format. It should also be noted that the winter months had more snowfall in the 18 months prior to the conversion. For these billboards, the results suggest that digital billboards in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. The temporal comparison also suggests that digital billboards are no more likely to increase or decrease the accident frequency than conventional billboards, or than stretches of the Interstate routes with no billboards. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the accident count for 36-month and 24-month windows centered on July 1, 2005, the conversion date. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 summarize the same data for 36 and 24 month windows, and also account for seasonal trends in the County and account for vehicle-miles traveled during the specific months at the specific sign locations. The most useful measures of traffic-accident occurrence at any specific location are evaluated and compiled in Tables 4-3 and 4-4; only a 0.6% decrease in accident percent per Route per million vehicle-miles traveled for both 24 and 36 month windows exists. The number of accidents was relatively steady during the 36 month period centered around the conversion of these billboards. No large increases or decreases occurred in the values from year to year. With the exception of the existence of a digital billboard, there were no notable changes on these routes near the billboards. No new buildings, changes in lane topography, or zoning were introduced. This analysis reinforces the 48 results of the spatial analysis part of this study and further suggests that digital billboards in and of themselves have no influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. Accident data was analyzed using all recorded interstate accidents; the same analysis was additionally conducted by also excluded data with known bias. A fair and unbiased comparison of accident data would exclude accidents from known causes, as recorded in police accident reports. In this subset analysis of unbiased data, the excluded accidents were those recorded (1) with drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, (2) animal-related accidents (typically drivers hitting deer), (3) drivers in accidents located at on-ramps and off-ramps (drivers undertaking additional operations for lane-changes, decelerating), and (4) accidents during adverse weather conditions (specifically only accidents recorded during snowfall or with icy roads). These bias-exclusion criteria were used in bias-data subset analyses in this study. 49 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Total Accidents as 23 31 ' 33 15 135 70 38 345 Conventional Billboard c 0 M v Average Number of 1 3 - 1.7 1.8 0.8 7.5 3.9 2.1 2.7 $ $ Accidents in a Month . . ma c `o Standard Deviation 1.2 1.0 11 0.8 4.0 20 1.6 2.9 0.- :R N c E Peak Number of Accidents in 4 3 5 2 16 8 5 16 v E Any Given Month m Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 Any Given Month Total Accidents as Digital 21 27 40 14 89 53 27 271 Billboard c .2 Average Number of 1.2 1.5 2.2 0.8 4.9 2.9 1.5 2.2 E i Accidents in a Month m 0 a Standard Deviation 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.8 22 21 1.2 2.0 ~ w ~L 0 Peak Number of Accidents in 4 5 3 9 7 4 9 Any Given Month 3 E Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Any Given Month Number of Accidents -2 4 7 -1 -46 -17 -11 -74 o percent difference $.7% -72.9% 21.2% -6.7% 34.1% -24.3% -28.9% -21.4% Average Per Month -0.1 -0.2 0.4 -0.1 -2.6 -0.9 -0.6 -0.6 e U V m ~ Peak Number of Accidents in 1 1 0 1 -7 -1 -1 -7 m Any Given Month - E 'O= Minimum Number of n Accidents in 0 0 0 0 -2 -1 0 0 Any Given Month Table 41. Accident Count Data for a 36-Month window (t18 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents within the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 50 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Total Accidents as 15 22 30 12 92 49 27 247 conventional Billboard 0 -o v Average Number of 1.2 1.7 2.3 0.9 7.1 3.8 2.1 2.7 a ~ Accidents in a Month 8 m0 M o Standard Deviation 1.0 0.9 1.7 0.8 3.8 2.0 1.7 2.7 o 'c m Peak Number of Accidents in 3 3 5 2 14 8 5 14 ci E Any Given Month N Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 3 1 - 0 0 Any Given Month Total Accidents as Digital 14 16 27 8 53 37 19 174 Billboard 0 a Average Number of 1.2 1.3 2.3 0.7 4.4 3.1 1.6 2.1 v > Accidents in a Month 8 m Standard Deviation 1.0 1.2 1A 0.9 1.7 2.2 1.3 1.8 m 10 rns 0 Peak Number of Accidents in 3 4 4 3 8 7 4 8 Any Given Month N Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 An Given Month Number of Accidents -1 -6 -3 -4 39 -12 -8 -73 pe=ntdHfmnm 6.7% -27.3% 33.3% -424% -24.5% -29.6% -29.6% 0 a Average Per Month 0.0 -0.4 -01 -0.3 -2.7 -0.7 -0.5 -0.6 m w o c Peak Number of Accidents in 0 1 -1 1 -6 -1 -1 -6 o Any Given Month `0 o- Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 Any Given Month Table 4-2. Accident Count Data for a 24-Month Window (t12 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents within the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on interstate Route Sections 51 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percentage of Accidents on a . Interstate per million DVMT 0.073 0.1,54 0.027 0.171 0.171 0.089 0.280 0 -o (PMDVMT) N ) 0 c 8 m ~ C `o Standard Deviation 0.067 0.090 0.025 0.089 0.089 0.047 0.215 co •c N c 0 Peak PMDVMT 0.226 0.288 0.072 0.341 0.341 0.171 0.702 E in Any Given Month aD Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.064 0.021 0.000 in Any Given MO Percentage of Accidents on o Interstate per million DVMT 0.076 0.162 0.030 0.132 0.132 0.078 0.243 •@ (PMDVMT) E > a $ m J! Standard Deviation 0.060 0.120 0.031 0.060 0.060 0.055 0.201 _ N 0 Peak PMDVMT 0.203 0.384 0.116 0.243 0.243 0.189 0.685 in Any Given Month E Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month c Percentage of Accidents on m Interstate per million DVMT 0.003 0.008 0.062 -0.039 -0.039 -0.011 -0.037 (PMDVMT) $ m ~ o c Peak PMDVMT -0.007 0.030 0.00.5 -0.029 -0.029 0.008 -0.013 N in Any Given Month 8 a Minimum PMDVMT -0.023 0.098 0.044 -0.098 -0.098 0.018 -0.017 Given Month in Any Table 4-3. Percentage of Interstate Accidents per million Vehicle-Mile Travel Data for a 36-Month Window (f18 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents within the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 52 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percentage of Accidents on ' o Interstate per million DVMT 0.870 1.997 0.399 2.152 2.152 1.157 3.645 . f2 v (PMDVMT) o C 9 8 m~ c ` Standard Deviation 0.056 0.085 0.026 0.087 0.087 0.047 0.231 o .o ~a 2 a N c c Peak PMDVMT 169 0 0 288 0.072 0.299 0.299 0.171 0.702 0 E in Any Given Month . . N Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.064 0.021 0.000 in Any Given Month Percentage of Accidents on c Interstate per million DVMT 0.896 1.637 0.301 1.396 1.398 0.971 3.007 (PMDVMT) '2 > m Standard Deviation 0.066 0.119 0.034 0.046 0.046 0.058 0.219 p Y N O1 E k PMDVMT P ea 0 203 384 0 116 0 0.216 0.216 0.189 0.665 in Any Given Month . . . N . Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month co_ Percentage of Accidents on Interstate per million DVMT 0.025 -0.360 -0.098 -0.755 -0.755 -0.187 -0.638 m (PMDVMT) c m m o Peak PMDVMT 0.010 0.034 0.008 -0.041 -0.041 0.011 -0.012 m in Any Given Month .2 o` 'Q Minimum PMDVMT 0.034 0.096 0.044 -0.083 -0.083 0.018 -0.017 in Any Given Month Table 4-4. Percentage of Interstate Accidents per million Vehicle-Mite Travel Data for a 24-Month Window (+12 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents within the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 53 Bxcludmg13i-Cat%-6 All CaICgORC4 (DDL%Adverse Wernher, Deer Nits) Number of VPY Number of VPY Accidents (Veldctsper Accidab (Vehtlesper B03owd Imrslate in a Year Year APT Rate ma Year Year APY Rate No. Raft n Digdal per Rome W.Digital per Rowe Billbomd Section) Billboard Section RaW Eqmvalwfly Rate covalent 1 I-271 14 22,965,800 0.00000061.- Iin 1,640,414 7 22,965,800 0.00000030 Tin 3,280,829 2 I490 16 23,697,625 0.00000068 l in 1,481,102 3 23,697,625 0.00000013 I in 7,899,208 3 I-90 27 23,484,100 O.WWODII5 Iin869,781 6 23,484,100 0.00000026- 1m3,914,017 4 I-77 8 22,553,715 0.00000035 Tin 2,819,214 2 22,553,715 0.00000009 tin 11,276,858 5 I-90 53 21,606,175 0.00000215 I in 407,664 17 21,606,175 0.00000079 I in 1,270,951 6 1-90 37 24,372,875 0.00000152 1in658,726 14 24,372,875 0.00000057 Tin 1,740,920 7 I-480 19 28,953,625 0.00000066 1m 1,523,875 4 2$953,625 0.00000014 1 in 7,238,406 AU 174 83,816,958 0.00000208 I in 481,707 53 83,816,958 0.00000063 1 in 1,581,452 Table 4-5. Accident Rate per Year near Billboards for all Accidents (left) and Bias-Adjusted (right) Figures 4-2 through 4-9 show the number of accidents within the visible range of all seven digital billboards by count and by rate by daily-vehicle mile traveled. These figures represent both the 24 month and 36 months sets of data centered around the conversion in July 2005. 54 4.5 4 3.5 e 3 3 ^_.5 m 0 2 aV 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 SW< ~ LL `2 a 0.25 0.20 > d g~ E 0.15 a$ ~ m a~ p v 0.10 e 0 0 g E .mQ. 0.05 o `m 9 0 0 ~~a$8z~ 0.00 ° 0 6d o 0 0 00 0 va o v [ $ ~n in im `8n '2 in mm m '2 o ~ao `8~ $ m m a m LL¢ m ¢ m m m m m> 0 z p LL¢ g -I > v m m m ¢ Ul O z p LL¢ m > v ¢ m D z p Month Figure 4-2. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 1 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile traveled, DVMT (lower) 55 0.25 i S, a.05 N C O N G ° O m V Q 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 000 yyp o $ °o °°pT$T'pn 2 ~$a'o_ o 'R o'$p ~°fp° ~ 2° R R Q 7 O N R p~j R 6 N~ J ~i O N W ry R O. N 3 3< 0 0 O 0 LL Q 0 2 4 Q f9 O Z p LL f2 Q Q w N O Z❑ LL Q Q y O Z O Month Figure 43. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard I (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile traveled, DVM T° (lower) 56 C 4.5 E 2 m 4 0 4 a U 3.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 e 3 U 2.5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 `O 2 v a 1s 9 1 1 1 1 9 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q o o o a$ Q o Q N N N N N N N N o 0 0 0 0 Q N o b (O Ip N N b N N N o 0 0 0 o o $ m° 'o m m a" 0. 4 Q $ m$ m n m' ' m° 9 L ` 'o °ay Q g g m m n m" m a' o m ' LL¢ ¢ N Z p I d ¢ ¢ b Z p + LL¢ 2 ¢ Z is N M.th 0.45 OAO p F ~ ° 4) N N 0 Ci S g O 0.35 00 N ° O 0.30 O N N N 0 N m O G O O M m 025 a O N N O O t m m m ¢ 020 o00 g o c c a h 0.15 O O N_ N N_ c 0 0 0 O O b W O j O O O O O E 0.1 ~ v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a , 0.05 8 8 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 $ ~ ~0-$Q°o °0'80""" 'S 'B o'a ~ n `~'8 $o QQ o~ $o`c~ u W m m R 7 - j y j 0 0 m N m n m 3 m ¢ 6 O m ry m n g j' m O m - ¢ W Z O LL LL ¢ u Z O LL ¢ ~ ¢ N Z a month Figure 4-4. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 2 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile traveled, DVMT (lower) 57 6~ O 5 cc ~ .S 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 `c 3 i U 1 G 2 2 2 2 2 2 z 2 2 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 o yy ° ri g o yy}} gyp - s o I- S o$ o o m fo w '0 g Q 9 g 0 Z O¢ li Q ' mm Q N O Z 0 um. `c ' Q 8 O 2 p 0.16- 0.14- ~ o a rL m c O > w a12 ~ 0 o 0 0 E 0.10 0 _ o if o o L 0,00 C G C m fa 0 06 O O O N ~ o ~ 0 0 00 0 . ~ c ~ 6 6 0 O 0.04 v o ~ ~ $ 8 8 LL~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,02 0 S 88 8 $ $ 000 0 0 o o c a y g m¢ r~ ~p m¢ o ' u~i o o& ~p s p tp ~yp m n m > 'i ~ g m m LL M Q S2 Q N O o m m Z p 'i LL Q g m N O Z p a > LL Q Q N O Z Month Figure 4-5. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 3 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile traveled, DVMT (lower) 58 o 3.5 I i e u 3 L•~ F 0 0 0 ONE 00 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~~ I 0 0 1 ' 'E U y $ p m $ Q ' 6 m 'S v $ m n m m m _ m LL 2¢ M Q N O Z O I UL M a g Q (p O Z O> li Q M 0 Q M O Z O Mn a.1a o _ N 0.92 `N o ~ v E 0.10 - 0 C d 0.08 y y 0 0 O C ° Q ~ y O O O G a 3 0.06 oy d dd 0.04 $ $ o 0o d c o o y E c o c o 0 0 a 0.02 °o, °o, o 0.00 , o 0 00 0 0 o 00 c 0 0 ~p Y yyy ~ $ y Y Y v $ °o °o $ g $ Y e m ' ' ` ° p o $ o ~11Y18 o ° ° 'tg 8 3 1 0088 J 8 S m m a 8i m cw g~ ' m LL Q g 'i N 0 Z C3 LL M a 2 n ~ m m y a'' N O Z p LL a¢ 2 n 2 Q N 0 z❑ Figure 4-6. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 4 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile taaveled, Df11l T (lower) 59 16 14 12 E 10 °e v a G Q G 4 1 0 l IY cL Q ~ -a ¢ m Os g ~ ~ LL ~ a ~ 0.40 C 0.35 N E 0.30 Y] E 0.25 v u v u u r 0.20 v v Q ~ 2 v 015 $ o 3 0.10 E E a° = 0.05 0.00 S$ °ee AS~ °ay1 "a'$ no °a' $ Month b 2 0 0 p O o < o z Figure 4-7. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 5 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily* vehicle mile traveled DVMT (lower) 60 9 a 7 G `e s 2 4 6 3 2 1 0 e ¢ PL ¢ N G p LL f2' IL Q 020 0.18 0 ~ 0.16 ~ N o @ 0 E 0.14 n_ .R E 0.12 ~ a s ° o i o 0.10 gM UO a N ° g 0 o 0 d c - 0.06 E °o o °o, a & 0.04 o 0 0 d o 0.02 0 0 0.00 gg gg $ m ~ j ,~j 1 LL g A d3 2 0 Q M oIaI O Z O IL M d Month a o S Q a a a S a r}p{, ° N a p m v m n ~ 9 3 T~ 'b w ❑ LL g¢ ~ W ¢ N O Z p C O y N ~ e G > O G C ° g 0 ~oo~ogNgO~~~~iQ~o ~c~ao m OZOI'i~Q ¢ mOZ p Month Figure 4-8. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 6 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle mile traveled, DVMT (louder) 61 6 of N m 5 c c p O 4 4 4 4 ` 4 4 c 0 U 3 3 3 3 c 3 a a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q R Q Q Q Q Q m m m m m m m N m m N m m m m m m O O O m O O e Q o 0 0 9 0 M2 Q OO. 0 o Q Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 C c a m y T c m a y m c a T c m Ca 0 c a m > m IL rd Q m ~ ~ ~ m U Z m ~ ll ~ Q m ' ~ ~ m ~ >O m ' m m ° ~ ~ ~ Q N Z ~ g Q N O ~ a m Z O LL `t Q Month 0.60 c O N n r y 0.50 0 c > a c 5 3 b m ~o 040 o . C o c o m ro m a u N { y 0.30 N Q o H ry H ~•R m m m me o 0 ~ C 020 P < X00 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 u E g o 0 0 0 0 d 0 a s 0.10 0 0 00 0 °m . 00 00 °o 00 8 00 0 00 0 00 ~~pp o 0 0 0 g~ U O~ C $a IL 4gg 2 46 C O Z ~IO J ~-C mi 'ba IL '~g 2 ciYQ s: C ~0 ~ 3 Q ~m p 02 m ~moC ma a tYY p ~Y P moT m 0C m0 j m~m 06 ~5x p3 Z D ~ IL rL Q ~ ~ ' Q N " Z ❑ Figure 49. Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 7 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per mullion daily vehicle mile traveled, DVMT (lower) 62 A more fair and unbiased comparison of accident data would exclude accidents from known causes, as recorded in police accident reports. Figure 4-10 shows the frequency of accidents on the lnterstates in Cuyahoga County by contributing circumstance (driving under the influence, adverse weather, animal bits, etc). Table 4-6 summarizes the percentages of several of these circumstances for the accidents occurring near the digital billboards and within viewer reaction zones. Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Akotwl 3.03% 1.59% 0.00% 152% 1.91% 6.85% 1.48% N ; Drugs 1.52% 1.59% 0.00% 0.00% 024% 0.91% 0.74% $ O ° U! Animal Related 21.21% 0.OD% 10.71% 0.00% 5.57% 0.46% 0.74% Wr a Speeding 27.27% 7.14% 41.96% 7.58% 17.90% 9.59% 8.15% 0 U Senior Related 3.03% 5.56% 9.82% 6.06% 5.73% 7.76% 5.93% Table 4-6. Percentage of Accidents within Viewer Reaction Zones near Digital Billboards as recorded with (mown contributor causes Tables 4-7 through 4-10 and Figures 4-11 through 4-17 show the number of accidents with statistical bias events excluded within the visible range at all seven digital billboards by count and by rate by daily-vehicle mile traveled These figures represent both the 24 month and 36 months sets of data centered around the conversion in July 2005. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 summarize the same data for 36 and 24 month windows and also account for seasonal trends in the County and account for vehicle-miles traveled during the specific months at the specific sign locations. Exclude bias accidents, a comparison of the histograms of accidents (on either a monthly basis) at the location 18 months before the digital conversion and 18 months after the digital conversion 63 indicates no substantial change in accident patterns. Comparing a year before and after, the peak number of accidents on any given month decreased from 62 to 53, after the introduction of the digital billboard at the location; the peak number of accidents on any given month decreased from 5 to 4. Similar results were obtained for the larger 18-month windows. The data and analysis indicates no significant change in accident occurrences that can be attributed to the conversion of these billboards to digital format. 64 77' 271' 480 490 Alcohol Drugs Animal Speeding Youth (16-25) DUI under 21 Senior 65) Other 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of Accidents Figure 4-10. Sunmmy Statistics of Accidents by Interstate by Year in Cuyahoga County and Color Stacked by Police Recorded Contributing Circumstances 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 65 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Total Accidents as 13 4 8 2 41 20 8 96 Conventional Billboard c 0 r 12 'O 0 Average Number of 0 7 0 2 0 4 0 1 2 3 1 1 0.4 0.8 a c Accidents in a Month . . . . . . - o m 2 a `o Standard Deviation 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 2.4 1.3 0.7 1.3 C c y w o a Peak Number of Accidents in 2 2 2 1 9 4 2 9 0 E Any Given Month O Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 An Given Month Total Accidents as Digital 11 4 7 2 21 15 5 65 Billboard c Average Number of 0 6 0.2 0.4 0.1 7.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 v in a Month Accidents . U a m c Standard Deviation 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.9 m 10 c 5 o Peak Number of Accidents in 1 1 2 1 4 4 2 4 E Arry Given Month cc Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Any Given Month Number of Accidents -2 0 -1 0 -20 -5 -3 -31 c o percent difer m -15.4% 0.0% -12.5% 0.0% -98.E% -25.0% -37.5% 32.3% Average Per Month -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -1.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 $ U ? v Peak Number of Accidents in _1 -1 0 0 b 0 0 S m Any Given Month E `o- 'a Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Any Given Month Table 47. Bias Adjusted Accident Count Data for a 36-Month Window (f18 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents in the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 66 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Total Accidents as 9 1 6 2 26 14 4 62 Conventional Billboard c 0 2 a e Average Number of 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.0 1.1 0.3 0.7 a Accidents in a Month a Fn O o Standard Deviation 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 1.9 1.3 0.5 1.1 o 'c ~ n y N c c Peak Number of Accidents in 2 1 2 1 5 4 1 5 0 E Any Given Month N Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Any Given Month Total Accidents as Digital 7 3 6 2 17 14 4 53 Billboard c Average Number of 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.6 > a a Month Accidents in W C O V a m Standard Deviation 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.5 0.7 1.0 w 10 Wi _ Peak Number of Accidents in t 1 2 1 4 4 2 4 E Any Given Month N Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 An Given Month Number of Accidents -2 2 0 0 -0 0 0 -9 percent dffmnm -22.2% 200.0% 0.0% 0.0% 346% 0.0% 0.0% -14.5% N o Average Per Month -0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.1 0.0 -0.1 U U o c Peak Number of Accidents in -1 0 0 0 -1 0 1 -1 c Any Given Month o` Minimum Number of Accidents in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Any Given Month Table 4-8. Bias-Adjusted Accident Count Data for a 24-Month Window (112 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents in the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 67 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percentage of Accidents on co interstate per million DVMT 0.042 0.020 0.004 0.052 0.052 0.027 0.059 -P m (PMDVMT) N ~ $ c 8 m 8 c Standard Deviation 0.043 0.048 0.011 0.054 0.054 0.032 0.092 g a N c Peak PMDVMT 0.113 0.173 0.036 0.192 0.192 0.103 0.254 0 E in Any Given Month m v Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month Percentage of Accidents on c Interstate per million DVMT 0.040 0.025 0.004 0.031 0.031 0.022 0.046 (PMDVMT) E > 8 m a Standard Deviation 0.033 0.046 0.012 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.096 _ ~ a Peak PMDVMT 0 066 116 0 0.036 0.108 0.106 0.108 0.342 E in Any Given Month . . m Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.OW 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month c Percentage of Accidents on m interstate per million DVMT -0.002 0.005 0.000 -0.021 -0.021 -0.005 -0.014 (PMDVMT) v Peak PMDVMT -0.010 0.000 0.001 -0.021 -0.021 0.002 0.004 in Any Given Month 8 c n Minimum PMDVMT -0.045 -0.057 0.000 -0.084 -0.084 0.006 0.088 in Any Given Month Table 4-9. Bias-Adjusted Percentage of Interstate Accidents per million Vehicle-Mile Travel Data for a 36-Month Window (f18 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents in the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 68 Digital Billboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percentage of Accidents on o Interstate per million DVMT 0.041 0.007 0.005 0.048 0.048 0.027 0.043 v .m (PMDVMT) _ N ) 0 c U m c `o Standard Deviation 0.036 0.027 0.013 0.044 0.044 0.034 0.067 o -c N c C Peak PMDVMT 0 113 0 096 036 0 0 128 0.128 0.103 0.140 0 E in Any Given Month . . . . N Minimum PMDVMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month Percentage of Accidents on Interstate per million DVMT 0.037 0.027 0.006 0.037 0.037 0.031 0.055 c (PMDVMT) '2 m Standard Devialion 0.033 0.050 0.014 0.033 0.033 0.039 0.109 N E Peak PMDVMT 0.068 0.116 0.036 0.106 0.108 0.106 0.342 in Any Given Month w Minimum PMDVMT 01000 0.000 0.000 O.ODO 0.000 0.000 0.000 in Any Given Month co Percentage of Accidents on m Interstate per million DVMT -0.003 0.020 0.001 -0.010 -0.010 OA04 0.011 c (PMDVMT) o U 8 C L N o Peak PMDVMT -0.003 0.023 0.001 -0.011 -0.011 0.005 0.042 N in Any Given Month `0 .Q Minimum PMDVMT -0.045 0.021 0.000 -0.020 -0.020 0.006 0202 in Any Given Month Table 4-10. Bias-Adjusted Percentage of Interstate Accidents Per million Vehicle-We Travel Data for a 24-Month Window (L12 months prior to and after conversion to digital billboard) of Accidents in the Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards on Interstate Route Sections 69 e 1'. v a v G ~ 0.: 0, g 0 0 0 0 0 m n m' c 5 0l $ 8 > Month 0.12 1 d o 0.10 I's 1 21 y 0.08 a_ y a a u y 0.06 _T F 9 `o $ 0.04 E 0.02 C O U 0.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . a. v v v v a N N ~P in N 1l] N N ~n m ro y ~o m 4u o o~ s~$ o$ T o o O ca o o~~ o o~ g p R g m m m m o >O m m m m' m o ~o p°p~~ m m m` 3 m>> ryry G m LL Q N Z LL¢ a N 2❑ LL a ¢ N 0 Z p M¢ O O Month Figure 411. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 1 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DVMT (lower) 70 0.5 0 00000000000 110 O ~1og[lo 000000 o~ QIQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d' Q m m N N N m 1n m N m m m m m m m o~ 0 0 0 o e Q o m 0 m 0 0 m o m g m m g$ 0 0 Q Q o 0 0 o c~ g o$ o on Q Q b o a 0 m a m m m o. m 3 3' v 'o m v m n m m U Qg o o n > 0 5 m a o o m m m m a m 3 m o m '_l LL `d Q ^2 ~ Q N Q Z p LL~ Q~ ~ Q N Z p O LL `2 ¢ ~ Q N ~ Z ~ Month 0.20 0 r N 0.18 o N a ~ p a 0.16 E 0.14 v E 0.12 0 0 o a S~ 0 0 9_ V Yj y 0.10 mo 0 0 G ~ O o .R 0.08 H o 0 0.06 E m a`r 0.04 n g 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q a Q Q N m m m m m min m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ° $2e ooooa g$'b' $Qeo oo $~o 2 'a C2 °m m 8 p.....2. $00 m m v n m 3 3 W m a m m m v a A 0 3 d o v v a W m m 'o v Q N Z ~ -i LL `C Q ^2 ~ Q N Z O O LL 2 Q M ~ Q N O Z 0 Month Figure 4-12. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 2 (upper); percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DVMT (lower) 71 2.5 a 1.5 0 E7 v u ¢ 1 0.5 0 0 1 4° Q a c g m ¢ v g in 'z' i' in in in Q m m m m O ° Q c 9 0 ° o 0 0, o v i' m y° o m v m o, m o v o m o a c u¢ m O z LL¢ ¢ N O z p uv. m z❑ C2L Month 0.05 c p N F 9 U5 d C N m V ~ O O E 31 S? 6.03 g m ~ ~ g 9 0.02 O O O g 0.01 0.00,--r_y Ana ~p g ~MI. ~ `8 i((nJJ 1(paJ u~ `n y1 p~ ~ ti+ ~ry o ~ i' 2 ~ o 0 0 ~ o o I IL 2 4 `C ¢ 10,Z6 f2 > 9 2 4 ' < tq p ~ , O Z 5 L l d ! g <21 ¢ W O Z O Month Figure 413. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 3 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DVMT (lower) 72 12~ 1 0.8 c v 0.0 o.a 0.2 Io f C 1 1 U 10000000 000000 0000,ooodooooo0000000 o ga g8 Rat§%~M88 HU",N ip- ¢ V) O Z p LL Q g ¢ V) O Z LL Q g 0 0 0 Z LL Q Month 0.04 0.04 s a O ~ 0.03 E 0.03 }j $ 0.62 F Q 0.02 c 0 0 e - 0.01 y 0.01 C O N a c U a o g 8 8 0 0 0 80 g o 0 0 g g$ g i;o 0 0 0 o o °o, 0 0 0 OW o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~UOZO~LL~a~' ~nozp Month Figure 4-14. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 4 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DV1VfT (lover) 73 to , 9 9 8 i ~ G E 5 a 4 V Q Q 3 2 L 0 O 0 0.25 F$ m _ 0.20 6 ~ E ~v a_ 1~ E 0.15 u a a v 6 g9 0.10 0 a o 0 0 E 0.05 L Month C O N N C O O Y. p. N Y 0 0 II ~ 8 8888'' 8 0.00 0 OO6oi I'll o Month 0 s B B f~+l 8 s 6 o o 0 I 8888 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 $ 8 z g t S S W ~ ~ ryt 2 Figure 4-15. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 5 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DV T1' (lower) 74 i G O 4.5 L 4 4 4 4 ( O O~ 3.5 3 3 3 a a p°y 2.5 8 2 2 2 ? u 2 V Q 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e a 4 v$ v g yy `o'Q in ~n g o o Y Pd a s `8 o = O U".M < o z o E3 0 Z ~ugag¢'v, o ❑ IMm6h 0.12 F _ 0.10 0.06 a S L 0.06 sa r `0 0 0.04 °u 0.02 L° qq 'C a om o QQ m LL~ Q~~~ Q N 0 2~ m LL month S 885888 8 ON ~oOOOOO o og boo o ~Q 5~qO R LL~ Q g i~ Q f9 O Z p d ~ Figure 4-16. Bias-Adjusted Number of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 6 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DVMT (loaner) 75 p 2.5 1 I 2 2 2 2 r 3 1.5 a v v H 0.5 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a a m m m m mu~ m m m m m m m R~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o o a °II, on Q g ~a ° ~ 2 2 ~ ° a ~ ~ ~ `d ° °9 2 2 ~ o o ? `X v n v a v v v R n m 3 v o v v v v o v LL Q g Q N Z N LL Q Q N Z01, LL Q ' Q N N z O month 0.25 a 0 N d oC O Ell O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a c a m` °m m Q_ $ a s a a a m m m m in m m m m m m m m m m m m m m g v m m °v m n Q o 0 om m n o O om q o Q~~' Q N 0 Z LL~ Q~ ' Q N Z O~ LL~ Q~ O' Q N Z O Figure 4-17. Bias-Adjusted Dumber of Accidents within visible range of Digital Billboard 7 (upper); Percentage of Total Accidents per million daily vehicle miles traveled, DVMT (lower) 76 4.4 Methodology: Spatial Analysis. The objective of the spatial analysis is to study the correlation between traffic accidents and the digital billboards based on their route; that is, to examine whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near digital billboards on specific routes. These spatial sets of data are quantitatively compared using correlation coefficients. The procedure employed in this spatial study involves collecting accident information for a given route, analyzing and assembling the information into a useful format, identifying where digital and conventional billboards are located along the route, statistically analyzing the data by comparing the billboard locations and the accident locations, and calculating correlation coefficients for these sets of data Both the accident data and the billboard locations are assembled, or listed, by mile marker, so as to form a basis of comparison. Three comparisons of these variables are completed, including a comparison of • Accident-Density and Billboard Density, • Accident-Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and • Accident-Density and Proximity to the Billboards. The above three comparisons are made for each of the six years examined in their aggregate, and for the specific cases 12 months before and 12 months after digital format. A quantitative measure of how well the data compared is obtained by using a statistical correlation coefficient. The results of the correlation coefficient analysis, and a discussion of correlation coefficients are in this section. This study also examines a subset of traffic-accident data to assess its relationship to digital billboards. Once again, accident data was analyzed using all recorded Interstate accidents; the same analysis was additionally conducted by also excluded data with known bias. A fair and unbiased comparison of accident data would exclude accidents from known causes, as recorded in police accident reports. In this subset analysis of unbiased data, the excluded accidents were those recorded (1) with drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, (2) animal-related accidents (typically drivers hitting deer), (3) drivers in accidents located at on-ramps and off- ramps (drivers undertaking additional operations for lane-changes, decelerating), and (4) accidents during adverse weather conditions (specifically only accidents recorded during snowfall or with icy roads). These bias-exclusion criteria were used in bias-data subset analyses 77 in this study. Correlation coefficients are calculated with the same accident data, however excluding known causes (adverse weather, DUls, etc) and those accidents and billboards on interchanges (entrances/exits) within one mile (1/4 mile on each side of an interchange). Accident data near interchanges have the potential to statistically bias the results, because drivers undertake additional tasks such as lane changes, accelemting/decelerating, negotiating directions, and attention to others undertaking these additional tasks. These added factors could statistically bias and dilute a study of accident data when compared to typical conditions of "straight" driving. A. Accident Density and Billboard Density. This study defines accident density as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). The billboard density, sp , is defined as the number of billboards per mile, and is determined using a moving average of the number of billboards at each mile marker with a "window size" of one mile, and may be expressed by: ll ~SD = [s,lm-0.5<s,<m+0.51, m = 0, 0.1,...,M} JJ where si is the ith billboard's mile-marker location, and Q is the number of billboards observed along M, which is the total length of the particular Interstate route in miles. Billboard density, that is, the average number of billboards (conventional and digital) per mile, varies along the length of the Interstates. If a noticeable correlation between billboards and accidents exists, then one would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high billboard densities. The basis for evaluating the relationship between billboard locations and accident locations is the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient (p) between billboard density, s°, and accident density, A°, may be calculated using: ~(`~„n -`ln)(Sn -SrD ) p= .nr =0,0.1,--, 11 Table 4-11 shows the correlation coefficients with their corresponding data for the individual and aggregate years between 2001 and 2006. Figure 4-18 shows commonly accepted interpretations 78 of correlation coefficients and visual scatter plots to emphasis what various correlation coefficients night represent. B. Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) Accident density, 2C, was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (every tenth of a mile). Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD) is a measure of the distance in which a driver has time to "notice" or react to a billboard which is in the driver's field of vision. The VRD is the distance to a billboard in which the driver is potentially within the "influence" of a billboard. Analogously, Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) is the time a driver is within the "influence" of a billboard. Reasonable values for VRD were determined as a function of the driver's speed. The posted speed limit on the Interstates is 65 mph, this approximately corresponds with a VRD of approximately 0.2 miles and a VRT of 10 seconds. This study uses a binary index, FT O, to represent if a given mile marker is within the VRD, and is represented as 0, Al 0 otherwise where dm is the distance to the nearest billboard location for mth mile marker, VRD is 0:2 (the viewer reaction distance corresponding to a 10 second VRT at the 65 mph on the Interstate routes), and M is the total length of the particular Interstate route in miles. The index dm is defined as fd,,, = ininr{I s,-Irll,l=01,••-,O}~, m = 0, 0.1,---. All where si is the ith billboard's mile marker location and Q is the number of billboards observed. The correlation coefficient between accident density, A° , and viewer reaction distance, V', is calculated similar to that which was previously defined Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within 0.2 miles of the nearest billboard, based on the previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance. If a noticeable correlation between digital billboards and accidents exists, then one would expect significant increases in the number of accidents occurring 0.0 to 0.2 miles from the digital billboard. 79 C. Number of Accidents and Proximity to Billboards. Accident density, C, was previously defined as the number of accidents per mile marker (one tenth of a mile). An index, P., is used to represent proximity to a billboard, and is simply the distance from an individual mile marker to the nearest billboard. P may be expressed by: {P„ = la„-ml, m = 0. 0.1, , M) where dm is the distance to the nearest billboard location for mth mile marker and M is the total length of the Interstate route in miles. The correlation coefficients between billboard proximity indices, AD, and accident density, VvRn, are similar to that previously defined. Correlation coefficients are determined for data that are within 0.4 miles of the nearest billboard. Based on the previous discussion of Viewer Reaction Distance (VRD), 0.4 miles is twice the 0.2 mile VRD value. If a noticeable correlation exists between digital billboards and vehicle accidents, then one would expect significant increases in the number of accidents between the 0.0 and 0.2 mile range and between the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range, the correlation coefficient would be large (close to t 0.7 or greater). However, these correlation coefficients are actually close to zero, indicating almost statistical independence, that is no statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic accidents. Further, when known-cause statistical bias is excluded, these correlation coefficients move closer to zero, suggesting no causal relationship. 4.5 Results: Spatial Analysis. Tlus study seeks to evaluate whether the digital billboards had an influence on the occurrence of traffic accidents. As discussed, a useful measure of compliance ("association") between two sets of data (billboards and traffic accidents) is the correlation coefficient. If the variables "tend" to go up and down together, then the correlation coefficient will be positive. If the variables "tend" to go up and down in opposition with each other, than the correlation coefficient will be negative. By definition, a correlation coefficient can be no larger than +1, and no smaller than -1. Values at, or very near to, +1 indicate a perfect one-to-one correlation, and values at, or very near to, -1 indicating perfect inverse correlation. Values at or near zero indicate statistical 80 independence of one set of data with respect to the other. Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate "weak" correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero. It is important to note that correlation is not necessarily causation, even though it may be an indicator. Table 4-11 lists the correlation coefficients obtained for the relationships examined in this study, namely: • Accident Density and Billboard Density, • Accident Density and Viewer Reaction Distance, and • Accident Density and Proximity to Billboard. Figures 4-19 through 4-22 show the correlation coefficient results mapped on a scale of "association" for each Interstate. All correlation coefficients are close to zero and within the "no association" range. As seen in Table 4-11 and in Figures 4-19 through 4-22, the correlation coefficients for accident density and billboard density are all statistically low, with coefficients ranging between -0.217 to +0.270. Similar low-value, "no association" correlation values are calculated when accident density and viewer reaction distances are compared; value range from -0.102 to +0.014. Comparisons between accident density values and their distances to the nearest billboard, digital or conventional, yield coefficients ranging between -0.208 to +0.005. Table 4-11 also shows the correlation coefficients for number of accidents by milemarker for Interstates for 12 months before and after digital conversion. These correlation coefficients compare accident location before and after with no account for billboards and are high, close to one and suggest a "strong association". This association, as shown in Figures 4-30 through 4-33, supports the observation that, with or without digital billboards, accident milemarker locations are strongly correlated, and that a location with many accidents is likely to have many accidents from year to year; or conversely, few accidents from year to year . Generally, when billboards and accidents from bias data are excluded, almost all the coefficients are closer to zero. 81 Also of note is the fact that the correlation coefficients are relatively consistent from digital billboard to digital billboard within each category on each Interstate. We note that there are no large increases or decreases of the coefficients exist from one year to another. This consistency positively influences the confidence in the study results. Additionally, preliminary calculations were performed to account for variations in traffic volume along the Interstate routes. When the discrete values for accident density are weighted by average yearly Interstate volume rates, the resultant correlation coefficients move closer to zero in all cases. 82 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients With Ranges +1.0 strong association +0.7 weak association y__? s ~ r +0.3 no f association N? ,~CX 0 negative correlations have similar ranges -1.0 Correlation Visual Representation Coefficient Scale of Data with specific correlation 0 - 1.0 +0.95 .nn +0.2 r - 0 exactly • Y~i is ` Figure 4-18. Conceptual Representation of Correlation Coefficient Scale Depicting Ranges cNith Strong, Neal and no Association. 83 +1.0 Interstate Largest Correlation Time Range 1-77 1-00 1-271 I-480 Correlation Variables of Data Coefficient or ) All years -0.042 0.270 -0.217 0.096 -0.270 (2001-2006) v .'0° c vi $ c 12 months prior -0.024 0.263 -0.052 0.117 0.263 a o m o to conversion 12 months after 0.047 0.215 -0.157 0.058 0.215 conversion All years -0.095 -0.062 -0.075 -0.002 -0.095 (2001-2006) c 12 months prior -0.102 -0.069 -0.050 0.014 -0.102 to conversion a° 12 months after -0.088 -0.071 -0.065 -0.020 -0.088 conversion All years -0.091 -0.170 0.011 -0.111 -0.170 (2001-2006) B v 'w v o 12 months prior 084 -0 -0.208 -0.016 -0.108 -0.208 13 o > y to conversion . E x 0 ` a 12 months after -0.103 -0.172 0.005 -0.127 -0.172 conversion Accident Density in 12 months after 0.873 0.961 0.963 0.902 0.963 vs. 12 months prior Table 411. Correlation Coefficients of Various Comparisons for Merstates 84 Interpretation of o Association for a Coefficients of, Correlation ca strong association weals association no association ±1.0 II ¢1.0 +0.7 M% 3'f <t r` +0.3 r' 0.0 Accident Density Vs. Billboard VPD Proximity Density A D G -0.042 -0.095 -0.091 2001-2006 2001-2006 2001-2006 B E H -0.024 -0.102 -0.084 12 month 12 month 12 m. prior prior prior C F 1 +0.047 -0.088 -0.103 12 month 12 month 12 month after after after Figure 4-19. Correlation Coefficients on Association Scale for 1-77 85 0.0 Interpretation of Association for Coefficients of ° Correlation ° ±1.0 ±1.Q strong association weak association no association +0.7 +0.3 0.0 Accident Density VS. Billboard VRD ProxAmity Density A D G +0.270 -0.062 -0.170 2001-2006 2001-2006 2001-2006 B E H +0.263 -0.069 -0.208 12 month 12 month 12 m. prior prior prior o F I +0,216 -0.071 -0.172 12 month 12 month 12 month after after after Figure 4-20. Correlation Coefficients on Association Scale for 1-90 86 U Interpretation of Association for g Coefficients of rp Correlation strong association weak association no association t1.0 11 ±i.0 +0.7 rte; +0.3 0.0 F,c6dent Censitlr Vs. Billboard VPC Proximity, Density A D G -0.217 -0.075 0.011 2001-2006 2001-2006 2001-2006 6 E H -0.052 -0.050 -0.016 12 month 12 month 12 m. prior prior prior C F I -0.157 -0.065 +0,005 12 month 12 month 12 month after after after Figure 4-21. Correlation Coefficients on Association Seale for I-271 87 0.0 Interpretation of nsocfiation t o Coefficients of Correlation ° U ±1.0 ±1.0 strong association weak association no association +0.7 +0.3 I of 0.0 Accident Density Js. Billboard V RD Proximity Density A D G +0.096 -0.002 -0.111 2001-2006 2001-2006 2001-2006 B E H +0.117 +0.014 -0.108 12 month 12 month 12 m. prior prior prior C F I +0.058 -0.020 -0.127 12 month 12 month 12 month after after after Figure 4-22. Correlation Coefficients on Association Seale for 1480 88 0.0 Figure 4-23 shows the geocoded locations of accidents between 2001 and 2006 on Intersiates routes. Figures 4-2-1 and 4-25 shu the relative spatial disinibuiion of accidents per volume (APP) along the Interstates; the sign locations and appro.dmate V1D zones (yellow bores) are shown. In additional to digital billboards, these figures also show the locations of conventional ones. Lengths of interstate with digital or conventional have statistically comparable -AY ratios at locations near segments without any billboards. Accidents occur on interstates with or without billboards. This observation is further reinforced by the correlation coefficients that were calculated between accident nnilemarl-er- locations from year-to-year as shown in Figures 4-30 through 4-33. These values are evaluated independently of any billboard information (the last row shown in Table 4-11). The values are well-correlated and in the "strong association" range. Figure 4-26 through 4-29 show hotspots of the number of accidents along interstates. In these figures, the accident counts are not adjusted for traffic volumes. Figure 4-23. Geocoded Accidents between 2001 and 2006 on Cuyahoga County Interstates 89 =`LL ❑ within VRD at posted speed limit outside of VRD, but visible outside range Of visibility 9 ls l;-1 rR 9 Milemarker (per halFmlle) of A . 1v [ e ❑ w W.VFD at .e i rs Eau pe ed speed limit ousid..fvM, 66rz but vidble oW9de rs s of om6 n9 wi bil ty a 6.Ow Y.WB ~ 0064 y q 000E Q a.666 _ f _ _ ry ry PAliemarksr (per halFmile) grtic 2 ,dye 7 Figure 4-24. Summary Statistics of Accidents per Volume within Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards 1, 2, and 7 for Interstate 271 (upper) and Interstate 480 (lower) [conventional billboards also shown] 90 Figure 4-26. Accident Density Hotspots showing locations of conventional and digital billboards and locations of accidents between 2001 and 2006 Figure 4-27. Accident Density Hotspots showing locations of conventional and digital billboards and locations of bias-excluded accidents between 2001 and 2006 92 0 omz 8 000s w ~ 0.00s a a.aaa 0.002 b 6 4 3 >-z F1 within VRD at 0.012 posted weed limit 0.010 outside of VRD, but Nsihle 0.00 outside rangy of visibility 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 P ~ °d R b N R N 05 R ~ F R ~ C ~ static ! 14 b 3 a Figure 4-25. Summary Statistics of Accidents per Volume within Viewer Reaction Zone of Digital Billboards 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Interstate 90 (upper) and Interstate 77 (lower) [conventional billboards also shown] 91 KEY Re4+tre Fctquencc -e Mzh ofAmdenW II,eersenre 4" l_ Lour, A Billhu.vd Locaton MIL O Distal B!llla.md La:a hon 0 ® Acctdait Locahon "1 Figure 4-28. Accident Density Hotspots showing locations of conventional and digital billboards and locations of bias-excluded accidents in one year prior to digital sign conversion IE~1 R&Wrti Fratuewy -a oFAttiden[s 0 Umtate Sir A Billboard Location O DmWBdIb,ard Location a .A,Ydent Locaton t Figure 4-29. Accident Density Hotspots showing locations of conventional and digital billboards and locations of bias-excluded accidents in one year after digital sign conversion 93 f-= s0 70 60 0 50 40 Bg 30 ca w v ~ 20 o L 10 E 0 z Number of Accidents per 1/10th stile in year BEFORE Digital Conversion 12 a E 1o t Y T a Q N c 6 a V Q 4 0 L 2 E z 0 3 3 ♦ ® s ♦ ♦ E ♦ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Distance to Nearest Billboard (miles) Figure 4-30. Interstate I-77 Comparisons Relation of Dumber of Accident in year before digital to year after (top) and Reflation of Number of Accidents to Distance to Nearest Billboard (bottom) 94 0 20 40 60 80 r- 140 2 f E 2 120 100 w ~ M 60 a US es ua 40 20 s a E 0 z Number of Accidents per 1110th mile in year BEFORE Digital Conversion 12 M E 10 t 0 8 d c H 6 ♦ 9 V Q 4 O V a 2 E 3 Z 0 i 0 1 ♦ • • f i E ♦ i 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Distance to Nearest Billboard (miles) Figure 4-31. Interstate I-90 Comparisons Relation of Number of Accident in year before digital to year after (top) and Relation of Number of Accidents to Distance to Nearest Billboard (bottom) 95 0 50 100 150 200 sa E .2 70 60 50 N ~ Z ® 40 • 9 w 30 o 20 M g 10 E s 9 0 Number of Accidents per 1110th mile in year BEFORE Digital Conversion 12 z ® y ® s E 10 o r v d a 8 N v 6 • • ® • Q 4 ® • 4 o ® • a 2 E ® • z • O 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Distance to Nearest Billboard (miles) Figure 4-32. Interstate 1-271 Comparisons Relation of Number of Accident in year before digital to year after (top) and Relation of Number of Accidents to Distance to Nearest Billboard (bottom) 96 0 20 40 60 80 60 50 ® 40 30 O® V U w 20 10 E 0 z 0 12 e € 10 z r P g a a w 6 d a .v u 4 0 0 2 E z z 0 0 Figure 4-33. Interstate I-480 Comparisons Relation of Number of Accident in year before digital to year after (top) and Relation of Number of Accidents to Distance to Nearest Billboard (bottom) 97 10 20 30 40 50 Number of Accidents per 1110th mile in year BEFORE Digital Conversion 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Distance to Nearest Billboard (miles) 5_0 CONCLUSIONS The conclusion of this study is that digital billboards have no statistical relationship with the occurrence of accidents. The analysis and statistics in Cuyahoga County demonstrate that accidents are no more likely to occur along sections of Interstate routes near digital billboards than those sections without them. The specific conclusions of this study of Cuyahoga County indicate the following. 1. The accident statistics and metrics remain consistent, exhibiting statistically insignificant variations, for periods of 12 months before and after the conversion (a total of 24 months) at each of the billboards. The same conclusion also applies for periods of 18 months before and after the conversion (a total of 36 months). Metrics include the total number of accidents in any given month, the average number of accidents over the 12- and 18-month periods, the peak number of accidents in any given month, and the number of accident-free months. These conclusions account for variations of traffic-volume and vehicle-miles traveled. 2. The correlation coefficients demonstrate no statistical relationship between vehicular accidents and billboards (including conventional and the seven, digital billboards). Also, these correlation coefficients strongly suggest no causal relationship between the billboards and vehicular accidents. 3. When data-bias is excluded, the results further reinforce the conclusion that no statistical relationship exists between the digital billboards and accidents. Data bias includes known accident causes (deer hits, DUls, etc), and interchange-bias, where drivers undertake additional tasks, such as lane changes, accelerating/decelerating, and negotiating directions. 98 4. Accidents occur with or without billboards (digital or conventional). The accident statistics on sections of Interstate routes near billboards are comparable to the accident statistics on similar sections that have no billboards. The overall conclusion of this study is that digital billboards have no statistical relationship with the occurrence of accidents. The frequency of traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and correlated with other factors, such as DUls, deer hits, adverse weather conditions, excessive speeding, inter alia. 99 REFERENCES 1. Tantala, M., P. Tantala, "An Examination of the Relationship between Advertising Signs and Traffic Safety", 84th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 2005. 2. Tantala, M., A. Tantala, P. Tantala "Traffic Safety Study: Research, Perspectives and Correlations" United States Sign Council (USSC) Technical Report, Bristol, PA, November 2003. 3. Tantala, Site Observation Notes, Photos, Digital Videos, and geospatial log files, 1May07 4. Ohio Department of Transportation, Accident reports, various dates, 2000-2006. 5. Ohio Department of Transportation, Traffic Count Reports, various dates, 2000-2006. 6. Ohio Department of Transportation, Straight Line Diagrams, various dates. 7. Clear Channel Sign Inventory and Use Records, 2005-2007 8. Ang, A., W. Tang, Probability Conceots in Engineering Ply and Desim John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975. 9. Federal Highway Administration, "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage", Report No. FHWAlRD-80/051,1980. 10. Garber, N. and L. Hoel, Traffic and Highway En&jgeed g, PWS Publishing, 2nd edition (Revised Printing), 1999. 11. Harr, M., Reliability Based Design in Civil Engineering, General Publishing Company, Ltd., 1987. 12. Modarres, M., M. Kaminsky, V. Krivtsov, Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1999. 100 13. Montgomery, D., G. Runger, N. Hubele, Engineering Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. 14. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U. S, Department of Commerce, Historical Weather Data for Pennsylvania, 2001-2006. 15. O'Connor, P., Practical Reliability Engineering Heyden and Sons, Inc., 1981. 16 Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MU7'CD). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003. 17. American National Standards Institute (ANSI D16.1), Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Accidents, 1996 101 r1 APPENDIX Firm Profile of Tantala Associates Profile of Albert M. Tantala, Sr., P.E. Profile of Michael W. Tantala, P.E. 102 About TANTAIIA ASSOCIATES TANTALA ASSOCIATES is a multi-disciplined professional, consulting-engineering firm with an established practice for more Than 40 years. The firm provides a unique union of research, consulting and design solutions, offering expertise in numerous practice areas encompassing civil engineering, transportation and risk management. The firm provides research and engineering to a diverse clientele spanning government, industry and academe. Our technical expertise includes industry-standard research and consulting specifically on outdoor advertising and safety. Tantala Associates has previously published safety technical reports and guidelines for the United States Sign Council (USSC) and published with the United States Transportation Research Board (TRB). Albert M. Tantala, Sr., P.E., President/Principal • More than 40 years experience in engineering and design • Has a specialty in design and analysis of wind-loaded structures • Licensed Engineer in NY, NJ, PA, DE, RI and VA • BSE ('60) University of Pennsylvania; BA ('61), University of Pennsylvania; MSE ('65) Villanova University • Co-authored `°rmffic Safety Study: Research, Perspectives and Correlations" for united States Sign Council (USSC), 2003 • Current Board Member, and Past President of, the Pennsylvania State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists • Personally designed, sited, inspected and provided engineering, planning and safety services concerning thousands of signs 103 Michael W. Tantala, P.E., Project Engineer More than 8 years experience in engineering, research and design Licensed Engineer in OH and PA; NCEES National Model Law Engineer Designee BSE ('98) University of Pennsylvania; MSE ('00), Princeton University; MA ('00), Princeton University; PhD candidate, Princeton University Has a specialty in Engineering Risk Assessment and Traffic Safety Analysis Co-authored "Traffic Safety Study: Research, Perspectives and Correlations" for United States Sign Council (USSC), 2003 Co-authored "An Examination of the Relationship between Advertising Signs and Traffic Safety" for the 84th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 2005 Visiting Fellow, Princeton University, School of Architecture, 2005-2006; Appointment, for several research projects; three projects include flooding of New York harbor's rivers, bays, and tidal estuaries, consequences of NY-NJ-CT metropolitan earthquakes and sustainability in campus wide master planning activities. • Consultant to Federal Emergency Management Agency; New Jersey State Police, Office of Emergency Management; inter alia 104 Davis Graham &Stubbs LLP March 6, 2008 Kenneth P. Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director 7500 W. 29"' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Re: Wheat Ridge Proposed Billboard Ordinance Dear Ken: I would like to ask a special favor. As you are well aware, when the City Council met to discuss Council Bill No. 02-2008, they deferred further action so that you and others could come back to them with possible changes and a proposed fee schedule in 60 days. I believe that period will expire near the end of April. As you are also aware, I represent the major billboard companies who will be acutely impacted by the new ordinance. Many months ago, my wife and I planned a vacation in Maui, part of which will involve time with our son, daughter-in-law, and grandson, for the period April 16-May 13. (1 am also tied up on April 14-15 in two long days of interviews and meetings of the Colorado Supreme Court Nomination Committee to fill three new seats on the Colorado Court of Appeals.) I would be enormously grateful if any Council hearing on the final version of the ordinance could be held off until after my return. Many thanks for considering this request. Sincerely, ~Aj Richard P. Holme for DAMS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP cc: Gerald Dahl, Esq. Dan Scherer Frank Bullock Steve Richards Richard P. Holme. 