CCP 01272025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 4 Ms. Gundlach explained that any zoning code violation was a misdemeanor, and the City would be able to document a problem. If Clear Channel does not meet the hour requirement, the City can issue a criminal citation for a misdemeanor because they did not comply with the code. The City has done that but rarely, but that was an enforcement tool staff had. The City also has some administrative fines in the ordinance, and staff could issue administrative penalties for non-compliance. There are enforcement mechanisms that can be used. Chair Pribyl asked about the fourth provision, which was the current height of the billboards. She wondered if these are currently within the 35-foot range. Mr. Paschke believed they were. Ms. Gundlach reviewed the requirements of the existing signs with the Commission. She noted the City could amend the condition to strike the second sentence in the fourth provision. Member Bjorum explained he had a couple of questions. Since the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to look at visuals for these things in a couple of examples for display brightness or illumination, ambient light was called out. Three-foot candles about ambient light instead of the measurement of nits. He did not know how those two things relate, and he wondered if it was something to consider that they have more than one transition between day and night if it was cloudy or incredibly foggy. Ms. Gundlach explained that her initial concern was that we must have a light meter for the City to enforce the foot-candle. We must have somebody who can go out and take that reading and knows how to read it. It was like a manufacturer and it cannot exceed this. It's more internal to the sign and the different color lights that the image was illuminating that they control with the manufacturer. And maybe Clear Channel can offer more details than I can. If we have something where our staff must have a light meter and go out and measure foot candles, that's more difficult from an enforcement perspective. Member Bjorum explained that the only other item he had was that in the bulk of the examples, the duration of the display was fifteen seconds instead of eight seconds. He could not remember how they got to 8 seconds as a component of this instead of the fifteen seconds. Mr. Pascke believed most billboards are eight seconds long. There are a couple of communities that have fifteen seconds, but the lion’s share of the communities along interstate corridors and others use the standard of eight seconds. Ms. Gundlach thought Mr. Paschke's examples were picked because the communities were relatively close. These communities had new billboards, so they were looking at more expansive requirements theoretically. She did not think it was accurate to say most are at fifteen seconds. She thought it was more accurate to say most are at eight seconds. She noted that years ago, when Clear Channel first started doing these conversions to electronic billboards, SRF engaged in a reasonably extensive study about the impact of these billboards. One component, or sort of outcome of that, was the eight seconds. There was an engineering foundation to that rule, and based on something Commissioner McGehee said earlier, that study found that these billboards are no more of a distraction to a driver than changing a radio station in the SRF study that guided many of the standards. Qbhf!94!pg!363