303 892 7340. richard.holme@doslaw.com 1550 Seventeenth Street • Suite 500 • Denver, Colorado 80202 - 303 892 9400 • (ax 303 893 1379 832229 www.dgslaw.com CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: February25, 2008 Page -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING C Item 2. COUNCIL BILL 02-2008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.B. Council Bill 02-2008 was introduced on second reading by Ms. Berry. City Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1408. Kenneth Johnstone presented the staff report.. Mr. Johnstone entered into record a letter addressed to Council from Richard Holme, written on behalf of CBS Outdoor, Inc., Lamar Advertising Company and Mile High Outdoor addressing concerns and suggesting changes to the proposed Ordinance (attached to this packet). Mark Giordano, owner of United Advertising, spoke in favor of staffs recommended changes proposed in the second version of the Ordinance and those requested changes in Mr. Holmes' letter. His comments also included, but were not limited to: an ordinance that gives power to the property owners was preferential; raising the height limits for billboards to 45 feet brings the standards in Wheat Ridge in line with those in surrounding Denver municipalities; if down-lighting is a requirement in the Ordinance, it is encouraged to exempt the lighting structures atop the billboard from the height limit; Chip Roehrig of Lamar Outdoor Advertising spoke to Council regarding a study that showed CEVMS (variable lighting message signs) caused no increase in vehicle ( accidents. Mr. Roehrig also pointed out that CEVMS signs can also be used for Public Service Announcements and Emergency Response messaging. Mr. Roehrig provided handouts to Council pertaining to Richard Holme spoke to Council in favor of the changes he suggests in his letter referenced above. His comments also included, but were not limited to: because of the current height limits, several of the existing billboards in the City block the view of business' building signs near them; most cities in the Metro area have adopted a 45-foot height limit; studies and court cases pertaining to the claim that CEVMS's caused an increase in accident incidence have found that there was absolutely no evidence to support the claim that they do. Mr. Holme asked Council whether licenses for billboards number 17 & 18 which the new Ordinance allows in the City would be issued under the criteria in this new Ordinance. Mr. Dahl's answer to Mr. Holme's question was that the 17th& 18th billboards in the City would, in fact, be licensed under the new Ordinance.. Mr. Holmes answered a question from Council Member Langworthy pertaining to whether CEVMS can be retrofitted to old boards or complete re-construction is necessary. Mr. Holme's answer was that electronic backlit boards do not require new structures, but instead are retrofitted with a new sign box. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: February25, 2008 Page -4- Motion by Ms. Berry to continue Council Bill 02-2008, Ordinance 1408 for up to 60 days. I further move to direct the City Manager to: • complete an impact fee study that will evaluate collection of impact fees for new and existing billboards up to 2% of gross annual revenues of each billboard, • to complete an ordinance to implement the results of the impact fee study, • to complete any associated changes to the billboard ordinance needed to implement the impact fee based on the study, • to look at possible revisions to the Billboard Ordinance outlined in the February 20 letter from Richard Holme and CBS Outdoor, particularly those pertaining to CEVMS and backiit signs. • The City Manager shall complete these tasks prior to scheduling the Council Bill for further public hearing, but no later than 60 days from today. Seconded by Mr. Womble; carried 8-0. ' . r City of Wheat jge Council Bill 02-2008 "Billboard Ordinance" City Council Public Hearing February 25, 2008 Impetus for the Ordinance 1. Current regulations provide no guidance on how the City manages the permitting of new billboards in the event of a vacancy 2. Current administrative policies of using a "lottery" system have resulted in some litigation Process for Drafting Ordinance v Initial City Council study session - June 2007 v Public Workshop with B-2 property owners and sign industry representatives - Oct 29 •City Council Study Session - Dec 3 •Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation - January 17 •City Council 1 51 reading - January 28 Major Changes Proposed o Establishes specific billboard permitting and registration requirements o Clarifies that the entitlement to a Billboard belongs to the property owner o Increases the maximum number allowed in the B-2 District from 16 to 18 a Establishes additional setback, height and lighting requirements o Limits the use of electronic variable message Planning Commission Recommendation - January 17 o Required for any changes to Chapter 26 o Recommended approval with 6 conditions Four conditions reflected in 1-1 reading draft of ordinance Two are outstanding 1. Increase maximum height from 32 to 45 2. Decrease billboard spacing from 600 to 500 1St Reading Council Action o Expanded upon some of the notification requirements oAdded a section on assignment of billboard permits (Section "K") ®Increase maximum number from 16 to 18 mDirected staff to draft an ordinance creating a billboard impact fee - not to exceed 2% of gross annual revenues Staff Proposed 2nd Reading Amendments o Received some questions and comments on the V reading ordinance e Two versions of the ordinance in the Council Packet e Staff recommended changes on 2nd reading . Define "property" and eliminate references to "location' . Remove section K and replace with "registration" requirement- require existing be registered . Transferability still exists Additional Public Comment o February 20 letter from Richard Holme Height increase 3. Minimum spacing Side setback 4. Downcast lighting 5. CEVMS Final Staff Comments a Status of Impact Fee Ordinance - Need a Impact Fee Study - Schedule TBD oTwo potential motions in Council Action oConsider additional Planning Commission conditions oQuestions City of dge Wheat ITEM NO: i l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 25, 2008 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 02-2008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-7119 CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.13 ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (01/28/2008) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS Z ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (02/25/2008) ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-judicial: 0 YES ® NO City ManageK' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current section of the Zoning Code that regulates billboards is not specific in regards to implementation and permitting processes. The lack of specificity has resulted in a need to develop administrative procedures to deal with instances of billboard vacancies and the procedures for filling those vacancies. The administrative procedures used in the past have been called into legal question in some instances. Upon City Council's direction, the Community Development Department has drafted more specific and defined procedures and regulations, with the intent of alleviating some of the procedural uncertainties. The Zoning Code currently allows a maximum number of 16 billboards in the B-2 billboard district. City Staff held a public stakeholders meeting in December to gain input, and has conducted working sessions with industry professionals. The proposed ordinance would increase the number of allowed billboards within the B-2 district from 16 to 18. The ordinance also creates an equitable system to determine who is entitled to erect a billboard in the event of a vacancy. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on January 17, 2008 and recommended approval with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. Add B.l.e which states: "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure". 2. Remove all references to the 10-day window and replace with `application period'. 3. Change the 30-120 day lottery window to a 60-90 day lottery window. 4. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn." Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 feet to 45 feet. 2. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 feet to 500 feet. The first four recommendations were included in the I" reading ordinance as passed by City Council and published. The fifth and sixth recommendations are not included in the ordinance as currently drafted, and should be discussion items at the City Council public hearing. There were a few attendees at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in reference to the proposed ordinance. While some offered suggestions to the language or development standards proposed, all offered support of the ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Throughout the billboard permitting and billboard ordinance code rewrite processes, there has perhaps been one primary underlying policy question under discussion: Who `owns' the permit or entitlement? In staff s research, each surrounding community handles permit ownership differently; some attach the ownership to the property owner, others to the permit holder. This issue is somewhat unique in respect to billboards, as the City has chosen to establish a maximum number of allowed billboards, making the ability to erect a billboard a valuable entitlement. The proposed ordinance was crafted with the assumption that the permit would belong to the property owner as is typical for most land use entitlements. When the property owner chooses to relinquish the billboard permit, thereby relinquishing the right to have a billboard, the permit and billboard right would expire. The billboard company who may own the actual billboard structure is able to secure any additional "ownership rights" through the leasehold contractual relationship they have with the property owner. As is typically the case in property issues, the City is not party to nor necessarily aware of the details of those private contractual relationships. As drafted, the advertising company who erects the billboard would not be able to transfer the billboard right to another willing property owner. The intent was that the lottery system would create a fair and equitable environment for all property owners in the B-2 district to have a chance at securing a billboard permit as vacancies become available. During the first reading of the ordinance, City Council adopted certain language amendments, including a section "K", which read: Assignment of billboard permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. Other first reading language amendments related to additional notification requirements to billboard advertising companies that are party to a permit. Community Development staff reviewed the l't reading ordinance with the City Attorney's office and we also received comments from some sign industry representatives who have been involved in the code rewrite process. Based on those discussions and clarification on the policy intent with Councilrnember Berry, Staff is proposing 2nd reading amendments that relate primarily to changes to Section K. Staff is proposing that Section K be removed and replaced with a new section K that establishes requirements that all existing billboards be "registered". This will allow staff the ability to more easily notify property owners and billboard structure owners in the event of vacancies, abandonments, etc. Staff is also proposing that the definition of "property" be clarified and that two references to "location" be changed to "property" as defined in the ordinance. Staffs proposed 2"d reading amendments are included in a second version of the proposed ordinance, attac4ed to this Council Action Form, with the proposed changes Aar;ked iii+)i an t Y1Sk In regards to the transferability of billboard property rights, staff believes that as a matter of general land use law in the City a valid billboard permit or registration is transferable from the existing property owner to a future property owner. It is Staffs belief that property rights, such as valid billboard permits, are automatically transferred upon sale of property and do not need to be assigned to a successor or future property owner. It should also be noted that the primary reason for including the "temporary removal" provisions in the proposed ordinance is to allow a property owner the ability to negotiate a new lease with a new billboard company if they so choose without losing their existing billboard entitlement. So long as the new billboard structure could be installed in compliance with the current zoning and building code requirements and any previously issued billboard permits, that change would be allowable without the City's approval of a new billboard permit through the lottery process. Building permits would be required. To the extent that staff has not captured City Council's intent in addressing the ownership of the billboard property rights, staff would request further discussion and direction at the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed ordinance lays the groundwork for a fee system for billboards. All new billboards would be subject to an application fee and inspection fee. Additional legislation is required for the inclusion of an annual renewal fee. If Council desires to approve the Ordinance as published on 15t reading: "I move to adopt Council Bill 02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." or If Council desires to include staff recommended changes on 2"d reading: "I move to amend Council Bill 02-2008, case number ZOA-07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication, with the following second reading amendments: I. Delete Section K, to be replaced with a new Section K reading as follows: "Registration of Billboards. All billboards which are in existence as of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall supply the registration form"; 2. Add a definition for "property", reading: "Property. For the purpose of this section a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)"; 3. Change all references in the ordinance to the word "location" to the word "property"; and 4. Add a section B. Le to the ordinance, reading: "failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report to Planning Commission 2. Council Bill 02-2008 (as passed on 1" reading and published) 3. Council Bill 02-2008 (with staff recommended changes as discussed in the Council Action Form) PLANNING COMMISSION V LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT ~taxaap MEETING DATE: January 17, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS CASE NO. zOA-o7-o1 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Travis Crane Date of Preparation: January 8, 2008 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance amends the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations do not contain provisions which provide any guidance for the permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance memorializes the lottery system that was utilized in December 2005 to award a billboard permit for a property in the B-2 district. The ordinance also repeals the B-I District since it is no longer needed. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts -1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). The regulations required all billboards in the B-I District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. A revised billboard district map has been attached as Exhibit 1. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than setting the maximum number of 16 for the number of billboards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. A proposed ordinance change regarding billboards was presented to Planning Commission and City Council in mid-2007. The proposed ordinance essentially tied all existing billboards to their current locations. If a billboard were ever removed, it could not be reconstructed. This ordinance ZOA-07-01Billboards ATTACHMENT 1 was not approved by City Council. Rather, Council directed staff to conduct a public stakeholders meeting to discuss alternatives to the billboard ordinance. This meeting was held on October 29, 2007. A synopsis of this meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2. The attached ordinance has integrated many of the comments generated at the public stakeholders meeting. A City Council study session was held in December 2007 to discuss the outcome of the stakeholders meeting, and to ask for direction regarding the proposed ordinance. The City Council study session produced several points of direction for staff. First, staff was directed to create an ordinance which would allow all property owners in the B-2 district an even chance of erecting a billboard if a vacancy arose. Second, creAra definition of and prohibition for, animated billboards. Third, create definitions for abandoned billboards. Lastly, create a fee structure for billboard permits, inspections and annual renewals. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. The billboard locations have remained relatively static over the years. In December 2005, a billboard vacancy was created. Staff examined the Code, and discovered that the guiding regulations were silent for instances when a billboard was removed. Specifically, who was entitled to erect the 16th billboard to fill the vacancy? The property owner? The structure owner? Each interested party had a different opinion. The billboard company claimed they owned the permit for the billboard and could move it anywhere in the B-2 District. Another billboard company said the right to the billboard expired with the lease; and thus the permit was available to any company. The landowner claimed the billboard location should be vested with the property. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff created a process and policies for dealing with this situation. The process which was created was a lottery system where an applicant may submit all required documentation for a permit to fill the billboard vacancy. Guidelines for submittal were established, and the policy was communicated to interested parties. The December 2005 process essentially tied the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expired, so did the right to the billboard. That 16th billboard then became available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16'h billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. Multiple applications were submitted for inclusion in the lottery. This experience with this process resulted in a lawsuit by a billboard company in December 2005. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the lottery process was acceptable; however, the lottery should only contain one application per property. The City is awaiting direction from the Courts regarding a solution, which may entail another lottery. The attached ordinance implements City Council's recommended approach, the codification of the lottery system (Exhibit 3, Proposed Ordinance). This alternative keeps the number of billboards in ZOA-07-01B;llboards the B-2 district at 16, and allows fair competition for installation of a billboard in the event of a vacancy. The proposed ordinance specifies when a billboard vacancy has been established, and provides an application window for anyone in the B-2 district to apply for the right to install a billboard. A lottery system occurs if multiple applications are submitted for the billboard vacancy. The proposed ordinance proposes a new annual renewal fee which must be paid at the first of the year. Staff does not have a recommendation of the amount of this renewal fee. In our research, only one city responded that an annual inspection fee is charged for billboards. The City of Denver does charge a fee of up to $100 for a billboard permit, depending on the size of the advertising copy. In addition, Staff feels that language should be added to the ordinance which discusses the fee or reimbursement for the notification. Typically, certified notices are sent for all public hearing items by city Staff The fee schedule for land use cases contains a line item for publication fees. Staff feels that the notification of all B-2 property owners in preparation of the lottery should also be paid by the applicant. It would make sense to have the winner of the lottery reimburse the City for all mailing costs associated with the notification. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards." Exhibits: 1. Billboard District map 2. Public Meeting Synopsis 3. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-07-olBillboards 1sT READING ORDINANCE - AS PUBLISHED Formatted: Highlight Farmatted: Supersuipt, Highlight CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Formatted: Highlight INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et seq. and 29-20-101 et seMt . to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental: and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-71 LB, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTACHMENT 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, and-B-2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and, federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billbeafd struetures are allowed in the city, as provided by this seefien; previded, that aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. Setbacks shall be as requifed fef a prineipal structure in the zoning distfie whereleeated. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. pfavided that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. - o t W-9 4et OR °-.d -Q°- January ' 1996, billbeafd^ pfahibited in A'e B 1 district. Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if. a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, d. Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or e. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 3. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified. the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than nine (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no complete applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawine, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et Hg., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is. adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district. only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. IC. Assignment of billboard permit A current and valid billboard Dermit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paving applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. STAFF PROPOSED 2ND READING EDITS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et seq. and 29-20-101 et §M. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District and the City Council finds that an increase to the maximum allowed number of billboards would not be detrimental; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate. these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.11, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTACHMENT 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. ~(c Property. For the purpose of this section, a lot of record which is identified by a singular and unique Assessor's Parcel Number (APN). Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code-of Laws Section 711 is amended to read- A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided into (2) billb aFd distr:,,.. n , and B 2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billboard straetufes afe alle ed ift the eity, :provided by this sect:^^. provided, hat aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. he- ed. Maximum number allowed is eighteen (18). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. previded, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. 1996, billboards are prehibited in the . D 1 distriet: Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if- 3 a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or d. failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure, or C. failure to register an existing billboard by June 30, 2008. 2. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. 3. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 4. Once a billboard is abandoned and the owner of the billboard structure notified, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal, The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. If the number of legally permitted or registered billboards falls below the maximum number allowed as established in subsection A.3, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. In the event that no applications are submitted for inclusion in the drawing, or if none of the submitted applications meet the minimum requirements of subsection E, the vacancy shall remain. In this instance, the Department will process applications thereafter on a first-come, first served basis. If multiple applications are submitted in this instance, the requirements of subsection F shall be followed. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sec., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items ,t shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location propertA within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single leeation prepert,?*stre submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. I. Fees. 1. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. 2. Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. K. shall be freely assignable to a sueeesser-, as owner of the property where the billboard is joeated or- of the leasehold of the billboard, subjeet to filing .y Development D 1 1.e a my ..1- ..1....1 1. filing and shall not YN •b require approval. Registration of billboards All billboards which are in existence as i~ of April 1, 2008 shall be required to register with the Community Development Department. The registration shall be used solely for contact with either the property owner or structure owner. For billboards in existence as of April 1, 2008, * failure to register said billboard by June 30, 2008 will render the billboard abandoned, and the procedures in subsection D shall be followed. The City shall 3s supply the registration form. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 28"' day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 25 h day of February, 2008. 7 LAMAR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY - DENVER 12301 N. GRANT, UNIT 240 • THORNTON, CO 80241 • PH. (303) 280-7000 • FAX (303) 280-6777 February 22, 2008 Mr. Kenneth P. Johnstone Director of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 Dear Ken, Thanks for the time this morning. As we discussed I have put together a packet including some information regarding Digital Displays. This includes an executive summary of an independent safety study performed in Cleveland as well as a DVD explaining Digital Displays put out by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA). If you would like a full copy of the study I would be happy to provide you with one. I have also included a couple of articles regarding how these signs have been used to the communities benefit. As I mentioned we are not talking about animated signs. The Digital Displays are a high tech way for Outdoor Advertisers to change copy. The copy changes like a slide show or Powerpoint presentation and do not move in any way. They also allow communities to post emergency messages such as Amber Alerts and other public safety messages. These displays can also be used for PSA and as a promotional tool for upcoming community events. The purpose of these Digital Displays is not to replace all billboards. Because of the cost associated with the conversion of these signs Lamar is looking only to convert a small portion of our inventory in the Denver area. In a restrictive regulatory environment where there are few opportunities to build new signs these displays allow us to grow our business without building new signs and also provide the use of latest technology for our local and national advertisers. While I understand that we are not giving you enough notice on this to make any recommendations to council. It is my understanding that the issue of CEVMS was not originally included in the language provided to us during the process of this amendment to the Wheat Ridge Billboard Code. CEVMS did not appear on any draft of the change until late in 2008. The first time I was made aware of it was January of this year. While our response is late I believe it would be in the best interest of the City Council to table this section of the amendment so that there is an opportunity to discuss the potential community benefits that this type of sign can provide. I understand that you will probably not have time to review this information before Monday's meeting. During the public comment period I will bring this issue up to see if City Council would like more time and information before implementing this section of the amendment. Thanks again for your time. Sincerely, 1 D Chip oehrig Lamar - Denver _ _ ,a CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et seg. and 29-20-101 et seg. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the sixteen-billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.B, concerning billboards in the B-I District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-I District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: 821603.1 Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard Removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when eaeh of the ellewing a of -ent ^ ` ° the ^ supporting pole or structure and 2l ° A: -'splay F :r.J aYwle of displa54ng message i eepyis not present. When a billboard is removed a vacancy is created for pu oses of Sections 7.11.A.3 and 7.11.D. Delete Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a predetermined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary Billboard Removal. When either the-a leeally conformine billboard structure suppeAi ig-or its the advertising copy area or supY,,., pole or st ctu e of-n b"lbaafd, of both, are removed pursuant to the requirements of Section 7.11 C from athe property for a period not to exceed 4SO-90 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 1-9090 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be rsider°"cemed abandoned. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided to twe (2) bilib a a' 1 afid- B 2, as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billboard struemares are allowed in the My , a a by this J r - > :..y application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of- way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. distFiet where lee a. Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16). 4. Roof Billboards are not allowed. 2 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole pedestal [what does this word mean?] type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single eabinet advertising cony structure with front baek back to back advertising cony areas . 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50-25 foot radius of the support structure -of any billboard to the extent that such radius is located within the boundaries of the prone* on which the billboard is located shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. pFe idea tl...t nNe , xisting 1..:11beard may be ...,hilt ar « 1 d except in eon ermanee with these egulati and . ided, that ...W_hen, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising cony area equals-shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. This area shall re to the a&eMsing area of the billboard structure,and ..hall of inelude the support struetuFe. The maximum size-shall-app" 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-wayj the sethaek from all other p ert`• lines shall be e al to the over-all structure height. Setbaeks shall be measured from the elosest point of the structure per-pendieular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height shall be thirty Lwo (32) feet [fort)-five (45)feetl. 10lliT....:...um length shall be +h....e and one half (3 1/_) times the height. lQ-1. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) five hundred (500)1 feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as deemed by roadway name or number. 112. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26-707. 123. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downeas4 and shall not interfere with any driver's attention on vision of adjacent roadways. 134. Delete Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. the 4 et. Abandoned billboards. L -A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: .ur 1. the owner falls to notify staff of , as deseribed in this subseetionthe billboard has not carried advertising cony for 60 days, ~b 2. temporary removal exceeds the 3-8090-day period as described in subsection C, or Lc)3. failure to pay the annual renewal fee as described in subsection 1,=Pr=7 (d) either the landowner or the owner of the billboard structure. following the expiration of any existing lease, license or other agreement that established the right to maintain the billboard structure notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure. If the nivner- of the property upon .'.1.:eh a billboard st-r et. 1 4 d notifies the Comnmnit~y Development DepaAment and the owner of the billboard struetur-e by notarized letter- that he or- she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property deseribed, the billboard iq Ponsider-ed abandoned. For- the purpose o the str-uetur-e, the the term G...-....... ty n r' 'l..'." not i elude the owner- of the the u u..uua.. w. billboard street.... unless the owner of the b llboar l st....,.tur-e `•1 h underlying real property. 2. Once a billboard is abandoned. to the Community T.. ell nt T.. ..t.„ nt the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once aan abandoned billboard has been removed , a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 7.11A.3 and 7.11.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. Billboard abandonment shall not be deemed to have taken 'milaee when the owner of the billboard strueture or- 4h owner of the property upon w-hieh the billboard str-tieture is loented temper-ar-ii), removes the billboard str-netur-e, or- a portion thereof, for sign or site . Either the billboard ..t .....tune or The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building (demolition?l permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building (demolition?1 Hermit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard-abandonment removal, as defined herein. str-tieture must be r-eeonstr-aeted in eonfor-manee with these regulation*. D. Billboard vacancy. Following a billboard removal. Once the Community Development DepaAment has been notified of abandonment-, or has see fionrthe Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An 4 advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a 10-day application period during which applications may be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The ten-day application period shall occur no sooner than thirty (30) days and not later than one undyed tweet • (12 siX 60 days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The ten-day period shall commence on 8 a.m. of the first stated day and conclude at 5 p.m. on the tenth stated day. If the tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicant acknowledging that the applicant believes that the proposed billboard structure of request ineluding an eknowledgeme .t that the st -ueture complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sea., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the appropriate fees; required by Section 7.11. 4. eopy of the p erty deed ..,here the billboard- " 4'.....4...... will be ploeed, 45. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures,=a=n=(l $ photographic aiiua 1 - utxaoion cr of rca the c proposed-billboard o4 rr-iRct....,. cm-~ -58. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure. a" 9. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard struetur-e, ineluding foundation details and proof that the under-lying soil is adequate to ° rt said street....,. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted during this 10-day application period, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. The drawing shall occur within seven calendar days of the completion of the ten-day application period. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency. Any permit application which is found to be incomplete during this completeness review may not-be corrected if completed before the drawing and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. 5 H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant may correct said deficiencies. Within thirty (30) days of the drawing, the applicant shall provide certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. [If there is any significant reason for needing items EA, 6 and 7, above, insert them here.l I. Fees. A plan review fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application; for a billboard structure prior- to the drawing. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. An annual renewal fee for each permitted billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on January 2"a If the annual renewal fee is not received by January 31", the billboard shall be considered abandoned. If the billboard is considered abandoned as a result of non-payment of the annual renewal fee, the Community Development Department shall notify the property owner by certified mail, and the procedures outlined in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. The fees required by this section ???l shall be established by the Community Development Director I???l and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. <insert amended fig. 26-711.1 > Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2008. 6 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: CLEAN COPY OF REDLINED VERSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO WHEAT RIDGE DRAFT BILLBOARD CODE AMENDMENTS Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard Removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. When a billboard is removed, a vacancy is created for purposes of Sections 7.1 LA.3 and 7.1 LD. [Delete ??]Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a predetermined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary Billboard Removal. When either a legally conforming billboard structure or its advertising copy area are removed pursuant to the requirements of Section 7.1 LC from the property for a period not to exceed 90 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 90 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B- 2 billboard district, divide 1 into two (2) billboard aistr4ets, B ' and B as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billboar 7 st"'a"t'u"e" are allowed in the e t"f e f provided by this section; provided, that-aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 821743 - 1 - 3. Setha ks shall be as ,..,ire for- ^ principal strae ufe ift the zoning distriet where leeated. Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16). 4. Roof Billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole pedestal [what does this word mean?] type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back to back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 25 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard, to the extent that such radius is located within the boundaries of the property on which the billboard is located, shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. ^ e- iaWhen, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way. 9. Maximum height shall be thirty two (32) feet [forty-five (45)feet]. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) [five hundred (500)] feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26-707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision of adjacent roadways. 13. [Delete]Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. dis4iet. Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: (a). the billboard has not carried advertising copy for 60 days, (b). temporary removal exceeds the 90-day period as described in Section 7.11.C, (c). failure to pay the annual renewal fee as described in subsection I, or (d) either the landowner or the owner of the billboard structure, following the expiration of any existing lease, license or other agreement that established the right to maintain the billboard structure, notifies the Community Development -2- Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure. 2. Once a billboard is abandoned, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 1'5; article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 7.11A.3 and 7.11.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building [demolition?] permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building [demolition?] permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard removal, as defined herein. D. Billboard vacancy. Following a billboard removal, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a 10-day application period during which applications may be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The ten-day application period shall occur no sooner than thirty (30) days and not later than sixty (60) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The ten-day period shall commence on 8 a.m. of the first stated day and conclude at 5 p.m. on the tenth stated day. If the tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicant acknowledging that the applicant believes that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et seq., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the appropriate fees as required by Section 7.11._ 4. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, and 5. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted during this 10-day application period, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. The drawing shall occur within seven calendar days of the completion of the ten-day application period. All parties -3- who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency. Any permit application which is found to be incomplete during this completeness review may be corrected if completed before the drawing and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant may correct said deficiencies. Within thirty (30) days of the drawing, the applicant shall provide certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. [If there is any significant reason for needing items E.4, 6 and 7, above, insert them here.] 1. Fees. A plan review fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. An annual renewal fee for each permitted billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on January 2"d. If the annual renewal fee is not received by January 31st, the billboard shall be considered abandoned. If the billboard is considered abandoned as a result of non-payment of the annual renewal fee, the Community Development Department shall notify the property owner by certified mail, and the procedures outlined in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. The fees required by this section shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. -4- Page 1 of 2 Kenneth Johnstone From: Gerald Dahl [gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:58 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: Billboards Council Action Form 2nd reading ken's edits.doc Ken, I have reviewed both the ordinance and the CAF. Both are fine, with one exception: As a matter of procedure, Council did adopt the Subsection K assignability language on first reading, and that version of the ordinance is what is now pending before them on second reading, and is also the version that the public has been advised is the subject of the public hearing. While I am fine with the recommendation that it be deleted, the ordinance in the packet should be the version adopted on first reading, with perhaps (old) subsection K highlighted. I believe I am right in understanding that the (new) proposed K, dealing with registration of existing billboards, was suggested at first reading, but not actually amended into the ordinance at that time. This understanding informs my suggestion: the CAF should not say that "Staff has not included this [assignability] language in the proposed ordinance," but instead should say that Staff had concerns with that language, met with Councilmember Berry after first reading, believes she now supports deletion of the language, as does staff, and that Council's concern that billboards be registered has been drafted as a new substitute K and is reflected in the proposed motion, which deletes the assignability language and adds registration. Then the recommended motion in the CAF should read: "i move to amend Ordinance No , series of 2008, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, by the deletion of the proposed subsection on assignability of billboard permits and the insertion of a new subsection 711.x, to read (insert text of registration paragraph K), and as amended, adopt the ordinance on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." If I am wrong about registration not being actually amended into the ordinance on first reading, then the motion should read: '7 move to amend Ordinance No , series of 2008, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, by the deletion of the proposed subsection on assignability of billboard permits,renumber remaining subsections as appropriate, and as amended, adopt the ordinance on second reading to take effect 15 days after final publication." Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 Ims electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the 2/15/2008 Page 2 of 2 original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:51 AM To: Gerald Dahl Subject: Billboards Council Action Form 2nd reading ken's edits.doc Jerry, Attached is a draft of my Council Action Form for the Billboard ordinance. Travis previously sent you the most recent version of the ordinance. I wouldn't typically ask for your comments on the CAF, but in this instance, I am. Have you had a chance to look at the ordinance yet? Thanks in advance. Ken 2/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kenneth Johnstone From: Jerry DiTullio Berryditullio@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 2:27 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone; Jerry Dahl; Karen Berry Cc: Mike Stites; Randy Young Subject: Billboard Ordinance Importance: High Councilmember Karen B., Ken J. and Mr. Dahl, I have received a few phone calls about one of the amendments from 1st reading on the billboard ordinance. Specifically, the "Section k" which talks about assignment of leaseholds. I wanted to make sure that we are on the same page with regards to intent and the reasoning behind it. The concerns raised are: 1. City staff will have to monitor and regulate the leasehold assignment, and possible become a referee in the case. 2. Property owner rights are diminished by the amendment and places control into the billboard company hands. I would ask that Councilmember Berry and staff discuss/review amendment "k" for the above concerns and see if we need to change the wording or remove. Thanks everyone!! Mayor Jerry DiTullio, Wheat Ridge 303.237.4808 Email: jerrydituilio@comcast.net Website: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us City of' XWh6atf-Wdgc' ICE OF, THE lvlAYOR 2/4/2008 Page I of 4 Kenneth Johnstone From: Karen Berry [khberry26@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:33 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: jerry dahl Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:00 PM Flag Status: Red Ken, Thanks. One question I forgot to ask is what determines a location or property for the purposes of submitting an application. The ordinance talks about one permit per property or location, the terms are used interchangeably, and I'm not sure what either means. Seems like we should use one term and define it. We could use a single lot, parcel or tract, or maybe an tax assessment parcel number. Property and location are not defined, but neither is parcel or tract, I don't know, what do you think. x~evvlA. 3e4,vy > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:59:37 -0700 > From: kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us > To: khberry26@hotmail.com > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > -----Original Message----- > From: khberry26@hotmail.com [mailto:khberry26@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:55 PM > To: Kenneth Johnstone > Subject: Re: Billboard Ordinance > Would it be possible to get a draft of the 1st reading changes as the clerk recorded. I can bring my copy but I think it would be helpful to work from the version that may be published > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kenneth Johnstone" <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:45:47 2/1/2008 Page 2 of 4 > To:<khberry26@hotmail.com> > Subject: FW: Billboard Ordinance > Attached is the comment e-mail from Ron Fano. We would like to discuss our comments with you before proposing any potential amendments. Thanks. > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:39 PM > To: Kenneth Johnstone; Gerald Dahl > Cc: Mark W Giordano; Paul Ryan > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Thanks Ken and Gerry. Upon an initial review, I find the newly added section K (Assignment of billboard permit) to be terribly confusing. Can either of you enlighten me on its intent? One possible reading is that the property owner has the ability to assign the permit to either a successor owner of his/her property (somewhat of a no-brainer as the permit should run with the land) or a successor billboard company (i.e. meaning that the property owner can change billboard companies so long as he/she files the appropriate application and completes the change within the 180 day temporary removal period). Another possible reading is that the permit can be assigned to a successor owner of the property or to the existing lessee/billboard company. An assignment to the existing billboard company of the existing permit would have the likely effect of the property owner losing the ability to replace that company with another lessee who would offer better rates, service, etc. If this is what this new section means the result of course would be existing billboard companies taking the position that the current lease has already assigned the permit (and therefore giving the company the ability to argue that the property owner does not have the option of ever replacing the existing company under the existing permit) and all leases from this point forward will have assignment clauses in them (and thus lead to the same argument that property owners have no right to change companies). It was our understanding that part of the driving force behind the ordinance change was to give property owners options and the benefit of competition, so we would think that the first interpretation is the right one. The language of section K, is, however, unclear that this is what it means. Whatever light you can shed on this would be appreciated, and either way, we think a rewriting of new section K is probably in order for clarification. > Ron Fano > Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. > Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 > > From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] 2/1/2008 Page 3 of 4 > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:32 PM > To: Gerald Dahl; Ronald L. Fano > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Attached is the revised ordinance that Travis prepared for publication. > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > > From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:05 PM > To: Ronald L. Fano > Cc: Kenneth Johnstone > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Ron, > The amendments were a little complicated, but included raising the maximum number of billboards to 18, so it looks as if there will be a couple of vacancies. By copy of this message I am asking Ken Johnstone if he would mind sharing with us the revised version, which was being assembled at the City today for publication as required by the charter. > If you still have questions, you are welcome to give me a ring after you have had the chance to look that version over. > Gerald E. Dahl > gdahl@mdkrlaw.com > Direct: 303-493-6686 > Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP > 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 > Denver, CO 80202 > Phone: 303-493-6670 > Fax: 303-477-0965 > This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. > 2/1/2008 Page 4 of 4 > From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:57 PM > To: Gerald Dahl > Cc: Mark W Giordano; Paul Ryan > Subject: Billboard Ordinance > Hi Gerry. I left you a phone message earlier and wanted to follow up. I understand that some amendments were proposed to the ordinance last night. Given all of the efforts you and Travis went to in inviting, receiving and analyzing the input of the various interests and in achieving what appeared to be a consensus on the approach taken in the proposed ordinance, we are obviously very curious to see the proposed amendments in written form. I would also very much like to talk to you about them and whether or not you want any further input in advance of the public hearing. So, when the written form of the proposed amendments are available will you forward them to me and I will then try to arrange a time for us to talk. As always, thank you for your continued professional courtesy in this matter. > Ron Fano > Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. > Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Plano_w_! 2/1/2008 Page 1 of 5 Kenneth Johnstone From: Travis Crane Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:54 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance We mention 'location' twice in the ordinance - it was in Dahl's suggested language in subsection F. I am of the opinion that 'property' is sufficient. We can include a definition of the term 'property' which would relate to any lot of record. The problem with being too explanatory is that there are many more lots of record according to the County than there are property addresses. For instance, there is a billboard located just south and east of Copperfields (at W. 48th and Marshall). This billboard is located at one address, but the County shows about 25 lots of record for this one address (see picture below). Conversely, some lots of record do not have an address, as the land is vacant. There are two billboards east of Medved (Parfet and the N 1 70 Frontage Road) which are located on vacant ground. The parcel has no physical address, but is a lot of record. I feel confident that if we use the term 'property' continuously, we should be covered. Ce49gf Cim„s^'7 Ca:B4* ~ 4U'97~ ~4P7 Cum C6a^u"~ i C!L-0F}p t~:.tn4 ;'.:fs.fC~ MAN tW405 OUGO: M400 U£-000 ~.tlta4~5A lk3EDM1e Travis R. Crane 0402 wa tt: _ _444%! ' .,d610CW9'G tl+21tl C-1 5 7 ...04P 70 M4000 t712:3tl Mao C&tW CA= DIV! 2/1/2008 Page 2 of 5 Planner II City of Wheat Ridge CO 303.235.2849 (v) 303.235.2857 (f) http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us From: Kenneth Johnstone Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:21 AM To: Travis Crane; 'Gerald Dahl' Subject: FW: Billboard Ordinance Thoughts on Karen's questions? Dahl and I are meeting with her on Monday at 6:00 p.m. to discuss her 151 reading amendments. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Director of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge, CO (303) 235-2844 From: Karen Berry [mailto:khberry26@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:33 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: jerry dahl Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance Ken, Thanks. One question I forgot to ask is what determines a location or property for the purposes of submitting an application. The ordinance talks about one permit per property or location, the terms are used interchangeably, and I'm not sure what either means. Seems like we should use one term and define it. We could use a single lot, parcel or tract, or maybe an tax assessment parcel number. Property and location are not defined, but neither is parcel or tract, I don't know, what do you think. Ka rewfl. 3ervy > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:59:37 -0700 > From: kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us > To: khberry26@hotmail.com > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > -----Original Message----- > From: khberry26@hotmail.com [mailto:khberry26@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:55 PM > To: Kenneth Johnstone 2/1/2008 Page 3 of 5 > Subject: Re: Billboard Ordinance > Would it be possible to get a draft of the 1st reading changes as the clerk recorded. I can bring my copy but I think it would be helpful to work from the version that may be published > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kenneth Johnstone" <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:45:47 > To:<khberry26@hotmail.com> > Subject: FW: Billboard Ordinance > Attached is the comment e-mail from Ron Fano. We would like to discuss our comments with you before proposing any potential amendments. Thanks. > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:39 PM > To: Kenneth Johnstone; Gerald Dahl > Cc: Mark W Giordano; Paul Ryan > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Thanks Ken and Gerry. Upon an initial review, I find the newly added section K (Assignment of billboard permit) to be terribly confusing. Can either of you enlighten me on its intent? One possible reading is that the property owner has the ability to assign the permit to either a successor owner of his/her property (somewhat of a no-brainer as the permit should run with the land) or a successor billboard company (i.e. meaning that the property owner can change billboard companies so long as he/she files the appropriate application and completes the change within the 180 day temporary removal period). Another possible reading is that the permit can be assigned to a successor owner of the property or to the existing lessee/billboard company. An assignment to the existing billboard company of the existing permit would have the likely effect of the property owner losing the ability to replace that company with another lessee who would offer better rates, service, etc. If this is what this new section means the result of course would be existing billboard companies taking the position that the current lease has already assigned the permit (and therefore giving the company the ability to argue that the property owner does not have the option of ever replacing the existing company under the existing permit) and all leases from this point forward will have assignment clauses in them (and thus lead to the same argument that property owners have no right to change companies). It was our understanding that part of the driving force behind the ordinance change was to give property owners options and the benefit of competition, so we would think that the first interpretation is the right one. The language of section K, is, however, unclear that this is what it means. Whatever light you can shed on this would be appreciated, and either way, we think a rewriting of new section K is probably in order for clarification. > Ron Fano 2/1/2008 Page 4 of 5 > Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. > Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 > From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:32 PM > To: Gerald Dahl; Ronald L. Fano > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Attached is the revised ordinance that Travis prepared for publication. > Ken Johnstone, AICP > Director of Community Development > City of Wheat Ridge, CO > (303) 235-2844 > > From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:05 PM > To: Ronald L. Fano > Cc: Kenneth Johnstone > Subject: RE: Billboard Ordinance > Ron, > The amendments were a little complicated, but included raising the maximum number of billboards to 18, so it looks as if there will be a couple of vacancies. By copy of this message I am asking Ken Johnstone if he would mind sharing with us the revised version, which was being assembled at the City today for publication as required by the charter. > If you still have questions, you are welcome to give me a ring after you have had the chance to look that version over. > Gerald E. Dahl > gdahl@mdkrlaw.com > Direct: 303-493-6686 > Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP > 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 > Denver, CO 80202 > Phone: 303-493-6670 > Fax: 303-477-0965 > This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is 2/1/2008 Page 5 of 5 strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. > > From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:57 PM > To: Gerald Dahl > Cc: Mark W Giordano; Paul Ryan > Subject: Billboard Ordinance > Hi Gerry. I left you a phone message earlier and wanted to follow up. I understand that some amendments were proposed to the ordinance last night. Given all of the efforts you and Travis went to in inviting, receiving and analyzing the input of the various interests and in achieving what appeared to be a consensus on the approach taken in the proposed ordinance, we are obviously very curious to see the proposed amendments in written form. I would also very much like to talk to you about them and whether or not you want any further input in advance of the public hearing. So, when the written form of the proposed amendments are available will you forward them to me and I will then try to arrange a time for us to talk. As always, thank you for your continued professional courtesy in this matter. > Ron Fano > Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. > Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play-now! 2/1/2008 ~ City of WheatJi J ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.B 7 PUBLIC HEARING 1-1 BIDS/MOTIONS El RESOLUTIONS Quasi-judicial Director Fx] ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING 1-1 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (Date) F]YES X❑NO City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current section of the Zoning Code which regulates billboards is vague and, in many cases, nondescript in regards to implementation. Upon City Council's direction, the Community Development Department has drafted clearer, definitive regulations which should alleviate uncertainty. The Zoning Code allows a maximum number- of 16 billboards in the B-2 billboard district. City Staff held a public stakeholders meeting in December to gain input, and has conducted working sessions with industry professionals. The proposed ordinance creates an equitable system to determine who is entitled to erect a billboard in the event of a vacancy. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on January 17, 2008 and recommended approval with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. Add B. Le which states: "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure 2. Remove all references to the 10-day window and replace with `application period'. 3. Change the 30-120 day lottery window to a 60-90 day lottery window. 4. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. " Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Increase the maximum allowed height of billboards from 32 feet to 45 feet. 2. Decrease the billboard spacing requirement from 600 feet to 500 feet. There were a few attendees at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in reference to the proposed ordinance. While some offered suggestions to the language or development standards proposed, all offered support of the ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: N/A ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: N/A FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance establishes a fee system for billboards. All new billboards will be subject to an application fee and inspection fee. All billboards would be subject to an annual renewal fee. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. case number ZOA-07-01, an ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, order it published, public hearing set for February 25, 2008 at 7:00 in the City Council Chambers." Attachments: 1. Staff report to Planning Commission (without exhibits) 2. Council Bill No. 02-2008 OF WHEAT PLANNING COMMISSION U m LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT ~(ORA00 MEETING DATE: January 17, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS CASE NO. ZOA-07-01 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Travis Crane Date of Preparation: January 8, 2008 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance amends the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations do not contain provisions which provide any guidance for the pennitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance memorializes the lottery system that was utilized in December 2005 to award a billboard permit for a property in the B-2 district. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. BACKGROUND: The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts - 1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). The regulations required all billboards in the B-1 District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. A revised billboard district map has been attached as Exhibit 1. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than setting the maximum number of 16 for the number of billboards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. A proposed ordinance change regarding billboards was presented to Planning Commission and City Council in mid-2007. The proposed ordinance essentially tied all existing billboards to their current locations. If a billboard were ever removed, it could not be reconstructed. This ordinance ZOA-07-0 I /Billboards ATTACHMENT 1 was not approved by City Council. Rather, Council directed staff to conduct a public stakeholders meeting to discuss alternatives to the billboard ordinance. This meeting was held on October 29, 2007. A synopsis of this meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2. The attached ordinance has integrated many of the comments generated at the public stakeholders meeting. A City Council study session was held in December 2007 to discuss the outcome of the stakeholders meeting, and to ask for direction regarding the proposed ordinance. The City Council study session produced several points of direction for staff. First, staff was directed to create an ordinance which would allow all property owners in the B-2 district an even chance of erecting a billboard if a vacancy arose. Second, create a definition of and prohibition for animated billboards. Third, create definitions for abandoned billboards. Lastly, create a fee structure for billboard permits, inspections and annual renewals. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. The billboard locations have remained relatively static over the years. In December 2005, a billboard vacancy was created. Staff examined the Code, and discovered that the guiding regulations were silent for instances when a billboard was removed. Specifically, who was entitled to erect the 16th billboard to fill the vacancy? The property owner? The structure owner? Each interested party had a different opinion. The billboard company claimed they owned the permit for the billboard and could move it anywhere in the B-2 District. Another billboard company said the right to the billboard expired with the lease, and thus the pen-nit was available to any company. The landowner claimed the billboard location should be vested with the property. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff created a process and policies for dealing with this situation. The process which was created was a lottery system where an applicant may submit all required documentation for a permit to fill the billboard vacancy. Guidelines for submittal were established, and the policy was communicated to interested parties. The December 2005 process essentially tied the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expired, so did the right to the billboard. That 16`' billboard then became available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16`h billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. Multiple applications were submitted for inclusion in the lottery. This experience with this process resulted in a lawsuit by a billboard company in December 2005. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the lottery process was acceptable; however, the lottery should only contain one application per property. The City is awaiting direction from the Courts regarding a solution, which may entail another lottery. The attached ordinance implements City Council's recommended approach, the codification of the lottery system (Exhibit 3, Proposed Ordinance). This alternative keeps the number of billboards in ZOA-07-O1/Billboards 2 the B-2 district at 16, and allows fair competition for installation of a billboard in the event of a vacancy. The proposed ordinance specifies when a billboard vacancy has been established, and provides an application window for anyone in the B-2 district to apply for the right to install a billboard. A lottery system occurs if multiple applications are submitted for the billboard vacancy. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS The proposed ordinance proposes a new annual renewal fee which must be paid at the first of the year. Staff does not have a recommendation of the amount of this renewal fee. In our research, only one city responded that an annual inspection fee is charged for billboards. The City of Denver does charge a fee of up to $100 for a billboard permit, depending on the size of the advertising copy. In addition, Staff feels that language should be added to the ordinance which discusses the fee or reimbursement for the notification. Typically, certified notices are sent for all public hearing items by city Staff. The fee schedule for land use cases contains a line item for publication fees. Staff feels that the notification of all B-2 property owners in preparation of the lottery should also be paid by the applicant. It would make sense to have the winner of the lottery reimburse the City for all mailing costs associated with the notification. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards." Exhibits: I. Billboard District map 2. Public Meeting Synopsis 3. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-07-01 /B illboards CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 02-2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sue. and 29-20-101 et sue. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the sixteen-billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in detennining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has detenmined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: ATTACHMENT 2 Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Billboards which are non-conforming pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Department of Transportation must follow the requirements of that Department concerning removal and reconstruction. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided ii4e two (2) billboard &44ets B , and B 2 as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Bil1l;sard. stnAetures ar@ allowed in the e45, as provided by this seetion; 'I°a, hat aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. c `Hvchmekq-4 all-be required for al ..4" otu the zoning dint,-,.4 l Rented. tinted. Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. prw,,ided, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. prohibited in the B. R 7 i On and A T l1, 1 996+ billboards a e r B 1n distriet. Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing a building permit for the demolition of the structure, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, C. failure to pay the annual renewal fee as described in subsection I, d. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure, or e. Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 3. Once a billboard is abandoned, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and 711.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as defined herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a date by which all applications must be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The application period shall occur no sooner than sixty (60) days and not later than ninety (90) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The application period shall conclude at 5 p.m. on the stated day. If the ending day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et se q., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the billboard application fee, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 8. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted prior to the end of the application period as specified in the public notice, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for a single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn. The drawing shall occur immediately after the completeness review, as specified below in subsection G. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency and may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant shall correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. An annual renewal fee for each permitted billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on January 2od. If the annual renewal fee is not received by January 31s`, the billboard shall be considered abandoned. If the billboard is considered abandoned as a result of non-payment of the annual renewal fee, the Community Development Department shall notify the property owner by certified mail, and the procedures outlined in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. The fees required by this section shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard and the building permit for the same shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) for a billboard vacancy. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. <insert amended fig. 26-711.1> Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this 28°i day of January, 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 25, 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 12008. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 12008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Page 1 of 2 Kenneth Johnstone From: Sent: To: k b [berryforwheatridge@gmail.comj Monday, January 28, 2008 1:20 PM Jerry DiTullio; gdahl@mdkrlaw.com; Randy Young; Cc: BFTireCo@aol.com Subject: Billboard ordinance t ~ . Johnstone Here are my suggested changes and some reasons for the changes. Let me know if there are issues with anything. I know staff doesn't want any more billboards, and from a visual impact perspective, I totally understand. At this point, I would like the impact fees to go to a dedicated source, but I would like to discuss before making this decision. ff q Berry 30 I J t0 v~ li } P ~t S 1 303.249.4570 ~ J Section 2.A.3 W w `V STRIKE 16 INSERT 18 r~ + Section 2.B.l.c STRIKE Renewal Fee INSERT Impact Fee C O J J {I heard Dahl wanted to call these impact fees, more explanation further down} Section 2 B.1 rr S ran INSERT t^ ^ J l f A billboa d which has carried no message for more than LSD--days or which no longer identifies a bona fid business, lessor, service, owner~roduct, or activity, date or time of past event, anda for whic no le al owner can be found. tee's business license lapses for more than 90 days, is revoked, or is not renewed. g. If the e it In. If a bill oard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the 1 • 1h8g.ra and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. If we collect impact fees, billboards that don't collect reve e should be taken down. Billboard owners should have valid business licenses. Item In. originally onl applied if you did not pay renewal fees. I think people should received notification, regardless of the eason, if we are going to invalidate their permit and make then take the billboard down, especi rs, since they will be the ones required to take the billboard down.} Section 2.B.3 ^/O I CI J ti I \ ~B 1A+'~ S \r tA-4 ~~~d1Y ~ t) .'~D in l~ Pk. 1 t~. 1 t ~ ~ ' d~NJ 1,28,2008 ~kJO. Page 2 of 2 Once a billboard is abandoned INSERT "and the owner of bill;,- notified", the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove fthe structure. {same reasons as above} Section 2.1 STRIKE Section 2.1 {I think a billboard owner should be notified if they lose their permit, regardless of the reason, so I deleted the notification requirement in this section and added it to the abandoned section. Other elements of this section are as shown below} INSERT Section 2.1.1 A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. INSERT Section 2.1.2 An annual impact fee for each new and existing billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on or before January 2°d. If th~e9 nn al i9pact fee is not received by January 3I't, the billboard shall be considered abandoned. 6 1 K l l An INSERT Section 2.1.3 Application and inspection/es shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. INSERT Section 2.1.4 All new and existing billboards subject to this Ordinance shall be subject to annual impact fees at a rate to be established by the City Council, not to exceed two percent of the gross annual revenue produced by the billboard. / INSERT Section 2.K Assignment of the Billboard Permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, •N subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying any applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. {Since we are collecting revenue, we want to make sure we have the most current owner and contact information, but I also think permits should be transferrable.} Nod i.n Q C O ` -,i 1/28/2008 ; r~ J Page I of 2 Kenneth Johnstone From: k b [berryforwheatridge@gmail.coml Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:20 PM To: Jerry DiTullio; gdahl@mdkrlaw.com; Randy Young; Kenneth Johnstone Cc: BFTireCo@aol.com Subject: Billboard ordinance Here are my suggested changes and some reasons for the changes. Let me know if there are issues with anything. I know staff doesn't want any more billboards, and from a visual impact perspective, I totally understand. At this point, I would like the impact fees to go to a dedicated source, but I would like to discuss before making this decision. K. Berry 303.249.4570 Section 2.A.3 STRIKE 16 INSERT 18 Section 2.13.1.c STRIKE Renewal Fee INSERT Impact Fee {I heard Dahl wanted to call these impact fees, more explanation further down} Section 2 B.l INSERT f. A billboard which has carried no message for more than 180 days or which no longer identifies a bona fide business, lessor, service, owner, product, or activity, date or time of past event, and/or for which no legal owner can be found. g. If the permittee's business license lapses for more than 90 days, is revoked, or is not renewed. h. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. {If we collect impact fees, billboards that don't collect revenue should be taken down. Billboard owners should have valid business licenses. Item h. originally only applied if you did not pay renewal fees. I think people should received notification, regardless of the reason, if we are going to invalidate their permit and make then take the billboard down, especially billboard owners, since they will be the ones required to take the billboard down.} Section 2.13.3 1/30/2008 Page 2 of 2 Once a billboard is abandoned INSERT "and the owner of billboard structure notified", the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. {same reasons as above} Section 2.1 STRIKE Section 2.1 {I think a billboard owner should be notified if they lose their permit, regardless of the reason, so I deleted the notification requirement in this section and added it to the abandoned section. Other elements of this section are as shown below{ INSERT Section 2.1.1 A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. INSERT Section 2.1.2 An annual impact fee for each new and existing billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on or before January 2 d. If the annual impact fee is not received by January 31 st, the billboard shall be considered abandoned. INSERT Section 2.1.3 Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. INSERT Section 2.1.4 All new and existing billboards subject to this Ordinance shall be subject to annual impact fees at a rate to be established by the City Council, not to exceed two percent of the gross annual revenue produced by the billboard. INSERT Section 2.K Assignment of the Billboard Permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying any applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. {Since we are collecting revenue, we want to make sure we have the most current owner and contact information, but I also think permits should be transferrable.} 1/30/2008 Section 2 BA INSERT f. A billboard which has carried no message for more than 180 days or which no longer identifies a bona fide business, lessor, service, owner, product, or activity, date or time of past event, and/or for which no legal owner can be found. g. If the permittee's business license lapses for more than 90 days, is revoked, or is not renewed. h. If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified snail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. {If we collect impact fees, billboards that don't collect revenue should be taken down. Billboard owners should have valid business licenses. Item h. originally only applied if you did not pay renewal fees. I think people should received notification, regardless of the reason, if we are going to invalidate their permit and make then take the billboard down, especially billboard owners, since they will be the ones required to take the billboard down.} Section 2.B.3 Once a billboard is abandoned INSERT "and the owner of billboard structure notified", the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. {same reasons as above} Section 2.1 STRIKE Section 2.1 {I think a billboard owner should be notified if they lose their permit, regardless of the reason, so I deleted the notification requirement in this section and added it to the abandoned section. Other elements of this section are as shown below} INSERT Section 2.1.1 A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. Alrcad,,, the authority of the CD director under to INSERT Section 2.1.2 An annual impact fee for each new and existing billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on or before January 2°d. If the annual impact fee is not received by January 31 the billboard shall be considered abandoned c,~ 0, k INSERT Section 2.1.3 Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. ' coi ; r t bra ; nde u d V INSERT Section 2.1.4 All new and existing billboards subject to this Ordinance shall be subject to annual impact fees at a rate to be established by the City Council, not to exceed two percent of the gross annual revenue produced by the billboard Rcroot.( rake a >rdinancc, INSERT Section 2.K Assignment of the Billboard Permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying any applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. {Since we are collecting revenue, we want to make sure we have the most current owner and contact information, but I also think permits should be transferrable.} nwi.com: Electronic billboards create digital wanted posters, help find fugitives Page 1 of 2 Pngt Pa~~ THE TIMF,S All OW M ®rl ~,%00 Electronic billboards create digital wanted posters, help find fugitives BY GARRY MITCHELL Associated Press Writer Date posted online: Saturday, December 15, 2007 MOBILE, Ala. I Between ads for hamburgers and liposuction, the giant digital billboards flashed an image of Oscar Finch's face taken by a surveillance camera. The young man wasn't selling anything. He was running from police. Finch, a suspect in a bank robbery, was in custody just a day later, and police say his swift capture is an example of how the eye-catching electronic signs can be used as a 21st century version of the Wild West wanted poster. "We had been looking for this individual for 10 days and turned it around in 24 hours," said Mobile police spokeswoman Nancy Johnson. "So we're thinking it's going to be highly effective. I think it's a great asset for us." Authorities across the country are also using the technology to search for missing children and to warn the public in emergencies. Twelve billboards showed a grainy mugshot of Finch taken during the Nov. 20 heist. The image, which was mixed in with commercial ads, included his name, his alleged offense and a phone number to contact police. The 21-year-old Finch, who was the first suspect featured on an electronic billboard in Mobile, turned himself in on Dec. 1, just a day after his photo was posted. He apparently surrendered after seeing news coverage of the billboards, Johnson said. With digital billboards, police can now display a suspect's face to thousands of people, sometimes almost immediately after a crime is reported. "We can be up in 15 minutes" of getting a suspect's photo, said Troy Tatum, general manager of Lamar Advertising, the Baton Rouge, La.-based company that provided free use of the billboards in Mobile as a public service. When the electronic boards aren't showing suspects, they display regular advertising in moving, full-color images http://nwitimes.comlarticles/2007ll2/15/business/businessldoc062c2c29152302b7g62573b1006d43b5.prt 1/23/2008 nwi.com: Electronic billboards create digital wanted posters, help find fugitives Page 2 of 2 that stand 14 feet tall and 48 feet wide. They can also be used for AMBER Alerts for missing children and to deliver weather bulletins. "We have a special slot set up for local emergencies," Tatum said. Mobile Police Chief Phillip M. Garrett doesn't want to give such prominent display to "every lawnmower thief' wanted by police. He said the billboards will be used only in high-profile cases or in searches for missing people. Only a fraction ofU.S. billboards are digital - 500-plus out of an estimated 450,000 total signs, according to the industry. But production of electronic boards is expected to grow. Police in other parts of the country are also beginning to use the billboards. In September, Florida authorities arrested a drug suspect two weeks after his photo was displayed on a billboard in Daytona Beach. A tipster who saw the suspect's picture found him sitting in a McDonald's. The billboards have also been useful in disasters. When an interstate bridge collapsed in August in Minneapolis, billboards displayed an emergency message within 15 minutes. The signs also have critics. Mobile City Council member Connie Hudson has proposed a temporary moratorium on any new billboards, saying the city needs safety regulations to control the number and spacing of the signs because they may distract drivers. The full council has not acted on Hudson's concerns. Ken Klein, vice president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America Inc., in Washington, D.C., said billboard wanted posters became more common after a young woman was slain in 2002 in Leawood, Kan. The victim's father, Roger Kemp, approached Lamar Advertising for help, and the company posted a composite sketch of the suspect on a conventional billboard. A tipster who saw the sketch led authorities to Benjamin Appleby, 31. Appleby was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison for killing 19-year-old Ali Kemp Copyright ® 2009 nwi.com http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/l2ll5lbusinesalbusiness/doc062c2c29152302b7g62573b1006d43b5.prt 1/2312008 Digital Ooh Page 1 of 5 digitalooh.org Digital out-of-home advertising: the latest info on digital billboard regulations and safety About Digital Home > Community Relations > Public Notice Billboards Helping Advertisers Helping the Community Regulations Traffic Safety Research Press Archive OAAA.org Public Notice 'When Senator Coleman and I landed, we're driving in and there were already billboards at 9:00 in the morning - actual billboards - telling people where to go for alternative routes. " - Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) - August 2, 2007 Within 15 minutes of the bridge collapse in Minnesota, digital billboards in the Minneapolis market were displaying an emergency message, highlighting the nimble nature of this medium: • The bridge collapsed on August 1 at 6:19 p.m., after normal business hours • The creative was produced from a laptop at home (attached). • At 10:30 pm that evening, the message changed (attached), encouraging motorists to take alternate routes The following day, when officials converged on Minneapolis to inspect the damage, they noticed the billboards. Speaking on national TV on August 2, US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) cited the emergency messaging on digital billboards as a positive community response: Governments are using digital billboards to deliver information to the public: • After a bridge collapsed in Minneapolis on August 1, digital billboards in the area were dedicated to Minnesota DOT - within 15 minutes - to communicate safety and traffic information- e In Mississippi, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) used digital billboards to help brand a website that provides real-time information about traffic conditions. • The City of Albuquerque offers "Green Tips" (practical steps on behalf of the environment, such as conserving water). • The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and a group called Wildlife Forever used digital billboards to promote the opening of the 2007 fishing season. A "Countdown to Fishing' was displayed on six digital boards across the Twin Cities market "As a conservation organization, Wildlife Forever has a vested interest in developing the next generation of conservationists" says Douglas Grann, President and CEO of Wildlife Forever. "Our goal is to encourage more people to participate in outdoor recreation so they will have a better understanding of the importance of conserving our fish and wildlife." Static messages change every six or eight seconds Regulating Digital Billboards Brochure Digital Billboards DVD View Streaming Video Buy Video http://www.digitalooh.orgidigital/community/publie.htm 1/23/2008 Digital Ooh In early 2007, Milwaukee County Deputy Tim Johnson was cleaning up an accident on 1-94 when he was hit by an out-of- control vehicle. A father of two, Johnson, 29, is recovering from serious injuries. Law enforcement leaders unveiled a public- service campaign to remind motorists that state law requires them to slow down and move over to avoid emergency vehicles. "Move Over" messages were posted on digital billboards operated by Clear Channel Outdoor and Lamar Advertising Company. http://www.digitalooh.orgtdigital/community/Public.htm Page 2 of 5 1/2312008 Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Alert: Mississippi DOT Public Service: In Albuquerque, NM, officials used digital billboards to inform the public about an emergency simulation test. Digital Ooh Page 3 of 5 http://www.digitalooh.org/digital/community./public.htm 1123/2008 Digital Ooh IT'S FISHING OPENER! fiakeme{~~h+agorg ~a(ceine~iSh~nt~ TODAY! lrr ~alceme~3Shin9.or9 sw f Khin9 1 MORE DAY Mme f ishingarc~ ry ~ tame f i~h~n~ 2 MORE DAYS f'aleme f KWIng 3 MORE DAYS ~t:.~e~shln~.org Page 4 of 5 http://www.digitalooh.org/digital(communit5r/public.htm 1/23/2008 Digital Ooh 5 MORE DAYS Fa~Ceme f iShin~.arr~ OAAA Homepage Contact Us I Site Map Copyright 62007, Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. Page 5 of 5 http://www.digitalooh.org/digital/community/public.htm 1/23/2008 V, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to examine the statistical relationship between certain digital billboards and traffic safety, and to determine if any correlation exists. For this study, a study area was identified, data was collected, and an analysis was made. Specifically, this study analyzes the traffic and accident data near seven existing, digital billboards on the 132.07 miles of Interstate routes in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. These seven billboards are located along Interstate routes I-77, I-90, I-271, and 1-480. In July 2005, the seven billboards were converted to digital from conventional format; a total of 335 million vehicles drove by these seven billboards in that year. The analysis has two parts. In the first part, the temporal analysis, the occurrence of traffic accidents near the digital billboards is examined for an equal length of time before and after July 2005, for the purpose of establishing if traffic accidents occurred more or less frequently with the presence of the digital billboards. The second part, the spatial analysis, establishes statistical correlation coefficients between the digital billboards and accidents. Correlation coefficients are statistical measures of the "association" between two sets of data, for example, billboards and traffic accidents. The results are analyzed for various scenarios between accident density to sign density (the number of billboards), to Viewer Reaction Distance (the distance from a billboard that a driver is potentially within the "influence" of a billboard), and to sign proximity (the distance from the accident to the nearest billboard). In each scenario, this study considers accident data, with and without the bias from interchanges or (mown causes. The conclusions of this study of Cuyahoga County indicate the following. • At each of the digital billboards, and for periods of 12 months before and after the conversion (a total of 24 months), the accident statistics and metrics are consistent, exhibiting statistically insignificant variations. The same conclusion also applies for periods of 18 months before and after the conversion (a total of 36 months). The 1 metrics include the total number of accidents in arty given month, the average number of accidents over the 12- and 18-month periods, the peak number of accidents in any given month, and the number of accident-free months. These conclusions account for variations in traffic-volume and vehicle-miles traveled. • The correlation coefficients demonstrate no statistical relationship between vehicular accidents and billboards (including conventional and the seven, digital billboards). Also, these correlation coefficients strongly suggest no causal relationship between the billboards and vehicular accidents. • Accidents occur with or without billboards (digital or conventional). The accident statistics on sections of Interstate routes near billboards are comparable to the accident statistics on similar sections that have no billboards. The overall conclusion of this study is that digital billboards have no statistical - relationship with the occurrence of accidents. The frequency of traffic accidents may be much more likely attributable to, and correlated with, other factors, such as DUls, deer hits, adverse weather conditions, excessive speeding, inter alia. 2 Amend ordinance, as follows, but not to include the material highlighted in yellow. (:7z: Sectio n 2.B.1.C STRIKE RENEWAL Fee W§MT-J ~t e Section 2 B.1 INSERT f. bg111Jpard wlhh has cored n ssagolmoreg t n 180 days or w ~ which no' 1 n e~ i entit., bo deb m s, le sor, ervi e, o er, o uct, activity, g. If th4 pekmi#ee's business license lapses for more than 90-days, is r6voked, or is --enewea If a billboard is considered abandoned, the Community Development Department shall notify the billboard structure owner and the property owner by certified mail. For purposes of notification, the owners of record shall be those listed on the billboard permit. {If we co at don't collect revenue should betaken down. Billboard owners should have valid business licenses. Item h. originally only applied if you did not pay renewal fees. I think people should received notification, regardless of the reason, if we are going to invalidate their permit and make then take the billboard down, especially billboard owners, since they will be the ones required to take the billboard down.} 2.B.3 Once a billboard is abandoned INSERT "and the owner of billboard structure notified", of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. {same reasons as above} Section 2.1 STRIKE Section 2.1, retaining " IfltVedail, nd considered ab as a result of nonpayment of the annual renew ` .om unity Dev pment Dep t ment shall no~ifpt ner nd tie pro ures out ' an subsection D s~- c~~'P5 shall be followed for a billboat01k6e'anZ {I think a billboard owner should be notified if they lose their permit, regardless of the reason, so I deleted the notification requirement in this section and added it to the abandoned section. Other elements of this section are as shown below} Section 2 A billboard application fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. i NSF~RT Section 2.1.2 An annual ifnlaact fee for each new and shall also be u eve ment Dblartmef'it each year o before January fee is not received by January 31", the billboard shall be abandoned. INSERT Section 2.INL Application and inspection fees shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. INSERT Seehon 2 I 4 All ew d exis ' g billboards subject to this Ordinance shall be subject to annual imp fee rate o be y Co , o exceed two percent of the gross annual reven produced by the billboard. INSERT Section Assignment of the Billboard Permit. A current and valid billboard permit shall be freely assignable to a successor, as owner of the property where the billboard is located or of the leasehold of the billboard, subject to filing such application as the Community Development Director may require and paying any applicable fees. The assignment shall be accomplished by filing and shall not require approval. {Since we are collecting revenue, we want to make sure we have the most current owner and contact information, but I also think permits should be transferrable.} CA-410 C fl ~sV Gr" L hl\- )-°7v (tiWwL/~- a~ I _D There was no one to address the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA 07-01: An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. The case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Commissioner MATTHEWS asked if all existing billboards conformed to the proposed setback requirements. Mr. Crane stated that new setback requirements would render approximately 90% of the billboards nonconforming. In many cases the impact of a billboard affects adjacent property owners who have a large billboard five feet from their property line. There is no amortization period for nonconforming billboards to become conforming. Chair McMILLIN asked to hear from members of the public. Richard Holme Davis Graham & Stubbs 155017 1h Street, Denver Mr. Holme stated that he represents CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and Mile High Outdoor. After meeting with advertising representatives and city staff, he believed the language in the ordinance was acceptable with a few changes. Mr. Holme requested that the requirement for downcast lighting be removed. He suggested that Dark Skies is an idea whose time has not yet come and that, to his knowledge, this requirement does not exist anywhere else in Colorado. Upcast lighting fixtures are less obtrusive than downcast lighting fixtures. He requested that the height limitation be raised from 32 feet to 45 feet noting that some billboards are partially blocked by buildings and sound walls along I-70. Regarding the easement issue, he stated that if a company acquires a permanent easement, there is no reason to gain approval from the owner of the remainder of the property. He preferred to see spacing requirements of 500 rather than 600 feet noting that 500 feet is required by CDOT and FHA. He expressed concern about the side setback requirements. Many times, it would be impossible to get the amount of setback required in the ordinance. He also disagreed that electronic variable message signs should be prohibited as they are the new technology in outdoor advertising. State statutes allow these signs as long as the message doesn't change more than every four seconds. Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 17, 2008 Steve Richards Mile High Outdoor Advertising 300 E. Hampden Mr. Richards' company has three billboards in Wheat Ridge and asked about general repair and maintenance requirements. Mr. Crane replied that the ordinance does provide for general upkeep and repair without requiring a building permit or temporary removal permit. In regard to downcast lighting, Mr. Richards stated that this type of lighting is less attractive because the lighting structure has to go out from the top in order for the lights to shine down. Downcast lighting is more difficult and less safe to access for repair, changing lights, etc. In regard to height limitations, he stated that his company has one sign that is affected by a sound wall which makes it difficult to lease. Russ Anderson 647048 1h Avenue Mr. Anderson has a billboard on his property and expressed concern that the lottery would be dictating to a property owner who he must do business with. Mr. Crane explained that the ordinance does not prevent a property owner from negotiating with specific sign companies to choose the company to be placed in the lottery. Dan Scherer 6115 Rogers Court Mr. Shearer did not wish to speak but indicated in was in favor of the ordinance as written. Cheryl Wise 4901 Marshall Ms. Wise stated that she is owner of Copperfields Event Center at 4901 Marshall. She asked that the Commission keep the purpose of billboards in mind which is to promote commerce and industry. She questioned the $500 inspection fee because she believed $250 is acceptable. She considered the $1500 renewable fee to be exorbitant. She favored a smaller setback between billboards and I-70 and a billboard height based on topography. She was in favor of downcast lighting which provides safety and reduces vandalism on a property. She also spoke in favor of electronic signs. Flexibility should be built into spacing requirements. Each circumstance should be analyzed on an individual basis. Mark Giordano United Advertising 498 West Iliff, Denver Mr. Giordano is the owner of United Advertising. He was opposed to the downcast lighting requirement because this type of lighting requires a large Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 17, 2008 structure on top of the billboard and is more dangerous to service. In addition, these structures are aesthetically unpleasing. Setback requirements would make most of the billboards nonconforming and could result in loss of a billboard for a property owner who wished to move a billboard. He was opposed to the 600 foot spacing requirement. He was in favor of the electronic signs. He stated they could be tied into public address systems for announcements such as Amber alerts, tornado warnings, etc. He also stated that studies have shown there are no safety issues associated with these signs. He offered to provide a copy of these studies to city staff. Chair McMILLIN asked if there were other individuals who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. In response to some comments made by the public, Mr. Crane explained that greater setbacks would not prevent billboards from being placed elsewhere on a property. He also noted that there are no vacant billboards under the present 35 foot height limit. He stated that he would not be opposed to 500-foot spacing which is the same as CDOT requirements. City Council requested that electronic signs be prohibited in the ordinance. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she would prefer to have billboards as close to I-70 as possible. She favored the downcast lighting. Since the 35 foot requirement was probably instituted before the sound barrier walls were constructed, she would be in favor of a 45-foot height limitation. She was opposed to electronic signs. Commissioner McMILLIN suggested differentiating between I-70 setbacks and adjacent property setbacks. Commissioner REINHART agreed with Commissioner McMILLIN's suggestion. He expressed concern that an advertising company might be afraid they would lose their right to a billboard if they had to take a billboard down for some reason. Mr. Crane explained that the ordinance provides for routine maintenance and it would not prohibit a company from removing and replacing a part of the structure for safety reasons. Commissioner REINHART commented that there is a history of only one billboard that could have potentially moved. Mr. Crane stated that the proposed ordinance was written in a manner to protect against future litigation. In response to a question from Commissioner SPANIEL, Mr. Crane stated that all existing billboards have uplighting. Downcast lighting would only be required for new billboards. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 17, 2008 Commissioner REINHART stated that he would vote for the ordinance as it is written with staff s recommended conditions. Commissioner MATTHEWS stated that he would have no objection to a 45-foot height limitation or 500-foot separation between signs. In regard to fees, he commented that fees have to be related to the cost of administering the program. Commissioner SPANIEL commented that she would not object to increasing the height limitation or to allowing electronic signs. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that, as a strong proponent of Dark Skies, he agreed with downcast lighting. He suggested that the height of the lighting structure should not be counted against the height of the billboard. He suggested exempting setbacks for I-70 frontage. The purpose of setbacks is to insulate adjacent properties. He agreed that electronic signs should be prohibited because, for one reason, they would be too difficult to regulate. He stated that it would be proper to give variances where the base of a sign is on relatively low terrain. He supported a 45-foot height limit because the billboards are fairly insulated from neighborhoods. It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner REINHART to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. With the following conditions: 1. Change the maximum height to 45 feet. 2. Change spacing requirements to 500 feet. 3. Add B.l.e. which states "Failure to notify the Department of intent to temporarily remove a billboard structure." 4. Remove all references to the 10-day window and replace with "application period." 5. Change the 30-120 day lottery window to a 60-90 day lottery window. 6. Add the following language to F: "With respect to any single location within the B-2 billboard district, only one application will be entered into the drawing. In the event multiple applications for single location are submitted, none will be entered into the drawing unless all but one are withdrawn." The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners CHILVERS, SCEZNEY and STEWART absent. 8. OTHER ITEMS Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 17, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2008 Case No ZOA-07-01: An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulations of billboards. Name Address In favor/Opposed S 1 Q l~ I~t'IGV S ti 3~ G ~a~at y r i City of WheatPJdge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 17, 2008 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on January 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in allpublic meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6, 2007 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-07-01: An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. J 8. OTHER ITEMS ? 5' Ij ( F I a ^ J Gi 'V 0 Vf d 9. ADJOURNMENT 1 pF WHEAT PLANNING COMMISSION m LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT ~~CORA~O MEETING DATE: January 17, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS CASE NO. ZOA-07-01 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Travis Crane Date of Preparation: January 8, 2008 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance amends the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations do not contain provisions which provide any guidance for the permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance memorializes the lottery system that was utilized in December 2005 to award a billboard permit for a property in the B-2 district. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. BACKGROUND: The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts -1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). The regulations required all billboards in the B-1 District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. A revised billboard district map has been attached as Exhibit 1. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than setting the maximum number of 16 for the number of billboards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. A proposed ordinance change regarding billboards was presented to Planning Commission and City Council in mid-2007. The proposed ordinance essentially tied all existing billboards to their current locations. If a billboard were ever removed, it could not be reconstructed. This ordinance ZOA-07-01 /B illboards was not approved by City Council. Rather, Council directed staff to conduct a public stakeholders meeting to discuss alternatives to the billboard ordinance. This meeting was held on October 29, 2007. A synopsis of this meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2. The attached ordinance has integrated many of the comments generated at the public stakeholders meeting. A City Council study session was held in December 2007 to discuss the outcome of the stakeholders meeting, and to ask for direction regarding the proposed ordinance. The City Council study session produced several points of direction for staff. First, staff was directed to create an ordinance which would allow all property owners in the B-2 district an even chance of erecting a billboard if a vacancy arose. Second, crea*a definition of and prohibition for animated billboards. Third, create definitions for abandoned billboards. Lastly, create a fee structure for billboard permits, inspections and annual renewals. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. The billboard locations have remained relatively static over the years. In December 2005, a billboard vacancy was created. Staff examined the Code, and discovered that the guiding regulations were silent for instances when a billboard was removed. Specifically, who was entitled to erect the 16th billboard to fill the vacancy? The property owner? The structure owner? Each interested parry had a different opinion. The billboard company claimed they owned the permit for the billboard and could move it anywhere in the B-2 District. Another billboard company said the right to the billboard expired with the lease, and thus the permit was available to any company. The landowner claimed the billboard location should be vested with the property. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff created a process and policies for dealing with this situation. The process which was created was a lottery system where an applicant may submit all required documentation for a permit to fill the billboard vacancy. Guidelines for submittal were established, and the policy was communicated to interested parties. The December 2005 process essentially tied the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expired, so did the right to the billboard. That 16th billboard then became available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16'h billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. Multiple applications were submitted for inclusion in the lottery. This experience with this process resulted in a lawsuit by a billboard company in December 2005. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the lottery process was acceptable; however, the lottery should only contain one application per property. The City is awaiting direction from the Courts regarding a solution, which may entail another lottery. The attached ordinance implements City Council's recommended approach, the codification of the lottery system (Exhibit 3, Proposed Ordinance). This alternative keeps the number of billboards in ZOA-07-01/Billboards the B-2 district at 16, and allows fair competition for installation of a billboard in the event of a vacancy. The proposed ordinance specifies when a billboard vacancy has been established, and provides an application window for anyone in the B-2 district to apply for the right to install a billboard. A lottery system occurs if multiple applications are submitted for the billboard vacancy. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS The proposed ordinance proposes a new annual renewal fee which must be paid at the first of the year. Staff does not have a recommendation of the amount of this renewal fee. In our research, only one city responded that an annual inspection fee is charged for billboards. The City of Denver does charge a fee of up to $100 for a billboard permit, depending on the size of the advertising copy. In addition, Staff feels that language should be added to the ordinance which discusses the fee or reimbursement for the notification. Typically, certified notices are sent for all public hearing items by city Staff. The fee schedule for land use cases contains a line item for publication fees. Staff feels that the notification of all B-2 property owners in preparation of the lottery should also be paid by the applicant. It would make sense to have the winner of the lottery reimburse the City for all mailing costs associated with the notification. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards." Exhibits: 1. Billboard District map 2. Public Meeting Synopsis 3. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-07-O 1/Billboards 3100000 3105W0 3110000 3115000 3120000 3125000 a 9 w m ~ m B-2 Billboard District o . . R ~ F G N = d L , , N . -j F ti n_n_ . o0 0 O~P~ r oooo I r r Y' 10 ' i Figure 26-711.1 Official Billboard Zoning Map ...a z„ C ~ j3 EXHIBIT I Billboard Work Session - 29 October 2007 This meeting was held to gain input from all stakeholders and start a discussion relating to proposed changes to Section 26-711, the section of the zoning code which regulates billboards. Approximately 350 invitations were sent out to notify the stakeholders of the work session. All property owners in the B-2 district were invited, as well as interested advertising company representatives. Approximately 25 people attended the work session. The meeting was held in the City Council chambers at City Hall. The following is a list of questions and comments as recorded the night of the work session. • The property owner should `own' the permit. • Would be in favor of the proposed legislation, with a few changes. Once a billboard has been removed, the Department should accept applications. The new ordinance should memorialize the lottery process. • Research with other jurisdictions -who `owns' the permit? • Question - Does proposed ordinance only allow one billboard per property? • Would be in favor of keeping the proposed legislation. If a billboard is removed, accept permit after a `waiting period' (90 days?). Give public notice of the available permit via posting signs, ad in paper. Review the permits in order of acceptance - if a permit does not meet Code or contain all submittal requirements, review the next permit. • Question - Do all current billboards meet the CDOT and City of Wheat Ridge standards under which they were approved? • Should increase the maximum number of billboards allowed to the maximum number that was allowed prior to 1996. • A percentage of the permit fee should go into a public art fund to help offset the visual impact of the billboard. • Increase the timeframe for demolition/reconstruction of a billboard for site improvement purposes. EXHIBIT 2 • Question - Can a property owner construct a structure and advertise independent of an advertising company? • Would be in favor of keeping the existing 16 locations. • Staff question to audience -at what point is a billboard removed? • The City should notify all property owners in the B-2 district when a billboard permit becomes available. EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-711, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26- 71 LB WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article YX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter alia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sec. and 29-20-101 et M. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711 of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-71 LC currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the sixteen-billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide regulations which clarify when a new billboard is permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that animated billboards distract motorists and can cause a significant traffic hazard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amended fee schedule is necessary to offset City Staff review and preparatory time in processing applications for billboard permits , and that the collected fees could be used to combat the blight created by large advertising structures; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: EXHIBIT 3 Section 1. Section 26-702 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to include the following definitions: Billboard removal. When a billboard is not capable of displaying advertising. A billboard is considered removed when the supporting pole or structure is not present. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). An advertising device which changes its advertising message by electronic or digital process or by remote control, or which uses rotating slats, moving or reflective disks, light emitting diodes (LEDS), glow cubes, or other means of changeable illumination. A sign which utilizes a message which must be incrementally updated to reflect a change in status, such as an updating monetary total on a lottery billboard, shall not be considered a commercial electronic variable message sign. Changeable copy messages which update the entire message on a pre- determined timeframe shall constitute a CEVMS. Temporary billboard removal. When either the advertising copy area or support pole or structure of a billboard, or both, are removed from a property for a period not to exceed 180 calendar days. If the temporary removal is for a period which exceeds 180 calendar days, the billboard structure shall be deemed abandoned, as described in subsection B. Temporary removal shall not apply to routine maintenance such as painting or message replacement. These activities may occur without notification or need to secure a building permit. Section 2. Code of Laws Section 711 is amended to read: A. General provisions. 1. For the purpose of this subsection A, a portion of the city is designated as the B-2 billboard district, divided in4e y^ ^ (2) bill eafd districts B 1 and B z as shown on the official billboard zoning map of the city and incorporated herein as seen below. Billboards are only allowed within the B-2 billboard district. Properties within the B-2 district must be zoned NC, R-C, C-1, C-2, I, PCD or PID and must comply with the applicable city, state and federal restrictions to be eligible as a site upon which a billboard may be permitted. 2. Billboard t tufes are a4lo ed in the eit.-, as ride by this sew.':; 'led, t4 .ia aAny application for a billboard proposed to be located, relocated or rebuilt within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the right-of-way line of any state or federal highway shall be accompanied by written approval by the state or federal agency of jurisdiction. 3. c^t1'^,.v,. ^1'^lt 1'e as require c r ^ i3ri ,.ipa ^tFuet re in the zoning `isti44 tea. Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16). 4. Roof billboards are not allowed. 5. All new billboards shall be of the monopole type, unless prohibited by soil conditions as certified by a professional engineer. Billboards may be either a `v-style' orientation which contains advertising on each visible face or a single advertising copy structure with back-to-back advertising copy areas. 6. Existing billboards are to be maintained in a neat and safe condition. The property located within a 50 foot radius of the support structure of any billboard shall be well maintained and kept free of weeds, trash and debris. The maintenance area shall only extend to the property on which the billboard is located. provided, that nNo existing billboard may be rebuilt or replaced except in conformance with these regulations; and provided, that when, in the opinion of the building inspector, the safety of an existing billboard is questionable, the billboard owner shall either remove the billboard within thirty (30) days of notification or shall furnish a certificate from a Colorado-registered professional engineer with a specialization in civil, structural or mechanical engineering to its safety. 7. Maximum size of the advertising copy area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet per side. 8. Setbacks shall be as required as follows: a billboard must be located at least fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way; the setback from all other property lines shall be equal to the overall structure height. Setbacks shall be measured from the closest point of the billboard structure perpendicular to the nearest property line. 9. Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be thirty (32) feet. 10. No new billboard may be located closer than six hundred (600) feet (measured from the closest point to each structure) to any other billboard facing in the same direction on the same roadway as defined by roadway name or number. 11. Non-conforming billboards are subject to the provisions of section 26- 707. 12. Any lighting which illuminates a billboard shall be fully shielded, downcast, and shall not interfere with any driver's vision on adjacent roadways. 13. Commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) or any other type of animated billboard signs which use either actual or implied motion, are prohibited. B. R t n:.. Fiet On and actor rams...., i 1996, billboafd" " relg4 ited in the 44 1 di-, aiet Abandoned billboards. 1. A billboard shall be deemed abandoned if: a. a billboard structure is removed without first securing the proper permits, b. temporary removal exceeds the 180-day period as described in subsection C, c. failure to pay the annual renewal fee as described in subsection I, or d. the property owner notifies the Community Development Department of its intent to abandon the billboard structure and relinquish any right to maintain such structure. 2. If the owner of the property upon which a billboard structure is located notifies the Community Development Department by notarized letter that he or she relinquishes the right to a billboard on the property described, the billboard is deemed abandoned. For the purpose of the structure, the term `property owner' does not include the owner of the billboard structure, unless the owner of the billboard structure also owns the underlying real property. 3. Once a billboard is abandoned, the owner of the billboard structure shall have 30 days to remove the structure. If an abandoned billboard is not removed within 30 days of notification, the City shall cause the structure to be removed consistent with section 15, article II of this Code. Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 711.A.3 and M.D. C. Temporary billboard removal. The property owner upon which the billboard structure is located shall notify the Community Development Department in writing prior to any temporary removal. A building permit must be applied for and obtained for the temporary removal. Failure to obtain a building permit for the temporary removal of a billboard structure, or failure to notify the Department of any temporary removal shall constitute billboard abandonment, as deemed herein. If a billboard is removed on a temporary basis, any non-conforming structure must be reconstructed in conformance with these regulations. D. Billboard vacancy. Following billboard abandonment, the Community Development Department shall notify every property owner in the B-2 district by certified mail announcing the billboard vacancy. An advertisement shall also be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the same. The notification will specify a 10-day application period during which applications may be submitted to the Department for a billboard permit. The ten-day application period shall occur no sooner than thirty (30) days and not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after publication of the notification of vacancy. The ten-day period shall commence on 8 a.m. of the first stated day and conclude at 5 p.m. on the tenth stated day. If the tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or observed City holiday, the application period shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the next regular working day. E. Permit submittal requirements. The application for a billboard permit shall include the following: 1. a completed building permit application form signed by both the proposed billboard structure owner and the property owner, 2. a letter from the applicants acknowledging that the applicants believe that the proposed billboard structure complies with C.R.S. 43-1-401 et sec l., and the rules and regulations of the City of Wheat Ridge, 3. the appropriate fees, as required by subsection I, 4. copy of the property deed where the billboard structure will be placed, 5. a site plan which details the location of the proposed billboard structure in relation to property lines and all existing structures, 6. a certified survey of the property, 7. a photographic simulation of the proposed billboard structure, 8. a detailed elevation sheet of the proposed billboard structure, and 9. certified engineering details of the proposed billboard structure, including foundation details and proof that the underlying soil is adequate to support said structure. F. Multiple applications. If more than one application for a billboard permit has been submitted during this 10-day application period, all applications which include all the required submittal items shall be entered into a drawing by lot. The drawing shall occur within seven calendar days of the completion of the 10-day application period. All parties who have submitted valid applications as described above shall be invited to witness the drawing. G. Completeness review. The permit applications shall undergo a cursory review for completeness of the permit submittal requirements prior to the drawing; if an application does not contain one or more of the submittal items listed in subsection E, the application shall be returned with an explanation of deficiency. Any permit application which is found to be incomplete during this completeness review may not be corrected and resubmitted for inclusion in the drawing. Only one application per property may be submitted for inclusion in the drawing. H. Detailed review. At the conclusion of the drawing, the Community Development Department shall perform a detailed review of the chosen application. If any technical corrections are needed, the chosen applicant may correct said deficiencies. 1. Fees. A plan review fee shall be required at time of submittal of each application for a billboard structure prior to the drawing. A billboard inspection fee and standard building permit fee as set by the Building Division shall be required for any issued building permit for a new or relocated billboard structure. An annual renewal fee for each permitted billboard structure shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department each year on January 2"a. If the annual renewal fee is not received by January 31s`, the billboard shall be considered abandoned. If the billboard is considered abandoned as a result of non- payment of the annual renewal fee, the Community Development Department shall notify the property owner by certified mail, and the procedures outlined in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. The fees required by this section shall be established by the Community Development Director and are detailed on the fee schedule kept in the Community Development Department for public inspection. J. Expiration. A permitted billboard must be erected within one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the building permit. If the structure is not erected within this 180 day period, the ability to erect a billboard shall be deemed forfeited. The Community Development Department will then follow the procedures listed in subsection (D) shall be followed for a billboard vacancy. Section 3.Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. <insert amended fig. 26-711.1> Section 4. Section 71 LC is hereby repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 12008. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of '12008. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge PLANNING COMMISSION on January 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. The following case shall be heard: Case No. ZOA-07-01: An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Cleric To Be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: January 10, 2007 PL 0AW, Kenneth P. Johnstone, AICP Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Community Development Director Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister 7500 W. 29th Avenue & Renaud LLP Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 2401 15th Street, Ste 200 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Wheat Ridge Ordinance Billboard Regulation Proposal Dear Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Dahl: On behalf of my clients, CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and Mile High Outdoor, I am responding to your request for comments on the draft revisions to the Wheat Ridge Sign Code that was sent out on December 21, 2007. Just as a general comment, the changes appear to be substantially more complicated than we would have thought was necessary. Although we would be happy to assist in restructuring a simpler version, I will turn to our specific comments and suggestions concerning this proposal. apologize for the length of this letter, but I see a number of practical, legal, and language problems with the proposal. Some of our comments are more policy oriented but I think it will be useful for everyone if the final version submitted to the Council has as few ambiguities and intrinsic problems as possible. I am also enclosing both a red-lined version and a clean version of the City's proposed amendments with our recommendations included. I am also emailing a copy of these two documents, in Word format, to Mr. Dahl in case it can be of use in making whatever additional revisions you decide to adopt. It may be helpful for Mr. Dahl, lawyers who represent the industry, and any other necessary City officials to meet and discuss some of the specific concerns and fine-tuning proposals prior to the public forum on January 17, 2008. Section I - Definitions Billboard Removal. We would have thought that just removing the advertising face of the sign - the "display facility" - would have been enough to qualify as removal of a billboard. As long as you feel both the face and the supporting pole need to be removed, it should be Richard P. Holme. 303 892 7340. richard.holme@dgslaw.com 1550 Seventeenth Street • Suite 500 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • 303 892 9400 • fax 303 893 1379 #921116.1 www.dgslaw.com Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 2 sufficient to define the removal as just the removal of the supporting pole, without reference to the face, since the face cannot exist without the supporting pole. Also, although Billboard Removal is now defined, the later sections of the draft ordinance seem to focus on billboard "abandonment" (see, e.g., § 2.D.). It appears to us that using Billboard Removal as the more operative term is clearer and makes more sense. CEVMS. I have no recollection of this matter having been discussed by the City Council at the meeting and we are unsure why the City feels that government regulation imposing an absolute prohibition of modern technology on billboards is crucial or necessary. The City has not banned new technology for on-premise signs. Colorado statutes specifically authorize these signs on interstate and primary highways as long as the messages remain in place for four (4) seconds. C.R.S. § 43-1-404(1)(f)(I). Actually, because of the better lighting that can be obtained on these CEVMS, they are both easier and faster to read. Although we are unaware of any scientifically valid evidence that billboards cause traffic accidents under any circumstances, signs that can be read with less attention and less time to try to absorb and understand the message should cause even less of a potential problem. Temporary Billboard Removal. First, if temporary removal is to be allowed, it must be limited to signs that are legal conforming signs under both the Wheat Ridge Sign Code and state law and regulations. CDOT regulations do not allow replacement of any non-conforming signs that have been removed. According to CDOT, eight of Wheat Ridge's 16 billboards are non- conforming. Second, we are hard pressed to understand why temporary billboard removal would allow as many as 180 days to rebuild. If a sign is going to be temporarily removed and then rebuilt, it should easily be done in 60 days. Third, since you are imposing additional requirements on temporary removals in section 2.C (especially the requirement that owners give the City advance notice of a temporary removal), it would appear to be clearer to add a reference in this definition to that later section. Alternatively, this definition might be simplified to something like "Temporary Billboard Removal shall be as defined [set forth] [described] in Section 711.C. of this Code." Section 2. A.S. We are not sure what a "single cabinet" is. That does not appear to be a term of art routinely used by billboard companies or in other laws. Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 3 A.6. The requirement for keeping an area clean that is defined by a set radius may well extend that requirement to a neighboring property on which the billboard company has no rights. Fifty feet also seems a bit much since the billboard company's easement to approach and maintain the sign is rarely that great. We suggest something more like a radius of 25', and then only to the extent that the radius is within the property upon which the billboard is erected. A.7. The first two sentences make sense to us. We are confused by the last sentence and believe it is unnecessary. For example, some larger billboard faces (bulletins) are backed up by two smaller faces (poster panels). The latter are generally 300 square feet each. We are confident that you do not intend to have the last sentence allow two 750 square foot billboards backing up the opposite face containing a bulletin. Perhaps the third sentence was intended to mean that the maximum size shall apply to the total of the square footage of multiple signs on either side of the billboard, which is what we understand the first two sentences to require. A.B. The new requirement of side- and rear-line set backs being equal to the height of the sign appears only to assure that there are fewer future sites available in Wheat Ridge. This requirement would eliminate a number of potential billboard sites (and would have prevented some of the existing sites). We are not aware that Wheat Ridge or anywhere else in Colorado has had problems with steel monopole signs ever falling down or being blown down. A.9. We strongly urge the City to reconsider its maximum height limitation of 32 feet. As you know, the City has already granted some height variances for billboards. A quick look at the existing signs shows a number of them that are obscured, if not blocked, by highway sound walls, an adjoining building, or other on-premise signs. Indeed, the latter situation diminishes the value of both the billboard and the on-premise sign. Denver allows billboards to go up to 45 feet, which would be a much more usable height, especially along the Interstate Highways, and would avoid both the competition among on- and off-premise signs and sound walls, and would remove the likelihood of several more variance requests being submitted. A.10. While recognizing that this section maintains the existing requirements of the sign code, we have never been clear what is intended by this section, which is unlike any other we have ever seen. Apparently, under the existing 32' height limitation, this would allow a billboard face to be 112 feet long but only 6.7 feet high. Even a low bulletin at 20 feet high could be 70' X 107. In short, this section does not appear to relate to anything that exists or is likely to exist in the billboard business. The 750 square foot limitation should provide all the control you need. We recommend that this meaningless provision be dropped with this new revision of the billboard code. A.11. We have lived with the 600' spacing requirement since at least 1991. However, since virtually all these signs are along Wheat Ridge's interstate highways, and since CDOT and Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 4 the Federal Highway Administration have agreed on a 500' spacing limitation on Interstate Highways, we suggest that consideration be given to reducing the spacing requirement to 500'. This may also allow some other Wheat Ridge landowners who are ineligible for a new billboard when a vacancy occurs because of spacing limitations to become potential recipients of billboard revenues. A. 13. We are not sure what this is intended to say. In the version we received the word "downcast" is in very small print. It should not be in the ordinance. Most lighting is now from underneath the sign and is cast upward (for the very reason of shielding the light from oncoming traffic), but the key is simply that the lighting be shielded and not interfere with driver's attention (although "vision" would appear to be a better, more accurate, and more easily enforceable standard than "attention"). A.14. See comments on CEVMS, above. B. This entire section seems unclear. We assume that what the City is intending is that if an existing billboard does not carry advertising copy for some period of time, that a temporary billboard is not replaced within the required time, or some authorized person voluntarily abandons or relinquishes the right to maintain a billboard, a vacancy will be created for purposes of allowing another billboard to be erected. B.I. We see no reason to define abandonment in terms of an owner failing to notify the City of an abandonment. A billboard either is or is not abandoned under the definitions of an abandoned sign and the absence of notice from the owner should be irrelevant. Perhaps this section should be replaced with one saying something like "the billboard has not carried advertising copy for 60 days." A new B.4 could be added to the effect that either the owner of the billboard structure or the landowner, following the expiration of any existing lease, license or other agreement giving another the right to maintain a billboard structure, may notify the City of its intent to abandon the billboard and to relinquish any right to maintain such structure. A new B.1 and B.4 should replace the first two sentences of the unnumbered paragraph presently under section B.3. First, it would be clearer what is intended. Second, it is improper for the City to purport to allow a landowner to abandon a billboard if there is still a valid lease in place that allows the maintenance of the billboard. Third, the second sentence is also unnecessary because the first sentence does not use the term "property owner" but uses the appropriate reference to the owner of the property upon which the billboard is located. Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 5 The last three sentences of this paragraph (starting with "Once should apply to all of the itemized definitions of abandonment, not just item B.3, as it presently appears to. You might even consider making the various aspects of abandonment subparagraphs of section B.1 (i.e., (a), (b), etc), and put the last three sentences in a Section B.2. As to the last sentence of that paragraph, it will be clearer if you say that "Once an abandoned billboard has been removed, a vacancy is established Removal is defined; "considered abandoned," does not have a defined basis from which the clock is to start running. C. Since half of the billboards cannot be rebuilt anyway, we wonder about the need for temporary removals. Even if that concept is retained, the first sentence of this section should be deleted. Temporary removal is not defined as abandonment in section B. This can be better dealt with by making it clear in section D. that a billboard vacancy does not occur upon a temporary removal under section C. I am not sure, but in Wheat Ridge does one obtain a "building permit" to demolish a billboard or other structure, or does one obtain a "demolition permit"? Notices should only be given by the landowner since the landowner must approve any relocation or reconfiguration of the billboard anyway. In addition to the inability to replace non-conforming billboards, the second paragraph of section C. will probably preclude temporary removal of a number of the remaining billboards as well. For example, one could not temporarily remove a sign to rebuild it from a multi-pole wood structure to a monopole, if the existing sign did not meet the new, proposed side set-back requirements. D. With section B. stating that removal of an abandoned billboard creates a vacancy, section D. does not need to deal with "determinations" of abandonment, but would more clearly state that "Following a billboard removal, the Department shall notify..." (Indeed, you may want to add a sentence to the definition of "Billboard Removal" such as "When a billboard is removed, a vacancy is established for purposes of Sections 7.11.A.3 and 7.11.D.") In the second paragraph, we can think of no reason why the application period should be allowed to drag out for as much 120 days. Thirty to sixty days should be ample for the companies and landowners to work out an agreement. E. There are several things sought in the initial application that add unnecessary expense and difficulty and that could be required after the drawing is held but as prerequisites before issuing a permit. For example, items 4, 6, 7 and 9, do not seem necessary for determining whether someone should be included in the drawing. Giving the winner 30 days after the Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 6 drawing to present that information should satisfy the City's needs without unduly burdening the companies in getting surveys, photo simulations and completed engineering drawings for applications that are not selected. This is especially true given the proposal in Section G. that if any piece of information is missing or inadequate upon a "cursory review," such omission cannot be corrected. Furthermore, some of the requirements themselves are not clear. E.2. What kind of a letter is required? What is meant by a "letter of request?" To whom and by whom is the letter to be sent? One cannot get CDOT approval without presenting a form containing the signature of the City official saying that the sign can be built (see, Catch 22). How can the City, for example, provide assurance that the structure complies with all its rules and regulations unless it has seen all the other materials called for to be submitted with the initial application? E.3. What are the "appropriate fees?" If referred to elsewhere in the ordinances, should this sentence provide a cross-reference to that section or those sections? At the very least this should cross-reference Section I. It may be even better to pull the first two sentences of Section 1. into this specific provision. EA. Why, after all these years, does the City now need a copy of the property deed? No other city requires this. E.7. What kind of "photographic simulation" is required, and why? Does one need to get a crane and hang up a billboard face, a la United's application for a variance, or is a Photo Shop creation acceptable? And does that really provide much information that the City couldn't get as well or better from the site plan, an elevation and a quick on-site inspection (if it really felt it needed it - which no other City seems to need)? G. Is if wise to try to explain a "cursory review" in an ordinance, or does it simply create fertile ground for litigation? For example, what is a "cursory review" other than a phrase imminently subject to legal challenge? More importantly, why should a party not be allowed to correct any deficiencies if it can be done before the drawing takes place? Suppose a lease is missing one signature on one page, or a date is left off of one line of the lease, but is contained elsewhere in the lease, or one architect failed to date the site plan? One can easily foresee competitors closely reviewing the other applications and then "assisting" the Community Development Department by pointing out any shortcomings, especially if those shortcomings are uncorrectable. This is an area that I predict could lead to endless expensive and wasteful litigation. Kenneth P. Johnstone Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. January 7, 2008 Page 7 Reducing the number of required items at the initial application stage would also help alleviate this problem. 1. Are the words "prior to the drawing" at the end of the first sentence redundant, or do they change the requirement in Section E.3 such that the fees only need to be submitted before the drawing? Does Wheat Ridge allow the Community Development Department to set whatever fees it wants without Council approval (if for no other reason than to be sure they don't run afoul of TABOR)? I may discover other problems as we continue to work our way through your proposed ordinance, but in order to get this to you by January 8, I will stop now. In any event, I would be delighted to work with you or anyone else to try to cure the problems and address the issues and questions I have raised in this letter. I hope you can see why I thought industry input would have some value in arriving at a clearer and more meaningful ordinance. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Sincerely, 1~~v✓~4',c/ I*Ifte- Richard P. Holme for DAMS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP RPH:dk cc: Daniel Scherer Frank Bullock Steve Richards Page 1 of I Travis Crane From: Mark W Giordano [mark@unitedadv.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:03 PM To: Travis Crane Subject: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE BILLBOARD ORDINANCE Travis: Thank you for meeting with me today and discussing the new billboard regulations. Listed below are my suggestions related to the Code. Hopefully, they will make the regulations more clear. 1. Section 2 . A. 9. - I would recommend that the following be added: "Maximum height of the billboard structure shall be..." 2. Section 2. A. 10. - "Maximum length of the billboard advertising face shall be..." 3. Section 2. A. 13. - I understand that it is the City's goal is to control all light projected skyward. However, I believe that "downward-facing" lights would actually shine into the eyes of drivers and could create a hazard. I would recommend that this requirement be removed. 4. Section 2. C. -To clarify the paragraph, I would recommend the following adjustments and additions to the end of the first sentence: "...temporarily removes the billboard structure, or a portion thereof, for sign and/or structure maintenance, for structure replacement or for site maintenance." Thanks for this opportunity. Mark Mark W. Giordano United Advertising Corporation Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. phone: 303-282-1000 x2 mobile: 303-929-7333 fax: 303-282-3866 01/09/2008 City of ~Whcat~idgc December 21, 2007 Tom Ripp 4315 Wadsworth Blvd. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE: Proposed Billboard Ordinance Changes Dear Name: I have enclosed a copy of the proposed ordinance changes for billboards in the City of Wheat Ridge. The proposed ordinance will be presented at the Planning Commission public hearing on Thursday, January 17, 2008 in the City Council chambers at the Municipal Building. The hearing will begin at 7 p.m. I would invite you to attend the public hearing, and additionally, I would appreciate any advance comments regarding the proposed changes prior to the public hearing. If you have any comments or suggestions regarding the ordinance, please forward them to me by Tuesday, January 8, 2008. If you have any questions about the proposed ordinance change or the public hearing schedule, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 303.235.2849 or tcrane(d,)ci.wheatridge.co.us Sincerely, D-F& Travis R. Crane Planner II Enclosure CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 p. 303.234.5900 f. 303.234.5924 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us -c: -n D m ~ G) U K ~u ;o 0 ~ 0 Z ° N 7 f11 7 O 3 97 a) O p7 0 7 C N 7 0 ;L 3 m 3 n 'T 0 T. G1 Cl) N r ~ ~ W o ro ~ W m ' ~ 6 ~ m ° Co o > ° C m m 3 o O v N O o ;:P _ m 3 N - N m 3 N N ~ N :3 0 3 - O O O •P 1 ( 1 1 1 ..1 m m co -P~ N 1 W D w - N o N W O 0 w W O V A O cc W co N ~I O 4P1 -I 1 0 01 co 0 O 0 g 0 rn Q C M 1 0 m _p O O * C O O cn 0 W m ~ m (n ~ D i u m Z 2 - 7 0 ° c m r. N c ) f 3 < w cP =k D =k D 0 ~ 00 c D a - 3 o ~ 1 o , a a ~ 00 N T N o v r 1 ° 77 CL cn O- S 0 cn D n to cn Co co n < D * r c s m m C CD m (n ° m r: m o Q N D (n N m o 71 . CD wW o r o ° m O w a T O O S Z S z 0 ( N < S 0 7 c0 0 0 0 0 O 3 =T ) ° v CD Er ~ m v v N < 0 < 0 < m m m N 3 m < < ( D ~ "D O ° 0 0 0 ' -a C~ C7 n C~ =U C~ m '-0 C~ ~ C~ N . y cl- C7 O c~ ° O - . 0 0 0 0 O 3 m 0 0 C N m W O O W n m W W W W m m 0 CD Co W c O CO ° O o ° 0 0 0 0 ro 0 N) 0 N) 0 o O ~ O N o n c O N N N W o 1 O O N N W N W 0 w 0 W n O N O N O co W co O 00 O O co O C) O w w O w O W O O O W ° 1 W w W N W N C C: D p _ ' W O 3 (D m m z Cf) CL CL to O c CL Q 0 0 City of Wheat Ridge December 20, 2007 Jack Walker 3628 A W. 111th Dr. Westminster, CO 80031 RE: Proposed Billboard Ordinance Changes Dear Jack Walker: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for attending the billboard workshop held in October of this year. I feel the meeting was very productive, and helped staff to formulate the proposed changes to the billboard ordinance. Staff presented the findings of the billboard workshop to City Council at a study session on December 3, 2007. In response to this study session, City Council has directed the Community Development Department to revise the current billboard ordinance consistent with some of the comments made at the workshop and present for adoption in the public hearing forum. Staff has scheduled a Planning Commission public hearing where the proposed ordinance will be presented, with discussion following. This public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 17, 2008 in the City Council chambers at the Municipal Building. The hearing will begin at 7 p.m. Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council. This recommendation will be presented, along with the proposed changes to the ordinance, at a City Council public hearing. While the date for the City Council hearing has not been set, it is my sense that it will occur in late February. I would like to invite you to attend the public hearings and stay involved during the entire public hearing process. If you have any questions about the proposed ordinance change or the public hearing schedule, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 303.235.2849 or tcraneCD,ci.wheatrjdqe.co.us. Sincerely, 0-FL Travis R. Crane Planner II CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 7500 W 29th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 p. 303.234.5900 f 303.234.5924 www.cl.wheatridge.co.us Jack Walker Dick Holme Jim Blake 3628 A W. 111th Dr. 1550 17th St. Suite 500 2060 S. Holly St. Westminster. CO 80031 Denver CO 80202 Denver CO 80222 Cheryl Wise Worthy Cummings Dan Scherer 4901 Marshall St. 8050 Quebec St. 6115 Rogers Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Commerce City CO 80022 Arvada CO 80403 Russ Anderson Ron Fano Mark Giordano 6470 W. 48th Ave. 1700 Lincoln St. Suite 3800 498 W Iliff Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Denver CO 80203 Denver CO 80223 Dan Avjean Gary Stehle Tom Abbott 498 W Iliff Ave. 14040 W. 58th Ave. 10780 W. 35th Ave. Denver CO 80223 Arvada CO 80002 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Bethany Gravell Alan Weiss Frank Bullock 1384 S. York St. 300 E. Hampden # 324 12301 N Grant St. Suite 240 Denver CO 80210 Englewood CO 80113 Thornton CO 80241 Jerry Miller Tom Ripp 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, 3rd Floor 4315 Wadsworth Blvd. Denver CO 80222 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Page 1 of 2 Kenneth Johnstone From: Gerald Dahl [gdahl@mdkrlaw.comj Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:57 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone; Travis Crane Subject: FW: CBS v. Wheat Ridge As additional background for our meeting on Thursday Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:15 AM To: Gerald Dahl Cc: Todd R. Seelman Subject: CBS v. Wheat Ridge Gerry, After consultation with Tom Ripp, Cheryl Wise and Mark, it looks as if we are going to ask the Supreme Court to look at a few of the issues from the Court of Appeals decision, including the Rule 106 determination, the reliance on evidence not in the record, and perhaps the determination that the lack of signatures on the lease did not render the lease void. We think this wholly misses the point that the City has the authority to require that the documents submitted to it meet a certain standard of completeness on their face. While it would be our preference that the petition be a joint petition of the City and Copper Fields, we will go it alone if the City chooses not to participate (as you've indicated it probably would). We respect whatever decision you/the City reach on this. If you want to discuss the issues further, let us know and Todd and I would be happy to meet with you. Under any circumstance, before we go too far down the road in our preparations for the cert. petition, we wanted to find out if there 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 was any interest in the proposal we mentioned regarding allowing a 17th billboard for the 5036 Kipling site. Apparently Tom Ripp mentioned this idea to Dick Holme as a means for resolving all issues with the case, and Dick's first impression was favorable. Please let us know if you think the City might be interested in pursuing this. Thanks Gerry for your consideration. Ron Fano Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 12/18/2007 Kenneth Johnstone From: Gerald Dahl [gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:22 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone; Randy Young; Travis Crane Cc: Brittany Scantland Subject: RE: CBS v. Wheat Ridge I agree with Ken that an internal meeting is probably recommended. I have next Wednesday and Thursday afternoons clear (Thursday T am at the city for a loam meeting that will go close to lunch). Will either of these times work? Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. I L1r1 t4_ ~ -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:01 AM To: Gerald Dahl; Randy Young; Travis Crane Cc: Brittany Scantland Subject: RE: CBS v. Wheat Ridge Sounds like we should meet to be more fully briefed on the various legal issuances and the nuances of different options. I would recommend that be an internal meeting initially. Ken Johnstone, AICP Director of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge, CO (303) 235-2844 -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:39 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone; Randy Young; Travis Crane Cc: Brittany Scantland Subject: RE: CBS v. Wheat Ridge I have gotten a call now from Dick Holme, representing CBS Outdoor. He said that his client is interested in a meeting to explore settlement options. Specifically, he said that allowing a 17th billboard would make a big difference. I told him that before setting a meeting, I thought it would be best if I determined from staff if there were any interest in settlement on that basis. I did not share with him your thoughts as represented in the email chain below. He felt that there was some support on Council for a 17th billboard. He also said that they thought it likely that if CBS wins in the new (court-ordered) lottery, the Giordano billboard would not come down anyway. He agreed that an outcome of settlement would include settling the case and agreeing to not challenge our new billboard ordinance. Understanding that staff is not that interested in a 17th sign, but that Council (or some members) may be more amenable, do we want to meet, and if so, with all of the companies? Gerald E. Dahl gdahlgmdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:38 AM To: Randy Young; Travis Crane; Gerald Dahl Cc: Brittany Scantland _ Subject: RE: CBS v. Wheat Ridge I agree as well, and would not recommend joining the appeal or allowing the 17th billboard, though I believe we also need to keep in mind that several of our elected officials would appear to be much more supportive of the overall concept of billboards than we are as a staff. Travis is also making good progress in drafting the new billboard ordinance based on the direction from the Council study session. Thanks. 2 Ken Johnstone, AICP Director of Community Development City of Wheat Ridge, CO (303) 235-2844 -----Original Message----- From: Randy Young Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:16 AM To: Travis Crane; 'gdahl@mdkrlaw.com'; Kenneth Johnstone Cc: 'bscantland@mdkrlaw.com' Subject: Re: CBS v. Wheat Ridge I agree with everything Travis has said. I believe we should be reducing not increasing the number of billboards. Randy -----Original Message----- From: Travis Crane <tcrane@ci.wheatridge.co.us> To: Gerald Dahl <gdahl@mdkrlaw.com>; Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Randy Young <ryoung@ci.wheatridge.co.us> CC: Brittany Scantland <bscantland@mdkrlaw.com> Sent: Thu Dec 13 08:52:58 2007 Subject: RE: CBS V. Wheat Ridge Jerry - I would agree with your assessment regarding the appeal, as we really don't care who gets the billboard. Our sole interest should be that pursuant to 711, no more than 16 billboards are installed. If the appeal fails and we need to hold a lottery with CBS and United being the entrants, and in the chance that CBS wins the lottery, United must remove their billboard. I personally would not be in favor of allowing a 17th billboard. The basis which forms my opinion is that an increase to the allowed number of billboards could contribute to visual blight along state and federal highways. Plus, I'm not a big fan of billboards. Travis R. Crane Planner II City of Wheat Ridge CO 303.235.2849 (v) 303.235.2857 (f) http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us <http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/> From: Gerald Dahl [mailto:gdahl@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:02 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone; Randy Young; Travis Crane Cc: Brittany Scantland Subject: FW: CBS v. Wheat Ridge Gentlemen, 3 It looks like United wants to petition the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision. Clearly they do not want to take the chance of a new drawing resulting in them having to take down their billboard. Can I have your thoughts on the two questions posed:" - * Do we want to join in the appeal? My recommendation is no, as we have sufficient guidance from the Court of Appeals already, and in going with "Option B" as determined at the study session, we would be implementing a different program than that which would go up on appeal anyway. * A 17th billboard. This would be, of course, at the CBS location that lost out in the lottery - 5036 Kipling. This would make the lawsuit go away, but we would also want to implement a system in our code for the future. Seems to me if we allowed the 17th, we should get some kind of promise from United, Lamar and CBS not to challenge it. Let me know what you think Gerald E. Dahl gdahl@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 2401 15th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Ronald L. Fano [mailto:ronfano@grimshawharring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:15 AM 4 To: Gerald Dahl Cc: Todd R. Seelman Subject: CBS V. Wheat Ridge Gerry, After consultation with Tom Ripp, Cheryl wise and mark, it looks as if we are going to ask the Supreme Court to look at a few of the issues from the Court of Appeals decision, including the Rule 106 determination, the reliance on evidence not in the record, and perhaps the determination that the lack of signatures on the lease did not render the lease void. We think this wholly misses the point that the City has the authority to require that the documents submitted to it meet a certain standard of completeness on their face. While it would be our preference that the petition be a joint petition of the City and Copper Fields, we will go it alone if the City chooses not to participate (as you've indicated it probably would). We respect whatever decision you/the City reach on this. If you want to discuss the issues further, let us know and Todd and I would be happy to meet with you. Under any circumstance, before we go too far down the road in our preparations for the cert. petition, we wanted to find out if there was any interest in the proposal we mentioned regarding allowing a 17th billboard for the 5036 Kipling site. Apparently Tom Ripp mentioned this idea to Dick Holme as a means for resolving all issues with the case, and Dick's first impression was favorable. Please let us know if you think the City might be interested in pursuing this. Thanks Gerry for your consideration. Ron Fano Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. Direct Dial: 303-839-3820 ATTORNEYS AT LAM ii: 240-:. S,, Ze. 20C Beni C:c~ior a,. , c2cz Ph one > c.'-.:5L:.C. Ps.,. ,D°, -,-.0)9 5. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Dahl FROM: Chris Price DATE: December 7, 2007 RE: Compilation of Denver Zoning Code Ordinances Applying to Billboards You asked me to compile Denver's ordinances that applied to billboard advertising. In Denver, billboards are defined as "outdoor advertising devices". The ordinances that apply to outdoor advertising devices are primarily contained in one division of Denver's zoning chapter, specifically, Division 3 of Article V Signs. Division 3 encompasses ordinance sections 59-561 through 59-572 which are provided in full below. Pursuant to subsection 59-561(b), other than specific sign plans required in Denver's B-5-T district, no other sign ordinances apply to outdoor advertising devices. There is not a sign plan at issue in this matter so those provisions are not included. Denver also regulates outdoor advertising devices in sections 3-21 though 3-25. Those provisions are attached. Pursuant to a phone call to Max Taylor, the primary issue in Denver's dispute with United Advertising is section 59-572 regarding non-conforming devices. Denver's concern is whether United Advertising is presenting a different argument to the court than it did in its dispute with Wheat Ridge. Specifically, Denver argues that the permit for an outdoor advertising device belongs to the advertising company and not with the owner of the underlying property. The Division 3 ordinances do not define who holds the rights to the permit for an outdoor advertising device. Although other sign code provisions do not apply to outdoor advertising devices, they may be used as a reference. In Division 1 of the sign code, section 59-539, entitled Non-conforming signs, Denver "permits the owner" certain time period to remove non-conforming signs. The term "owner' is not defined in the sign code, however, it is defined elsewhere in the zoning code as "Any owner of record and includes but is not limited to any person in whose name a property is recorded in the assessor's office." I hope this information is helpful. In the materials below you will find Denver's ordinances in the following order: 1) Division 3 of Article V of Chapter 59, entitled Outdoor General Advertising Devices. 2) Article II of Chapter 3, entitled Restrictions on Outdoor General Advertising Devices, etc. 3) Division 1 of Chapter 59, Section 59-539, entitled Nonconforming signs. 4) Article I of Chapter 59, Subsection 59-2(182), entitled Definitions. DENVER'S CODE OF LAWS 1) Division 3 of Article V of Chapter 59, entitled Outdoor General Advertising Devices Sec. 59-561. Purpose and scope. (a) Upon consideration of a recommendation that an ordinance be enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city and their property therein situate, the council finds: (1) That the regulation of outdoor general advertising devices within the city is required in the interests of the economic prosperity, civic pride, quality of life and general welfare of the people; (2) That it is desirable to preserve and perpetuate uncluttered and natural views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens of the community and visitors hereto; (3) That the regulation of outdoor general advertising devices will foster civic pride in the beauty of the city, will enhance the aesthetic values of the city and its economic vitality, will protect property values, will protect and enhance the city's attraction to tourists and visitors and promote good urban design; (4) That the regulation of outdoor general advertising devices will strengthen and preserve the municipality's unique environmental heritage and enhance the quality of life of its citizens; and (5) That the regulation of outdoor general advertising devices within the city is necessary for the promotion of safety upon the streets and highways in the City and County of Denver. (b) This division shall govern and control the erection, remodeling, enlargement, moving, operation and maintenance of all outdoor general advertising devices, except those permitted in the B-5-T zone district pursuant to a district sign plan as authorized under section 59-556. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a waiver of the provisions of any other ordinance or regulation applicable to such devices, except that the provisions of divisions 1 and 2 of this article shall not apply to such devices. (Ord. No. 439-07, § 19, eff. 8-20-07) (Code 1950, § 613.6-1; Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) Sec. 59-562. Permits. (a) Devices subject to a permit. Except as provided in subsection (b), no outdoor general advertising device shall be erected, altered or maintained until a zoning permit shall have been issued by the department of zoning administration. (1) Annual inspection permit required. Any outdoor general advertising device existing as of December 31, 1987, shall require an inspection permit prior to March 31, 1988. Such permit shall be renewed annually. All permits for outdoor general advertising devices erected after December 31, 1987, shall 2 be renewed annually prior to March 31 of each successive year. Permits shall be issued without proration for periods of less than one (1) year. (Ord. No. 705-87, eff. 12-11-87) (2) Fees. Outdoor general advertising devices existing on December 31, 1987, and any device built thereafter shall be charged the fee listed below at the time of application if no permit has previously been issued for the device or at the time of first renewal if a permit has been previously issued; provided, however, that outdoor general advertising devices located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of a street which is classified as part of a state or interstate highway system shall be exempt from the annual feeafter the initial application or first renewal. TABLE INSET: Area of Individual Message Face Fee 0 to 250 square feet $20.00 251 to 600 square feet 40.00 601 square feet or more 75.00 (Ord. No. 267-87, eff. 6-1-87; Ord. No. 705-87, eff. 12-11-87; Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (3) Additional requirements. No permit for a new outdoor general advertising device shall be issued until an existing device or a combination of devices with at least equal square footage are removed by the applicant from the following areas in the following order: (Ord. No. 805-01, § 1, 9-28-01) a. Those areas described in sections 59-568(k), 59-568(1), 59-568(m), 59-568(n), 59-568(0), 59-568(p) and 59-568(p.5) and any area restricted by the provisions of section 3-23 of the Revised Municipal Code;(Ord. No. 427-88, eff. 7-19-88) b. After all of the nonconforming outdoor general advertising devices are removed from the areas listed in section 59-562 (a)(3)a, above, then the exchange area shall be any area within four hundred (400) feet of a park or a structure or district designated for preservation pursuant to the provisions of article I of chapter 30 of the Revised Municipal Code; and c. After all of the nonconforming outdoor general advertising devices are removed from the areas listed in sections 59-562 (a)(3)a and 59- 562(a)(3)b, above, then the exchange area shall be any area subject to the compensatory provisions of the Federal Highway Beautification Act. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (c) Devices not subject to a permit. The following outdoor general advertising devices may be erected in all districts without a permit: (1) Outdoor general advertising devices required or specifically authorized for a public purpose by any law, statute or ordinance; may be of any type, number, area, height above grade, location, 3 illumination or animation, authorized by the law, statute or ordinance under which the devices are required or authorized. (2) Outdoor general advertising devices in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental and customary and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday or public health, safety or welfare campaign; provided that such devices shall be displayed for a period of not more than sixty (60) consecutive days nor more than sixty (60) days in any one (1) year; and may be of any type, number, area, height, location or illumination. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (Code 1950, § 613.6-2) Sec. 59-563. Permitted zones. Outdoor general advertising devices may be erected or maintained only in zoning districts B-4, B-8, 1-1 and 1-2, and, notwithstanding section 50-186(a), may be erected or maintained on a zone lot occupied by a structure containing a use by right; provided, however, it shall be unlawful to erect or remodel within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right- of-way of a freeway any outdoor general advertising device the face of which is visible from the main-traveled way of the freeway. Outdoor advertising devices may be erected and maintained in the B-5-T zone district but only as permitted by a district sign plan authorized pursuant to section 59-556. For such outdoor advertising devices in the B-5-T zone district the provisions of this division shall not apply. (Code 1950, § 613.6-3; Ord. No. 713-85, eff. 12-16-85; Ord. No. 895-03, § 60, eff. 12-2-03; Ord. No. 439-07, § 20, eff. 8-20-07) Sec. 59-564. Permitted types. Ground signs or wall signs are permitted types. (Code 1950, § 613.6-4) Sec. 59-565. Permitted maximum number. Only one (1) outdoor general advertising device will be permitted in one (1) location; provided, however, that: (4) Two (2) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location if they are placed on only one (1) structure, have their message surfaces facing opposite directions and the message surfaces are not separated by more than four (4) feet. (5) Three (3) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location if one (1) of the message surfaces is at least six hundred (600) square feet in size and neither of the other two (2) message surfaces are more than three hundred (300) square feet in size, if all three (3) such surfaces are placed on only one (1) structure, the two (2) smaller surfaces face in the opposite direction from the larger surface, the two (2) smaller surfaces are not separated from the larger surface by morethan four (4) feet and no part of either of the smaller surfaces extends beyond the outer edge of the larger surface by more than three (3) feet. (6) Four (4) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location in an 1-1 or 1-2 zone district if they are placed on one (1) structure, consist of two (2) three hundred (300) square foot message surfaces placed side-by-side with two (2) other three hundred (300) square foot message surfaces placed immediately to the back of the first surfaces, 4 facing the opposite direction, and none of the message surfaces are separated by more than four (4) feet. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (Code 1950, § 613.6-5) Sec. 59-566. Permitted maximum area. No outdoor general advertising device shall be more than six hundred seventy-two (672) square feet in area plus up to an additional eighty (80) square feet for extensions. (Code 1950, § 613.6-6; Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) Sec. 59-567. Permitted maximum height. (a) Except as permitted in subsection (b), no outdoor general advertising device shall exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet above grade. (b) Outdoor general advertising devices which are located within two hundred (200) feet of an elevated street or viaduct and whose messages are oriented to that elevated street or viaduct may have a maximum height not to exceed twenty-five (25) feet above the roadway of such elevated street or viaduct. This measurement shall be made at the point nearest on the elevated street or viaduct from the outdoor general advertising device. Any outdoor general advertising device having a height in excess of forty-five (45) feet above grade which device is located within two hundred (200) feet of an elevated street or viaduct and whose message is oriented to that elevated street or viaduct shall be lowered or reconstructed to comply with the forty-five (45) feet height limitation as set forth in section 59-567(a) above or shall be lowered or reconstructed to a height not to exceed twenty-five (25) feet above the roadway of the elevated street or viaduct if the street or viaduct is still elevated within one (1) year after such elevated street or viaduct is lowered or removed. (Ord. No. 567-85, eff. 11-7-85; Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (Code 1950, § 613.6-7) Sec. 59-568. Permitted location. (a) No outdoor general advertising device with a message surface in excess of seventy- nine (79) square feet shall be located less than five hundred (500) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of seventy-nine (79) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (b) No outdoor general advertising device with a message surface less than eighty (80) square feet shall be located less than three hundred (300) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface less than eighty (80) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented nor less than two hundred (200) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of seventy-nine (79) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (c) In addition to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), no outdoor general advertising device whose message is oriented to an elevated street or viaduct shall 5 be located less than five hundred (500) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device on the same or opposite side of the elevated street or viaduct to which the message is oriented. (d) No outdoor general advertising device shall be erected within a distance of four hundred (400) feet of any public park measured from the inner curb line of the street which bounds the park or from the property line of the park, whichever is closer to the outdoor general advertising device. (e) Except with the written approval of the preservation commission, no outdoor general advertising device shall be erected within four hundred (400) feet of any structure or district designated pursuant to the landmark preservation ordinance in chapter 30. (f) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located less than one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet from a residential district or a single or multiple unit dwelling. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (g) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard from Grove Street to 1-25. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (h) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from I- 25 to Wazee Street. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (i) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from Wazee Street to Colorado Boulevard. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) Q) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Park Avenue/23rd Street from Colfax Avenue to Welton Street. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (k) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Park Avenue/23rd Street from Welton Street to Blake Street. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (1) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 23rd Street/Fox Street from Blake Street to I- 25. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (1.1) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 22nd Street from its intersection with Delgany Street to Blake Street. (Ord. No. 156-95, eff. 3-17-95) (1.2) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 22nd Street from Blake Street to Glenarm Place. (Ord. No. 156-95, eff. 3-17-95) (1.3) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 20th Street from Broadway Street to the center line of vacated Wewatta Street. (Ord. No. 156-95, eff. 3-17-95) (I.4) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 21 st Street from Broadway Street to Blake Street. (Ord. No. 318-95, eff. 5-5-95) (m) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of West Colfax Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Osage Street. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (n) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of West and East Colfax Avenue from Osage Street to Park Avenue. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (o) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Walnut Street viaduct and Auraria Parkway from Colfax Avenue to Speer Boulevard. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (p) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Lincoln Street from Speer Boulevard to Colfax Avenue. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (p.5) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Alameda Parkway from Knox Court to Sheridan Boulevard. (Ord. No. 427-88, eff. 7-19-88) (q) Outdoor general advertising devices shall be oriented to only one (1) specific street or highway through the construction of one (1) or more message surfaces which shall be aligned at a perpendicular angle to the specific street or highway. Outdoor general advertising devices shall not be oriented to local streets with an average daily traffic volume of less than three thousand (3,000) vehicles, parking lots, frontage roadways or access ramps to limited access highways. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (Code 1950, § 613.6-8) 7 Sec. 59-569. Permitted structures. The structural members, bracing and frame shall be constructed of noncombustible materials, and no ground outdoor general advertising device shall have more than two (2) vertical structural members or poles. (Code 1950, § 613.6-9) Sec. 59-570. Permitted illumination. No outdoor general advertising device shall flash, blink or fluctuate; outdoor general advertising devices may be illuminated, but only from a concealed light source and shall not be illuminated between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Code 1950, § 613.6-10) Sec. 59-571. Animation. No outdoor general advertising device shall be animated. (Code 1950, § 613.6-11) Sec. 59-572. Nonconforming devices. (a) Definition. A nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall be any such device which: (1) On the effective date of this chapter was lawfully maintained and had been lawfully erected in accordance with the provisions of any prior zoning ordinance, but which sign does not conform to the limitations established by this chapter; or (2) On or after the effective date of this chapter was lawfully maintained and erected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, but which device by reason of amendment to this chapter after the effective date thereof, does not conform to the limitations resulting from such amendment. (b) Continuance. Subject to the termination hereinafter provided, any nonconforming outdoor general advertising device may be continued in operation and maintained after the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that no such device shall be changed in any manner that increases the noncompliance of such device with the provisions of this chapter; and, provided further, that the burden of establishing such a device to be nonconforming under this section rests entirely upon the person claiming a nonconforming status for an outdoor general advertising device. (c) Termination: (1) By abandonment. Abandonment of a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall terminate immediately the right to maintain such device. (2) By violation of chapter. Any violation of this chapter shall terminate immediately the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device. (3) By destruction, damage or obsolescence. The right to maintain any nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall terminate and shall cease to exist whenever the device is damaged or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever and the cost of repairing such damage or destruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost of such device on the date of such damage or destruction; or 8 whenever the device becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the city to the extent that the device becomes a hazard or a danger. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) (4) By amortization: a. The right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of eight hundred (800) square feet or which is located in any zone district other than B-4, B-5, B-8, 1-1 and 1-2 shall terminate five (5) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this division was derived. b. In addition to the provisions of subsection (c)(4)a., the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device which exceeds the maximum height limitations contained in section 59-567 shall terminate ten (10) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this division was derived; provided, however, that any such device may be lowered or reconstructed to conform to the height limitations contained in section 59-567 even though the device might still be nonconforming for otherreasons under this division so long as the lowering or reconstruction does not increase in any manner any such other noncompliance. c. The right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device which violates any of the limitations contained in section 59-568(g), section 59-568(h), section 59-568(i) and/or section 59-5686) shall terminate five (5) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this provision was derived. (Ord. No. 332-88, eff. 6-14-88) d. Except for outdoor general advertising devices located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from Wazee Street to Broadway, which shall remain subject to the provisions of section 59-572(c)(4)c., the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device erected prior to January 1, 1988, shall not be affected by the provisions of sections 59-572(c)(4)a. and 59-572(c)(4)c. of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, and the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device erected prior to January 1, 1988, shall not be required to be terminated as provided in said sections 59-572(c)(4)a. and 59-572(c)(4)c. (Ord. No. 107-96, eff. 2-9-96) (Code 1950, § 613.6-12) Secs. 59-573--59-580. Reserved. 2) Article II of Chapter 3, entitled Restrictions on Outdoor General Advertising Devices, etc. ARTICLE II. RESTRICTIONS ON OUTDOOR GENERAL ADVERTISING DEVICES WITHIN AREAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE GREENWAY AREAS ALONG THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AND A PORTION OF CHERRY CREEK Sec. 3-21. Enforcement and administration. (a) This article shall be enforced by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator is hereby empowered to cause any outdoor general advertising device to be inspected and examined and to order in writing the remedy of any condition found to exist thereat in violation of any provision of this article. Service of such order shall be by personal service upon the owner, authorized property management agent, agent or lessee or, alternatively, service may be made upon such persons by certified mail. If such persons are not found the order may be served by posting in a conspicuous place on the premises, in which event service shall be deemed complete as of the moment of posting. (b) No oversight or dereliction on the part of the zoning administrator or on the part of any official or employee of the city shall legalize, authorize or excuse any violation of any provision of this article. (Code 1950, § 648.1) Sec. 3-22. Prohibitions. No outdoor general advertising device shall be erected except in conformity with all regulations established in this article and upon performance of all conditions herein set forth. (Code 1950, § 648.2) Sec. 3-23. Designation of area and limitations on construction. (a) The map of the South Platte River and a portion of Cherry Creek filed in the office of the city clerk, of the city on the 17th day of March, 1977, Filing No. 94596 shall be and hereby is approved and adopted, and the portions thereon indicated by crosshatching shall be and hereby are determined to be and are designated as areas necessary to preserve greenway areas along the South Platte River and a portion of Cherry Creek. The restrictive provisions of this article shall be in fall force and effect as to the portions of such map indicated by crosshatching. (b) No outdoor general advertising device shall be erected within the areas indicated by crosshatching on such map filed in the office of the city clerk on March 17, 1977, Filing No. 94596. (Code 1950, § 648.3) Sec. 3-24. Violations. Any person who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with provisions of this article shall be guilty of a violation thereof; and every omission, neglect or continuance of the thing commanded or prohibited for twenty-four (24) hours shall constitute a separate and distinct offense; provided, however, without affecting any penalty for a violation, no proceedings shall be instituted hereunder against an agent, employee or lessee for any violation hereof until after the expiration of ten (10)days from the date of the service of a notice by the zoning administrator to cease and desist such violation or violations, such notice to be served as provided in section 3-21. (Code 1950, § 648.2) Sec. 3-25. Remedies. (a) Any person violating any provision of this article shall be subject to the penalties provided by section 1-13. 10 (b) In addition to any penalty the city or any person aggrieved by any violation of this article may maintain any appropriate action to prevent and restrain the violation including an action for injunctive relief and may apply for a temporary restraining order without posting bond. (Code 1950, § 648.2-3) 11 3) Division 1 of Chapter 59, Section 59-539, entitled Nonconforming signs. Sec. 59-539. Nonconforming signs. (a) Declaration of public policy. It is reasonable that a time limit be placed upon the continuance of existing nonconforming signs. An amortization program permits the owner to plan during a period when the owner is allowed to continue the nonconforming signs while at the same time assuring that the district in which the nonconforming signs exist will eventually benefit from a substantial uniformity of permanent signs. (b) Definition of nonconforming signs. A nonconforming sign shall be any sign which: (1) On March 19, 1971, was lawfully maintained and had been lawfully erected in accordance with the provisions of any prior zoning ordinance but which sign does not conform to the limitations established by this chapter on March 19, 1971, in the district in which the sign is located; or (2) On or after March 19, 1971, was lawfully maintained and erected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter effective March 19, 1971, but which sign, by reason of amendment to this chapter effective March 19, 1971, after the effective date, does not conform to the limitations established by the amendment to this chapter effective March 19, 1971, in the district in which the sign is located. (c) Continuance of nonconforming signs. Subject to the termination hereinafter provided, any nonconforming sign may be continued in operation and maintained after March 19, 1971; provided, however, that no such nonconforming sign shall be changed in any manner that increases the noncompliance of such nonconforming sign with the limitations established by the zoning ordinance effective March 19, 1971, or any amendment to the ordinance in the district in which the sign is located; and provided further, that the right to continue in operation and maintain any nonconforming sign shall be conditioned on the use by right not having more signs than allowed for the particular district in which the use by right is located and that no such nonconforming sign shall flash, blink, fluctuate, be animated or portable. (d) Termination of nonconforming signs: (1) By abandonment. Abandonment of a nonconforming sign shall terminate immediately the right to maintain such sign. (2) By violation of chapter. Any violation of this chapter shall terminate immediately the right to maintain a nonconforming sign. (3) By destruction, damage or obsolescence. The right to maintain any nonconforming sign shall terminate and shall cease to exist whenever the sign is damaged or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever, or becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the municipality to the extent that the sign becomes a hazard or a danger. (Code 1950, § 613.5) 12 4) Article I of Chapter 59, Subsection 59-2(182), entitled Definitions Sec. 59-2. Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them: (182) Owner: Any owner of record and includes but is not limited to any person in whose name a property is recorded in the assessor's office. 13 Golden (c) The following types of signs shall be allowed subject to the procedure for Special Use Permits as specified in Chapter 18.30, except that signs approved as a Special Use shall not be subject to the two year limitation and may continue indefinitely, except as provided elsewhere in this Chapter. (1) Revolving, rotating or wind driven signs, (2) Signs with flashing, moving, blinking chasing or other animated effects. (3) Sign types or designs not covered elsewhere in these regulations. Max 32 sq feet per side Arvada llboara. A sign that identifies or communicates a commercial or noncommercial message related to an activity conducted, a service rendered, or a commodity sold at a location other than where the sign is located. 8. BdlboareC signs are allowed only in B-4 Districts. Each billboard shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet and may not display more than two (2) three hundred (300) square foot advertisements per side of the billboard. No billboard shall be erected: a. So that its advertising faces the front or side lot lines of any residential zoning district; or b. Within one hundred (100) feet of any front or side lot line of any residential zoning district; or c. Within three hundred (300) feet of any other billboard; or d. Within any front, side, or rear setback area. Billboards shall be treated as the principal permitted use on the lot where it is located Denver (b) Outdoor general advertising device. A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, entertainment or attractions sold, offered, or existing elsewhere than upon the same property or public property where the sign is displayed. For the purposes of this division, outdoor general advertising device shall include but is not limited to FzT'ard, bus benches and such other signs which are visible to the public but are not on the property where the tobacco product is available Purpose and scope. (b) This division shall govern and control the erection, remodeling, enlargement, moving, operation and maintenance of all outdoor general advertising devices, except those permitted in the B-5-T zone district (DPAC district) pursuant to a district sign plan as authorized under section 59-556. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed a waiver of the provisions of any other ordinance or regulation applicable to such devices, except that the provisions of divisions 1 and 2 of this article shall not apply to such devices. Permits. (a) Devices subject to a permit. Except as provided in subsection (b), no outdoor general advertising device shall be erected, altered or maintained until a zoning permit shall have been issued by the department of zoning administration. (1) Annual inspection permit required. Any outdoor general advertising device existing as of December 31, 1987, shall require an inspection permit prior to March 31, 1988. Such permit shall be renewed annually. All permits for outdoor general advertising devices erected after December 31, 1987, shall be renewed annually prior to March 31 of each successive year. Permits shall be issued without proration for periods of less than one (1) year. (2) Fees. Outdoor general advertising devices existing on December 31, 1987, and any device built thereafter shall be charged the fee listed below at the time of application if no permit has previously been issued for the device or at the time of first renewal if a permit has been previously issued; provided, however, that outdoor general advertising devices located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of a street which is classified as part of a state or interstate highway system shall be exempt from the annual feeafter the initial application or first renewal. TABLEINSET: Area of Individual Message Face Fee 0 to 250 square feet $20.00 251 to 600 square feet 40.00 601 square feet or more 75.00 (3) Additional requirements. No permit for a new outdoor general advertising device shall be issued until an existing device or a combination of devices with at least equal square footage are removed by the applicant from the following areas in the following order: a. Those areas described in sections 59-568(k), 59-568(1), 59-568(m), 59-568(n), 59-568(0), 59-568(p) and 59-568(p.5) and any area restricted by the provisions of section 3-23 of the Revised Municipal Code; b. After all of the nonconforming outdoor general advertising devices are removed from the areas listed in section 59-562 (a)(3)a, above, then the exchange area shall be any area within four hundred (400) feet of a park or a structure or district designated for preservation pursuant to the provisions of article I of chapter 30 of the Revised Municipal Code; and c. After all of the nonconforming outdoor general advertising devices are removed from the areas listed in sections 59-562 (a)(3)a and 59- 562(a)(3)b, above, then the exchange area shall be any area subject to the compensatory provisions of the Federal Highway Beautification Act. (b) Devices not subject to a permit. The following outdoor general advertising devices may be erected in all districts without a permit: (1) Outdoor general advertising devices required or specifically authorized for a public purpose by any law, statute or ordinance; may be of any type, number, area, height above grade, location, illumination or animation, authorized by the law, statute or ordinance under which the devices are required or authorized. (2) Outdoor general advertising devices in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental and customary and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday or public health, safety or welfare campaign; provided that such devices shall be displayed for a period of not more than sixty (60) consecutive days nor more than sixty (60) days in any one (1) year; and may be of any type, number, area, height, location or illumination. Permitted zones. Outdoor general advertising devices may be erected or maintained only in zoning districts B-4, B-8, 1-1 and 1-2, and, notwithstanding section 50-186(a), may be erected or maintained on a zone lot occupied by a structure containing a use by right; provided, however, it shall be unlawful to erect or remodel within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of a freeway any outdoor general advertising device the face of which is visible from the main-traveled way of the freeway. Outdoor advertising devices may be erected and maintained in the B-5-T zone district but only as permitted by a district sign plan authorized pursuant to section 59-556. For such outdoor advertising devices in the B-5-T zone district the provisions of this division shall not apply. Permitted types. Ground signs or wall signs are permitted types. Permitted maximum number. Only one (1) outdoor general advertising device will be permitted in one (1) location; provided, however, that: (1) Two (2) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location if they are placed on only one (1) structure, have their message surfaces facing opposite directions and the message surfaces are not separated by more than four (4) feet. (2) Three (3) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location if one (1) of the message surfaces is at least six hundred (600) square feet in size and neither of the other two (2) message surfaces are more than three hundred (300) square feet in size, if all three (3) such surfaces are placed on only one (1) structure, the two (2) smaller surfaces face in the opposite direction from the larger surface, the two (2) smaller surfaces are not separated from the larger surface by morethan four (4) feet and no part of either of the smaller surfaces extends beyond the outer edge of the larger surface by more than three (3) feet. (3) Four (4) outdoor general advertising message surfaces may be placed in one (1) location in an 1-1 or 1-2 zone district if they are placed on one (1) structure, consist of two (2) three hundred (300) square foot message surfaces placed side-by-side with two (2) other three hundred (300) square foot message surfaces placed immediately to the back of the first surfaces, facing the opposite direction, and none of the message surfaces are separated by more than four (4) feet. Permitted maximum area. No outdoor general advertising device shall be more than six hundred seventy- two (672) square feet in area plus up to an additional eighty (80) square feet for extensions. Permitted maximum height. (a) Except as permitted in subsection (b), no outdoor general advertising device shall exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet above grade. (b) Outdoor general advertising devices which are located within two hundred (200) feet of an elevated street or viaduct and whose messages are oriented to that elevated street or viaduct may have a maximum height not to exceed twenty- five (25) feet above the roadway of such elevated street or viaduct. This measurement shall be made at the point nearest on the elevated street or viaduct from the outdoor general advertising device. Any outdoor general advertising device having a height in excess of forty-five (45) feet above grade which device is located within two hundred (200) feet of an elevated street or viaduct and whose message is oriented to that elevated street or viaduct shall be lowered or reconstructed to comply with the forty-five (45) feet height limitation as set forth in section 59-567(a) above or shall be lowered or reconstructed to a height not to exceed twenty-five (25) feet above the roadway of the elevated street or viaduct if the street or viaduct is still elevated within one (1) year after such elevated street or viaduct is lowered or removed. Permitted location. (a) No outdoor general advertising device with a message surface in excess of seventy-nine (79) square feet shall be located less than five hundred (500) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of seventy-nine (79) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented. (b) No outdoor general advertising device with a message surface less than eighty (80) square feet shall be located less than three hundred (300) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface less than eighty (80) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented nor less than two hundred (200) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of seventy-nine (79) square feet on the same or opposite side of the street to which the message is oriented. (c) In addition to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), no outdoor general advertising device whose message is oriented to an elevated street or viaduct shall be located less than five hundred (500) feet from any other outdoor general advertising device on the same or opposite side of the elevated street or viaduct to which the message is oriented. (d) No outdoor general advertising device shall be erected within a distance of four hundred (400) feet of any public park measured from the inner curb line of the street which bounds the park or from the property line of the park, whichever is closer to the outdoor general advertising device. (e) Except with the written approval of the preservation commission, no outdoor general advertising device shall be erected within four hundred (400) feet of any structure or district designated pursuant to the landmark preservation ordinance in chapter 30. (f) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located less than one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet from a residential district or a single or multiple unit dwelling. (g) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard from Grove Street to 1-25. (h) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from 1-25 to Wazee Street. (i) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from Wazee Street to Colorado Boulevard. (j) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Park Avenue/23rd Street from Colfax Avenue to Welton Street. (k) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Park Avenue/23rd Street from Welton Street to Blake Street. (1) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 23rd Street/Fox Street from Blake Street to 1-25. (1.1) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 22nd Street from its intersection with Delgany Street to Blake Street. (1.2) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 22nd Street from Blake Street to Glenarm Place. (1.3) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 20th Street from Broadway Street to the center line of vacated Wewatta Street. (1.4) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of 21st Street from Broadway Street to Blake Street. (m) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of West Colfax Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Osage Street. (n) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of West and East Colfax Avenue from Osage Street to Park Avenue. (o) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Walnut Street viaduct and Auraria Parkway from Colfax Avenue to Speer Boulevard. (p) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Lincoln Street from Speer Boulevard to Colfax Avenue. (p.5) No outdoor general advertising device shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of Alameda Parkway from Knox Court to Sheridan Boulevard. (q) Outdoor general advertising devices shall be oriented to only one (1) specific street or highway through the construction of one (1) or more message surfaces which shall be aligned at a perpendicular angle to the specific street or highway. Outdoor general advertising devices shall not be oriented to local streets with an average daily traffic volume of less than three thousand (3,000) vehicles, parking lots, frontage roadways or access ramps to limited access highways. Permitted structures. The structural members, bracing and frame shall be constructed of noncombustible materials, and no ground outdoor general advertising device shall have more than two (2) vertical structural members or poles. Permitted illumination. No outdoor general advertising device shall flash, blink or fluctuate; outdoor general advertising devices may be illuminated, but only from a concealed light source and shall not be illuminated between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Animation. No outdoor general advertising device shall be animated. Nonconforming devices. (a) Definition. A nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall be any such device which: (1) On the effective date of this chapter was lawfully maintained and had been lawfully erected in accordance with the provisions of any prior zoning ordinance, but which sign does not conform to the limitations established by this chapter; or (2) On or after the effective date of this chapter was lawfully maintained and erected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, but which device by reason of amendment to this chapter after the effective date thereof, does not conform to the limitations resulting from such amendment. (b) Continuance. Subject to the termination hereinafter provided, any nonconforming outdoor general advertising device may be continued in operation and maintained after the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that no such device shall be changed in any manner that increases the noncompliance of such device with the provisions of this chapter; and, provided further, that the burden of establishing such a device to be nonconforming under this section rests entirely upon the person claiming a nonconforming status for an outdoor general advertising device. (c) Termination: (1) By abandonment. Abandonment of a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall terminate immediately the right to maintain such device. (2) By violation of chapter. Any violation of this chapter shall terminate immediately the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device. (3) By destruction, damage or obsolescence. The right to maintain any nonconforming outdoor general advertising device shall terminate and shall cease to exist whenever the device is damaged or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever and the cost of repairing such damage or destruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost of such device on the date of such damage or destruction; or whenever the device becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the city to the extent that the device becomes a hazard or a danger. (4) By amortization: a. The right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device which has a message surface in excess of eight hundred (800) square feet or which is located in any zone district other than B-4, B-5, B-8, 1-1 and 1-2 shall terminate five (5) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this division was derived. b. In addition to the provisions of subsection (c)(4)a., the device which exceeds the maximum height limitations contained in section 59-567 shall terminate ten (10) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this division was derived; provided, however, that any such device may be lowered or reconstructed to conform to the height limitations contained in section 59-567 even though the device might still be nonconforming for otherreasons under this division so long as the lowering or reconstruction does not increase in any manner any such other noncompliance. c. The right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device which violates any of the limitations contained in section 59-568(g), section 59-568(h), section 59-568(i) and/or section 59-5680) shall terminate five (5) years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this provision was derived. d. Except for outdoor general advertising devices located within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of- way of Speer Boulevard/Cherry Creek Channel from Wazee Street to Broadway, which shall remain subject to the provisions of section 59-572(c)(4)c., the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device erected prior to January 1, 1988, shall not be affected by the provisions of sections 59-572(c)(4)a. and 59-572(c)(4)c. of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, and the right to maintain a nonconforming outdoor general advertising device erected prior to January 1, 1988, shall not be required to be terminated as provided in said sections 59-572(c)(4)a. and 59-572(c)(4)c. M URRAY (]AHL KUECH ENME{STER REEVAUO LLP AWOANEYSATL W 0 2401 15$_ Street Svite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone 303.493.6670 F. 303.477.0965 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald Dahl, City Attorney DATE: December 3, 2007 RE: Litigation Update - Viacom v. City of Wheat Ridge and Copper Fields ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION This memo is an update on the case of Viacom Outdoor Inc. ("Viacom") verses City of Wheat Ridge ("City") and Copper Fields Land Holdings ("Copper Fields"). History of the Case This case was brought by Viacom (now CBS Outdoor) after it was not selected in a City- conducted lottery for an available billboard permit. Copper Fields was drawn in the lottery and United Advertising has since then signed a lease with Copper Fields and erected a billboard. The trial court previously dismissed this case in favor of the City and Copper Fields. Viacom appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. On November 2&, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from both CBS Outdoor and Copper Fields (on behalf of the City). On November 29 , the Court of Appeals announced its decision (copy attached). The Court of Appeals Decision The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the case in part, reversed it in part and remanded the case back to the trial court to order a new lottery drawing. The Court of Appeals decided on two issues: (1) whether CBS Outdoor had standing to bring a claim for relief in this matter and (2) whether Wheat Ridge acted in an arbitrary fashion in processing applications. Rationale On the issue of standing, the Court of Appeals held that CBS Outdoor did not have standing to demand that Wheat Ridge issue it a billboard permit because CBS Outdoor had no legally protected interest in the billboard permit merely by applying for one. However, the Court also held that CBS Outdoor did have standing to challenge the fairness of the process Wheat Ridge used to actually process the applications submitted. The Court further held that CBS Outdoor had appropriately requested declaratory judgment on the City's decision due to the fact that the processing of the application was an administrative process, rather than a quasi-judicial decision which would have necessitated review under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4). On the issue of whether Wheat Ridge acted in an arbitrary fashion when it decided not to accept CBS Outdoor's application for the billboard space until December 2nd at 8:00 a.m., the Court of Appeals held that it was not unreasonable for Wheat Ridge to have developed and followed a policy for the time for acceptance of applications. The Court upheld the Community Development Director's determination of when the prior billboard lease expired. However, the Court also held that it was unreasonable that CBS Outdoor had not been informed that both the property owner and the billboard company would be eligible to submit applications to the City. Conclusion This case was remanded to the trial court so that the trial court could then order a second lottery drawing. The second drawing could involve either four submittals: both property owners and both billboard companies; or two submittals: both billboard companies. If CBS Outdoor is dissatisfied with this solution, it has two (2) options. First, a petition for rehearing could be filed with the Court of Appeals within fourteen (14) days of entry of the judgment (by 12/13/07). The Court of Appeals could then make a final decision with or without additional argument or submissions by the parties. A second option is that a petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed with the Colorado Supreme Court. No such petition may be filed until the time to file a petition for rehearing has expired. Either party has thirty (30) days after the expiration of the time to file a petition for rehearing (or from the date of denial of the petition for rehearing) to file a petition for writ of certiorari. There is no for reason the City to appeal, as the majority of its procedures and actions were upheld. 2 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA1776 Jefferson County District Court No. OSCV4096 Honorable Lily W. Oeffler, Judge Viacom Outdoor Inc., n/k/a CBS Outdoor Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado and Copper Fields Land Holdings, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE VOGT Webb and Bernard, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(fl Announced: November 29, 2007 Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Richard P. Holme, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff- Appellant Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister Renaud, L.L.P., Gerald E. Dahl, B. Brittany Scantland, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Grimshaw & Harring, P.C., Todd R. Seelman, Ronald L. Fano, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee Copper Fields Land Holdings, L.L.C. In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiff, Viacom Outdoor Inc., n/k/a CBS Outdoor Inc., appeals the trial court judgment in favor of defendants, the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and Copper Fields Land Holdings, L.L.C. (CFLH). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions. This action was filed after Viacom applied for a permit to erect a billboard in Wheat Ridge, but the city determined that it would first consider the application of another party, CFLH. The Wheat Ridge Sign Code, section 26-711, prohibits billboards in one part of the city and permits a maximum of sixteen billboards in the other part. No billboard may be erected until the city issues a permit. Id. at § 26-705(A). A party seeking a permit must submit an application, containing certain specified information, to the department of community development. Id. at § 26-705(B). The director of community development is charged with enforcing the city's Sign Code. Wheat Ridge City Code § 2-32(18). Under the procedures developed by the director in consultation with the city attorney, billboard permits expire when the underlying lease expires; applications for new billboards will not be accepted 1 until one of the sixteen existing billboard locations becomes vacant; a location becomes vacant at midnight on the last day of the underlying lease; applications will be accepted as of 8 a.m. on the following day; and applications will be considered in the order received, except that, if two applications are received at the same time and both are complete, "a drawing will be held to determine, by random lot, which application is reviewed first." In November 2005, Viacom began demolishing its billboard at one location in Wheat Ridge and submitted an application to put up a new billboard at a different location. The community development director determined that Viacom's lease expired on December 1, 2005, and therefore refused to accept three applications submitted by Viacom before December 2. The November 29, 2005, letter returning the first application to Viacom included a copy of the city attorney's memorandum setting forth the procedures described above. Viacom's permit application filed at 8 a.m. on December 2 was accepted. However, because other applications were received at the same time, a lottery was held to determine which of the three applications one from Viacom, one from CFLH, and one from 2 CFLH's licensee, United Advertising Corporation of Colorado, Inc. would be considered first. CFLH's name was drawn. Viacom then filed this action. It sought (1) a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the issuance of an additional billboard permit to anyone other than Viacom until the conclusion of the litigation; (2) a declaration that Wheat Ridge had to issue a billboard permit to Viacom based on Viacom's initial application; (3) an injunction requiring Wheat Ridge to issue a billboard permit to Viacom; and (4) either an injunction prohibiting Wheat Ridge from holding a drawing for a permit that included United or CFLH, or, in the alternative, a declaration that Wheat Ridge "must hold a new drawing for a billboard permit limited to participants of Viacom and either United or CFLH, but not both." A temporary restraining order was entered, and Wheat Ridge stopped processing CFLH's application. Following a hearing, the trial court denied preliminary injunctive relief, concluding that Viacom had not shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits of its claims. Defendants then sought dismissal of the 3 remaining claims, arguing that Viacom lacked standing to bring them. After hearing additional testimony, the trial court agreed that the case should be dismissed. The court observed that, although the standing issue had been raised in summary judgment motions, the court had heard testimony bearing both on standing and on the "intertwined" issue of the merits of Viacom's complaint. The court concluded that Wheat Ridge had not acted unreasonably in declining to review Viacom's applications before December 2, and that Viacom had failed to show either abuse of discretion or the threshold standing requirement of "injury in fact." Finally, the court refused Viacom's request that it address the additional issue of whether the city abused its discretion by allowing both United and CFLH to participate in the lottery, thereby decreasing Viacom's odds of success. 1. Viacom contends the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked standing to assert its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. We agree in part. 4 Standing is a threshold issue that must be satisfied before a case may be decided on the merits. To establish standing, a plaintiff must satisfy two criteria. "First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact, and second, this harm must have been to a legally protected interest." Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004); see Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 168, 570 P.2d 535, 539 (1977). Because standing is a question of law, we review the trial court's resolution of the issue de novo. Ainscough, 90 P.3d at 856. A. We conclude, albeit for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court, that Viacom did not have standing to seek declaratory or mandatory injunctive relief requiring Wheat Ridge to issue a billboard permit to it. See Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402, 406 (Colo. App. 2004) (appellate court may affirm trial court ruling on any grounds supported by the record). The Wheat Ridge Sign Code, section 26-705(B), states: "The mere application for a sign permit does not assure that a permit will be issued." Similarly, the city attorney's memorandum setting forth 5 procedures for applying for a billboard permit states-that the Sign Code "does not establish any vested right in a property owner or a billboard company to the continuation of a billboard in a given location." The community development director testified that, even when an application was determined by lottery to be the one that would be reviewed first, there was no guarantee that the permit would be granted; rather, the application would have to be reviewed substantively to determine whether it contained the necessary information to ensure that the applicant was entitled to a permit. Thus, even if Wheat Ridge had accepted Viacom's as the first application, Viacom would not automatically have had a right to a permit. Accordingly, Viacom lacked the legally protected interest that was a necessary prerequisite to having standing to seek an order requiring the city to issue a permit to it. See Ainscough, 90 P.3d at 856 (second prong of standing inquiry requires that plaintiff have a claim for relief under the constitution, the common law, a statute, or rule or regulation). 6 B. We conclude, however, that Viacom had standing to challenge the procedure employed by Wheat Ridge in processing its application. In Ainscough, the supreme court held that state employees and their labor organizations had standing to sue the governor and the state personnel director to challenge a personnel policy that eliminated employee payroll deductions for union dues. In so concluding, the court recognized that a "statutory or constitutional right to a non-arbitrary exercise of discretion in considering [plaintiffs'] applications is all that is needed for a legally protected interest." 90 P.3d at 857. As to the injury-in-fact requirement for standing, the court stated: "In order to show an injury-in-fact, it is unnecessary for the plaintiffs to credibly allege that they have an automatic right to receive a payroll deduction or even that they would likely be successful in receiving one. It is enough if they claim they were deprived of a right to apply for a deduction and receive a non-arbitrary ruling on their application." Id. at 857-58. Similarly here, although Viacom did not have an automatic right to receive a billboard permit, it had a right to a non-arbitrary 7 treatment of its billboard application, and it had standing to sue to enforce that right. Thus, to the extent Viacom's complaint challenged Wheat Ridge's processing of its application both in refusing to recognize Viacom as the first applicant and in allowing two other applicants to .participate in the lottery it alleged an injury-in-fact to a legally protected interest. The trial court accordingly erred in dismissing that portion of Viacom's complaint for lack of standing. C. In so concluding, we reject defendants' contention that Viacom lacked standing to seek any injunctive or declaratory relief because it failed to file this action under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) provides for judicial review where "any governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law." Under C. R. C. P. 106(a)(4)(I), such judicial review is limited and is to be "based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer." See Widder v. Durango School Dist. No. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518, 526 (Colo. 2004) ("This 8 Rule does not contemplate a new evidentiary hearing at the district court level, but rather contemplates that the district court will review the record of the proceedings conducted elsewhere and determine whether the acting entity abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction."). While a statute or ordinance mandating notice and a hearing clearly signals that the governmental decision is to be regarded as quasi judicial, the existence of such statute or ordinance is not mandatory; rather, the central focus in determining whether an action is quasi-judicial is on the nature of the decision and the process by which that decision is reached. Id. at 527; see Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 757 P.2d 622, 628 (Colo. 1988) (city acted in quasi-judicial capacity when, on basis of facts developed at public hearings, it applied criteria in code to proposed development plan under consideration). If the action complained of lacks any of the three elements associated with quasi-judicial action namely, the exercise of discretion, notice, and a hearing the action is usually deemed administrative rather than quasi-judicial. Van Pelt v. State Board for Community Colleges & Occupational Education, 195 Colo. 316, 9 320, 577 P.2d 765, 768 (1978). Administrative actions are not reviewable under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See Bonacci v. City of Aurora, 642 P.2d 4, 7 (Colo. 1982) (where board's denial of petition for pension was merely an executive or administrative decision, C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) was "neither the appropriate nor the exclusive remedy" for employee challenging denial of his request for retirement pension); Walsenburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. City Council of Walsenburg, 160 P.3d 297, 300 (Colo. App. 2007) (procedure employed by mayor and city council in determining successful bidder on city land was not a quasi-judicial action; therefore, trial court properly dismissed C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claim); Bourgeron v. City & County of Denver, 159 P.3d 701, 704-05 (Colo. App. 2006) (career service board's decision to revoke plaintiffs promotion based on plain language of its personnel policies was not quasi-judicial action subject to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review); Chellsen v. Pena, 857 P.2d 472, 475 (Colo. App. 1992) (commission's denial of firefighters' petition for reinstatement was not quasi-judicial decision for purposes of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)). An action for a declaratory judgment is an appropriate method for challenging governmental action that is not quasi-judicial and 10 therefore not subject to review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Russell v. City of Central, 892 P.2d 432, 437 (Colo. App. 1995); see also 13- 51-105, 13-51-109, C.R.S. 2007; Denver Center for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 696 P.2d 299, 305 (Colo. 1985). Here, the community development director applied the procedure spelled out in the city attorney's memorandum to decide how to handle Viacom's application. No hearing was held at that time to develop facts that could have served as a basis for judicial review; on the contrary, the facts surrounding the handling of Viacom's application were brought out at an evidentiary hearing held in the trial court. See Widder, 85 P.3d at 526 (C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) does not contemplate new evidentiary hearing at district court level, but rather contemplates that district court will review record of proceedings conducted elsewhere). In these circumstances, Viacom could challenge the city's administrative action by way of a complaint for declaratory or injunctive relief. It was not required to proceed under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). II. Although we conclude that Viacom had standing to seek relief to the limited extent discussed above, we must also decide whether 11 the judgment of dismissal should nevertheless be affirmed on the alternative basis cited by the trial court namely, that Viacom failed to establish that Wheat Ridge's handling of its application was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. In addressing this issue, we note that the trial court relied on testimony and documentary evidence from two hearings, and no party has alleged that there is additional testimony or evidence bearing on the issue that is not in the record before us. As set forth below, we agree with the trial court that Wheat Ridge did not act in an arbitrary fashion or abuse its discretion when it declined to accept an application from Viacom before December 2. However, as to the issue that the trial court did not reach, we agree with Viacom that Wheat Ridge acted arbitrarily when it allowed both United and CFLH to participate in the lottery. A. Home rule cities such as Wheat Ridge have the authority to regulate issues of local concern. Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 37 (Colo. 2000). The construction of city regulations and ordinances by administrative officials charged with their enforcement is to be given deference by the courts. See Abbott 12 v. Board of County Commissioners, 895 P.2d 1165, 1167 (Colo. App. 1995); Platte River Environmental Conservation Organization, Inc. v. National Hog Farms, Inc., 804 P.2d 290, 293 (Colo. App. 1990). As discussed above, the procedures developed by Wheat Ridge officials to implement the billboard provisions of the Sign Code provide that applications for new billboards will not be accepted until 8 a.m. on the day after the existing location becomes vacant, and that a location becomes vacant at midnight on the last day of the underlying lease. It was not unreasonable for Wheat Ridge officials to tie the date for new billboard applications to a neutral and readily ascertainable event such as the expiration of the underlying lease, and to refuse to consider applications before the opening of business on the day after expiration of the underlying lease. We further conclude that Wheat Ridge did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily when it determined the expiration date of Viacom's lease by looking at the face of the lease itself. Nor was it unreasonable for the director of community development to conclude, based on his initial review of Viacom's lease, that the lease expired on December 1, 2005. The lease states, on its face, 13 that it ends "on the 1st day of December, 2005." We do not agree with Viacom that, because the lease also refers to a term of ten years beginning on December 1, 1995, the "only rational way" to read its language is to determine that the lease expired "at the midnight immediately preceding December 1, rather than the midnight following December 1." We note that the director's contrary interpretation is consistent with the rule of statutory construction providing that, in computing a period of days, the first day is excluded and the last day is included. § 2-4-108(1), C.R.S. 2007. We also note that, even if the operative document were deemed to be the "Relinquishment and Termination of Lease" purporting to terminate the lease at 11:15 a.m. on December 1, the city's procedures would still have precluded acceptance of another application before 8 a.m. on the following day. Finally, the record includes nothing to suggest that Wheat Ridge applied its application timing rules differently to Viacom than to other applicants. On the contrary, the record includes a letter from Wheat Ridge to United, dated November 2, 2005, advising United that the city would not accept its billboard application until 14 after midnight on December 1, 2005, the date the underlying lease expired. We thus agree with the trial court that Wheat Ridge did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily in refusing to accept Viacom's application before 8 a.m. on December 2, 2005. B. However, we conclude that Viacom was deprived of its right to a non-arbitrary processing of its application when Wheat Ridge included in the lottery applications from both CFLH, a landowner, and United, CFLH's licensee. "[M]unicipal licensing authorities cannot grant licenses and privileges to certain individuals and arbitrarily deny them to others, under like conditions." 9 Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 26.95 (3d rev. ed. 2005); see Ainscough, 90 P.3d at 858 (state employees were entitled to a non-arbitrary ruling on their application for payroll deduction); People ex rel. Grommon v. Hedgcock, 106 Colo. 300, 307, 104 P.2d 607, 610 (1940) (building inspector's denial of permit was arbitrary and unreasonable); City Council v. United Negroes Protective Ass'n, 76 Colo. 86, 89, 230 P. 598, 600 (1924) (although issuance of building permits was within 15 city's discretion, court would grant relief where city abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in denying association's application for permit to operate a home for the aged and an orphanage). As noted, the lottery that was held to determine which application would be reviewed first included applications from three parties: Viacom, CFLH, and United. The applications of CFLH and United both sought a permit to erect a billboard on property owned by CFLH at 4901 Marshall Street in Wheat Ridge. However, it is undisputed that nothing in the Wheat Ridge Sign Code or in the written procedures for enforcement of the Sign Code indicates that a landowner and a lessee or licensee can submit separate applications for a billboard permit at one location. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Viacom's general manager testified that he had had fifteen years' experience in the billboard industry but had never encountered a situation in which it was "acceptable for both a property owner and a billboard owner to apply for the same billboard on the same piece of property." There was also testimony at the hearing that, while United had been told by the city that both the property owner and the billboard company could submit applications, Viacom had not been so informed 16 In these circumstances, we conclude that Wheat Ridge's procedure for conducting the lottery was arbitrary and that it unfairly diluted Viacom's chance of success. The trial court should have addressed the issue and granted Viacom's request for a new drawing. In so concluding, we reject defendants' argument that Viacom's application should not have been included in the lottery at all because it included a facially invalid lease. Wheat Ridge accepted the applications of Viacom, United, and CFLH notwithstanding defects in the documentation provided by the parties, and it may not take a contrary position on appeal. Further, although the lease was not signed by both lessors, as required by section 38-10-108, C.R.S. 2007, the lack of a signature does not render the lease void if, as here, the lessor is willing to treat it as valid. See Iindecker v. Feigel, 133 Colo. 122, 127, 292 P.2d 187, 189 (1956); see also Boyer v. Karakehian, 915 P.2d 1295, 1298-99 (Colo. 1996); Houtchens v. United Bank, 797 P.2d 814, 815 (Colo. App. 1990). Whether defects in the documentation preclude the successful applicant from receiving a permit is a matter to be 17 determined by Wheat Ridge upon its substantive review of the application chosen by lottery to be considered first. The summary judgment on Viacom's claim for a declaration that Wheat Ridge hold a new drawing is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court order such new drawing in accordance with the views set forth here. In all other respects, the trial court's summary judgment is affirmed. JUDGE WEBB and JUDGE BERNARD concur. 18 S;~Cd'f %0 7 Item 3. Billboard Ordinance Travis Crane provided Council a PowerPoint outlining a history of Billboard code in the City of Wheat Ridge and a review of the current challenges and proposed code changes to the Billboard code (attached to this packet). Jerry Dahl spoke to Council regarding the legal ramifications and limitations to be considered in the proposing Billboard Sign Code changes. Mrs. Berry asked Council for consensus to ask Staff to include the following changes in the proposed Billboard Sign Code ordinance: • The outlined in option B in regards to the total number of billboards (16) permitted; and creating a lottery process for issuance of any new billboard permits. • Applications for new permits shall be signed by both the billboard owner, and if different, the property owner. Staff should designate the length and terms of permits as well as when an application is complete. • Applications will only be taken for properties that meet all criteria for construction of a billboard. For example, properties that are within the B-2 overlay district but cannot meet setback and spacing requirements should not be able to submit an application. Only one application per eligible parcel or tract shall be allowed. • All billboards must be maintained in accordance with all applicable building and electrical code standards. A professional engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, should certify that foundations and underlying soil are adequate to support the proposed billboard structure. • Create definitions for when a billboard becomes abandoned. • Create fees for submittal of a billboard application, initial inspection of a new billboard, and yearly renewal/inspection fees. Billboard permits should expire if key aspects of the ordinance are not met or fees are not paid. For example, an initial fee might be $250, an initial inspection fee of $500, and yearly renewal fees of $1500. A billboard permit would expire if a renewal fee of $1500 were not received within a specified timeframe. • Other possible criterion: prohibit animated, moving, flashing, or glaring billboards as these can create safety hazard and be a nuisance to neighboring homes and businesses. Consensus was 6-0 in favor. Mayor DiTullio called for a break at 7:45pm; to resume at 7:55pm. Billboard Ordinance Direction Staff shall prepare the following changes to the billboard ordinance: • The recommendations outlined in option B in regards to the total number of billboards (16) permitted and creating a lottery process for issuance of any new billboard permits. • Applications for new permits shall be signed by both the billboard owner, and if different, the property owner. Staff should designate the length and terms of permits as well as when an application is complete. • Applications will only be taken for properties that meet all criteria for construction of a billboard. For example, properties that are within the B-2 overlay district but cannot meet setback and spacing requirements should not be able to submit an application. Only one application per eligible parcel or tract shall be allowed. • All building billboards must be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with all applicable building and electrical code standards. A professional engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, should certify that foundations and underlying soil are adequate to support the proposed billboard structure. • Create definitions for when a billboard becomes abandoned. • Create fees for submittal of a billboard application, initial inspection of a new billboard, and yearly renewal/inspection fees. Billboard permits should expire if key aspects of the ordinance are not met or fees are not paid. For example, an initial fee might be $250, an initial inspection fee of $500 and yearly renewal fees of $1500. A billboard permit would expire if a renewal fee of $1500 were not received within a specified timeframe. Another possible criterion: prohibit animated, moving, flashing, or glaring billboards as these can create safety hazard and be a nuisance to neighboring homes and businesses. C DV_ S 0'e ~(~bJ~ f Zed . p City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Travis Crane, Planner II SUBJECT: Billboards DATE: 13 November 2007 v At a City Council public hearing on June 25, 2007, Council directed staff to further analyze the proposed regulations concerning billboards. The following is a brief recount of the process to date and the results of further investigation by staff. Current Conditions Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws specifies the regulations concerning billboards. The City is divided into two districts: the B-1 district and the B-2 district. The B-2 district is roughly anything north of I-70, with a few exceptions. The Code limits the number of billboards to 16 in the B-2 district. Billboards are not allowed in the B-1 district. The Code further describes certain size and spacing limitations on billboards; development standards such as setbacks, maximum height and size are specified. The regulations only give guidance on where and how billboards may be erected. The problem, from staff s point of view is created by the specified maximum number of billboards allowed. The Code does not specify who actually is entitled to a billboard, only that any property in the B-2 district may have one. When one or more billboards are removed, staff is confronted with the question of permit ownership. The property owner who previously had a billboard will argue it belongs to him or her, and the billboard company claims it belongs to them. Staff then must decide who gets the remaining permit to erect a billboard. History The above situation actually occurred in 2005. A lease for an existing billboard was about to expire. The billboard company who erected said billboard solicited the opportunity to another landowner in the B-2 district. The landowner whose billboard lease expired negotiated with another billboard company to erect a new billboard. There were four entities that claimed `ownership' of one building permit - a permit which would allow for the installation of the 16ei billboard. Staff realized that each property owner and respective billboard company could not erect a billboard - this would result in more billboards in the B-2 district than the maximum number of 16 allowed by Code. With the help of the City Attorney, staff adopted a policy that upon expiration of the billboard lease, the ability to have a billboard also expired. With the total number of billboards dropping by one, other property owners in the B-2 district and advertising companies could submit a building permit for the 16th billboard. Staff anticipated multiple applications for the 16tt' billboard, so a process was City Council Study Session 3 December 2007/13illboards devised under direction of the City Attorney that would give each interested party an equal opportunity to erect the 16°i billboard. Applications were accepted and reviewed for completeness. All complete applications were considered in a lottery. One landowner was the winner of the lottery, which became the focus of litigation between a losing advertising company and the City. The lawsuit is still pending. In the wake of the lottery process and subsequent lawsuit, staff investigated potential changes to Section 26-711 that would alleviate the confusion, and quite frankly, create a simpler process for issuing billboard permits. More clear regulations and processes would remove staff from making determinations and being involved beyond a permitting level. It is important to note that the City generally has no financial stake in the issuance of a billboard permit. The advertising company negotiates with a landowner to erect a billboard on his or her property. Typically, the advertising company will enter into a long-term lease with the property owner, who is paid rent for the term of the lease. Aside from a minimal permit fee, the City receives no revenue and arguably no benefit from billboards. The proposed ordinance identified each property which currently contained a billboard. These properties were listed by Assessor's parcel number. The ordinance stated that if one of the 16 billboards were removed, it could not be replaced. These changes were presented to Planning Commission on May 3, 2007. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance. The ordinance was presented to City Council on June 25, 2007. At this meeting, additional information was presented by advertising companies. One particular company was strongly opposed to the ordinance and argued that a change should be made which would vest the billboard permit with the advertising company, and not be a perpetual right of property owners who currently had a billboard. City Council tabled the ordinance and directed staff to hold a meeting with all stakeholders. Community Meeting A community meeting was held on October 29, 2007. All property owners in the B-2 district were invited, along with advertising company representatives. Approximately 25 people attended the meeting. Staff s approach to the meeting was to let the stakeholders give their opinion on the proposed ordinance and suggest any changes. All comments were documented. Many of the attendees approved of the proposed ordinance that was presented to City Council on June 25, 2007, with some changes. A summary of the comments made at the community meeting has been included as "Attachment F. A letter submitted by an attendee of the meeting has been included as "Attachment 2". A letter received from the attorney who represents some of the advertising companies has been included as "Attachment 3". Research Initial research was performed in the spring of 2007. As can be expected, different jurisdictions treat and regulate billboards in different ways. In staff s research, it was clear that Wheat Ridge was the only jurisdiction that has a maximum number of billboards. Most jurisdictions have spacing and visibility requirements and restrict billboards to certain zone districts. City Council Study Session 3 December 2007/Billboards The Colorado Department of Transportation has requirements which regulate the placement of a billboard within the State right-of-way. CDOT is in the process of drafting new regulations for billboards. City staff has reviewed these regulations, which are scheduled to be entered in the State Legislature in the coming term. Staff will coordinate the City's proposed ordinance with CDOT to ensure conflicts are avoided. UnderlyinIZ Questions There is one fundamental question that City Council must answer: Does the City Council want to change the number of allowed billboards? If the answer is yes, then would City Council prefer the number of billboards be increased or decreased? The answer to this question can narrow the potential processes that staff has identified. If Council feels that the number of billboards could increase beyond the 16 allowed by today's Code, it would be important to identify what quantity would be acceptable. If the restriction on the maximum number of billboards was eliminated from the Code, only the requirement that billboards must be located at least 600 feet from one another would control the number of billboards in the B-2 district. Given a total length of approximately 19,000 feet along the I-70 corridor in the B-2 district, approximately 31 billboards could be erected along that corridor. The I-70 corridor is only a portion of the B-2 district, and undoubtedly more billboards would be erected along major roadways such as Kipling Street and Ward Road if the maximum number of billboards was increased. Conversely, if Council feels that there are too many billboards in the City, what number is acceptable? Who `owns' the permit? A question has been raised by staff and advertising companies: who owns the billboard permit? One of the advertising companies feels that the permit should be vested with the advertising company, and should be transferrable to other properties upon expiration of a lease. Staff researched with surrounding communities and discovered that municipalities treat permit ownership differently. Most of the responding jurisdictions stated that the person who submits and pays for the permit is the owner, while a few others felt that the property owner was the permit owner. The chief building official for the City of Wheat Ridge feels that all building permits are `owned' by the person who pays for the permit. This is crucial as the limitation on the maximum number of billboards makes each permit extremely desirable by different and competing entities. Under the previous lottery system, Staff determined that once the lease to the billboard expired, the permit also expired, making the point of ownership moot. This matter may still be raised under one of the below listed scenarios, and could become a point of contention. Options Staff has identified three potential options for Council to consider. Each option is similar in nature and assumes that the maximum number of billboards allowed is 16. The following are brief synopses of the options. Further investigation and definition would be needed. These options are: Option A - Keep the existing 16 billboard locations. These properties can forever and always have a billboard upon them, regardless of periods of inactivity. The properties would be specified by assessor's parcel number in the ordinance. City Council Study Session 3 December 2007/Billboards Pro: This would shift the negotiations between the property owners and the advertising companies. The City would be removed from the process, with the exception of issuing permits for new structures on the 16 identified properties. There would be no argument from the advertising companies that the permit can be transferred to another property. Staff would not need to monitor timeframes when a billboard was removed, or if a site became inactive. There could be no challenge or accusation of impropriety; the ordinance would be clear and easy to regulate. Con: The advertising companies would argue that the property owners would hold them hostage and make negotiations difficult. One advertising company has stated that this amounts to a taking, as the ability to have a billboard is vested with only 16 individuals in the B-2 district. Option B - Keep the limitation on the maximum number of billboards (16). If one billboard is removed from the B-2 district, a 30-day application period would begin during which the City would accept building permit applications for the 16t" billboard. A lottery would be held if multiple applications were submitted. The winner of the lottery could erect the 16°i billboard. Pro: This would memorialize the procedure utilized by staff in 2005. It would give everyone in the B-2 district an equal opportunity to have a billboard. Con: This lottery system is the subject of the on-going lawsuit. The ordinance would need to be very specific in describing when a billboard was considered removed, when the application period starts and stops and what constitutes a complete application. This could lead to more accusations by competing interests and more scrutiny of the process and procedures of staff. Advertising companies could argue that they, and not the property owner, have the right to the permit and can apply this permit to another willing property, thereby challenging the lottery process. Consideration must be given to instances when a billboard is taken down on a temporary basis for maintenance or site improvement. Some attendees at the community meeting felt that a 6 month or 12 month window should be allowed for site improvement. Staff would need to monitor this period of inactivity, and would have to determine exactly when the billboard was taken down and when the period of inactivity would result in the loss of the billboard. Surely competing advertising companies and interested landowners in the B-2 district would challenge this period of inactivity and claim that the right to a new billboard on another property was present. Option C - Keep the existing 16 billboard locations. If one of the existing billboards were to be removed, it cannot be replaced and the maximum number of billboards is reduced by one. This would ensure that the billboards would remain in their current location, and over a period of time the number of billboards could wane. Pro: This process would be the most simple for staff to administer. Staff would not be involved whatsoever in issuing building permits for billboards on new properties. There would be no lottery system or waiting period to determine if a billboard location has become inactive. Billboards could be relocated from one area of a listed City Council Study Session 3 December 2007/Billboards parcel to another area. This most closely represents the ordinance that was presented to City Council in June of this year. Con: One advertising company has stated that this amounts to a taking, as the ability to have a billboard is vested with only 16 individuals in the B-2 district. Certainly the advertising companies would not be supportive of this approach, as it could impact their business by reducing potential locations. Staff would need to further define what constitutes removal of a billboard. As is noted in Option B, staff would need to monitor the existing billboards and determine when a billboard has been removed and the site has become inactive. Next Steps Staff is asking for direction from this point forward. One of the three suggested options (or a variation thereof) must be further explored and placed into ordinance form. The first question to be answered is: Which option does City Council want to further explore? Staff does not feel there is a `do-nothing' alternative where the applicable section of the Code remains unchanged. A Planning Commission hearing must be held prior to a first and second reading before City Council. The second question to be answered: Is City Council comfortable with the limitation of 16 billboards in the B-2 district? If not, should the number of billboards increase or decrease? Staff would also request direction on the issue of animated changeable copy billboards (also called "Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs" or "CEVMS"). The department has had a standing policy that animated billboards are not allowed, as they constitute animated signage, a type of signage which is strictly prohibited by Code. If changes are made to Section 26-711, it would be beneficial to discuss all deficiencies and address them at once. City Council Study Session 3 December 2007/Billboards Billboard Work Session - 29 October 2007 This meeting was held to gain input from all stakeholders and start a discussion relating to proposed changes to Section 26-711, the section of the zoning code which regulates billboards. Approximately 350 invitations were sent out to notify the stakeholders of the work session. All property owners in the B-2 district were invited, as well as interested advertising company representatives. Approximately 25 people attended the work session. The meeting was held in the City Council chambers at City Hall. The following is a list of questions and comments as recorded the night of the work session. • The property owner should `own' the permit. • Would be in favor of the proposed legislation, with a few changes. Once a billboard has been removed, the Department should accept applications. The new ordinance should memorialize the lottery process. • Research with other jurisdictions -who `owns' the permit? • Question - Does proposed ordinance only allow one billboard per property? • Would be in favor of keeping the proposed legislation. If a billboard is removed, accept permit after a `waiting period' (90 days?). Give public notice of the available permit via posting signs, ad in paper. Review the permits in order of acceptance - if a permit does not meet Code or contain all submittal requirements, review the next permit. • Question - Do all current billboards meet the CDOT and City of Wheat Ridge standards under which they were approved? • Should increase the maximum number of billboards allowed to the maximum number that was allowed prior to 1996. • A percentage of the permit fee should go into a public art fund to help offset the visual impact of the billboard. • Increase the timeframe for demolition/reconstruction of a billboard for site improvement purposes. ATTACHMENT 1 • Question - Can a property owner construct a structure and advertise independent of an advertising company? • Would be in favor of keeping the existing 16 locations. • Staff question to audience - at what point is a billboard removed? • The City should notify all property owners in the B-2 district when a billboard permit becomes available. ATTACHMENT 1 October 31, 2007 To: Mayor DiTullio, and the City Council of Wheat Ridge: 0 2007 Subject: Ownership of Billboard Permits: After attending the City's "Billboard Workshop" earlier this week, I have been pondering what I heard. It seems clear to me that the proposal being brought forward by CBS-Viacom is intended by them to squash competition from the small billboard companies, and create a heavy, government- facilitated fist, with which to deal with lessors, property owners, and their competition. I would ask that the City ignore this corporate Trojan Horse, and consider the following basic precepts; which point to the reasons the City Permit should reside with the owner of the Wheat Ridge property: 1. Site Specific Location: City Council has all of the right and responsibility in the world, to consider billboard existence as a "Site Permit". This government permitted land-use "right" should not become the "property" of the outdoor advertising corporate entity. Once permitted; these permitted sites should not be considered transient. The legality of these particular public "rights" were established years ago through logic applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, when Lady Bird Johnson was cleaning up the eyesore of billboards along the interstate highway system all across the country, and related court cases ensued. In the case of Wheat Ridge, prior city councils have recognized this need for control, and the public's concern with billboard proliferation, and site requirements were established in the B-1 sign district. Thereby recognizing, limiting, and permitting to exist, 16 specific current billboard sites. 2. "Win-Win" Outcome: Following the recent court case; the issue now arises as to the City's need to issue a physical "Permit", formally recognizing legal billboard locations. The question now being; to what person or entity shall the Permit be issued? In my opinion, the City should look fast to the over-riding public issue. This "issue" could be generally stated as "If we must have billboards, then site specific locations should be pre-determined as to locations where the individual billboard is least obtrusive to our view of the natural surroundings, in particular the "mountain backdrop". (When I purchased an existing billboard site lease last year, it was my opinion, the City had done that)- Being further advised; I now concur that the City Staffs "Recommendations" are correct, and are as close to a "Win-win" as is achievable. With *staff *some outdoor advertising companies, and *property owners agreeing; it is not necessary for every owner or advertising company to agree, to consider this proposed outcome a ` v6n-win". Note: The proposed "abandonment" schedule should be extended, to something more workable Note: If a particular specific location becomes problematical to the best interests of the City and its' citizens, then the Permit for that location should not be renewed. That causes an opening in the allowed billboard count, and therefore an "opportunity". Thereby providing any property owner within the B-I District to apply for an approved billboard location permit. Note: If the City has expanded, as via the annexation of the "Cabela's" property west of I-70; then it would seem reasonable that the City Council consider expanding the B-I District to include all or part of the annexed area, and therefore reasonably add to the permitted site specific locations. Note: I would propose imposition of a "Billboard Impact Fee". (Proposal separately attached). * Given all of the above: It would seem conclusive to me that the City "Permit" should be site specific: and therefore reside with the property owner. It seems illogical to me that the Permit should Thomas L. Abbott ATTACMMENT 2 Date: October 31, 2007 To: Mayor Di Tullio and the Wheat Ridge City Council From: Thomas L. Abbott 10780 W. 35' Ave. Wheat Ridge Proposal for a Billboard Licensing Fee and Off-Setting Public Art Program. Issue "A The general public's perception of billboards as unwelcome intrusions into the community's enjoyment of the surrounding natural environment, and being thus particularly intrusive into the enjoyment of the "mountain backdrop" view plane. This was the primary impetus behind the city's creation of the "billboard zone district" in the first place, and thereby the control over their locations. Issue "B The general public's acceptance of the economic and informational value of business advertising, including the limited presence of billboards, within the city's billboard zone district. Off-Set: Create a mechanism to provide and fund a tangible "off-set", to the intrusion of billboards into our enjoyment of the surrounding natural landscape, by adding significant, and thereby "off-setting" elements to this intrusion, via the addition of "bricks and mortar" public art projects within the city. Proposed Solution: Assess a significant "impact" fee to outdoor advertising companies for the placement and operation of billboard signs within Wheat Ridge, i_e. $200 per month per billboard. Apply the revenue from these fees into a fund to be reserved for and applied to the funding of permanent "off-setting" public art and park improvement projects within the City. These projects could be evaluated and selected by either/or the City Council or the Cultural Commission. As lesser beneficiaries; a smaller impact fee could be assessed to property owners of permitted sites as well. * As necessary to local commerce, and as an aid to citizens (including out-of-town visitors) "way-finding"; our agenda should not be to eliminate billboards, but to control them to our advantage, and to off-set their impacts upon us in a way advantageous to our citizenry. Thanks, vTom Davis Graham &Stubbs LLP November 19, 2007 Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Kenneth P. Johnstone, AICP Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister Community Development Director & Renaud LLP 7500 W. 29th Avenue 2401 15a' Street, Ste 200 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Wheat Ridge Ordinance Billboard Regulation Proposal Dear Mr. Johnstone and Gerry: I write this letter on behalf of my clients, CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and Mile High Outdoor, jointly, in response to your request at the working session on October 29, 2007 that parties endeavor to come up with some compromise solution to the billboard regulation issues before the Wheat Ridge City Council. Before getting into our suggestions, I want to reiterate my deep concern that this really seems to be the government trying to create a governmental regulation to deal with a problem that hasn't yet been shown to need the government's intrusive intervention. For example, it should be clear that the existing code provisions do not abolish competition among billboard companies. Mark Giordano has proven that, if nothing else. If the Council were really interested in staying out of regulating people's lives unnecessarily, it would leave this subject alone until there were repeated instances of problems. Then, the range of issues that may arise would become apparent and when it is apparent that the problem is real and can only be dealt with by the government, a solution could be found that deals with the entire group of problematic issues, rather than trying to dream up, from one isolated example, solutions that may have more adverse unexpected consequences than would develop from a series of problems. (At the rate of one problem every 15 years, of course, it would take a while before the government would need to pounce on creating a solution.) Furthermore, the previously proposed solution of transferring permanent rights to a handful of folks who have done nothing to earn or deserve it; who have never spent a nickel of their own money to create the value that is in their billboard, and who would be receiving a windfall gift from the City Council, creates more legal issues than have yet been considered. Creating spot zoning for a handful of separate, disbursed parcels; removing the right for any other landowners to compete for the benefit of the billboard rentals; and taking what the City has previously said is the billboard companies' rights and transferring them with no offsetting benefit is problematic, and may create additional substantial expenses for the City and years of uncertainty, to say the least. 1550 Seventeenth St ATTACHMENT 3 '0 . fax 303893'379 814546 Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Kenneth P. Johnstone November 19, 2007 Page 2 Now, with an eye toward attempting to propose a real solution to whatever problem the City's Community Development Department perceives, my three clients, who own 14 of the 16 billboards in Wheat Ridge, offer the following suggestions. I think you will see that this suggestion is a considerable compromise that is designed to deal with most, if not all of the concerns expressed at the working meeting (except the existing billboard lessors/landowners' unjustifiable desire for a guaranteed windfall). This idea was not conceived until after the working session when the company representatives were meeting (on a completely different subject) following that gripe session. We propose that whenever an existing billboard is removed (whether as a result of the expiration of the existing billboard company's lease, development of the underlying property, the billboard company going out of business, a new landowner deciding that it didn't like having a billboard on the property, complete destruction of the billboard from external causes, or any other reason), the owner of the billboard structure (there are presently only four of those in Wheat Ridge, so it would not be a difficult education job) must give notice to the Community Development Department of the billboard's removal within three (or so) days of that removal. Once the notice was given to the CDD, the CDD would send a letter to all landowners in the B-2 zone, telling them that there was an opening for a new billboard location, and that they would have 14 days from the CDD's receipt of the notice of removal (or some other rational but reasonably short time) within which to submit their applications, assuming they can comply with the existing code limitations on billboard location (e.g., spacing from the nearest billboard). Thus, all landowners would have the ability to contact or be contacted by billboard companies to arrange for the best leases they could negotiate (or to propose to build it themselves). Then, everyone who wanted to compete for the available billboard location could file their applications by the established deadline (one application per property), and a few days after that (2-5 days?) the CDD would hold a drawing the select the order in which the applications would be reviewed for compliance with the existing billboard code. The first application to pass that test would be given the new permit. This proposal obviously assumes that there will still be 16 billboards in Wheat Ridge; gives all B-2 landowners an equal shot at getting the new permit; creates a fair and nonbiased means of selecting the new location, with ample time for both billboard companies and landowners to strike the best deal they can in order to be able to participate in the drawing; does not require the City to create or deal with the conundrum of who "owns" a billboard permit; and avoids the spot zoning and taking problems. We do not recommend imposing some "fly-specking perfection" requirements on the applications because that will turn the CDD into having to decide if the omission of a date in one of three blanks on a lease, or the submission of only two copies of a document, or a signature Gerald E. Dahl, Esq. Kenneth P. Johnstone November 19, 2007 Page 3 that omits the "Jr." from the lessor's name, or a submitted lease that redacts one too many words while concealing the rental payment, disqualifies an application. Such a system is guaranteed to perpetuate litigation. The earliest drawn application that shows it can comply with spacing, height and other code locational limitations, for which it can be verified that indeed the landowner has given permission to someone to build the billboard, and that has submitted sufficient documentation to show the building department that the sign can be properly and safely constructed should be enough (as we believe is normally the case now). Having offered this suggested alternative, we want to reiterate that we still believe the Council is being asked to enact a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. We would be happy to discuss further this proposal or any modifications you wish to consider. Sincerely, / 4L ichard P. Holme R for DAMS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP- RPH:dk cc: Hal Ward Daniel Scherer Frank Bullock Steve Richards LAKE ONT eentep, NOVEMBER 29, 2007 TRAVIS CRANE, CITY PLANNER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 WEAR 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033 RE: SITE PERMIT FOR BILLBOARD DEAR TRAVIS: ~L~C~C~MC~DD NOV 2 9 2007 I DID APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES RELATED TO A PERMIT ONCE THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER AND BILLBOARD COMPANY EXPIRES. I FEEL THE PERMIT MUST STAY WITH THE SITE (THE LAND OWNER) AS PER THE PROPOSED NEW CITY ORDINANCE. IT'S THE SITE THAT MUST QUALIFY BOTH BY ORDINANCE AND LOCATION BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. FINDING NEW SITES WITHIN THE B-2 ZONE WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT. RELOCATING A BILLBOARD SIGN TO A NEW QUALIFIED SITE AFTER A 10-20 YEAR LEASE AT AN EXISTING LOCATION COULD WELL CAUSE THE ADJOINING LANDOWNER TO THE NEW SITE TO FEEL HIS VALUE HAS NOW BEEN AFFECTED, AND MAY ALSO FIND A NEED TO MODIFY THE B-2 ZONE LIMITATION. MOST ALL LEASES DO NOT SPELL OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING THE OLD BILLBOARD STRUCTURE UPON RELOCATION. THERE ARE SOME OLD STRUCTURES NOT WORTH RELOCATION OR TOO SMALL OR TOO COSTLY TO RELOCATE. A SKELETON BILLBOARD WOULD BE FAR LESS ATTRACTIVE WHILE DETERMINING WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL AND THEN CAUSING REMOVAL. FAR MORE IMPORTANT, THE FRONTAGE ROAD NORTH OF I-70, A LARGE PART OF THE B-2 ZONE SHALL BE ONE OF THE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT AREAS CAUSED BY THE LONG AWAITED EXPANSION TO THE WEST, CABELA'S. CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, ALONG WITH MAINTAINING GOOD ACCESS, SHALL IMPROVE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES HAVE BEEN WELL COMPENSATED BY WAY OF THEIR NEGOTIATING A LONG TERM LEASE. A NEW LEASE IS OBTAINABLE BY THE BILLBOARD COMPANY WITHOUT THE LEVERAGE OF THE LANDOWNER LOSING THE PERMIT. SINCERELY, ROBER J. VERMILLION cc: KENNETH P. JOHNSTONE WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL MURRAY DAHL KUECHENMEISTER 632 GOLD RUN ROAD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 TELEPHONE: 303-442-7111 FAX: 303-546-9380 November 30`h, 2007 RECEWED DEC D 3 2007 Recently I became aware that Wheat Ridge City Council is considering amending the current billboard laws to give permanent ownership to people who presently have billboards on their property. My understanding is that billboard companies, not property owners are responsible for compensating and operating the billboards. If in fact this is true, I don't understand why permanent rights would be given to the small number of present holders, while the rest of the population would be frozen out from the possibility of competing for future payments. Hopefully, Wheat Ridge Council is not advocating in favor of some private property owners over others. A few isolated properties should not be blessed with special benefits for all time. Wheat Ridge has done an outstanding job in bringing new commerce to our city. My hope is that we expand on this accomplishment with a reputation for fair business practices. I submit a possible solution: Hold a lottery for any new permits and allow anyone (land owners and billboard companies alike) who want to compete for new billboards to do so. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Laura Leprino 3869 Union Court Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303-421-9844 Z O Cl) Cl) Nti Y O a/ N ONz Q ~ 0 Fn O m i s, LL Z Z_ EE CL LU w J a CL a t~ v~ d 4)1 i rS i ,Ct ~ O N ri v vi O M o.} S ~n I I 6N N N N N N N N N N mM M M M 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303/235-2846 Fax: 303/235-2857 The City of Wheat Ridge TO: BILLBOARD COMPANIES MAINTAINING BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT, AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: Travis Crane, City Planner, Community Development Dept. Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney DATE: October 17, 2007 RE: Invitation to workshop on proposed new billboard regulations: Monday, October 29, 6:00 p.m. The Wheat Ridge city Council acted on June 25, 2007 to direct that the question of how billboard permits for the 16 permitted billboards in the City's B-2 billboard zone district could be applied for and received. The Council previously conducted a study session on this topic and had directed that an ordinance be prepared vesting the right to the billboard permit in the owner of the property where the 16 billboards are presently located. At the public hearing on June 25, 2007, a number of property owners and billboard companies testified, both in favor of and in opposition to the ordinance. In response to this testimony, City Council voted to direct that the matter be considered by the Council again in a second study session. The purpose of this memorandum is to invite all organizations and individuals with an interest in this matter to an informal workshop with the goal of providing alternatives and supporting information for consideration by the City Council at a future Council study session. Presently, the regulations of the City's B-2 zone district set the maximum number of billboards at 16. There is no guidance in the City Code regarding what entity "owns" the right to a billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing requests for one of the (open) billboard sites. In the past, this has led to arguments between billboard companies over when a billboard site becomes "vacant," and what the effect of that activity is. The Community Development Department has responded by relying upon informal guidelines which, among other things, provide for a lottery system to choose between competing billboard applications filed at the same time. Even this system has not functioned well. CBS Outdoor, unsuccessful in a recent lottery, brought suit against the City claiming it is entitled to that particular permit. The City won and CBS Outdoor has appealed. This is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that these disputes are actually between billboard companies, and the City has no particular stake in the outcome. Also, lost in the competition among billboard companies are the legitimate rights of landowners. Any system ultimately arrived at should respect the rights of landowners and allow them to also benefit from competition in the marketplace. Because of the wide divergence of views, it is clear that an informal workshop is necessary to encourage the various parties with an interest in this matter to focus their positions and encourage them to arrive at a solution they can collectively recommend to the City Council. Accordingly, the purpose of this workshop will be to challenge the billboard companies, the landowners and other interested persons to do more than complain about the present system, and instead to not only come up with a solution, but a solution which can be supported by all. The results of the workshop will be presented to the City Council at an upcoming study session for its consideration. The workshop has been scheduled for the following date, time and place Monday, October 29, 2007 6:00 p.m. Wheat Ridge City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado We urge all of you to make every effort to prepare for and attend this session. Please come prepared to make concrete suggestions and to compromise. Attached as background for the workshop is Council Bill 10-2007, proposed legislation that would amend Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the regulation of billboards. In addition, the following items are available for pickup in the Community Development Department, 7500 W. 29 h Ave., or online at www.ci.wheatridge.co.us: 1. Existing regulations used by the Community Development Department 2. Memorandum opposing Council Bill 10-2007 authored by CBS Outdoor, Inc., Lamar Advertising Company and Mile Hi Outdoor Inc. 3. Proposed alternative advanced by CBS Outdoor 4. Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the CBS Outdoor memorandum 5. Map of present billboard locations in the City We look forward to seeing you at the workshop, and especially to your constructive contributions to the discussion on that date. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2007 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26- 711.C.1, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter aiia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sue. and 29-20-101 et sec. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711.C of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B- 2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-711.C currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the sixteen-billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide that the sixteen billboard locations presently in use in the B-2 District shall be designated as the only locations upon which billboards are permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance will preserve and protect existing property rights by recognizing the right of the property owners of the designated sixteen locations to continue to operate or lease the same for display of billboards; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-711.C.1 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to read: Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16), UNDER THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: previded that existing bi+tbeaFds'eeat hmn the 8 ' district may be nuffiber. (A) THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS AND PERMITTED LOCATIONS FOR SUCH BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE B-2 DISTRICT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ID APN Address Schedule # # of Billboards 1 39-174-07-001 4990 Ward Rd. 109992 1 2 39-174-07-012 4800 Ward Rd. 109982 1 3 39-202-00-009 12505 W. 44th Ave. 042865 1 4 39-201-06-001 12351 W. 44th Ave. 136582 1 5 39-201-01-003 no address 406411 1 6 39-163-00-022 4800 Parfet St. 043805 2 7 39-164-05-001 10501 W. 1-70 FR N 042788 1 8 39-164-00-018 10101 W. 1-70 FR N 072159 1 9 39-143-00-098 8105 W. 48th Ave. 085976 1 10 39-143-00-101 7881 W. 48th Ave. 004073 1 11 39-133-05-001 no address 194269 1 12 39-133-05-006 4901 Marshall St. 164345 1 13 39-133-07-001 6400 W. 48th Ave. 003811 1 14 39-133-09-001 6161 W. 48th Ave. 109721 1 15 39-133-04-003 6300 W. 49th Dr. 136945 1 (B) IN THE EVENT ANY OF THE ABOVE-LISTED LOCATIONS SHALL CEASE TO BE IN ACTIVE BILLBOARD USE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE, SAID LOCATION SHALL CEASE TO BE A PERMITTED LOCATION, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SUCH BILLBOARDS AND LOCATIONS DESCRIBED AND PERMITTED HEREIN SHALL BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. 2 (C) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "ACTIVE BILLBOARD USE" SHALL MEAN THAT BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED ON A PERMITTED BILLBOARD LOCATION AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS: (1) A SUPPORTING POLE OR STRUCTURE, AND (2) A DISPLAY FACILITY CAPABLE OF DISPLAYING MESSAGE COPY. (D) A BILLBOARD MAY BE MOVED, SO LONG AS IT REMAINS ON THE PERMITTED LOCATION. (E) IN THE EVENT THE PARCEL CONTAINING A PERMITTED LOCATION IS SUBDIVIDED, THE BILLBOARD AND THE ENTITLEMENT TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A BILLBOARD SHALL REMAIN WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY ON WHICH THE BILLBOARD WAS SITUATED AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. THE REMAINING PORTION(S) OF THE SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT TO PLACE OR MAINTAIN A BILLBOARD ON SUCH PROPERTY. (F) ALL BILLBOARDS SHALL CONTINUOUSLY BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 26. Section 2. Section 26-711.6 of the Code of Laws is repealed. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2007, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2007, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2007. 3 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2007. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 4 GA98 NVGlH3HS W a x 04 N 3 a a c~ z !o N t~ p m OC N a J ~ J_ LL m J a V LL O V. N m m [in Pagel of 2 Kathy Field From: Travis Crane Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:57 AM To: Kathy Field Cc: Meredith Reckert; Kenneth Johnstone Subject: FW: Invitation to workshop on billboard regulations Attachments: 09-28-07 Memo on billboards.rtf ih J✓ Attached is the notice to all property owners in the B-2 district regarding the billboard meeting October 29th. Please add the following parties to the mailing list: Cheryl Wise: 4901 Marshall Street Russ and Janice Anderson: 6470 W. 48th Ave. Jack and Danette Walker: 4990 Ward Rd. Ted Redling: 7880 W. 48th Ave. nW Y. Gil McNeish (Grimshaw & Herring) 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800, Denver, Colorado 80203 Ron Fano (Grimshaw & Herring) 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800, Denver, Colorado 80203 Mark Giordano (United Advertising) - 498 W. Iliff Ave. Denver CO 80223 Tom Ripp (represented Cheryl Wise in the CBS lawsuit). 4315 Wadsworth WR CO 80033. Daniel M. Scherer, General Manager, CBS Outdoor, Inc., 4647 Leyden St., Denver, CO 80216; Steven R. Richards, President and General Manager, Mile High Outdoor, 300 E. Hampden, Ste 324, Denver CO 80113; Frank Bullock, General Manager, Lamar Advertising Company, 12301 N. Grant, Unit 240, Thornton. CO 80241 Travis R. Crane Planner II City of Wheat Ridge CO 303.235.2849 (v) 303.235.2857 (f) htto/-w-ww.-ci.wheatridcje.co.us From: Winona Correa [mailto:winona@mdkrlaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:55 PM To: Travis Crane 10/3/2007 Cheryl Wise Gil McNeish Daniel M. Scherer 4901 Marshall Street Grimshaw & Herring General Manager Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800 CBS Outdoor, Inc. Denver, CO 80203 4647 Leyden St. Denver, CO 80216 Russ & Janice Anderson 6470 W. 48th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Ron Fano Grimshaw & Herring 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800 Denver, CO 80203 Steven R. Richards President & General Manager Mile High Outdoor 300 E. Hampden, Ste 324 Denver, CO 80113 Jack & Danette Walker 4990 Ward Rd. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mark Giordano United Advertising 498 W. Iliff Ave. Denver CO 80223 Ted Redling Tom Ripp 7880 W. 48th Ave. Boatright & Ripp Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 4315 Wadsworth Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Frank Bullock General Manager Lamar Advertising Company 12301 N. Grant, Unit 240 Thornton, CO 80241 10501 WEST 48TH AVENUE LLC 108 LLC 12505 W 44TH AVE LLC 14395 BRAUN RD 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 106 320 STARFIRE WAY GOLDEN CO 80401 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GOLDEN CO 80401 4800 WARD ROAD LLC 4855 MILLER STREET LLC 4859 MILLER STREET LLC PO BOX 353 14395 BRAUN RD 14395 BRAUN RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80034 GOLDEN CO 80401 GOLDEN CO 80401 4859 MILLER STREET LLC 4935 IRIS LLC 7 ELEVEN INC 4859 MILLER ST 4935 IRIS ST 2711 N HASKELL AVE WHEAT RIDGECO 80033 2213 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DALLAS TX 75204 2906 70 EXECUTIVE CENTER A 1 PATTERN CO INC AA WHOLESALE STORAGE LLC 4891 INDEPENDENCE ST 160 4860 VAN GORDON ST 5040 ACOMA ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DENVER CO 80216 ABBOTT THOMAS L ABERLE STEVEN C ADAMS JUDY E 10780 W 35TH AVE 4860 VAN GORDON ST 5125 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2007 ALCAMO JOHN ALIO INDUSTRIES INC ALLRED KARL C 4365 OTIS ST 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 119 5075 SIMMS PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2001 ALSAM INVESTMENTS INC ANDERSON BRYAN CO ANDERSON RUSSELL E 5190 PARFET ST CONSERVATOR 22993 VALLEY HIGH RD WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 9380 W 49TH AVE 101 MORRISON CO 80465 2565 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ANN HURLEY HODGDON TRUST ANTOINETTES CAR WASH INC APACHE STEEL CORP 329 PARKVIEW AVE PO BOX 16507 12280 W 50TH PL GOLDEN CO 80401 DENVER CO 80216 0507 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2034 ARTHUR JOEL AHO REVOCABLE B & B HEATING AND AIR BAKER IRENE TRUST CONDITIONING INC 5220 5300 QUAIL ST 4892 MARSHALL ST WHEAT T RIDGE Y CO ST 80033 2022 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2302 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3635 H BANDIT LLC BAPTIST HOME ASSOCIATION OF BARBER STREET LLC 5040 TABOR ST COLORADO 2550 VAN GORDON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 4700 TABOR ST BLDG-12 LAKEWOOD CO 80215 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BARBICH MAXINE M BAUER SONIA C BEAR LAND HOLDINGS LLC 4860 HARLAN ST 5021 GARRISON ST 100A 11001 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N DENVER CO 80212 2729 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BEAVER JAMES L BENTON ELLEN J BEVERIDGE JEFFERY 1570 E 100TH AVE 4961 GARRISON ST 100A 13707 IVY ST THORNTON CO 80229 2224 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 THORNTON CO 80602 BEYER RONALD JAMES BEYER THOMAS BGT ENTERPRISES 11721 W 52ND AVE 165 DUDLEY ST 8305 S WADSWORTH BLVD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 1907 LAKEWOOD CO 80226 1216 LITTLETON CO 80123 BIGHORN DIRECTIONAL INC BLAGG ROBBIE E BOOTSTRAP INVESTMENTS LLC 11919 W 48TH AVE 126 5350 NELSON ST 85 S HOLLAND ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80003 LAKEWOOD CO 80226 BORING JOHN PERSONAL REP BRADLEY BRYAN D BRADLEY LINDA W 100 JEFFERSON COUNTY PKWY 5323 NELSON ST 5051 GARRISON ST IC GOLDEN CO 80419 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BRANEVG WILLIAM A BRETZ HEATHER A BROOMFIELD LENDING LLC 14125 W 48TH AVE 5091 GARRISON ST I PO BOX 1224 GOLDEN CO 80403 1736 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BROOMFIELD CO 80038 BURNER SUTHERLAND PROPERTY BURNS MICHAEL W BUTLER HOWARD Y LLC 5330 NELSON ST 4941 GARRISON ST 100A 594 BUNKHOUSE RD ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DARBY MT 59829 C & D INVESTMENTS CALABRI LLC CALE SCOTT G 5075 TABOR ST 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 103 5339 NEWCOMBE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80002 CAPILLUPO GREGORY M CAPRA FAMILY LIVING TRUST CAQUELYN SALI A 4875 HARLAN ST 4975 ROBB ST 4951 GARRISON ST 100A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3628 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CARPENTER CATHERINE Y CASSCO LLC CDP VENTURES LLC 5318 NELSON ST 9545 W 49TH AVE PO BOX 4200 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FRISCO CO 80443 0868 CHAMP LEW C CILLESSEN ARNOLD A AS TRUSTEE CILLESSEN JOHN A 5145 SIMMS PL PO BOX 740997 13020 W 58TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2003 ARVADA CO 80006 0997 ARVADA CO 80002 CIRCLE K STORES INC 315 COMMONS MALL COLUMBUS IN 47201 CITY OF ARVADA 8101 RALSTON RD ARVADA CO 80002 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W 29TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 8001 CLABROS INVESTMENTS LLC 4985 IRIS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CLASSIC TRAILER SALES INC 4415 WARD RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2416 CLARK SPENCER H 2333 S BALSAM LN LAKEWOOD CO 80227 3162 CLEAR CREEK RIDGE LLC 3650 VANCE ST 1 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 COLORADO INDUSTRIAL PORTFOLIO COOK LESTER M TRUSTEE LLC 5250 QUAIL ST 1512 R ST 325 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2302 DENVER R CO CO 8 80202 COPPER FIELDS LAND HOLDINGS CRANE FRED WALLACE LLC 4943 HARLAN ST MARSHALL 4901 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3629 WHEAT RIDGE CO 8 80033 H CRESPIN TERESA 11919 I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 124 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF DENVER INC 9901 W 50TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 CUSTOM ENVELOPE CORPORATION 9700 W 50TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DANIELS MARY LOU 9415 W 49TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2277 DABOLL DAVID 6095 W 49TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DAUZAT APRIL 5333 NEWCOMBE ST ARVADA CO 80002 CLASSIC MECHANICAL INC 4975 VAN GORDON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2117 CLEAVER LAUREN V PO BOX 02-5635 MIAMI FL 33102 COORS BREWING COMPANY PO BOX 4030 GOLDEN CO 80401 0030 CRAWFORD HOLDING CORP 8295 RALSTON RD 300 ARVADA CO 80002 CROWDER LEA E 5336 NEWCOMBE ST ARVADA CO 80002 DANA DION 11005 RIDGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2149 DEARING DANIEL R PO BOX 17240 GOLDEN CO 80402 6020 DEERING PROPERTY HOLDING LLC DELISA JOHN G JR. DEMOTT JOSEPH E 11919 W I-70 FRONTGAGE RD 112 5095 SHERIDAN BLVD 5387 NEWCOMBE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 DENVER CO 80212 ARVADA CO 80002 DENNYS REALTY INC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEWITT RICK R PO BOX 260888 4201 E ARKANSAS AVE 16253 W 66TH CIR PLANO TX 75026 0888 DENVER CO 80222 ARVADA CO 80007 DUBOIS ROBERT L 4951 MILLER ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ENKLLC 1120 LINCOLN ST DENVER CO 80203 EADS RICK 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 111 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 EATHERTON GORDON W 3411 S IRVING ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80010 ERLSTEN JAMES R 5120 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2008 FICCO INVESTMENT CO LLC 3650 VANCE ST 1 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FLORA MELODY J 5080 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FRANCHOIS PAUL R 5230 QUAIL ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2302 G & D INC 5000 INDEPENDENCE ST ARVADA CO 80002 4127 GARRISON LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC 4735 W 34TH AVE DENVER CO 80212 1828 EATON TRAVIS 5055 TABOR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 EVILSIZER DAWN 9240 W 49TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FIRST INDUSTRIAL LP 5350 S ROSLYN ST 240 ENGLEWOOD CO 80111 2121 FORENSIC SERVICES LLC 5000 ROBB ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FREMAR INDUSTRIAL PARK 2200 E 104TH AVE SUITE 105 THORNTON CO 80233 GALLAGHER ANGELA M 5041 GARRISON ST 100A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GARRISON LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC 12100 W 52ND AVE 120 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ELFLIKE PLUMBING & HEATING INC PO BOX 18288 DENVER CO 80218 0288 FICCO ANTHONY 3365 BRAUN RD GOLDEN CO 80401 1640 FIVE K INVESTMENTS COMPANY 11445 W 1-70 FRONTAGE RD N WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 FRAME ERIC C 5349 NEWCOMBE ST ARVADA CO 80002 FRISK ENTERPRISES LLC 4400 WARD RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GARCIA MARIA L 4880 INGALLS ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3631 GARRISON LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC PO BOX 848 WESTMINSTER CO 80030 GASHAM R W GENUINE PARTS CO GIDLUND PAUL N 300 S JACKSON ST 550 2999 CIRCLE 75 PKWY 322 BERTHOUD WAY DENVER CO 80209 3176 ATLANTA GA 30339 GOLDEN CO 80401 4815 GILLIGAN HOMES OF COLORADO GILLIGAN RAYMOND GONYEA DAVID L INC 5314 NEWCOMBE ST 5190 SIMMS PL 4374 E PHILLIPS PL ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2004 CENTENNIAL CO 80122 GORDON G GRANT GOSIK GARY E GOTTULA LARRY L 5190 TABOR ST 896 ROBINSON HILL RD 106 SW LINDEN ST 1D WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2012 GOLDEN CO 80403 ANKENY IA 50021 2474 GRANT GERALD T GREGG LON J GREGORY ANDREW P 5360 NEWCOMBE ST 5081 GARRISON ST 1 4911 GARRISON ST 100A ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 6796 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GRIFFIN TERRY L GRIFFITH MILES GROSSMAN VENTURES LLC 05140 SIMMS PL 5312 NELSON ST 15030 W 52ND AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2004 ARVADA CO 80002 GOLDEN CO 80403 8006 HAAG KENNETH J HALL ROBERT A HALLEY LESLEY 5315 NEWCOMBE ST 5124 SWADLEY ST 2742 COAL BANK DR ARVADA CO 80002 WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 FORT COLLINS CO 80525 HANCE ROBERT A HARROLD KERRY HAUPTMEN INVESTMENT CO 11818 W 52ND AVE 5075 GARRISON ST 6 8690 WOLFF CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2032 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WESTMINSTER CO 80030 3691 HAWN IVAN HEDDEN WILLIAM H HENDERSON MICHAEL B 4900 ROBB ST 5125 SIMMS PL 5373 NEWCOMBE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2108 WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80002 HENDREN KIMBERLYNN M HINKLE WAYNE S HONAKER JAMES D 5317 NELSON ST 3420 GARLAND ST 2600 VIVIAN ST ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LAKEWOOD CO 80215 HOOD PROPERTIES LLC HOSS DAVID C HPT TA PROPERTIES TRUST 10 160 VRAIN CT 5130 PARFET ST 400 CENTRE ST WESTMINSTER CO 80031 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 NEWTON MA 02458 HYDROTROPICS CORP IBC DENVER II LLC RILE MARY L 14022 W 54TH AVE 1153 BERGEN PKWY M454 6662 XENON DR ARVADA CO 80002 EVERGREEN CO 80439 ARVADA CO 80004 IRIS 4915 LLC ITEN MARY ELLEN J & K PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 50255 4905 HARLAN ST 1570 E 100TH AVE COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80949 0255 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 THORNTON CO 80229 2224 J&B JONES FAMILY PARTNERSHIP J&S HOLDINGS LLC JACOBSEN PROPERTIES LLC LLLP 6451 CRESTBROOK DR 2426 DAISY LN 13725 TEAL CREEK CT MORRISON CO 80564 GOLDEN CO 80401 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 3969 JEFFERSON CENTER FOR MENTAL JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING JOSEWSKI JAMES D HEALTH INC AUTHORITY 5320 NEWCOMBE ST 4851 INDEPENDENCE ST 7490 W 45TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 JWS LLC K&G PETROLEUM LLC KANETA LAVENIA 4835 VAN GORDON ST 9777 S YOSEMITE ST 120 5300 NELSON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LONE TREE CO 80124 ARVADA CO 80002 KARR JAMES A KELLY JALICE R VIGIL KENDALL KATHLEEN 60 S GARLAND ST 4850 INGALLS ST 6090 W 49TH PL LAKEWOOD CO 80226 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3631 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 KIPER LLOYD R KIPLING 5000 KIPLING LAND LLC 7657 LAMAR ST 5978 ELDRIDGE CT 4890 KIPLING ST ARVADA CO 80003 2336 ARVADA CO 80004 3701 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 KIPLING RIDGE METROPOLITAN KIRK PAUL F KLOCKER IRMA L DISTRICT PO BOX 809 4945 HARLAN ST 6399 S FIDDLERS GREEN CIR 102 MORRISON CO 80465 0809 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3629 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80111 4974 KOELTZOW MELVIN W KOLLER RENE P KUNZ LEE R 12385 W 48TH AVE 5370 NEWCOMBE ST 11445 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2120 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 KUNZ LEE R II L B MANAGEMENT LLC LAKE FRONT PARTNERS 4096 YOUNGFIELD ST 11907 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 632 GOLD RUN RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3862 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BOULDER CO 80302 LAKEMONT LANDING LAKEMONT PROPERTY LLC LE MARQUIS CONDO ASSOCIATION CONDOMINIUM ASSN INC 11919 I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 113 1980 GARLAND ST 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE AVE 104 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LAKEWOOD CO 80215 2973 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LEE DOUD INC LEE SANDRA LEISERV INC 11885 W 38TH AVE 4931 GARRISON ST 100A 1 N FIELD CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LAKE FOREST IL 60045 4810 LF ENTERPRISES LLC LITTLE ROBERT J LO SASSO CLYDE G 14887 W 57TH DR 5756 DEVINNEY CT 5120 PARFET ST GOLDEN CO 80403 ARVADA CO 80002 1244 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2148 LOCKE SANDRA L LOOMIS SANDRA G LYDICK MATTHEW W PO BOX 1556 5360 NELSON ST 5391 NEWCOMBE ST ARVADA CO 80001 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80002 MACKEY VIOLA S MAJOR MARIANN MALCOMB DENNIS D 5061 GARRISON ST 100A 6285 W 48TH AVE 4901 GARRISON ST 100 A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 MARRIOTT JUDITH L MARTIN FAMILY TRUST THE MARTIN MARJORIE A 5011 GARRISON ST 100A 3835 ROBB ST 3870 CONVERSE MILE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3808 BENNETT CO 80102 8103 MARTINEZ ANDREW J MARTINEZ APRIL G MARTINEZ GAY ANN 5323 NEWCOMBE ST 5160 SIMMS PL 5337 NELSON ST ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80002 MARTYNUSKA KENNETH M MARVEL CHRISTOPHER J MCGAW ROBERT D 5365 NEWCOMBE ST 5357 NEWCOMBE ST 10185 W 49TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2209 MCLEAN INVESTMENTS LLLP MERLE ELIZABETH GARRETT TRUST MESA VERDE PARTNERSHIP LLP 4850 WARD RD 4900 INGALLS ST 1250 S CHAMBERS RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 AURORA CO 80017 METROPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE MILE HIGH MUSIC PROPERTIES LLC MJB MOTELS L L C DISPOSAL DIST 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 118 3300 NW JEFFERSON ST 610 6450 YORK ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BLUE SPRINGS MO 64015 DENVER CO 80221 MODGLIN MARK MORALES LAURA MORENO ANTHONY T 10570 W 83RD PL 4865 GARRISON ST 5075 SWADLEY ST ARVADA CO 80005 4736 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 MOUNTAIN S9 LLC MOUNTAIN VISTA HEALTH CENTER MOYER JOHN ROBERT PO BOX 117508 INC 5000 TABOR ST CARROLLTON TX 75011 4800 TABOR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 NATIONAL ADVERTISING CO NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENTS LLC NELSON REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES INC 4647 LEYDEN ST 3677 W 103RD DR 6444E HAMPDEN DENVER CO 80216 WESTMINSTER CO 80031 DENVER R CO CO 8022 8022 AVE 350 DENVER NESVADBA GEORGE NESVADBA GEORGE NEW WORLD VENTURES LLC 329 PARKVIEW AVE 2000 S COLORADO BLVD 1-8000 5875N ROGERS AVE 6607 GOLDEN CO 80401 DENVER CO 80222 CHICAGO IL 60602 NOMAD LAWN & PROPERTY NGUYEN BINH NGUYEN TOM MAINTENANCE LLP 5344 NEWCOMBE ST 5306 NELSON ST 32 SKYLINE DR ARVADA CO 80002 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80215 OCHOA JOSE LUIS OGLEVIE JACQUELINE S OSBORN DONALD CARL 4995 HARLAN ST PO BOX 2121 2927 BENTON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ENGLEWOOD CO 80150 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80212 OSBORN DONALD CARL PARNELL CHARLES S PATRICK & SARAH SMITH LLC 3720 W 112TH AVE 208 5354 NEWCOMBE ST 16036 W ELLSWORTH LN WESTMINSTER CO 80031 ARVADA CO 80002 GOLDEN CO 80401 PAULS SLIDES INC PDPP LLC PESTER COLORADO CORP 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 110 4975 MILLER ST 5600 S QUEBEC ST 335A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80111 PETERS FAMILY TRUST PETERSEN 2003 FAMILY REVOCABLE PETERSON COMPANY 5330 NEWCOMBE ST TRUST 5000 OAK ST ARVADA CO 80002 5110 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2287 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2008 PICKELL JAMES G PIETRO GENE PORTIE S EDWARD 5395 NEWCOMBE ST 4836 VAN GORDON ST 6960 IRIS CT ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2116 ARVADA CO 80004 1671 POWDERHORN PARK IV PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XVII PARTNERSHIP LLLP PRICHARD JAMES L INC 4896 VAN GORDON ST 5100 TABOR ST PO BOX 25025 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GLENDALE CA 91201 5025 QUAIL CREEK INVESTORS LLC R C D LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RAY JULIE DEMOTT 2000 S COLORADO BLVD 405 9555 RALSTON RD 5370 NELSON ST DENVER CO 80222 ARVADA CO 80002 ARVADA CO 80002 REED KIMBERLEE REED LARRY N RICHARDS ELEANOR L 5170 TABOR ST 12497 W 69TH AVE 6087 W 49TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2012 ARVADA CO 80004 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 RICHNER HARRY RIDGE VENTURE LLC RITZ MICHAEL P JR 9445 W 49TH AVE 1580 LINCOLN ST 770 7543 LUPINE CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2277 DENVER CO 80203 ARVADA CO 80007 7938 ROBB STREET VENTURES INC ROBBINS PATRICIA A ROBITAILLE RONALD R 1777 S HARRISON ST #P309 5001 GARRISON ST 1 5110 PARFET ST DENVER CO 80210 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2148 ROXY & FRANCES L VENDENA ROYAL INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES ROHRIG MARJORIE A TRUST LLC 4920 INGALLS ST 6105 W 49TH AVE 4896 MARSHALL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3653 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3635 RUBIO MARIA DE LOS ANGELES S H 0 P PROPERTIES LLC SAGO BARBARA E 4985 HARLAN ST 13020 W 58TH AVE 5180 SIMMS PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2004 SAN REMO INC SANDERS WAREHOUSE SAWYER KENNETH V 11919 I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 112 PARTNERSHIP 5386 NELSON ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 10201 W 49TH AVE ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2211 SCHAEFFER KENT J SCHIPPOREIT DENNIS SDT INVESTMENTS LLC 5190 SWADLEY ST 5031 GARRISON ST 100A 7764 UMBER CT WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2008 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 ARVADA CO 80007 SHANER JOHN BURTON SILZ HEINZ N SITTNER JAMES D 4891 HARLAN ST 15745 HWY 34 6080 W 49TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3628 FORT MORGAN CO 80701 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SIX OAK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SKALLA GREGORY R SKITZO OFFSHORE LLC 11445 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 5290 QUAIL ST 4651 TABOR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2128 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2302 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2459 SKYLINE ESTATES FLG #1 MASTER SKYLINE RIDGE ARVADA LLC SMITH JOHN P ASSN INC 390 UNION BLVD 580 100 JEFFERSON COUNTY PKWY 13585 W COLFAX AVE LAKEWOOD CO 80228 GOLDEN CO 80419 GOLDEN CO 80401 SOUTH CAROL A 5110 SIMMS PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SPASCO LTD 109 N POST OAK LAND 550 HOUSTON TX 77024 SPETH STEVEN 5185 SIMMS PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 SQUILLACE DALE R 5311 NELSON ST ARVADA CO 80002 STEFANICH DAVID A 11650 W 68TH AVE ARVADA CO 80004 2537 STIESMEYER CHARLES 4996 PARFET ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2144 STARZEC STEPHEN F 5396 NELSONAN ST ARVADA CO 80002 STEHLE GARY LEE 14040 W 58TH AVE ARVADA CO 80002 1133 STOCK LINDA E 5099 GARRISON ST B-1 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TABOR STREET PROPERTIES SWINGLE W H 100 JEFFERSON CNTY PKWY 2520 LIMITED LIABILITY GOLDEN CO 80419 2520 PO BOX 1 MORRISON CO 80465 TAGGART STACIA L TCCH MANAGEMENT LLC 5340 NELSON ST 12000 W 52ND AVE ARVADA CO 80002 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TIN INC TIPPETS ELVIS H PO BOX 1149 13322 W 71ST PL AUSTIN TX 78767 ARVADA CO 80004 TNC ORTIZ LLC TOMSIC CONNIE 6065 W 48TH AVE 5195 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2007 TRAPP JOHN M TRIAD REAL ESTATE 4870 INGALLS ST 7881 W 48TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3631 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 3122 STATE OF COLORADO DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1575 SHERMAN ST DENVER CO 80203 STENBERG FAMILY 2005 TRUST THE 4691 CHILENO VALLEY RD PETALUMA CA 94952 STRAFFACE BONNIE 10600 W ALAMO PL LITTLETON CO 80127 TABOR STREET REALTY VENTURE LLC 12782 W 75TH PL ARVADA CO 80005 TEBO STEPHEN D PO BOX T BOULDER CO 80302 TJMK LLC 1777 S HARRISON ST STE P309 DENVER CO 80210 TOUCHSTONE HOLDINGS INC 390 UNION BLVD 580 LAKEWOOD CO 80228 TRUJILLO EDWARD MARK 9340 W 49TH AVE 201 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 TUREK JOHN D UNION LAND HOLDING LLC V & A INVESTMENTS LLC 5105 SIMMS PL 44 UNION BLVD 115 4890 ROBB ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2003 LAKEWOOD CO 80228 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2106 VALENTINO EMANUEL J 6892 WRIGHT CT ARVADA CO 80004 2355 VAUGHAN MEDICAL INC 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 105 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VERANDAS ASSISTED LIVING AT WHEAT RIDGE 9495 W 49TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 VESSA RONALD L 5170 SWADLEY ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2008 WALINDER MARK R 11001 RIDGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WARD ROAD STORAGE LLC 5025 WARD RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WEILAND INVESTMENTS LLC 7501 GULFSTREAM BLVD MARATHON FL 33050 WHEATRIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK LLC 8933 E UNION AVE 216 ENGLEWOOD CO 80111 1357 WILLIAMS BRENDA KATHLEEN 4433 TABOR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WING CHARLES E 5345 NELSON ST ARVADA CO 80002 YELICK RONALD D 4675 EASLEY RD GOLDEN CO 80403 1601 VOTH FAMILY LLC THE PO BOX 1361 ARVADA CO 80001 WALKER JACK 3628 W 111TH DR WESTMINSTER CO 80031 WEBB RHONDA J 4921 GARRISON ST 100A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WELCH LARRY D 11907 W 48TH AVE WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WHITECOTTON TINA M 5380 NELSON ST ARVADA CO 80002 WILLIAMS LINDA P 5071 GARRISON ST 100A WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WINSETT EILEEN L 11601 RIDGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2041 YOUNG PETER C 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD #125 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WACKER HOLDINGS LLC 11919 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD N 123 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 WALKER RICHARD ERNEST JR 5823 ZANG CT ARVADA CO 80004 WEHLING FRANK W 5006 PARFET ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2146 WERBER DAVID A 5160 TABOR ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2012 WIEDMAIER ALAN 3 REDBIRD AGENCY MO 64401 WILSON WESTON R 5383 NEWCOMBE ST ARVADA CO 80002 WYATT BUSINESS PARK LLC 11775 W 53RD PL ARVADA CO 80002 1901 J C d n. u o ~ Q W B s TT ~ V V y Q ~ Y 3 o - a m V x ai - S m 6 Y• U upe5 vEav € o $ S ¢c $ vr~i C) w; E y § 'm M GE Z Q 4 gasmpV Q`.v„ 1*0 - rv yep w dEFFei~m o~ T Mi ° s `o -'.sn%z° .surta x, . ❑i PYi6$9~°R°u Is E: 114MEI E;."EP DRAFT AUGUST 28, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: BILLBOARD COMPANIES MAINTAINING BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT, AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney DATE: August 28, 2007 RE: Workshop meeting on proposed new billboard regulations On June 25, 2007, the Wheat Ridge City Council directed that a study session be held on the question of how permits for the 16 permitted billboards in the City's B-2 billboard zone district should be applied for and received. The Council had previously conducted a study session on this topic and had directed that an ordinance be prepared vesting the right to the billboard permit in the owner of the property where the 16 billboards are presently located. At the public hearing on June 25, 2007, a number of property owners and billboard companies testified, both in favor of and in opposition to the ordinance. In response to this testimony, Council voted to direct that the matter be considered by the Council again in a study session context. The purpose of this memorandum is to invite all organizations and individuals with an interest in this matter to an informal workshop with the goal of providing alternatives and supporting information for consideration by the City Council at a future Council study session. Presently, the regulations of the B-2 district set the maximum number of billboards at 16. There is no guidance in the City Code regarding what entity "owns" the right to a billboard location, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing requests for one of the (open) billboard locations. In the past, this has led to arguments between billboard companies over when a billboard site becomes "vacant," and what the effect of that activity is. The Community Development Department has responded by relying upon informal guidelines which, among other things, provide for a lottery system to choose between competing billboard applications filed at the same time. Even this system has not functioned well. CBS Outdoor, having lost in such a lottery system, has brought suit against the City, claiming it is entitled to that particular permit. Defending this law suit has wasted City staff time and funds. This is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that these disputes are often between billboard companies, and the City has no particular stake in the outcome. Also lost in the fierce competition among billboard companies are the legitimate rights of landowners. Any system ultimately arrived at should respect the rights of landowners and allow them to benefit from competition in the marketplace. This has not been true in the past, when billboard companies have essentially dictated what they will pay to rent a given site. Because of the wide divergence of views, it is clear that an informal workshop is necessary to encourage the various parties with an interest in this matter to focus their positions and arrive at a solution they can collectively recommend to the City Council. Accordingly, the purpose of this workshop will be to challenge the billboard companies, the landowners and other interested persons to do more than complain about the present system, and instead to come up with a solution which can be supported by all. The results of the workshop will be presented to the City Council at an upcoming study session for its consideration. The workshop has been scheduled for the following date, time and place: , 2007 a.m./p/m. Wheat Ridge City Council chambers We urge all of you to make every effort to do more than simply attend this session. Please come prepared to make concrete suggestions and to compromise. It will not be helpful or welcomed if you come with the intention of simply pushing an individual agenda, as the City has experienced plenty of that already. Attached as background for the workshop are the following materials: 1. Request for City Council Action dated June 25, 2007 and accompanying Council Bill 10-2007, amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the regulation of billboards. 2. Existing regulations used by the Community Development Department (Oct 17, 2005) 3. Memorandum opposing Council Bill 10-2007 authored by CBS Outdoor, Inc., Lamar Advertising Company and Mile Hi Outdoor Inc. 4. Proposed alternative advanced by CBS Outdoor 5. Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the CBS Outdoor memorandum 6. Map of present billboard locations in the City I look forward to seeing you at the workshop, and especially to your constructive contributions to the discussion on that date. INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SANG Council Bill No. 06-2007 Ordinance No. 1396 Series of 2007 ,off TITLE: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO SIGN CODE WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge has adopted regulations pertaining to the regulation of signs; WHEREAS, the City has identified changes which will improve the readability and understanding of the sign code; WHEREAS, commercial signage is prominently displayed along the city's most traveled streets; WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is concerned about the negative affects of exterior lighting and its affects on adjacent properties; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Article VII of Chapter 26, Sections 26-701 through 26-710, of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: Section 26-701. Intent and purpose. The intent and purpose of this article is: A. To protect the public from signs which are structurally unsafe; B. To promote traffic safety and the free movement of traffic, and protect the public from the hazardous conditions which result from signs that obscure or distract the vision of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; C. To facilitate easy, safe and pleasant communication between people and their surroundings; D. To conserve the character and economic value of buildings and neighborhoods; E. To provide a balance between legitimate identification and advertising needs and the visual discord which signs sometimes cause, and to provide a sense of balance or proportion between a sign and the building or property which it serves; F. To encourage the erection of signs which are legible in their surroundings, compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area, appropriate to the activities identified; and G. To ensure that adequate and effective advertising signage opportunities exist within a regulatory framework which protects the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. H. It is not the intent of these regulations to prohibit or unreasonably regulate or to require permits for the legitimate display of traditional holiday season decorations; provided, however, that such decorations or displays are installed and maintained in a safe manner. Section 26-702. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Animated sign. A sign or parts thereof, which revolve, whirl, twirl or utilize motion, implied or actual, in a horizontal or vertical plane or both. The only animated type of signs that are permitted are "barber pole" signs. Arcade sign. Any sign projecting beneath and attached to the underside of any balcony, canopy, awning or other structural overhang or passageway. Artistic mural or sculpture. A freestanding statue or sculpture or a graphic illustration or design, or an architectural design or relief applied directly to or incorporated within a wall of a building, which does not advertise or promote a particular business, service or "branded" product. Awning. A movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and/or a type which can be retracted against the face of the supporting building. Banner. A sign or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, fabric or other light material that is mounted with no enclosing framework intended to be displayed for a short period of time. Billboard. Any sign in excess of fifty (50) square feet in size oriented to the interstate highway utilized to advertise a product or service that is not produced or conducted on the same property as the sign. Building front. The exterior wall(s) of a building facing a public street or streets or other public right-of-way other than alleys, or one (1) exterior wall containing the primary entrance to the building if not directly facing upon a public street. Canopy. A roof-like structure serving the purpose of protecting vehicles and/or pedestrians and which may be freestanding or attached to a building, is provided with supports, and is open on three (3) sides if attached and on all sides if freestanding. Changeable copy sign. A sign, either illuminated or nonilluminated, which is designed so that the message or any part of the message may be periodically changed, either mechanically or electronically, however, where a change in message occurs no sooner than every fifteen (15) seconds. Development. A single lot, parcel or tract of land or portions or combinations of lots, parcels or tracts of land which are held in single or common ownership and which exist as a distinct functional entity. Multi-use and multi-tenant buildings and multiple building complexes which are held in singular or common ownership, either by individual, corporation, partnership or other legally recognized entity, shall be considered a "development" for the purpose of signage. Erect. To build, construct, attach, hang, place, suspend, affix, relocate or reconstruct any sign or sign-supporting structure. Flashing sign. A sign that is illuminated with intermittent lighting, animated lighting or with varying intensities of light at intervals of fifteen (15) seconds or less, including a moving light or lights. Freestanding sign. A sign that is permanent and self-supporting, being nondependent on support from a building or other structure, including signs placed upon fences or nonsupporting walls. Illuminated sign. A sign that is illuminated with constant intensities of light of a non-varying nature. There are three (3) types of illuminated lights as follows: (a) Direct. Lighting by means of an unshielded light source which is effectively visible as a part of the sign. Neon lighting is considered direct lighting. (b) Indirect. Lighting which illuminates the front of a sign or the entire building facade upon which the sign is displayed, the source of the light being shielded from public view and from surrounding properties. Indirect illumination does not include lighting which is primarily used for purposes other than sign illumination, such as parking lot lighting. (c) Internal. Lighting by means of a light source which is within a sign having a translucent background and which silhouettes opaque letters or designs, or lighting within or behind letters or designs which are themselves made of translucent or opaque material Informational sign. A freestanding or wall-type sign, not located within public street right-of-way, which gives necessary direction or non-advertising information to motor vehicle operators or pedestrians, such as entrance, exit, parking limitations or location of onsite buildings or facilities. A company logo or name no larger than one (1) square foot may be included on each such permitted sign. Lot. A tract, building site, parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description, as on a subdivision plat of record or survey map or by metes and bounds, for the purpose of sale, lease or use. Major interior drive. A drive aisle located on private property which connects two (2) public streets or provides access to two (2) or more parcels of land or developments. Nonconforming sign. A sign which does not conform with the regulations set forth in this article, but which did meet the requirements of the regulations existing at the date of its erection. Off-premises sign. Any sign, fifty (50) square feet or smaller, which advertises or directs attention to a business, commodity, service or activity conducted, sold or offered elsewhere other than on the property which the sign is located. Public and semi-public signs are not considered off-premises signs. Painted sign. A sign that is painted directly onto the exterior surface of a building, wall or structure. Political sign. A noncommercial sign, which is exempt from permit requirements, erected or placed so as to advertise, announce, declare or state a political message, whether relating to a political campaign or election or any other issue of public concern which is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. Portable sign. Any sign which is supported by one (1) or more uprights or braces upon the ground and which is of portable design. Projecting sign. A sign which is affixed to any building, wall or structure and which extends beyond the building wall more than fifteen (15) inches. Public sign. A sign that is required by federal, state or local law or ordinance necessary for public information. Revolving sign. A sign utilizing an axis point to pivot the sign surface. Roof sign. A sign erected, constructed and maintained above the eaves and attached to the roof of a building. Semipublic sign. A sign giving information as to church location, educational institutions or service club locations. Sign. Any object or device or part thereof situated outdoors or indoors, viewed from outdoors by the general public, and which object or device or the effect produced thereby is used to advertise, announce, identify, declare, demonstrate, display, instruct, direct or attract attention by means including, but not limited to, words, letters, figures, designs, fixtures, colors, motion, illumination, sound or projecting images. Sign permit. A building permit issued for the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, relocation, improvement, removal, conversion or demolition of any sign issued pursuant to the building code of the city or this sign code. Sign structure. Any supports, uprights, braces or framework of a sign which does not include any portion of the sign message. Street frontage. For the purpose of signage, frontage upon a street is obtained by ownership, easement or leasehold only if used for vehicular access to the property, or if not used for vehicular access, only if such street frontage is at least fifty (50) feet in width. Where the regulations allow "one sign per street frontage," the intent is that the sign allowed is placed upon or facing the street, unless specifically otherwise permitted. Surface area of sign. The total area enclosed by the shortest line that can be drawn around the entire sign, including any architectural embellishment or background material or color forming an integral part of the display and used to differentiate the sign from its surroundings. Sign support structures which do not bear advertising material shall be excluded in computation of sign area. Signs without backing (i.e., freestanding, projecting, A-frame or pedestal signs) are allowed the maximum square footage for each side for double-faced signs; however, signs having more than two (2) sides or faces shall not exceed the total face area allowed for a double-faced sign. Temporary sign. Any sign, banner, pennant, valance or other outdoor advertising sign constructed of light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, plywood, sheet metal, paper or other light materials, with or without a frame, intended or designed to be displayed for a limited period of time. Traffic and regulatory signs. Signs, signals or markings placed or erected by federal, state or local authority for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic. Unlawful sign. Any sign or outdoor advertising device erected in the absence of a permit required by this article, or in violation of any of the limitations, prohibitions or requirements of this article. Unsafe sign. Any sign or advertising structure found unsafe or insecure or creating a hazard or menace to the public safety, health and welfare. Wall sign. A sign constructed of durable materials or painted and which is permanently affixed to an exterior surface of any building, wall or structure and which does not extend more than fifteen (15) inches beyond the building wall, except that signage placed upon marquees, canopies or awnings shall be considered as wall signs. Section 26-703. Enforcement and penalties. Enforcement and penalties shall be in accordance with those provisions set forth in article X. In addition to any remedies set forth in section 26-1004 et seq., specific authority is granted to the enforcement officer to remove, or have removed, the following signs after posting of a notice at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to removal upon the premises where such sign(s) is located: A. Signs which are prohibited pursuant to the residential/agriculture/public facilities and commercial/industrial/mixed use sign standard charts. B. Unsafe signs. Section 26-704. Contractor's license required. A. No person shall engage in the business of installing, altering or repairing any sign within the corporate limits of the city unless he is the holder of a currently valid, city sign contractor's license, except for those signs exempt from permit. B. The city shall have the power to suspend or revoke the license of any holder of a sign license issued pursuant to this article, in accordance with the provisions as set forth in the building code. (See chapter 5 of this Code of Laws for related provisions.) Section 26-705. Permit required. A. No sign or modification to an existing sign shall be erected, placed or displayed outdoors within the city limits until a permit for such sign has been issued by the city, unless such sign is exempt from a permit in accordance with this sign code. B. An application, accompanied by a "to scale" drawing, for each separate sign permit shall be made to the department of community development on a form supplied by the department. Such applications shall set forth the name and address of the applicant; the location where such sign is to be erected or located; the name, phone number and address of the owner of the property; the size, height, type and general description of such proposed sign, including the materials of which it is constructed, the sign contractor's name, phone number and address and such other pertinent information required or deemed necessary by the department to determine the sign's safety and conformance to this article. A "to scale" plot plan of the lot or parcel shall accompany the application and shall show the location of the proposed sign and the location, type and size of other signs which exist upon the lot. The mere application for a sign permit does not assure that a permit will be issued; therefore, it is advised that signs not be fabricated, constructed or purchased prior to issuance of a sign permit. C. Fees for the erection of signs shall be established and set forth in Appendix A. Permit fees and city use tax will be waived where a nonconforming sign is removed and replaced by a sign conforming with these regulations. Section 26-706. Non-conforming signs. A. Nonconforming signs. A lawful sign existing on the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may be continued, although such sign does not conform to the provisions of this article, subject to the following provisions: 1. Relocation, or replacement of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming sign is permitted so long as the nonconformity is not increased. Rebuilding or reconstructing a nonconforming sign is permitted only if the rebuilding or reconstruction is limited to installing a new sign cabinet on an existing support structure. Installing a new sign cabinet together with a new support structure shall constitute replacement of the nonconforming sign and shall require conformance with this article. 2. In the event the use of a nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, the nonconforming sign shall thereafter conform to the provisions of the zoning district in which it is located or be removed. For the purpose of this section, the term "discontinued" shall apply to uses which customarily operate on a continuous basis versus a seasonal basis. Seasonal uses shall be subject to a twelve-month period of nonuse prior to requiring full compliance with these regulations. 3. A nonconforming sign that is destroyed or damaged more than fifty (50) percent of its net worth due to natural causes may not be reconstructed except in accordance with the provisions of this article; however, any sign destroyed or damaged to any extent by vandalism may be rebuilt to its original state within six (6) months or otherwise it must be reconstructed in conformance with this article. 4. Normal maintenance which does not require modification of the sign structure, supports or members shall be permitted. A face change is considered normal maintenance. 5. In order to provide an incentive for removal of nonconforming signs, permit fees and city use tax will be waived where a nonconforming sign is removed and replaced by a sign conforming with these regulations. B. Discontinued business, etc. Whenever a use of land and/or building using an identification sign is discontinued, except for seasonal uses pursuant to subsection A.2., above, the sign shall be removed or obscured by the person owning the property within thirty (30) days after the discontinuance of such use. Any such sign which is nonconforming to these regulations and which is not used to advertise an active business within sixty (60) days of discontinuance shall be removed or otherwise brought into compliance. Section. 26-707. General provisions/performance standards. A. Sight distance triangle 1. No sign is allowed which would violate the sight distance triangle requirements of section 26-603B. 2. At signalized intersections, where both streets are collectors and/or arterial, the required sight distance shall be governed by the standards set forth in the most current edition of the policy on geometric design of highways and streets, published by the American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). B. Location of signs 1. All signs allowed by this article, except billboards, public signs, and semipublic signs shall be located on the lot which they advertise. C. Streets and rights-of-way 1. No sign shall be erected in such a location as to interfere with motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 2. No sign is allowed in the public right-of-way, with the exception of signs on bus benches and shelters pursuant to article IV of chapter 21, and public, semi-public, traffic, regulatory and projecting signs as outlined in Section 26-710. 3. No sign is allowed which may be construed as a traffic sign or signal or which may be confusing to motorists or mistaken as a traffic signal. 4. Where it is difficult to determine the pubic right-of-way boundary due to lack of curb, gutter and/or sidewalk, or survey markers, such boundaries shall be presumed to be ten (10) feet from the edge of pavement or back of curb. Where a sidewalk exists, such boundaries shall be presumed to be two (2) feet from outside edge of sidewalk. 5. Attachment of any sign to utility poles or other poles or structures within public right-of-way is prohibited, except as approved by City Council pursuant to this article. 6. Temporary signs found by an enforcement officer to be located within city right-of-way or in violation of sight triangle requirements shall be removed by such enforcement officer with no requirement of notice. D. Interference 1. No sign is allowed which employs a lighting or control mechanism which causes radio, radar, cellular telephone or television interference. 2. No sign is allowed which, even though in general conformance with the standards and requirements of this sign code, is judged by the chief of police and public works director as a dangerous sign due to interference with a traffic control device by being in direct line between the control device and oncoming traffic or otherwise in visual competition with a traffic control device. E. Compliance with building codes 1. No sign shall be erected, constructed or maintained which obstructs or is attached to any fire escape, window, door or opening used as a means of egress or ingress or for firefighting purposes, or is placed which interferes with any opening required for light or ventilation. 2. No sign is permitted which is structurally unsafe as determined by the chief building official, based upon criteria established in the adopted building codes. 3. The design of all sign structure members and foundation shall conform to the requirements of the building code relative to allowable stresses, materials and engineering standards. Loads, both vertical and horizontal, shall not produce stresses exceeding those specified in the building code, and material construction shall be of the quality and grade required by the building code. All signs and structures shall be designed and constructed to meet the adopted building and electrical codes. F. Outside display 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 26-631, any merchandise dis- played outside of a building in such a way as to attract attention when viewed by the general public by placement upon a pole, a fence, a platform, roof or other similar device or structure shall be considered a sign and is prohibited. This shall not, however, be construed to prohibit merchandise customarily stored outside of buildings and placed upon shelves or tables, such as automobiles, campers, boats, plant materials, produce or lumber. G. Illumination 1. All illuminated signage shall comply with Section 26-503 of the zoning and development code. 2. Signs within one hundred (100) feet of a residential structure, may be lighted indirectly or internally. 3. Signs over one hundred (100) feet from a residential structure, may use any type of lighting source, except search or flashing lights, provided that they are shaded, shielded or directed so that the light shall not adversely affect surrounding premises or interfere with safe vision on public or private roadways, including highways. 4. All direct and indirect lighting sources shall be downcast to reduce glare, skyglow and light pollution. H. Maintenance 1. Any sign, including temporary signs, that becomes discolored, ragged, shredded, detached, etc., shall be removed or repaired. Removal or reconstruction of dangerous signs. 1. All signs which are prohibited shall conform to the provisions of this article either by removal or reconstruction, whichever applies, within sixty (60) days after the owner of such sign is notified of the violation. Section 26-708. Miscellaneous provisions. A. Building addresses 1. House or building address number signs shall be consistent with Section 26-419 C. - E. of the zoning and development code. B. Signs located on bus benches and bus stop shelters. 1. Signs located on bus benches shall be in conformance with Code of Laws, Article IV, Section 21-124. 2. Signs located on a bus stop shelter shall be in conformance with Code of Laws, Article IV, Section 21-151. Such signs shall be limited to two (2) faces per shelter for commercial advertising purposes with a maximum of twenty-four (24) square feet per face. C. Freestanding signs - Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use zone districts 1. Where two (2) freestanding signs are permitted by virtue of multiple street frontage, each permitted sign shall be allowed to have the maximum square footage allowed based on the formulas shown in Section 26-708.C.5. In addition, the sign area allowed may be transferred from one (1) sign to another; provided, that no freestanding sign shall exceed four hundred (400) square feet in area. 10 2. Where multiple signs are permitted because of multiple street frontage, the signs may be erected on the same street frontage. 3. For double-faced signs, each sign face can have the maximum square footage allowed. 4. Landscaping requirement: For new development or total redevelopment, all freestanding signs shall be placed within landscaped areas. 5. Maximum sign area: Based upon the following table: Maximum Sign Area (Square Feet = s.f.)* TABLE INSET: Floor Area of Building Single Use Development Multiple Use Development 0--1,500 s.f. 1,501--5,000 s.f. 5,001--50,000 s.f. 35 s.f. 35 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each additional 50 s.f. of floor area over 1,501. 100 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each additional 500 s.f. of floor area over 5,001. Over 50,001 s.f. 190 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each additional 1,000 s.f. of floor area over 50,001 up to a maximum size of 300 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each additional 40 s.f. of floor area over 1,501. 50 s.f. of 150 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each 300 s.f. of floor area over 5,001. 300 s.f. plus 1 s.f. per each additional 1,000 s.£ of floor area over 50,001 up to a maximum size of 400 s. f. *In computing allowable sign size, only the footprint of the structure can be used. The floor area of gas station and drive-thru canopies cannot be applied toward the freestanding sign allowance. D. Freestanding signs - Residential, Agriculture and Public Facilities zone districts 11 1. Where two (2) freestanding signs are permitted by virtue of multiple street frontage, each permitted sign shall be allowed to have the maximum square footage allowed, as defined in Section 26-708.C.5. 2. Where multiple signs are permitted because of multiple street frontage, the signs may be erected on the same street frontage. 3. For double-faced signs, each sign face can have the maximum square footage allowed. 4. Landscaping requirement: For new development or total redevelopment, all freestanding signs shall be placed within landscaped areas. E. Master Sign Plan 1. The planning commission may approve a master sign plan for any existing or proposed commercial or industrial development of at least two (2) acres or more in size which is under unified control either by ownership, legal association or leasehold. 2. The intent and purpose is to encourage well-planned and designed signage within a large multiple building or multiple use complex which expresses unification and integration by elements of architectural style, size, color, placement and lighting while at the same time allowing for reasonable individual business identification. An additional purpose is to encourage the elimination of existing nonconforming signs. The planning commission may grant as a bonus for well-designed plans additional signs and/or up to a fifty (50) percent increase in maximum square footage for each sign, and/or may permit signs in locations other than normally permitted, based upon a finding that the proposed master sign plan substantially meets the intent and purpose of this subsection relating to unification and integration of signage. 3. Once approved at a public hearing by planning commission, all master sign plans shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder's office and shall constitute a covenant and must be complied with by all owners, proprietors, lessees or assigns, whether current or future. No substantial variation from the plan shall be permitted without planning commission approval. Noticing requirements for a master sign plan process shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 26-109. Section 26-709. Residential, Agriculture and Public Facilities zone districts sign standards chart. SEE CHART NO. 1 12 Section 26-710. Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use zone districts sign standards chart. SEE CHART NO.2 Section 2. Safety Clause. The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Supersession Clause. If any provision, requirements or standard established by this Ordinance is found to conflict with similar provisions, requirements or standards found elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in existence as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions, requirements and standards here shall supersede and prevail. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to in this day of , 2007, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 2007, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2007. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 12007. JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR 13 ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERAL DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1ST publication: 2nd publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 25, 2007 Page -3- F. RESOLUTION 25-2007 - A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500.00 FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE 2007 WHEAT RIDGE CARNATION FESTIVAL. Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Council Member Stites. Mr. Stites asked to pull Item A. Motion by Stites for approval of Consent Agenda Items B, C, E, and F; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. John Nichols, Lakewood, spoke in favor of passing Item A. He is a City worker and it will help him and other employees. Motion by Council Member Stites to approve Consent Agenda Item 1. A; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 7-1 with Mr. Gokey voting No. Mr. Gokey doesn't see how we can keep pace with the bigger cities around us. He understands this has to be done for the Police Department, but doesn't know how many employees we can afford. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. COUNCIL BILL 10-2007 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26- 711 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS. Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 10-2007 was introduced on second reading by Council Member Sang. City Clerk Michael Snow read the Executive Summary and assigned Ordinance No. 1390. Alan White presented the staff report. Citizens Jack Walker, Ted Redling and Jan Anderson spoke in favor of this ordinance. Their comments included, but were not limited to: the ordinance offers the owner the opportunity to have others bid on the rights to their billboard, etc. Citizens Dick Holme, Brett Kelley and Steve Richards spoke in opposition to the ordinance, citing that it hinders property values, city revenues and healthy competition; it is the first of its kind in the State of Colorado and introduces a dangerous precedent that serves an administrative solution while unnecessarily impacts the values of property owners; and that the current code does allow for healthy competition. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 25, 2007 Page -4- Council Member Schulz read aloud a letter submitted to Council by Richard Walker, a Wheat Ridge Citizen who wishes to build a billboard on his property in the future. Mr. Walker urged Council to oppose this Ordinance. Dan Schere, business owner, was on hand to answer questions from Council regarding the relative and actual values of billboards. Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Sang to approve Council Bill 10-2007 (Ordinance 1390) on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Womble. Motion by Council Member Gokey to postpone this item to a first available study session; seconded by Mrs. Adams; carried 6-2 with Mr. Stites and Mrs. Rotola voting No. Item 3. COUNCIL BILL 11-2007: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, ENTITLED LICENSES, PERMITS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY CODE SECTION 11-231 CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROVISIONAL LICENSING OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS. Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 11-2007 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Adams; title read by City Clerk Michael Snow, who also assigned Ordinance No. 1390 Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing. Motion by Mrs. Adams to approve Council Bill 11-2007 (Ordinance 1390) on second reading and that it take effect upon adoption; seconded by Mr. Womble and Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. Item 4. COUNCIL BILL 12-2007: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REAPPOINTING PRESIDING MUNICIPAL JUDGE CHRISTOPHER RANDALL AND INCREASING HIS BENEFITS AND HOURLY COMPENSATION. Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 12-2007 was introduced on second reading by Council Member Rotola who read the Executive Summary. City Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1391. of wHenr ITEM NO: ~ ?c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION cOl ORA00 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 25, 2007 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 10-2007, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-711 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (Date: June 11, 2007) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-Judicial: ❑ Yes No ~I Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Manager The proposed ordinance amends Section 26-711 of the Zoning and Development Code containing the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations set the maximum number of billboards at 16 and establish maximum size, height, setback and spacing requirements. The regulations do not provide any guidance for the permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance vests the current 16 billboard locations with the underlying property. All other size, setback, height and spacing requirements are not changed. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance implements Council's strategic goals of planning for growth and opportunities by creating clear regulations for billboards. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The proposed regulations were presented to Planning Commission at a study session on April 5, 2007. At a public hearing on May 3, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance with no changes. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The proposed regulations were presented to City Council at a study session on February 20, 2007. Council directed staff to bring the proposed amendments forward. The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts - 1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). (See Attachment 1.) The regulations required all billboards in the B-1 District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than these standards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how pen-nits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. There have been two instances in the past three years where ground leases expired. Absent guidance in the Code, and with the assistance of the City Attorney, staff created a process and policies for dealing with this situation. This process essentially ties the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expires, so does the right to the billboard. That 10h billboard then becomes available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16`h billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. The billboard companies have provided a letter of opposition to the proposed amendment. (See Attachment 2.) Essentially their recommended approach is Alternative #2 and would vest the right to a billboard with the permit holder (the billboard company), not the underlying property owner. A billboard location would become available when one company removed one of the 16 billboards. Staff does not see this alternative solving any of the problems with the existing "temporary" process. What constitutes removal - when everything is removed, even the caisson? When the face comes off? When the pole structure is removed? At what point during removal can another company submit a permit for the "available billboard location" a month in advance because they know the lease is expiring and the billboard will have to be removed? The company removing the billboard will argue one thing, the competing company will argue another and City staff will be in the middle - probably conducting another lottery. The City Attorney has provided an opinion of the proposed ordinance and the billboard companies' assertions. (See Attachment 3.) He opines that the proposed ordinance does not deprive the billboard companies of due process and is a legitimate approach to the regulation of billboards. One change has been made to the ordinance since it was presented at study session. The length of time a billboard location may exist without an active billboard use was increased from 60 days to 90 days. The following active billboard use definition was included: "active billboard use" shall mean that both of the following are continuously maintained on a permitted billboard location and in compliance with all city requirements: (1) a supporting pole or structure, and (2) a display facility capable of displaying message copy. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Several alternatives to deal with the lack of specifics in the Code were considered: 1. Codify the procedures and policies used in the past two instances. 2. Vest the right to a billboard with the current permit holder (billboard company). 3. Vest the right to a billboard with the land where billboards are currently located. The proposed ordinance implements staff's recommended approach, Alternative #3. Vesting with the underlying property defines the 16 locations, allows the billboard companies to compete for the sites when leases expire, and adds value to the underlying property. It has the added advantages of taking staff out of the business of monitoring lease expirations and conducting lotteries to determine who is granted the available billboard. Planning Commission requested that staff investigate how other jurisdictions permit billboards. None of the jurisdictions examined had a limit on the number of billboards. Wheat Ridge is unique in that regard. The results revealed that there are as many approaches as there are jurisdictions. Below is a summary of that infonnation. • Arvada - Allowed only in B-4 zone district; no limit on number; considered principal use on lot. • Lakewood - Not mentioned in sign code. • Golden - Not mentioned in sign code. • Aurora - Allowed in certain commercial and industrial zone districts; no limit on number; cannot be visible from freeways or interstate highways. • Denver - Allowed, but under several spacing and visibility restrictions; no limit on number. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Because only 16 billboards are authorized by the ordinance and this number is not proposed to be changed, the revenue to the City from billboard permits will not change. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 10-2007 on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Map Showing Billboard Districts 2. Letter from Billboard Companies 3. Response Memorandum from City Attorney 4. Map of Current Billboard Locations 5. Council Bill 10-2007 OAl8 NValH3HS W Q F to N 3 L Q r, Z 0 N n p Na J t9 '1 LL m J Q 16 0 ATTACHMENT N m m 110 SCBS OUTDOOR MEMORANDUM MILE HIGH @nnooo o ADVERTISING TO: City of Wheat Ridge Mayor and City Council FROM: CBS Outdoor, Inc., Lamar Advertising Co., Mile High Outdoor, fnffff DATE: February 21, 2007 RE: Proposed Revision to Wheat Ridge Billboard Ordinance The Director of Community Development has proposed an amendment to a portion of the Wheat Ridge Sign Code relating to billboards. The covering Memorandum states essentially that the existing ordinance should be changed to make the land upon which existing billboards currently exist the only permissible locations for billboards, now and in the future. The sole justification is to relieve claimed administrative burdens on the Community Development Department. This proposal is unnecessary, and may well be unconstitutional. The change is unnecessary since the "problem" the amendment is designed to correct has only occurred once in the 16 years since the billboard regulations were passed in 1991. This "problem" is that two billboard companies applied for a new permit when one of the existing 16 billboards was removed. This "problem," however, was only created by the Director when, after discussions with only one billboard company (United Outdoor), he utilized new "draft policies," which "policies" ignored a much more obvious approach to resolving the issue. Unfortunately and also derived without discussion with or the benefit of the analysis by any company in the industry other than United, the Director's proposed solution,: (1) provides a total and undeserved windfall to those property owners lucky enough to have existing billboards on their property; (2) blocks all other property owners in Wheat Ridge's B-2 zone from having an equal opportunity to receive the income from billboard rentals; and (3) takes property without compensation from the existing billboard companies which are, as admitted by the Director in his Memo, "the current permit holders" and whose permit rights will be stripped and effectively given to the property owners. A much simpler solution is to provide that no new billboard permit be issued until one of the existing billboards has been physically removed or destroyed. Background: Most, if not all, of the existing 16 billboards in Wheat Ridge were erected pursuant to sign permits granted to CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and 766292 ATTACHMENT 2 Mile High Outdoor (and two granted to United Outdoor, which is believed to be the major proponent of the proposed amendment). The billboards were erected on properties on which the billboard companies obtained land leases with property owners. hi all cases, the billboards were erected, paid for and maintained by the billboard company. The billboards are the property of and owned by the billboard company, not by the landowner. Since most of these leases are for 10 years or more, they expire and billboards are removed very infrequently. (We do not believe the Department has issued more than two or three new permits in the last 10 years.) CBS, Lamar and Mile High Outdoor have received no new permits in the past ten years. Since the Wheat Ridge billboard code requires that a new sign permit be obtained before erecting or remodeling any billboard, and states that only 16 may exist at one time, one would have thought that a new permit could be issued only when the number of billboards drops to 15 - i.e., when an existing billboard has been physically removed. This is easy to determine administratively since the applicant would need to advise the Department which sign had been removed - a fact the Department can visually verify in minutes, if not by merely looking at before and after photographs. Nonetheless, when discussing only with United when a new permit could be issued, the Director-told it that the new permit could be issued only when the underlying lease expired. Not only is there no reference in the billboard code to leases (much less the permissible number of them), but this is a more difficult matter to determine administratively, because the Department has not required that leases on file with them reflect the expiration date. Thus, in one case in the last 16 years, the Department held a lottery, which it would not have done if it had used the removal of a billboard as the key factor. The Director's Proposed Solution. First, the present proposed ordinance would allow the property owners who fortuitously have billboards on their property at this time the perpetual and exclusive right to maintain a billboard on their property. This right is not one they have ever had before or one they ever sought or paid for. Nonetheless, as noted in the Director's Memorandum, this gift will "add value to the underlying property," Yet this is value that they will gain solely because a billboard company previously paid for erecting and maintaining the billboard on their property.' Indeed, the windfall may be much larger and with less potential benefit to the City than even the Director imagines. Under the Director's proposal, the existing landowner has the the right to maintain the billboard on his property. The billboard can be moved to another location on that property. Furthermore, if the property is divided the 1 It is unclear why the proposed ordinance limits the number of billboards to one per assessor's parcel number. At least one landowner already has two billboards in existence on one piece of property. Indeed, because of its location on the interstate highway, it could not be removed without payment of full just compensation. -2- right remains with the portion of the property containing the billboard. (These additional provisions appear central to allowing the proposal to work.) Thus, one can fully expect that if this ordinance were adopted billboard companies will approach each present landowner and (a) ask them to allow the company to move the billboard to a comer or side of the property, and (b) pay the landowner a substantial sum to sell that sliver to the billboard company, which will then possess the right to own that billboard in that location forever without having to pay any further rent. Thus, it is likely that the only beneficiaries of the new ordinance will be the handful of existing landowners and the purchasing billboard companies. Second, not all billboards in Wheat Ridge have remained in the same location. This proposed ordinance will not only provide a windfall to the owners of existing billboard locations, it will obviously preclude all other property owners whose land is presently zoned for billboards (the only function of the B-2 zone), from ever having the opportunity to have a billboard built on their property and from receiving the significant lease revenues the billboard companies pay. Just as the existing landowners are fortuitous financial beneficiaries of the new proposal, all other landowners in the B-2 zone will be gratuitously deprived of an equivalent opportunity to obtain any financial benefit. As noted above, even any new owners of the existing billboard locations are also likely to be foreclosed from any future benefit of the proposal. Finally, "current permit holders (billboard company)" will be stripped of their permits and their position without compensation. Their rights are being handed over to the landowners, whose only financial participation has to be receive revenues from the billboard companies derived from property paid for, erected and maintained by the billboard company itself. The alternative proposal suggested above, has none of the foregoing problems, is administratively easy to administer (on the extremely rare occasions when the istue may arise), and is completely consistent with the existing ordinance (which, incidentally, established the 16 billboard limit as a quid pro quo for the billboard companies to remove their billboards from throughout the remainder of Wheat Ridge without payment of compensation). When a billboard is removed or destroyed, the present code requires that a new permit be obtained to rebuild or replace it. It is highly unlikely that a billboard will be removed unless the company's lease is being terminated. If the code provided (as has always previously been assumed to be the case) that anyone could seek a new permit when one of the existing billboards is removed or destroyed, then the only thing the Department would have to do is check to see that a previously existing billboard is gone, before issuing a new permit. If multiple applications are filed on the same day, there is no problem with the holding of a lottery to determine which billboard applicant should get one (although it would help if only one application per location were included rather than allowing the billboard companies and the landowners to file separate applications for the same billboard). It is noteworthy that the existing lawsuit does not challenge the procedures of the lottery that was held. Rather it asserts that no lottery was needed because the first permit application was submitted the day the lease was terminated and the billboard was removed, which was the day before any other applications were submitted. -3- Our representatives would he happy to expand on the foregoing points and to answer any questions you might have. They are: Mr. Dan Scherer General Manager CBS Outdoor 4647 Leyden St. Denver, Colorado 80216 303-333-5400 Mr. Alan Weiss General Manager Mile High Outdoor Advertising 300 E. Hampden #324 Englewood, CO 80113 303.783.4800 Mr. Frank Bullock General Manager 12301 N Grant St Suite 240 Thornton, CO 80241 303-280-7000 -4- M ,f r_ FU LI M:L'b-d',.~F2M€f~-FLA'T' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Randy Young; Alan White FROM: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney DATE: March 12, 2007 RE: Correspondence from CBS Outdoor, et al. regarding Proposed Revision to Billboard Ordinance Council will have received a copy of a February 21, 2007 memorandum from CBS Outdoor, Inc., Lamar Advertising Company, and Mile Hi Outdoor, Inc., concerning the proposed revisions to the City's billboard ordinance. The billboard companies have raised a number of concerns they have with this ordinance. The purpose of this memorandum is to advise what steps, if any, the Council should take in response to that memorandum. My review of the memorandum leads me to conclude that there are no legal deficiencies in the proposed billboard ordinance, and that the reason it was suggested to the Council initially remains unchanged. The staff continues to recommend that it be approved. The billboard companies make the statement that they believe the ordinance is somehow unconstitutional, but do not really demonstrate why. Of course, any land use resulting regulation restricts the use of private property in certain ways, and unless the restriction removes all economic all use of the property, there is no "taking" in constitutional terms. In the case of the proposed ordinance, all of the billboards currently in place will remain, so long as the landlords and the billboard companies remain in agreement. No billboard permits are revoked. Billboard companies are free to negotiate with landowners for permission to maintain a billboard on those properties. The ordinance leaves the negotiating where it should be - between the landowners and the billboard companies. The billboard companies also have raised the concern that property owners will be inspired to subdivide off small slivers of their property in order to sell those parcels to ATTACHMENT 3 billboard companies. Of course, any such division of property would be a "subdivision" under the City's land use code and would only be approved if it met the requirements of the subdivision regulations. Also, as Council is aware, the present draft ordinance provides that any subdivision of property would not result in entitlement to an additional billboard on that property; the billboard entitlement would remain with the portion of the property upon which the billboard was in existence. The proposed ordinance is a legitimate exercise of the City's legislative authority to regulate land use matters. Because it is legislative, it will be subject to a public hearing before the City Council. I understand that a number of you have or will be contacted by the billboard companies for some form of private meeting outside of the legislative hearing process. While this is not prohibited, I see no reason for such meetings in light of the fact that there will be a public hearing on the ordinance. The three billboard companies who wrote the memorandum, any other billboard companies, and interested landowners and other citizens will have the full opportunity to express their opinions to the City Council at that time. Finally, the billboard companies' memorandum makes some allegations about the current lawsuit brought against the City by CBS Outdoor. In that case, CBS Outdoor does challenge the City's use of a lottery to process a particular billboard permit application. The status of this case is that the City won in District Court and CBS Outdoor has appealed. I advise you not to engage in a discussion with CBS Outdoor regarding the case while it remains on appeal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if this memorandum raises many questions N N.T.S. Updated May 2007 Billboard Locations N c d ~ .Q Y V H 1 a.i 1 1 n ~ 1 is a®n~n~u Was II II i I I C 5 YG' G G 5~ '~G Y•1~...GiYG9io ii~G~ i Q~••SG~ ~GiGGi - Legend i„•._t _ City Boundary 1A\/ City Street Interstate as 'as'assas Billboard Location tr A-r , '[IT Attachment 4 V m C m o m = a 3 N N L / 1-76 1-70 W. 44th Ave. W 38th Ave. W. 32nd Ave. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2007 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26- 711.C.1, CONCERNING BILLBOARDS IN THE B-2 BILLBOARD DISTRICT AND REPEALING SECTION 26-711.13 WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has authority pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and, inter aiia, C.R.S. 31-23-101 et sue. and 29-20-101 et sue. to regulate the use of land and structures thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Section 26-711.C of the Code of Laws, concerning billboard signs in the B- 2 District; and WHEREAS, said Section 26-711.C currently permits a maximum of sixteen (16) billboards in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, the maximum sixteen billboards are in place in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the sixteen-billboard limitation has been difficult to administer in practice, owing to the difficulty in determining when individual billboard leases cease or are terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to eliminate these administrative difficulties, Section 26-711 should be amended to provide that the sixteen billboard locations presently in use in the B-2 District shall be designated as the only locations upon which billboards are permitted in the B-2 District; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance will preserve and protect existing property rights by recognizing the right of the property owners of the designated sixteen locations to continue to operate or lease the same for display of billboards; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that Code Section 26-711.13, concerning billboards in the B-1 District is no longer necessary as all billboards in the B-1 District were removed prior to January 1, 1996. ATTACHMENT 5 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-711.C.1 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to read: Maximum number allowed is sixteen (16), UNDER THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: previded that existing biN;bearas-loea-ted vith:ig the B ' distriet-n9ay be nancibeF. (A) THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS AND PERMITTED LOCATIONS FOR SUCH BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE B-2 DISTRICT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ID APN Address Schedule # # of Billboards 1 39-174-07-001 4990 Ward Rd. 109992 1 2 39-174-07-012 4800 Ward Rd. 109982 1 3 39-202-00-009 12505 W. 44th Ave. 042865 1 4 39-201-06-001 12351 W. 44th Ave. 136582 1 5 39-201-01-003 no address 406411 1 6 39-163-00-022 4800 Parfet St. 043805 2 7 39-164-05-001 10501 W. 1-70 FR N 042788 1 8 39-164-00-018 10101 W. 1-70 FR N 072159 1 9 39-143-00-098 8105 W. 48th Ave. 085976 1 10 39-143-00-101 7881 W. 48th Ave. 004073 1 11 39-133-05-001 no address 194269 1 12 39-133-05-006 4901 Marshall St. 164345 1 13 39-133-07-001 6400 W. 48th Ave. 003811 1 14 39-133-09-001 6161 W. 48th Ave. 109721 1 15 39-133-04-003 6300 W. 49th Dr. 136945 1 (B) IN THE EVENT ANY OF THE ABOVE-LISTED LOCATIONS SHALL CEASE TO BE IN ACTIVE BILLBOARD USE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE, SAID LOCATION SHALL CEASE TO BE A PERMITTED LOCATION, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SUCH BILLBOARDS AND LOCATIONS DESCRIBED AND PERMITTED HEREIN SHALL BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. 2 (C) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "ACTIVE BILLBOARD USE" SHALL MEAN THAT BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED ON A PERMITTED BILLBOARD LOCATION AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS: (1) A SUPPORTING POLE OR STRUCTURE, AND (2) A DISPLAY FACILITY CAPABLE OF DISPLAYING MESSAGE COPY. (D) A BILLBOARD MAY BE MOVED, SO LONG AS IT REMAINS ON THE PERMITTED LOCATION. (E) IN THE EVENT THE PARCEL CONTAINING A PERMITTED LOCATION IS SUBDIVIDED, THE BILLBOARD AND THE ENTITLEMENT TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A BILLBOARD SHALL REMAIN WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY ON WHICH THE BILLBOARD WAS SITUATED AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. THE REMAINING PORTION(S) OF THE SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT TO PLACE OR MAINTAIN A BILLBOARD ON SUCH PROPERTY. (F) ALL BILLBOARDS SHALL CONTINUOUSLY BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 26. Section 2. Section 26-711.6 of the Code of Laws is repealed. Section 3. Figure 26-711.1 is hereby amended to delete the reference to the B-1 District. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2007, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2007, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2007. 3 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2007. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 4 of wne r ITEM NO: { Pa U m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION (ORADO COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June l 1, 2007 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 10-2007, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-711 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: June 11, 2007) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-Judicial: ❑ Yes No UV Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Manager The proposed ordinance amends Section 26-711 of the Zoning and Development Code containing the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations set the maximum number of billboards at 16 and establish maximum size, height, setback and spacing requirements. The regulations do not provide any guidance for the permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance vests the current 16 billboard locations with the underlying property. All other size, setback, height and spacing requirements are not changed. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance implements Council's strategic goals of planning for growth and opportunities by creating clear regulations for billboards. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The proposed regulations were presented to Planning Commission at a study session on April 5, 2007. At a public hearing on May 3, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance with no changes. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The proposed regulations were presented to City Council at a study session on February 20, 2007. Council directed staff to bring the proposed amendments forward. The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts - 1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). (See Attachment 1.) The regulations required all billboards in the B-1 District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than these standards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. There have been two instances in the past three years where ground leases expired. Absent guidance in the Code, and with the assistance of the City Attorney, staff created a process and policies for dealing with this situation. This process essentially ties the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expires, so does the right to the billboard. That 16`x' billboard then becomes available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16`x' billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. The billboard companies have provided a letter of opposition to the proposed amendment. (See Attachment 2.) Essentially their recommended approach is Alternative #2 and would vest the right to a billboard with the permit holder (the billboard company), not the underlying property owner. A billboard location would become available when one company removed one of the 16 billboards. Staff does not see this alternative solving any of the problems with the existing "temporary" process. What constitutes removal - when everything is removed, even the caisson? When the face comes off? When the pole structure is removed? At what point during removal can another company submit a permit for the "available billboard location" a month in advance because they know the lease is expiring and the billboard will have to be removed? The company removing the billboard will argue one thing, the competing company will argue another and City staff will be in the middle - probably conducting another lottery. The City Attorney has provided an opinion of the proposed ordinance and the billboard companies' assertions. (See Attachment 3.) He opines that the proposed ordinance does not deprive the billboard companies of due process and is a legitimate approach to the regulation of billboards. One change has been made to the ordinance since it was presented at study session. The length of time a billboard location may exist without an active billboard use was increased from 60 days to 90 days. The following active billboard use definition was included: "active billboard use" shall mean that both of the following are continuously maintained on a permitted billboard location and in compliance with all city requirements: (1) a supporting pole or structure, and (2) a display facility capable of displaying message copy. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Several alternatives to deal with the lack of specifics in the Code were considered: 1. Codify the procedures and policies used in the past two instances. 2. Vest the right to a billboard with the current permit holder (billboard company). 3. Vest the right to a billboard with the land where billboards are currently located. The proposed ordinance implements staffs recommended approach, Alternative #3. Vesting with the underlying property defines the 16 locations, allows the billboard companies to compete for the sites when leases expire, and adds value to the underlying property. It has the added advantages of taking staff out of the business of monitoring lease expirations and conducting lotteries to determine who is granted the available billboard. Planning Commission requested that staff investigate how other jurisdictions permit billboards. None of the jurisdictions examined had a limit on the number of billboards. Wheat Ridge is unique in that regard. The results revealed that there are as many approaches as there are jurisdictions. Below is a summary of that information. • Arvada - Allowed only in B-4 zone district; no limit on number; considered principal use on lot. • Lakewood - Not mentioned in sign code. • Golden - Not mentioned in sign code. • Aurora - Allowed in certain commercial and industrial zone districts; no limit on number; cannot be visible from freeways or interstate highways. • Denver - Allowed, but under several spacing and visibility restrictions; no limit on number. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Because only 16 billboards are authorized by the ordinance and this number is not proposed to be changed, the revenue to the City from billboard permits will not change. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 10-2007 on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, June 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Map Showing Billboard Districts 2. Letter from Billboard Companies 3. Response Memorandum from City Attorney 4. Map of Current Billboard Locations 5. Council Bill 10-2007 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to address the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-06-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to provide for the zoning of social clubs. This case was presented by Alan White. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The proposed amendments define social clubs, list social clubs separately in the use chart for commercial and industrial uses, and allow social clubs as permitted uses in the C-1, C-2 and I zone districts. They would also be allowed in PCDs and PIDs unless specifically prohibited or not listed. A companion ordinance amends Chapter 11 and requires owners of such establishments to obtain a social club license. The companion ordinance does not require Planning Commission review. Vice Chair CHILVERS asked if members of the public wished to address this ordinance. Hearing no response, the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that the ordinance allows social clubs to participate in the local market and provides controls if problems arise. It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner REINHART to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 to provide for the zoning of social clubs. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN, SCEZNEY and STEWART absent. B. Case No. ZOA-07-01: An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. This case was presented by Alan White. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Current regulations do not contain provisions to provide guidance for permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance vests the current 16 billboard locations with the underlying property. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Three alternatives have been examined to deal with the lack of specifics in the Code: (1) codify the procedures and policies used in two instances in the past three years where ground leases were expired; (2) vest the right to a billboard with the current Planning Commission Minutes 2 _ May 3, 2007 permit holder; or (3) vest the right to a billboard with the landowner where billboards are currently located. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Mr. Dahl addressed mobile billboards. He stated that, first of all, it would be necessary to determine if the city has the quantity of mobile billboards necessary to develop regulations. Secondly, a case would have to be made that there is some kind of public safety concern involved as opposed to advertisement on the side of a vehicle such as a moving van. This is something that can always be addressed at a later date if it becomes a problem. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he would not pursue the matter further but mentioned it because of personal concern that they could add to traffic congestion in the city. Commissioner MATTHEWS commented that he would have more concern with mobile billboards parked on private property than those occurring on highways. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Mr. White stated that there are regulations prohibiting banners or attached signs to parked vehicles. Vice Chair CHILVERS asked if there were members of the public who wished to speak at this time. Dan Scherer 6115 Rogers U., Arvada 80403 Mr. Scherer is general manager for CBS Outdoor for metropolitan Denver. He stated that he was not aware of any municipalities that have ordinances against mobile billboards and stated that CBS is not in the mobile billboard business. Mr. Scherer stated that CBS Outdoor is in 42 metro markets across the country and there is no case where the property owner controls the billboard rights. A billboard comes up for anew location only every 10-15 years. The 16 billboards in the city provide a windfall for 15 property owners who are reimbursed to have a billboard placed on their property. The ordinance would preclude any property owner who does not have a billboard to ever have one on his property. He stated that CBS owns the property next to Medved which has two billboards on the property. He asked if these would be grandfathered if the ordinance takes effect. He asked that no changes be made to the billboard process. He stated that billboards drive commerce into the city and expressed concern that the ordinance would lead to elimination of all billboards. Commissioner McMILLIN asked Mr. Scherer if he was aware of any cities that have banned billboards. Mr. Scherer replied that Douglas County and Greenwood Village have restrictions against billboards. Denver does not allow any additional billboards. Planning Commission Minutes -3 _ May 3, 2007 Commissioner MATTHEWS asked if the lot with two billboards would be grandfathered if the ordinance is passed. Mr. Dahl stated that he would look into this further and commented that the intent of the ordinance is not to eliminate or reduce the number of billboards but rather to permit the present locations. Vice Chair CHILVERS asked if other members of the public wished to address this ordinance. Hearing no response, the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards. Commissioner REINHART commented that he was not convinced of any clear public purpose in choosing one of the three courses of action suggested in the staff report. Billboards do provide a windfall for specific property owners. He did not believe staff would be overwhelmed in administration of the ordinance. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that billboards will probably be reduced over the years and replaced as those properties are developed for other uses. He did not believe billboards advertising businesses outside the city are of any economic importance to Wheat Ridge. The ordinance would tend to preserve the status quo regarding the number of billboards in the city. Commissioner REINHART stated that he believed that grandfathering would be in the public interest. Commissioner MATTHEWS commented that the revised process would help insulate the city from lawsuits. Commissioner MCMILLIN summarized Commission's findings that the ordinance will be clear and fair and will prevent lawsuits such as happened in the previous process. The motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners B LLL~~~, STEWART absent. ffiNKMAN, SCEZNEY and 8. OTHER ITEMS • Alan distributed copies of a memo inviting Planning Commission members to attend a City Council study session on June 18"'. The subject will be an update on the draft plan for the Fruitdale Subarea. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2007 q _ PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE P~,u,v/tip C~~rv~lss~a~ dGi A y 3 .~G d ~ 6foA'na1c2 Olsu°~~/, (Please Print) Name Address In Favor/Opposed V~kl lll~M.SP1F ^ 2 0115~cer5 0~- Ar'V6kL G Sn~_ OF WHEAT PLANNING COMMISSION m LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT LORA00 MEETING DATE: May 3, 2007 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BILLBOARDS CASE NO. ZOA-07-01 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION Case Manager: Alan White Date of Preparation: April 26, 2007 SUMMARY: ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM The attached ordinance amends the billboard regulations of the City. The current regulations do not contain provisions which provide any guidance for the permitting of billboards. The proposed ordinance vests the current 16 billboard locations with the underlying property. The ordinance also repeals the B-1 District since it is no longer needed. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. BACKGROUND: The current billboard regulations were adopted in 1991 and were not revised when Chapter 26 was updated in 2001. The regulations establish two billboard districts - 1) essentially adjacent to I-70 (called B-2) and 2) the remainder of the City (called B-1). (See Exhibit 1.) The regulations required all billboards in the B-1 District to be removed by 1996. These have all been removed and this district is no longer needed. The regulations of the B-2 District set the maximum number of billboards in the district at 16. Height, setback, spacing, and maximum size standards are also established. Other than setting the maximum number of 16 for the number of billboards, there is no guidance in the Code as to who "owns" the right to the billboard, when that right expires, who can apply for a billboard permit, and how permits are to be issued if there are competing interests for one billboard. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Billboard companies typically enter into ground leases with a property owner and pay the owner rent for the right to have their billboard on that property. Leases are typically for 10 years. We 1:\COmdev\Z0A\Bi11boardsTC hearing Staff Report.doc have had two instances in the past three years where ground leases expired. The billboard company claimed they owned the permit for the billboard and could move it anywhere in the B-2 District. The other billboard company said the right to the billboard expired with the lease, and thus the permit was available to any company. The landowner claimed the billboard location should be vested with the property. Absent guidance in the Code, and with the assistance of the City Attorney, we have had to create a process and policies for dealing with this situation. Our latest experience with this process resulted in a lawsuit by a billboard company. The "temporary" process essentially ties the right to the billboard to the ground lease. When the lease expires, so does the right to the billboard. That 16th billboard then becomes available for any company or land owner to pursue on a first come, first served basis. In cases where permit applications are filed at the same time for that 16t1i billboard, a lottery is held to determine who receives the right to the billboard. The process is a bit cumbersome and time consuming. We have examined several alternatives to deal with the lack of specifics in the Code: 1. Codify the procedures and policies used in the past two instances. 2. Vest the right to a billboard with the current pen-nit holder (billboard company). 3. Vest the right to a billboard with the landowner where billboards are currently located. The attached ordinance implements staffs recommended approach, Alternative 43. Vesting with the underlying property defines the 16 locations, allows the billboard companies to compete for the sites when leases expire, and adds value to the underlying property. It has the added advantages of taking staff out of the business of monitoring lease expirations and conducting lotteries to determine who is awarded the available billboard. The billboard companies have provided a letter of opposition to the proposed amendment. (See Exhibit 2.) Essentially their recommended approach is Alternative #2 and would vest the right to a billboard with the permit holder (the billboard company), not the underlying property owner. A billboard location would become available when one company removed one of the 16 billboards. Staff does not see this alternative solving any of the problems with the existing "temporary" process. What constitutes removal - when everything is removed, even the caisson? When the sign face is removed? When the pole structure is removed? At what point during removal can another company submit a permit for the "available billboard location?" A month in advance because they know the lease is expiring and the billboard will have to be removed? The company removing the billboard will argue one thing, the competing company will argue another and City staff will be in the middle - probably conducting another lottery. The City Attorney has provided an opinion of the proposed ordinance and the billboard companies' assertions. (See Exhibit 3.) At the study session on this topic Planning Commission asked what other communities do and questioned how to regulate mobile billboards. Below is a summary of a few other jurisdictions' regulations: Arvada - Allowed only in B-4 zone district; not limit on number; considered principal use on lot. Lakewood - Not mentioned in sign code. Golden - Not mentioned in sign code. Aurora - Allowed in certain commercial and industrial zone districts; no limit on number; cannot be I:\COmdev\ZOA\BillboardsTC hearing Staff Repott.doc visible from freeways or interstate highways. Denver - Allowed, but under several spacing and visibility restrictions. The City Attorney is researching the mobile billboard issue. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards." Exhibits: 1. Billboard District map 2. Map of current billboard locations 3. Letter from billboard companies 4. Response memo from City Attorney 5. Proposed Ordinance I:\Co ndev\ZOA\BiIIboards\PC hearing Staff Report.doc C Q d C1 N W k' .w r p ~ etoV rl A y n .t a-+ L qy J .Q 03 O Sa ra ~ Y ~ .r b ~ s3 k~ N G 'C o N kA .ry ~ O O O p D 4b EXHIBIT I N IV E Billboard Locations Exhibit 2 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Case No:: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App:Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Caae Di;,position: Project Planner: hite File Location: V ctive Notes: r~ Follow-Up: OA0701 Quarter Section Map No.: Citywide Related Cases: Case History: Review Body: APN: 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: mend Chapter 26 concerning the regulation of billboards CC Decision-making Body: CC Approval/Denial Date: I Reso/Ordinance No.: Conditions of Approval: District: i Date Received: 3/28/2007 Pre-App Date: F_ Gataa'ge;1: