The URL can be used to link to this page

TA2012-04005; AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Case : TA2012-04005 Amendments to the Communit Develo ment C y p ode Pla n ner : G i na Cla ton PI ' y , anning a nd Develo ment Assista nt p Director Attachment 2 -Clearwater Business Task Force Recommendations and City Staff Responses-Revised July 11,2012 Opportunity#4 Ori�nal Staff Comments Resolution at Dec.14,2011 Council Meeting pr°pose Sign Code Revisions in # Ordinance Na 8343-12 1 Allow businesses on comer lots and through lots to have an attached sign facing each Staff supports revisioa Staff and Executive Committee aze in Added provision to allow a sign on frontage as of right instead of requiring a property/business owner to go through the agreement. each frontage abutting a sVeet on a comprehensive sign program. comer or through lot -Section 3- 1807.B3.b-page 23 of Attachment 1 2 So long as not exceeding total allowable signage square footage,allow businesses Staff supports if intention is same as#1 Staff and Executive Committee aze in Same as above with rear facades to have an attached sign facing each frontage as of right instead of above. agreement. requiring a property/business owner to go through the comprehensive sign program. 3 Allow businesses with reaz facades facing pazking lots with rear public entrances or Would like an opportunity to review the Staff agrees that businesses directly fronting Added provision to allow attached reaz facades facing rights-of-way or water to erect a 16 squaze foot sign provided waterfront signage issue. on the water and accessible by the boating signs in the azea above/adjacent to such signs are not erected on a raceway or is not a traditional sign cabinet design. public should be allowed to have signage. the rear entrance facing a pazking lot ' However,staffwould like to conduct or Cleanvater Harbor or Mandalay further research into potential signage issues Channel-see Section 3-1807.B3.d- for those properties that front on a beach or page 23 of Attachment 1 aze otherwise inaccessible by boat. 4 Review formulas for attached,freestanding and monument signs but utilize a Some of the issues above are included in Staff and the Executive Committee are in Revised formulas incorporated into different formula than proposed:one attached sign,24 square feet per business this recommendation. Furthermore it agreement. the ordinance based on the concepts establishment with a principat exterior entrance;one freestanding sign 24 squaze feet; should be clarified that stafFsupports the presented to City Council. See or for attached sicns one sign up to 3%of the building facade but not exceeding 36 additional]5 sq.ft.for freestanding signs Section 3-1807.B.1 which regulates feet.Lots on corner or through lots may erect a sign on each face facing a right-of- on comer lots. freestanding signs in the C,O,I,and way based on the same formula;for freestandin¢siens one sign up to 3%of the IRT Districts(pages 18-20 of building facade or 1 squaze foot of signage for every three feet of lineaz frontage, Attachment 1),Section 3-1807.B.2 whichever is less.Sign criteria is required.Corner or through lots may erect a sign on which regulates monument signs in each frontage facing a public right-of-way provided maacimum azea of the two signs the T and D Districts(pages 20-22 shall not exceed the total maacimum allowable azea facing a right-of-way,plus an of Attachment 1);and Section 3- additional 15 square feet.The business could choose to erect a sign on the corner or 1807.B3 which regulates attached on the primary frontage with the increased area;for monument si�ns there is a signs in all non-residential districts proposal to revise this section based on similar concepts established for attached and (pages 22-24 of Attachment 1) freestanding signs and allow up to six feet in height provided certain design criteria is met. 5 Increase timeframe for determining a nonconforming sign has been abandoned from Chamber of Commerce and staff agreed to Staff and Executive Committee are in Renamed and revised"Abandoned 30 days to 180 days. 120 days but staff dces not object to 180 agreement with 180 days. Signs"provision to"Discontinued days. Signs." Nonconforming signs located on sites which have not been used for 6 months must be removed- see Section 3-1804.D-page 4 of Attachment 1 and Section 8-102 definition of Sign,discontinued- pages 62-63 of the Ordinance 6 Allow greater flexibility for window signage but utilize a formula that may be easier Current sign provisions allow window signs Staff and Executive Committee are in Revised to allow window signs up to to administer.This would entail an increase from the existing 25%of the window up to 8 sq.ft.in azea provided such signs do agreement. 25%of the window azea provided pane and provide an amount not to exceed on any faqade. not exceed 25%of window area and all the area of all window signs does not window signs cannot exceed 24 sq.ft. Staff exceed 50 sq.ft. The current code is supportive of removing the 8 sq.ft. limits inidividual signs to 8 squaze limitation to allow more flexibility with feet and a cumulative azea of 24 such signage. square feet-see Section 3-1806.0- page 12 of Attachment 1 7 Allow graphics on awnings in addition to the allowable sign area but have some Would like to diswss with outside legal Staffand Executive Committee are in Created new provision that allows a limitations on azea and clazify what is actually permitted.For example, counsel to determine best way to implement agreement. graphic element in addition to the graphic/artistic element would be permitted.The graphic element is limited to 25%of and not create issues with"art." permitted attached sign azea the awning. provided the element dces not exceed 25%of the awning surface azea or 16 squaze feet,whichever is less. If a business opts to include text and a graphic element,such text and element shall be govemed by the attached sign area provisions-see Section 3-1805.F-page 7 of Attachment 1 8 Clarify the City's position on the prohibition of human signage and vehicle signage This issue was not addressed by Chamber Staff and Executive Committee are in A new definition of vehicle sign has for businesses. but staffhas already requested that outside agreement. been proposed to provide cleaz legal counsel review the issue. standazds of what constitutes a vehicle sign-Section Section 8-102- page 66 of Ordinance.. No changes aze being proposed at this time. There may be more options outside of the land development code to better address the issue. 9 Add language fiarther clarifying the prohibition of moving/revolving signage. Non-substantive amendment-staff dces not Staff and Executive Committee are in Added language to the prohibited object. agreement. sign section fiuther clazifying that signs that scintillate,blink,flutter or appeaz to display motion are prohibited-see Section 3-1804.P- page 5 of Attachment 1 10 Add language regazding the orientation of freestanding drive-thru signs. Non-substantive amendment-staff does not Staff and Executive Committee are in Added language that requires object. agreement. freestanding menu signs to be oriented towazd the vehicles using the drive-through. Additionally staff is proposing to increase the azea for attached menu signs from 4 to 6 squaze feet and freestanding menu signs from 16 to 24 squaze feet-see Section 3-1806.I-page 10 of Attachment] 11 Increase the amount of square footage for an address from 3 sq.ft. to 8 sq.ft. City Council directed staff at work session Staff and Executive Committee are in Increased the amount of azea Require all addresses to be displayed in Arabic numbers. where Chamber proposal was discussed to ageement with 1 sq.ft.per address number. allowed for property addresses for allow 1 sq.ft.per address number. 8 sq.ft. non-residential uses from 3 sq.ft.to is excessive. 1 sq.ft.per each number in the address-see Section 3-1806.A- page 8 of Attachment 1 12 Consider allowing for permitted electronic changeable message boazds,especially The Planning and Development Department Staff does not support and the Executive No change to be made based on public purpose electronic message boards. does not support. Committee agreed not to pursue at this time. Council discussion in December. 13 Increase the frequency of inessages displayed on pre-existing permitted message The Planning and Development Department Staff disagrees with the proposed approach Outside Legal Counsel agrees with boards to 15 seconds per message. recommends no change. and believes input from the City's outside staffs recommendation;however, legal counsel should be obtained. revisions have been proposed to clazify that electronic changeable message signs that change no more frequently than once every six hours aze grandfathered-see Section 3- 1804.E-page 4 of Attachment 1 14 Consider allowing the use of outdoor umbrellas at businesses with logos so long as Need to discuss with outside legal counsel. Staff supports requesting input from the Due to potential risk in the event of a the logo is not that of the principle business. City's outside legal counsel on this issue. content-based constitutional challenge,staff and the City's outside legal counsel recommend no revision be made to allow signs on umbrellas. 15 Allow sandwich boazd signs for all business owners as long as businesses comply Staff only supports sandwich board signs Staff and Executive Committee are not in Created provisions to allow retail with the sandwich boazd sign ordinance.Revoke ihe permit for a period of five years along traditional urban corridors. ageement. and restaurant uses in the City's in the event the business is found to violate the sandwich boazd sign ordinance three nonresidential zoning districts to times. have sidewalk signs provided certain design criteria is met and a permit obtained on a yearly basis-see Section 3-1807.B.4-pages 24-25 of Attachment 1. Staff only supports such signs along the City's traditional urban corridors which are located in Downtown,certain azeas of Clearwater Beach and North Greenwood. 16 Allow banner signs up to ten days prior to annual non-profit and City sponsored Approval is reserved for the City Manager. Executive Committee understands these may No revision needed as temporary events,holidays,festivals and picnics. be allowed if approved by the City Manager. signs are allowed for special events (see Section 3-1806.D.2 and Section 3-1806.R,pages S-9&12-13 of Attachment 1 17 Amend Section 3-1805(c)(1)of the Code to increase the allowable size to 24 squaze Staff suppoRs the revision. Staff and Executive Committee are in Increased size of temporary grand feet. agreement. opening signs from 12 square feet to 24 square feet-See Section 3- 1806.D.1-page 8 of Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8343-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA RELATING TO SIGNS; MAHING FINDINGS; AMENDING SECTION 102 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 8 (DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; REPEALING DIVISION 18 (SIGNS) OF ARTICLE 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; ADOPTING A NEW DIVISION 18 (SIGNS) OF ARTICLE 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING SECTION 1801 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES); PROVIDING SECTION 1802 (PURPOSE); PROVIDING SECTION 1803 (EXEMPT SIGNS); PROVIDING SECTION 1804 (PROHIBITED SIGNS); PROVIDING SECTION 1805 (GENERAL STANDARDS); PROVIDING SECTION 1806 (SIGNS PERMITTED WITHOUT A PERMIT); PROVIDING SECTION 1807 (PERMITTED SIGNS REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW); PROVIDING SECTION 1808 (COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM); PROVIDING SECTION 1809 (SEVERABILITI�; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Initial General Preambles WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to update and revise its Community Development Code relative to signs; \7ULT1i,Ali,AC +}�;. (`it,� nf(�'�Pa�z�atar fin�c �11� 11PtPl'1Y�11'�PC t�at it jc ar�r�rnr�riatP tn l�P�PtP :. __—_—=- � -=-= ='-� == =- -'- ='-y' - -- " : i i i sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, divisions, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases, words, and provisions of the existing ordinance which are obsolete or superfluous, and/or which have not been enforced, and/or which are not enforceable, and/or which would be severable by a court of competent jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to ensure that the Community Development Code as it relates to signs is in compliance with all constitutional and other legal requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the purpose and intent provisions of its signage regulations should be even more detailed than they are now so as to further describe the beneficial aesthetic and other effects of the City's sign regulations, and to reaffirm that the sign regulations are concerned with the secondary effects of speech and are not designed to censor speech or regulate the viewpoint of the speaker; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that its sign regulations have undergone judicial review in three reported final decisions during the past three decades, including Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 829 F.2d 1051 (l lth Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 981 (1988), Dimmitt v. Ciry of Clearwater, 782 F. Supp. 586 (M.D.FIa. 1991), affirmed and modified, 985 F.2d 1565 (1 lth Cir. 1993), and Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), and has also been the subject of a non-final preliminary decision in The Complete Angler, L.L.C. v. Ciry of Clearwater, Fla., 607 F.Supp.2d 1326 (M.D.FIa. 2009), which was settled before a final decision was reached; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the issue of content neutrality in the First Amendment context has been addressed in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2000); that the content neutrality of the City's own sign regulations was extensively addressed in the published decision of the district court in Granite State-Clearwater, and that the issue of content-neutrality has been addressed by other decisions, including Solantic v. Neptune Beach, 410 F3d 1250 (l lth Cir. 2005), Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. Ciry of N. Charleston, 493 F3d 421, 432 (4th Cir. 2007), and in H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC v. Ciry of Detroit, 568 F.3d 609, 621-622 (6th Cir. 2009); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the issue of content neutrality of the sign regulations of another nearby municipality was recently addressed by a state appellate panel in Shanklin v. State, 2009 WL 6667913 (Fla.Cir.Ct. App. Div.); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that under current jurisprudence its sign regulations may be under-inclusive in their reach to serve the City's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, while at the same time balancing the interests protected by the First Amendment [see, e.g., Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Cordes, Sign Regulation After Ladue: Examining the Evolving Limits of First Amendment Protection, 74 Neb.L.Rev. 36 (1995)], and the City of Clearwater may from time to time modify the sign ��v��µ"�.�„ ..,,,,,,.. „� _c tn nrnyi�lP a��litinnal limitation� tn fi�rther servP the City's inter�sts in ram�latinnc hPrein cn a aesthetics and/or traffic safety; WHEREAS, the limitations on the height, size, number, and setback of signs, adopted herein, is based upon the sign types and sign functions; WHEREAS, sign types described herein are related in other ways to the functions they serve and the properties to which they relate (e.g., subdivision entrance signs are allowed at subdivision entrances, real estate signs are directly related to the property on which they are posted or, in the case of directional signs, are limited to a certain distance from the property to which they relate (see Bond, Making Sense of Billboard Law: Justifying Prohibitions and Exemptions, 88 Mich.L.Rev. 2482 (1980)]); WHEREAS, limitations on various types of signs by the function they serve are also related to the zoning districts for the properties on which they are located; . WHEREAS, various signs that serve and function as signage for particular land uses, such as drive-thru restaurants or for businesses within a tourist district, are allowed some additional features or have different criteria in recognition of the differing or special functions served by those land uses, but not based upon any intent to favor any particular viewpoint ar control the subject matter of public discourse; JAX\1670272_I _2_ WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations adopted hereby still allow adequate alternative means of communications; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations adopted hereby allow and leave open adequate alternative means of communications, such as newspaper advertising, internet advertising and communications, advertising in shoppers and pamphlets, advertising in telephone books, advertising on cable television, advertising on UHF and/or VHF television, advertising on AM and/or FM radio, advertising on satellite radio, advertising on internet radio, advertising via direct mail, and other avenues of communication available in the City of Clearwater [see State v. J& J Painting, 167 N.J. Super. 384, 400 A.2d 1204, 1205 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979); Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477 (1989); Green v. Ciry ofRaleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 305-306 (4th Cir. 2007); Naser Jewelers v. Ciry of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (lst Cir. 2008); Sullivan v. City ofAugusta, 511 F.3d 16, 43-44 (lst Cir. 2007); La Tour v. Ciry of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8 th Cir. 2006); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 587 F3d 866, 980-981 (9th Cir. 2009)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the amendments to Article 3, Division 18, and to Article 8, as set forth herein, are consistent with all applicable policies of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that these amendments are not in conflict with the public interest; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that theses amendments will not result in incompatible land uses; De�nitions General WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Section 102 (Definitions) of Article 8 (Definitions and Rules of Construction) should be updated, modified and expanded to complement revisions to Division 18 (Signs) of Article 3 (Development Standards) of the City of Clearwater's Community Development Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 734 F. Supp. 1437, 1442 (N.D.III. 1990) (per Rovner, J.), aff'd, 989 F.2d 502 (Table), 1993 WL 64838 at *2 (7th Cir. 1993) (adopting analysis of district court), the Seventh Circuit noted that five justices (Brennan, Blackmun, Burger, Stevens and Rehnquist) in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), believed that the limited exceptions to an ordinance's general prohibition of off-premises advertising were too insubstantial to constitute discrimination on the basis of content; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other �Ax��e�o2�2_� -3- grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), held that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as holiday decorations [§ 3-1805.D.�, garage/yard sale signs [§ 3-1805.H.], and marina slip numbers [§ 3-1805.T.]; Art work WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of"art work" should be updated (a) to more specifically identify what is artwork, while still providing that artwork does not include a representation specifically conveying the name of a business or a commercial message, and (b) to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; Holiday and seasonal decorations WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, holiday decoration" should be deleted and replaced with a definition for "decorations, holiday and seasonal" to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), had noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as holiday decorations [§ 3-1805.D.]; Graphic element WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there should be a definition for "element, graphic" in connection with a sign, especially in conjunction with provisions pertaining to awnings or lighting; Sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign" should be clarified that it includes a sign visible from a public street or public sidewalk, as well as a public right-of-way; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that objects and devices such as artwork, holiday or seasonal decorations, cemetery markers, machinery or equipment signs (inclusive of vending machine signs), and memorial signs or tablets are not within the scope of what is intended to be regulated through "land development" regulations that pertain to signage under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; �fvc��b�oa�z_� -4- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign" should be modified to provide that it does not include objects and devices, such as artwork, holiday or seasonal decorations, cemetery markers, machinery or equipment signs (inclusive of vending machine signs), and memorial signs or tablets, inasmuch as the foregoing are not signage intended to regulated by the land development regulations described in Section 163.3202 of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; Acknowledgment si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, adopt a park" should be expanded and clarified to "sign, adopt a park or acknowledgement" that functions to recognize a sponsoring agency that has installed and maintained landscaping at the site on city rights-of-way or city-owned property where the landscaping is located or recognizing grant providers for other amenities; Cabinet sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition of "sign, cabinet" should be added to identify this sign type in connection with its reference in the regulations; Construction si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, construction" should be revised to identify the function served by this temporary sign type that distinguishes the same from other temporary signs; Discontinued si�n (in lieu of abandoned si�n) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the current definition for "sign, abandoned" should be changed to "sign, discontinued," to eliminate any issue that would require a determination of the intent of the sign owner or sign operator, and to better define what constitutes a sign that would be considered a prohibited sign because the sign (a) displays advertising for a product or service which is no longer available or displays advertising for a business which is no longer licensed (b) is blank, or (c) advertises a business that is no longer doing business or maintaining a presence on the premises where the sign is displayed, but provided that the foregoing circumstances for(a), (b) or (c) have continued for a period of at least one hundred eighty days; Election si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, election" should be added to identify a temporary sign erected or displayed for the purpose of expressing support or opposition to a candidate or stating a position regarding an issue upon which the voters of the City may vote; Exemnt si�n JAXU 670272_I -5- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, exempt" is obsolete, and that the definition should be removed and combined with the addition of Section 1803 (Exempt Signs) to Division 3 (Signs) in Article 3 (Development Standards); Free expression si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of"sign, free expression" should be added to identify a sign that functions to communicate information or views on matters of public policy or public concern, or containing any other noncommercial message that is otherwise lawful; Gara�e-yard sale si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, garage-yard sale" should be added to identify a lawful temporary sign that functions to �. communicate information pertaining to the sale of personal property at or upon any residentially- zoned property located in the CiTy; Gasoline price si�ns . _ WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, gasoline price display" should be revised to re-emphasize that the same is an on-site sign that functions exclusively to display the prices of gasoline for sale, and continues to be a content- neutral sign category consistent with the prior precedent of Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719- 20 (2000); lUClllllll'sILlUIl Jl�ll WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, identification" should be revised to clarify that it is serves to indicate no more than the name, address, company logo and occupation or function of an establishment or premises on which the sign is located; Machinery or equipment si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the UF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility, et al., recommended an exemption for signs incorporated into machinery and equipment by a manufacturer or distributor, which identify or advertise only the product or service dispensed by the machine or equipment, such as signs customarily affixed to vending machines, newspaper racks,telephone booths, and gasoline pumps; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition should be added for "sign, machinery or equipment" to identify objects that are not intended to be covered within the scope of land development regulations pertaining to signage in the context of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and that such objects include signs which are integral and incidental JAX11670272_1 -(- to machinery or equipment, and that are incorporated into machinery or equipment by a manufacturer or distributor to identify or advertise the product or service dispensed by the machine or equipment, such as signs customarily affixed or incorporated into vending machines, telephone booths, gasoline pumps, newspaper racks, express mail drop-off boxes, and the like; Raceway si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, raceway" should be added to identify this sign type in connection with its reference in the regulations; Safety si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in addition to the definition of"sign, warning," a definition for "sign, safety" should be added to identify a sign that functions to provide a warning or caution of a dangerous condition or situation that might not be readily apparent or that poses a threat of serious injury (e.g., gas line, high voltage, condemned building, etc.); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that signs are speech and can only be categorized or differentiated by what they say; that this makes it impossible to overlook a sign's content or message in formulating regulations and making exceptions for those signs that are narrowly tailored to a significant governmental interest of safety(i.e., warning signs) [see Granite-Clearwater at 1333]; Sidewalk si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, sidewalk," sometimes referred to as a sandwich board sign, should be added to identify this unique sign type in connection with the parameters for its use in the land development regulations; Snipe si�n WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), struck and severed the words "other objects" in the definition of Section 8-102 in order to - remove a conflict between Section 3-1806.B.3 (allowing attached signs) and Section 3-1803.T (prohibiting snipe signs that would include attached signs to objects other than those listed) [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335]; �ax��b�oa�z_i -7- � WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the text of the definitions in Section 8-102 [Section 102 of Article 8] should be revised to reflect the removal of the words "other objects" and to restate the definition of "Sign, snipe" in the Community Development Code; Statutory si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition for "statutory sign" should be added to identify a sign that is lawfully required by any statute or regulation of the State of Florida or the United States, and to identify such sign types as ones that are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations; Temporary yard si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition of "sign, temporary yard" is obsolete with the addition of a definition for "sign, garage-yard sale" and the regulation of the latter in the land development regulations; Traffic control device si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a definition for "traffic control device sign" should be added to identify the sign types that are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a traffic control device sign, exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations for signage, is any sign located within the nght-oi-way that Iunctions as a trattic control c'levice anc't that is ciescribed and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard, and that according to the MUTCD traffic control device signs include those signs that are classified and defined by their function as regulatory signs (that give notice of traffic laws or regulations), warning signs (that give notice of a situation that might not readily be apparent), and guide signs (that show route designations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, and other geographical, recreational, or cultural information); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the classification of traffic control device signs is a logical classification for purposes of establishing an exemption based upon their unique purpose and function, and that such classification is not impermissibly content- based under the controlling precedent of Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719-20 (2000); Vehicle sign WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to substitute a new definition for vehicle sign that is similar to one suggested in Article VIII (Signs) of the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the UF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility and by a professional planner with Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., JAX\1670272_I _g_ and that is nearly identical to Section 7.05.00(x) of the Land Development Regulations of the Town of Orange Park, which were upheld against a constitutional challenge in Perkins v. Town of Orange Park, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. Cir. Ct.); Vendin� si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the definition for "sign, vending" should be deleted and replaced with "sign, machinery and equipment" to clarify the objects excluded from the definition of "sign" and not intended to be regulated through "land development"regulations under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; General Principles Mission WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the city is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico and that this city has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually- attractive urban environment is of foremost importance; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end, and that the sign regulations in the attached Division 18 are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the city; Florida Constitution WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution, as adopted in 1968, provides that it shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics directly serves the policy articulated in Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution,by conserving and protecting its scenic beauty; Aesthetics WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics has long been recognized as advancing the public welfare; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that as far back as 1954 the United States Supreme Court recognized that "the concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive," that the values it represents are "spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary," and that it is within the power of the legislature "to determine that the community JAX�1670272_1 -(�- should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled" [Justice Douglas in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that aesthetics is a valid basis for zoning, and that the regulation of the size of signs and the prohibition of certain types of signs can be based upon aesthetic grounds alone as promoting the general welfare [see Merritt v. Peters, 65 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1953); Dade Town v. Gould, 99 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1957); E.B. Elliott Advertising Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 878 (1970)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist destination; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign control principles set forth herein create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes the city as one with a commitment to maintaining and improving an attractive environment;. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the attractiveness of the City has been substantially enhanced as a result of more restrictive sign regulations (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 27, Engelhardt, Hammer& Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist rlPCtinatinn (cvv Rnhnnrinv Thv Vi�r��1 _F,nvirnnmPnt Thrnti�h ,SiQn Re¢Z.tl�xtinn,c, VOlume One; at page 26, Engelhardt, Hammer& Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the positive effect of sign regulations on the Ciiy's visual character has been demonstrated in photographic comparison of a City streetscape in 1988 and 2002, underscoring the importance of regulating both the size and number of signs to reduce visual clutter (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations,Volume One, at pages 24 and 27, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the beauty of Clearwater's natural and built environment has provided the foundation for the economic base of the City's development, and that the City's sign regulations not only help create an attractive residential community for its residents, but also bolster Clearwater's image as an international tourist destination (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 3,Engelhardt, Hammer&Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the goals, objectives and policies from planning documents developed over the years, including but not limited to the Clearwater powntown Development Plan, the Guidelines for the Urban Center District, Beach by Design, and The Downtown Peripheral Plan, have all demonstrated a strong, Iong-term commitment to maintaining and improving the City's attractive and visual environment (see JAX\1670272_1 -1�- Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 13, Engelhardt, Hammer& Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, from a planning perspective, one of the most important community goals is to define and protect aesthetic resources and community character (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 14, Engelhardt, Hammer& Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, from a planning perspective, sign regulations are especially important to counties with a tourist-based economy, and that sign control can create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes one community from another (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 14, Engelhardt, Hammer& Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that preserving and reinforcing the uniqueness of a tourist community like Clearwater attracts tourists and, more importantly, establishes a permanent residential and commercial base to ensure the future viability of the community (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 15, Engelhardt, Hammer&Associates, Inc. (2002)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has regulated signs based upon function and not content (see Enhancing The Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at page 15, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002)); WNF.RFAC thP ('ity nf('1ParwatPr finr�c anrl r1PtPrminPC that thP rity hac �nntini�PCl thP attention to aesthetic considerations and many of the considerations mentioned above through the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan, requiring design guidelines for the entire downtown plan area; Purposes WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the purpose of the regulation of signs as set forth in the attached Division 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to enable the identification of places of residence and business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by JAX\1670272-] -1 1- proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and to preclude placement of signs in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to encourage signs that are appropriate to the zoning district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to establish si�n size in relationship to the scale of the lot and building on which the sign is to be placed or to which it pertains; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 are intended to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of this waterfront resort community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign regulations in Division 18 have been the subject of extensive study by urban planners, culminating in a study entitled Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, (Two Volumes) prepared JAX\1670272_l -12- for the City of Clearwater, Florida by Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc., Urban Planners, dated April 10, 2002, which addressed planning for the community vision, the rationale for regulating signs, prohibited signs such as bench signs and changeable signs, the general effectiveness of the City's sign regulations in protecting the visual character of the City of Clearwater, and photographs documenting the enhancement and preservation of the City's character over a span of 14 years along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision found that most provisions of Article 3 of the Community Development Code, alleged to be content-based, were not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1327]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that § 3-1802 of Clearwater's Code identified substantial and carefully enumerated government interests, and that the City's time, place and manner regulations (with appropriate parts severed) were reasonable and narrowly tailored to advance those interests [see Granite-Clearwater at 1340]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the regulation of signage was originally mandated by Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act in 1985 (see Chapter 85-55, §14, Laws of Florida), and this requirement continues to apply to the City of Clearwater through Section 163.3202(2)(�, Florida Statutes; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the 1980's model • • tl�Y THG� PlYll l�]Tll�Yl T r1 1 r 1 • � • • • 11 j- 1 , Yiv`v'i.`�i.ivii� ivi u��. iv�juauuvi. v. :ii`�j'iiu�v vj' ...a....,� a.uiu vvuii�..J.� i�� . iviiu�.. ..vi."�. '..i'.�i�.:.' �� .av:'v:v"":: .) Y., within Article VIII (Signs) of the Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the UF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility and by a professional planner with Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc.; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has adopted a land development code, known as the Community Development Code, in order to implement its comprehensive plan, and to comply with the minimum requirements in the State of Florida's Growth Management Act, at Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of signage and future land use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code is required to regulate signage; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code and its signage regulations were and are intended to maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City; Exempt Si�ns - By Si�n Type �ax��b�o2�a_i -13- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that land development regulations for signage are not intended to reach certain signs, including (1) a sign, other than a window sign, located entirely inside the premises of a building or enclosed space, (2) a sign on a car other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs, (3) a statutory sign, (4) a traffic control device sign, and (5) any sign not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way or from a navigable waterway or body of water; except a sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a new Section should be added to Division 18 so as to identify such exempt signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign (other than a window sign) located entirely inside the premises of a building is not based upon the content of the message of any such sign, and is based upon practical consideration of not overreaching in the regulation of signage, absent a substantial reason to extend sign regulations to reach the visibility of signage located inside a building, other than a window sign that is oriented to be viewed by pedestrian or vehicular traffic outside the building; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign on a car, other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs, is not based upon the content of the message of any such sign, and further finds and determines that the prohibition of vehicle sign or signs is based upon time, place and manner considerations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the exemption for a sign that is required by any lawful statute or regulation of the State of Florida or the United States .,+,.,.;r;;�a �.. (_K.:��:^%:: ?� � �:?:��. � �_.� ,.� ,�;; . r_ ,,:t,t„ �+�r,_t�., oa � ��=.i �=b==i -� --�t _ �to-- ----co�___:-_ !��' _^�' _'_'Si,.^_,�"^�=�.��. ------- ------ distinction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section IO.OI.00.D recommended an exemption for legal notices and official instruments, which exemption would be consistent with an exemption for"statutory signs" as proposed hereby; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a "traffic control device sign" is a sign located within the right-of-way that functions as a traffic control device and that is described and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that traffic control device signs are those signs that are classified and defined by their function as regulatory signs (that give notice of traffic laws or regulations), warning signs (that give notice of a situation that might not readily be apparent), and guide signs (that show route designations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, and other geographical, recreational, or cultural information); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a traffic control device sign should be exempt from the City of Clearwater's land use regulations as set forth in Division ��b�ozn-� -14- 18, and further finds that such exemption is not based upon an impermissible content-based distinction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that any sign that is not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way, or from a navigable waterway or body of water, should be exempt from the City's sign regulations within Division 18, except for a sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section IO.OI.00.A recommended an exemption for signs that are not designed or located so as to be visible from any street or adjoining property; Prohibited Si�ns Prohibited Signs by Si�n Type WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in meeting the purposes and goals established in these preambles, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to prohibit certain sign types, with limited exceptions that are based upon function or use in contrast to the content of the message displayed; Prohibited Si�ns - In General WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that consistent with the foregoing preamble, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to generally prohibit the following sign types, except as otherwise provided in the Community Development Code: balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants; bench signs; billboards; electronic changeable message signs; menu signs that change more rapidly than once every three hours; pavement markings; portable signs; roof or above-roof signs; sidewalk signs; signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls; signs in or upon any body of water; signs located on publicly-owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way; signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter; signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard; signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter, or appear to display motion in any way whatsoever, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, floodlights and beacon lights; signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal; signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility; signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation; signs carried, waved, or otherwise displayed on public rights-of-way or visible from public-rights-of way that are intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose; snipe signs; three-dimensional objects that are used as signs; vehicle signs and portable trailer signs; and any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific zoning district classifications in the City's Community Development Code; Balloons, Cold Air Inflatables, Streamers, Pennants -Prohibited J AJC�1670272_I -1 5- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit balloons, streamers, pennants, and other wind-activated sign types, at Section 10.02.02.H., specifically prohibiting "Signs, commonly refened to as wind signs, consisting of one or more banners, flags, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or material fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subjected to pressure by wind," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and otherwise; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that cold air inflatable signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of the same was supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on cold air inflatables, banners and pennants (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(5), prohibiting "pennants, streamers, cold air inflatables, and banners, except for special occasions for a limited time and frequency as permitted in sections 16-712(1)h. and 16-713"), and a similar prohibition on inflatable devices that are tethered and do not touch the ground (St. Petersburg's Code at § l 6-671(6)), were determined to be content- neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's inieresi in reguiaiing speeci� anu ine �i. reier5�ur�'S i;oue iriai 5iaieu ai g i'v- 667(b)(2) that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants, with limited exceptions for their use on public property under the limited circumstances set forth in the current Code at Section 3- 1805.V. [to be amended and renumbered to Section 3-1806.R.], because such wind-activated devices utilized as signs to draw attention from passing motorists are generally distracting in nature, serve to degrade community aesthetics, and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed current Section 3-1803.B.'s prohibition on "[b]alloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants, except where allowed as governmental and public purpose signs for special events of limited time and frequency, as approved by the city manager or the city commission," and the court struck Section 3-1803.B. upon determining that the distinction between "governmental and public purpose signs" and "non-governmental and non- public purpose signs" for such special events lacked the necessary reasonable fit as it relates to furthering the governmental interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, especially insofar as the �ax��6�02�2-' -16- prohibition's exception did not state that it was only limited to "public property" [see Granite- Clearwater at 1335]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to address the concerns expressed by the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision and to adopt a modified version of the former Section 3-1803.B. [to be renumbered as Section 3-1804.A.] and expressly limiting the exception to the limited circumstances when balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants are located on public property subject to criteria set forth in the Code, and to similarly modify the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.V. [to be renumbered Section 3-1806.R.] by clarifying that the exception for balloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants is limited to when their use is on "public property" [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335; see also Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) (the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause does not extend to government speech)], and by setting forth in these preambles the rationale for the adoption of the prohibition and limited exceptions, as clarified; Bench Si�ns -Prohibited (Other than Identification of Transit Company or Route Schedule) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit bench signs because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on bench ,.; �n n� rr �c�c;,.r� rl.,,.o�l ,. l;o �l�0 1-;,, �hot±o ;r .,,��+o ,-o�or+�..ly� v.,..o.,t �S �,�.�<, =a�S� _ _�.�_- _• � �_aaa� r;_.�..='- '-'r--- ------'--� ---- --------- -- ----- ---..r,�_.r � ---`-'i-" - =--`-�� be authorized in writing [pursuant to a state statute])"; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that bench signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that this prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on bus shelter signs and bench signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(2), prohibiting "bus shelter signs and bench signs except when approved by a local governrnent, pursuant to F.S. § 337.407(2)(a)" but not prohibiting "the identification of the transit company or its route schedule") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); JAX\I670272-1 -17- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite- Clearwater at 1334], and this would be inclusive of the prohibition on bench signs, other than the signage necessarily associated with the identification of the transit company and the route schedule, which functions to identify the benches and the related transit routes; Billboards - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that billboards detract from the natural and manmade beauty of the City; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater agrees with the American Society of Landscape Architects' determination that billboards tend to deface nearby scenery, whether natural or built, rural or urban; WHEREAS, states such as Vermont, Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii have prohibited the construction of billboards in their states and are now billboard-free in an effort to promote aesthetics and scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of the construction of billboards and certain other sign types, as well as the establishment and continuation of height, size and other standards for on-premise signs, is consistent with the policy set forth in the Florida Constitution that it shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater agrees with the courts that have reco�nized that outdoor advertising signs tend to interrupt what would otherwise be the natural landscape as seen from the highway, whether the view is untouched or ravished by man, and that it would be unreasonable and illogical to conclude that an area is too unattractive to justify aesthetic improvement [see E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F2d 1141 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 878 (1970); John Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Bd., 339 N.E.2d 709, 720 (Mass. 1975)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds that local governments may separately classify off-site and on-site advertising signs in taking steps to minimize visual pollution [see City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Advertising Association of Lakeland Florida, 414 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1982)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds that billboards attract the attention of drivers passing by the billboards, thereby adversely affecting traffic safety and constituting a public nuisance and a noxious use of the land on which the billboards are erected; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that billboards are a form of advertisement designed to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition on the part of the observer, unlike other forms of advertising that are ordinarily seen as a matter of choice on the JAX�1670272_1 -1 g- part of the observer [see Packer v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (1932); and General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public Works, 289 Mass. 149, 193 N.E. 799 (1935)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court and many federal courts have accepted legislative judgments and determinations that the prohibition of billboards promotes traffic safety and the aesthetics of the surrounding area. [see Metromedia, Inc. v. Ciry of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 509-510 (1981); National Advertising Co. v. City & Town of Denver, 912 F.2d 505, 409 (l Oth Cir. 1990), and Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Ciry of Lenexa, 67 F. Supp. 1231, 1239 (D. Kan. 1999)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that on-site business signs are considered to be part of the business itself, as distinguished from off-site outdoor advertising signs, and finds and determines that it is well-recognized that the unique nature of outdoor advertising and the nuisances fostered by billboard signs justify the separate classification of such structures for the purposes of governmental regulation and restrictions [see E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141, 1153 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 878, 91 S.C. 12, 27 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1970}, quoting United Advertising Corp. v. Boroz�gh of Raritan, 93 A2d 362, 365 (1952)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on the erection of off-site outdoor advertising signs will reduce the number of driver distractions and the number of aesthetic eyesores along the roadways and highways of the Town [see, e.g., E. B. Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141, 1154 (Sth Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 878 (1970)]; �7ULTL'DL'A C 41�0 (`;fii n{�(��n�rVir�tAr fnrao ori(� 11P�P1^YY11Y1[�C t�ot hi��n�r� c�cnc arA r�i4}��:r . .:____=__� ____ _"� :_ ______ "_'___ -______ "____- _"_________S4- ____"" _____ ____ _' " �• J .. . 1- . - nuisances given their adverse impact on both traffic safety and aesthetics; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that billboards are a traffic hazard and impair the beauty of the surrounding area, and the prohibition of the construction of billboards will reduce these harms [see Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Ciry of Lenexa, 67 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1239 (D. Kan. 1999)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the presence of billboards along the federal interstate and the federal-aid primary highway systems has prevented public property in other jurisdictions from being used for beautification purposes due to view zones established by state administrative rule; WHEREAS, Scenic America, Inc. recommends improvements in the scenic character of a community's landscape and appearance by prohibiting the construction of billboards, and by setting height, size and other standards for on-premise signs [see Scenic America's Seven Principles for Scenic Conservation, Principle #5); WHEREAS, more than two hundred Florida communities have adopted ordinances prohibiting the construction of billboards in their communities in order to achieve aesthetic, beautification,traffic safety, and/or other related goals; JAX�I 670272-1 -19- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to preserve, protect and promote the safety and general welfare of the residents of the City, it is necessary to regulate off-site advertising signs, commonly known as billboard signs or billboards, so as to prohibit the construction of billboards in all zoning districts, and to provide that the foregoing provisions shall be severable; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of billboards as set forth herein will improve the beauty of the City, foster overall improvement to the aesthetic and visual appearance of the City, preserve and open up areas for beautification on public property adjoining the public roadways, increase the visibiliiy, readability and/or effectiveness of on-site signs by reducing and/or diminishing the visual clutter of off-site signs, enhance the City as an attractive place to live and/or work, reduce blighting influences, and improve traffic safety by reducing driver distractions; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater wishes to assure that new billboards are effectively prohibited as a sign-type within the City; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater hereby finds and determines that anything beside the road which tends to distract the driver of a motor vehicle directly affects traffic safety, and that signs, which divert the attention of the driver and occupants of motor vehicles from the highway to objects away from it, may reasonably be found to increase the danger of accidents, and agrees with the courts that have reached the same determination [see In re Opinion of the Justices, 103 N.H. 268, 169 A.2d 762 (1961);Newman Signs, Inc. v. Hjelle, 268 N.W.2d 741 (N.D.1978)]; Discontinued Signs -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit discontinued signs and/or sign structures because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under state law, which may be more permissive than local law, a nonconforming sign is deemed "discontinued" when it is not operated and maintained for a period of twelve months, and the following conditions under Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code, shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign so as to render it a discontinued sign: (1) signs displaying only an "available for lease" or similar message; (2) signs displaying advertising for a product or service which is no longer available; or(3) signs which are blank or do not identify a particular product, service, or facility; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as abandoned signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Electronic chan�eable Messa�e Si�ns - Prohibited JAX\I 670272_] -20- (Except 3-1806(B)(5), Menu Si�ns and Le�al Nonconformin�Messa�e Si�ns (�eneral messa�es si�ns that chan�e no more frequently than every six hours and existin� time/temperature si�ns that do not chan�e more than once per minute)) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit electronic changeable message signs, with limited exceptions for menus display signs, legally nonconforming message signs consisting of (a) general message signs that change no more frequently than once every six hours, and (b) time/temperature signs that change no more frequently than once every minute, because such devices are distracting in nature and serve to degrade community aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on signs with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker or vary in intensity or color except for time-temperature-date signs, at 10.02.02.F. ("Signs with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vary in intensity or color except for time- temperature-date signs)"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that changeable message signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that such prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; . � �i r _i i i • i t r'--`--� r__ �iVHH Kyv� .nP :.1:� !)1 !�:�»r�riwi�r 1:_Tl(_'S �::�.: (:�L?TIIl'T.�S ::}»: .:!� ��::LGr i;,i� Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed limited exception from the general prohibition on changing signs for time and temperature signs, but only as permanent accessory signs on commercial parcels and subject to other criteria, at 10.04.04 of the Model Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed Section 3-1804.F., General Standards, wherein the City specifically regulated the placement, size and location of time and temperature signs [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision rejected the contention that Section 3-1804.F. was an impermissible content-based exception rendering the ordinance unconstitutional, and the court observed that this sign category (time and temperature signs) and its regulations were also a good example of how the ordinance was content-neutral [see Granite-Clear-water at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision concluded that the category was content-neutral inasmuch as the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or enforce regulations based on viewpoint; and the court determined that inasmuch as a time and temperature sign has no viewpoint and merely �a��b�o2�2_i -21- relates factual information, the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or limit the free expression of ideas-especially in light of the City of Clearwater's specific prohibition in Section 3-1804.H. on placing any limitation on a sign based on the content of the message [see Granite- Clearwater at 1336); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained provisions that allowed for "time and temperature signs" not to exceed 20 square feet within certain land uses [see St. Petersburg's Code at §§ 16-709(1)a.5., 16-709(1)b.3., 16-710(1)a.5., 16-710(1)b.3., 16-712(1)e., and 16-712(2)c.] and that these six provisions were among more than fifty different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. I 1, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provisions pertaining to "time and temperature signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling •.�,._,..:,.... ...,,,�,...+i.,. ."...,.....,:..... ............i,....+ 1' fA%.....J.. U...,%. A.`..:_,...1 D...,:.._,.,. nfii i T C� iGi ��iii 1�V11J1UG1Q11V11 U11UG1 111G b'V VGllllllb' �J1G�,GllGlll Vl IY U/U V. 1\VI.A.IY�'UL/lJl 1\Ul.lJ//C� Y71 V.J. /O 1� /71 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that changeable message signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that such prohibition supports the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the future there is no longer a need for time and temperature signs due to the expansion of electronic devices and instruments that display time and temperature, and that it would serve the stated interests of the Clearwater Development Code to prohibit proliferation of distracting and incongruous changing message signs by eliminating the exception for time and temperature signs, while grandfathering existing time and temperature signs for their continued operation; Menu Si�ns on which Messa�e Chan�es More Often than Every 3 Hours -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit signs that change messages rnore frequently than every three hours because the same visually JAXU 670272-1 -22- degrade the community aesthetics and character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18, with an exception for signs that function as menu display signs so as to allow for changing messages for different menus during the course of the day; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a changeable electronic message sign provides more visual stimuli than a traditional sign and that it has been judicially noticed that such changeable electronic message signs will logically will be more distracting and more hazardous (see Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (1 st Cir. 2008)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it has been judicially noticed that the alternative of allowing electronic message centers but imposing certain conditions on them, such as limiting the number of times per day a message can change, would have steeper monitoring costs and other complications and that such considerations support a municipality's outright prohibition on electronic changing message signs (see Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (1 st Cir. 2008)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenTy-five different types of signs (such as menu signs on which the message changes more rapidly than once every three hours), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Pavement Markin�s -Prohibited (Except for Street Addresses) .<,TT,-„,,,, . n ., „•. �,,,- - c -� � -�-�- . � .� . . wr-�r,rcr.H�; tn� �,i[y c�i �,iedrwdier nnuS diiu ueiertmries inai t� rs ar�propndie iu proiiioii pavement markings, with an exception for street addresses, because the same visually degrade the community character and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed prohibition on signs painted on the pavement, except for house numbers and traffic control signs (see Model Code at 10.02.02.5, stating "Signs that are painted, pasted, or printed on any curbstone, flagstone, pavement, or any portion of any sidewalk or street, except house numbers and traffic control signs"); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit pavement markings that are not traffic control device signs (which are exempt from regulation under the City's land development regulations) and except for street addresses (which are not content-based and are necessary for commerce and function for health and safety concerns) because such markings are distracting in nature and serve to degrade community aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18 of Article 3 of the Clearwater Code; �fvc�i6�oz�z-1 -23- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that categories for prohibited signs, such as pavement markings with certain exceptions [former Section 3-1803.F.], were not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345- 1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's similar prohibition on pavement markings (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(4) prohibiting "pavement markings, except official traffic control markings or where otherwise authorized") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n. 23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision prohibiting "pavement markings," with limited exceptions, did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. A...,7 A....;,....f IJ...•;o,-.,, Al)1 I I l '/Y7 '!ui i iu1'!ui• L\VIiM1�1SUL/{J6 1\Ul.{JIlL� T l 1 V.L). !V 1� /l 1 `1/V/J� Portable Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to continue to prohibit portable signs as unnecessary visual clutter and that such sign type is inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the City's land development regulations expressed in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the sign type known as a portable sign may be legally prohibited (see Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535, 1544 (1 lth Cir. 1986); Lindsay v. San Antonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 1111 (Sth Cir. 1987)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition of portable signs reasonably advances the governmental goal of protecting the aesthetic environment of the City [see Harnish v. Manatee Town, 783 F.2d 1535 (l lth Cir. 1986) and Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. Ciry of Clearwater, 298 F.2d 1051 (1 lth Cir. 1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 98 (1988)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that prohibited portable signs [see prohibition in Model Code, § 10.02.02.Y., and see 1AX\1670272_l -24- definition of "portable signs" at Model Code, § 10.00.04 ("Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported by trailer or on its own wheels, including such signs even though the wheels may be removed and the remaining chassis or support structure converted to an A or T frame sign and attached temporarily to the ground")], and that cited the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535 (l lth Cir. 1986), as support for such a prohibition; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that portable signs were also among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of this sign type was found by that study to support the stated purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on portable signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(6), prohibiting "portable signs, including ...") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that prohibitions, similar to the one on "portable signs," did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23), and noted that a municipality may choose to prohibit all portable signs in furtherance of its aesthetic concerns (id. at *10, citing Messer v. City ofDouglasville, Ga., 975 F.2d 1505, 1510 (1992)); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as portable signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Roof and Above Roof Signs -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit roof and above roof signs because such signs are distracting in nature, serve to degrade community character, and aesthetics and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18; �.a��6�oz�2-i -25- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit roof signs at Section 10.04.00, which allowed for permanent accessory signs but did not allow a permanent accessory sign to be a roof sign (which is defined at Section 10.00.04 as "A sign placed above the roof line of a building or on or against a roof slope of less than forly-five (45) degrees"); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that roof and above roof signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on roof signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(7), prohibiting "roof signs, except integral roof signs in nonresidential districts") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that a prohibition on signs, similar to the one on roof signs, did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon u µ� v�n„n a,�r,allatP rP�liP�z� r�ntirmPYl ?hat thP nrriinanra u�ac (`(1T1iPili-1'1Pl�iral Iha�PrY in la `YYv � � TaP narr 'b„ Y"'` upon the governrnent's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16- 667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as roof signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Sidewalk Si�ns -Prohibited (Except as otherwise provided) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that sidewalk signs, sometimes known as sandwich board signs (except as then allowed in the Downtown District), were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; »i6�oz�z-' -26- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to generally prohibit sidewalk signs because such signs add to sign clutter and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18, except in limited instances, such as where sidewalk signs in commercial districts may serve a temporary function of providing information when the construction of public improvements is ongoing, or in other limited circumstances where such signs provide important information to the public, and that this prohibition is consistent with the prohibition upheld by the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision reviewed former Section 3-1803.L., which at that time prohibited sandwich board signs except to the extent permitted in the Downtown District, and upheld that restriction after striking unrelated provisions from former Section 3-1803.L. [see Granite- Clearwater at 1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on sandwich board signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(8), prohibiting "sandwich board signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism,491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); T 1 T•_ ('�_ 1\_ T 1 1__� 1 �i�ns Aiiaeneu io �r rainieu un r►er�. �eawaii� - rruniui�eu (Other than Official Regulatorv or Warnin� Si�ns) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(9), prohibiting "signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, unless otherwise authorized, such as official regulatory or warning signs approved by the City Manager") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Ine. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part,348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve �,a�i 6�oz�z-' -27- aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs painted on piers and seawalls were among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that such prohibition supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite- Cleanvater at 1334]; Si�ns in or upon Any River, Bay Lake, or Other Body of Water-Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; <�IL7L'�Ti'A C 4ti.o r.4�r f!''lA�rai�o4ar �n�c �r�� AtArrrinac 4�a4 �� ri`�� f Ci pvt�i.e,h�.:irt�.ci ♦�lll'Jl\1JC1V� 111V Vil; Vl �IVUl VYC�L�1 1111UJ U11U UVtV1111111VJ U1NL r . v sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(10), prohibiting "signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, unless otherwise authorized by the City Manager, such as official regulatory or warning signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism,491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on or upon a river, bay, lake or water were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different JAX11670272-1 -2 g- types of signs (such as signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Si�ns on Publicly-Owned Land or Easements or Street Ri�hts-of-Way, (except (a) as allowed in Section 3-1806.5., (b) si�ns on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to Section 3-1807 B 5 , (c) sidewalk si�ns to the extent permitted in Section 3-1806 U or Section 1807 B 4 , (d) as allowed in Section 3-1807.A., and (e) as allowed in Section 3-1806 V and 3-1806 W ) WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on publicly-owned land or easements or street rights-of-way [except (a) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3- 1806.5, (b) signs on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to the renumbered Section 3-1807.B.5, (c) sidewalk signs to the extent permitted in Section 3- 1806.U., or the renumbered Section 1807.B.4., (d) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3- 1807.A., and (e) as allowed in the renumbered Section 3-1806.V. and renumbered Section 3- 1806.W.] detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Section 10.01.00.A., recommended an exemption for signs necessary to promote health, safety and welfare, and other regulatory, statutory, traffic control or directional signs erected on public property with permission as appropriate from the State of Florida, the United States, of city or county governments, and that exemptions for statutory signs and traffic control device signs from reguiation under i�ivision i 8 are incorporated into Ine new Seciion 3-i av3.C. aiiu �ecii�ii 3- 1803.D., and are not within the scope of the prohibited signs listed in the new Section 3-1804.M.; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision reviewed and upheld former Section 3-1803.L, after striking thirteen words as set forth below, which at that time prohibited certain signs, including "[s]igns located on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way, except signs required or erected by permission of the city manager or city commission, signs or transit shelters erected pursuant to section 3-2203, and sandwich board signs to the extent permitted in the downtown district," and which further provided that"[p]rohibited signs shall include but shall not be limited to handbills, posters, advertisements, or notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks" [see Granite-Clearwater at 1339] [see also Pleasant Grove Ciry, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision struck the following language that then appeared in Section 3- 1803.L, "signs required or erected by permission of the city manager or city commission," due to a determination that the same allowed officials to exercise undue discretion, and upheld the remaining provisions of Section 3-1803.L. [see Granite-Clearwater at 1339]; �a�i6�oz�z-' -29- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that subsequent amendments were made to the Clearwater Development Code to limit any undue discretion of the city manager and city commission and to provide criteria to address the concerns raised by the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs on easements or right-of-way were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that are erected upon or project over public rights-of-way (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(11), prohibiting "signs that are erected upon or project over public rights-of-way or present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard" and which "includes signs which obstruct visibility") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon (1)the government's interest in regulating speech and (2) the statement in the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safeiy and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism,491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Si�ns that Emit Sound,Vapor, Smoke, Odor, D �:,.1„� f� �n�++,... u i.;i,;+.,.i a ai�iwc�� vi vn�cvu3 i�ia��ci - i i vuivi�cu WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit signs that emit sound, odor, or visible matter such as vapor, smoke, particles, or gaseous matter, at Model Code 10.02.02.J., prohibiting "Signs that emit audible sound, odor, or visible matter such as smoke or steam," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit signs that incorporate emit any sound that is intended to attract attention, at Model Code 10.02.I., prohibiting "Signs that incorporate projected, emit any sound that is intended to attract attention, or involve the use of animals," as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; JAX�1670272_1 -3 O- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(12), prohibiting "signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter"} was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs emitting sound, vapor, smoke, and/or odor were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Si�ns That Have Unshielded Illuminatin�Devices - Prohibited \x1i7L'DL'A l` +t. !`�4. + !-'I o+or +,..ric or�l1 UPYPY'11llYlPC iiiaa,.� vv:iS.SI.°.i:I :::�:: .::� ♦�lllil\L'/A17� LLlIJ Vll,'� Vl �.1\.Ui VV�Ct�lil 1111uJ u11U V1.V1111111VJ � purposes of Division 18, signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard should continue to be prohibited in Section 3-1804.0.; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns that are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair the vision of any motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using or entering a public way, or that of a hazard or a nuisance to occupants of any property because of glare or other characteristics" at Model Code 10.02.02.P., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that have unshielded, illuminating devices (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(13), prohibiting "signs that have unshielded, illuminating devices") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § �Ax��6�oz�z-i -31- 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs with unshielded illuminated devices were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of such sign types supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater's sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs Section 479.1 I(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits the erection, use, operation, or maintenance of certain specified signs, including any sign which displays intermittent lights not embodied in the sign, or any rotating or flashing light within 100 feet of the outside boundary of the right-of-way of any highway on the State Highway System, interstate highway system, or federal-aid primary highway system or which is illuminated in such a manner so as to cause glare or to impair the vision of motorists or otherwise distract motorists so as to interfere with the motorists' ability to safely operate their vehicles; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; tianc that Mnyv_ Itvvnlye_ I wil�l_ KnT?TP_ N 1?c_tl_ 1CintillaTe_ FilinK_ H Illit_P.l'(11' AililCaT' to Display Motion, includin�Animated Si�ns, Multi-Prism Signs, Tri-Vision Si�ns, Floodli�hts and Beacons Li�hts (Except When Required by the FAA or Other Governmental A�ency) Unless Otherwise Expressly Allowed - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter or appear to display motion, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, floodlights and beacon lights (except when required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency), unless otherwise expressly allowed, is consistent with the purposes of Division 18, including the lessening of hazardous situations, protecting the public from the dangers of unsafe signs, regulation of signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of, or distract motorists,bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on the aforesaid signs is consistent with the purpose of the land development regulations to enhance the attractiveness of the community and to preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics of a waterfront and resort community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit"[s]igns with visible moving, revolving, or rotating parts or visible �A�i6�o2n-' -32- mechanical movement of any description or other apparent visible movement achieved by electrical, electronic, or mechanical means, except for traditional barber poles," at Model Code 10.02.02.D., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safeTy; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns with the optical illusion of movement by means of a design that presents a pattern capable of giving the illusion of motion or changing of copy," at Model Code 10.02.02.E., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]igns with lights or illumination that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vary in intensity or color except far time-temperature-date signs," at Model Code 10.02.02.F., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit "[s]earchlights used to advertise or promote a business or to attract customers to a property" at Model Code 10.02.02.R., as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety; ------- . � . �. ,.�. � , • ., _. ., ��- -rr. „_�___L___�� WHN'.FlH'.A� thP t :itv �t �_.IParwatPr rinn� ann neiermin�ti �n�� i.ne i.i�v c�i >�, rcic�auw� � sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, and beacon lights (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(14), prohibiting "signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, and beacon lights except when required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other governmental agency") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism,491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that move, revolve, rotate, andlor flash were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; JAX\I670272_1 -33- WHER.EAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs utilizing beacon lights should not apply, and that beacon lights utilized as a sign should be exempted from prohibition if and when the same is required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency for a public purpose; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, tri-visions signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334); �ns that Obscure a Traffic Control Device Si�n or Official Traffic Si�nal -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal should be prohibited; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic sign (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(15), prohibiting signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic or government sign, signal, or device") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), CEYI: Lr_P.YLlP/J`_ l41 'I I,\. I IIXF� !llllla\ .:,ti,�,-o ,J„ 11..._ • r- �� , �• �•� u u� iivJv a�yciia�c 1CV1CW conrirmed tnat 111e ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs obstructing traffic or other governmental signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the Ciiy of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that obstruct, conceal, hide or otherwise obscure from view any official traffic or government sign, signal or device), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Signs That Present Potential Hazards -Prohibited JAX\1670272 ] - -34- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that a prohibition on signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibiliiy, are consistent with the purposes of Division 18, including the lessening of hazardous situations, protecting the public from the dangers of unsafe signs, regulation of signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of, or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibiiity's 1989 Model Code for local governments, at Model Code 10.02.02.M., prohibited "Signs that obstruct the vision of pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists traveling on or entering public streets," and at Model Code 10.02.02.P., prohibited "Signs that are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair the vision of any motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian using or entering a public way, or that of a hazard or a nuisance to occupants of any property because of glare or other characteristics"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained similar prohibitions on signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, which included signs which obstruct visibility (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(11), prohibiting "signs that . . . present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard. This includes signs which obstruct visibility") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against LtCICIS�YI, 4y1 U.�. %t51, %yl �lytSy); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs that present potential traffic or pedestrian hazards were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite- Cleanvater at 1334�; Si�ns Attached to Tree or Ve�etation - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation add to visual pollution and clutter, and should be prohibited to further the purposes of the City's land development regulations and Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; JAX11670272-I -3 5- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to a tree or vegetation were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, at Section 479.11(9) (2010), prohibits any sign erected, used, operated, or maintained that is nailed, fastened, or affixed to any tree and which is adjacent to the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system or the federal-aid primary highway system; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that categories for prohibited signs, such as signs attached to vegetation [former Section 3-1803.R, now renumbered to Section 3-1804.SJ were not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; Human Si�ns -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose and that are carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way (which does not include or limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events) conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, _ . . . . • '-' ' -�- -. .,__ • • r an(i rPaiilatino ctonC til a mann�r SQ i'_tlat i11�V (lp pqI mieriere Wllfl; UDSLiUCI lI1C Vl51ui1 u1, vi distract motorists,bicyclists or pedestrians; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the renumbered Section 3- 1803.T expressly prohibits signs that are intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose and that are carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way, and that the foregoing provision is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in meeting the purposes and goals established in these preambles, it is appropriate to prohibit and/or to continue to prohibit the display of what has become known as "human signs"; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed the restriction in former Section 3-1803.5 [renumbered as Section 3-1803.T] which prohibited signs that are "carried, waved or otherwise displayed" in public rights-of-way or "in a manner visible from public rights-of-way" and "directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons demonstrating in demonstrations, political rallies or similar events" [see Granite-Clearwater at 1340-1341]; JAX\1670272_] -3(- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision found that the restriction in former Section 3-1803.5 [renumbered as Section 3-I803.T] was content or viewpoint-neutral and justified by Clearwater's stated interests in safeiy and aesthetics, and that the additional guidance provided in the provision assures that government officials are not given unbridled discretion [see Granite-Clearwater at 1340-1341); Snipe Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that off-premises signs that are tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glued, or otherwise attached to trees, poles, stakes, or fences, and which are not otherwise expressly allowed as a permitted sign, also known as "snipe signs," add to visual pollution and clutter, and should be prohibited to further the purposes of the City's land development regulations and Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision upheld the prohibitions on snipe signs after severing the words "other objects" in the definition of Section 8-101 in order to remove a conflict between Section 3-1806.B3 (allowing attached signs) and Section 3-1803.T (prohibiting snipe signs that would include attached signs to objects other than those listed) [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335J; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that snipe signs were among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that supported the purposes set forth in Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, at Section 479.11(9) (2010), prohibits any sign erected, used, operated, or maintained that is nailed, fastened, or affixed to any tree and which is adjacent to the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system or the federal-aid primary highway system, in the interests of aesthetics and traffic safety; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on snipe signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 671(16), prohibiting "snipe signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision prohibiting "snipe signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon, where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- �fvc�i6�oz7z-� -37- 667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Three Dimensional Objects Used As Sians -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that three dimensional objects used as signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness of the city as a place to live; vacation and conduct business, WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that three-dimensional objects used as signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on three-dimensional objects that are used as signs (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(18), prohibiting "three-dimensional objects that are used as signs") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and fnctPr cafPtv anri that rPliPri iirnn thP rrP�P�iPnt nt W�rrrL' v_ Kn�lc Aoninct K�cicm; 4y I 't_J:l: %1S i; 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the Ciiy of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included three-dimensional objects that are used as signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Vehicle And Portable Trailer Si�ns - Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that vehicle signs and portable trailer signs detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that vehicle signs and portable trailer signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that were supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater's sign regulations in Division 18; J��6�oan_i -38- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments, at Model Code 10.02.02.W., prohibited vehicle signs with a total sign area on any vehicle in excess of ten (10) square feet, when the vehicle: (1) is parked for more than sixty consecutive minutes within one hundred (100) feet of any street right of way, (2) is visible from the street right of way that the vehicle is within one hundred (100) feet of, and (3) is not regularly used in the conduct of the business advertised on the vehicle; and further providing that a vehicle used primarily for advertising, or for the purpose of providing transportation for owners or employees of the occupancy advertised by the vehicle, shall not be considered a vehicle used in the conduct of business; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that nearly identical prohibitions on vehicle signs have upheld against a constitutional challenges (see Perkins v. Town of Orange Park, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. Cir. Ct.}; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility's 1989 Model Code for local governments at Model Code 10.02.02.Y, prohibited "portable signs as defined by this Code," and therein at 10.00.04 defined "portable sign" as "any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported by trailer or on its own wheels, including such signs even though the wheels may be removed and the remaining chassis or support structure converted to an A or T frame sign and attached temporarily to the ground" and that a similar prohibition was upheld in Harnish v. Manatee County, 783 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11 th Cir. 1986); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's Si�ii CvuC iiiai Cviiiaiiicu Siiiiiiai(�TvliiViiivll� vll Yv1LAU1G J1�11S �111U VCi11G1C Si�I1S iSl. rCLCr50UI��5 Code at § 16-671(6) and (19)), were determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State OutdDOr Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism,491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as portable signs and vehicle signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; Si�ns Not Specificallv Permitted -Prohibited WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific district classifications in the Community Development Code should continue to be prohibited in the renumbered Section 3-1804.X, with clarification that the foregoing prohibition pertains to permanent sign types; JAX�1670272-1 -J 9- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific land use classifications in the article 16 of the St. Petersburg Code (St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-671(20), prohibiting "any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific land use classifications in this article") was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government's interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (which included any sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific district classifications in the Development Code), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334]; General Standards WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in carrying out and implementing the purposes of the land development regulations governing signage it is appropriate to establish general standards including the following: the establishment of a minimum setbacx ior signs oi iive ieei from ine properiy iine; ine aiiowance Ui rieori sigiis ailu lighting and providing the circumstances whereby neon lighting is counted toward the allowable area of permissible signage; the establishment of certain conditions whereby illuminated signs may be operated; the allowance of banners and flags and providing the circumstances whereby the same are counted toward the allowable area of permissible signage; the allowance of signs that function to display changing gasoline prices (gasoline price display signs) except where specifically prohibited, and also providing certain height limitations and the circumstances whereby the same are counted toward the allowable area of permissible freestanding signage; the allowance of signage on awnings subject to certain limitations such as size; a provision that makes it clear that other codes may be applicable, namely building and electrical codes; a provision that specifies that signs shall not have limitations based upon the content of the message contained on the signs; and a provision codifying that noncommercial speech may be substituted for commercial speech; Setbacks WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of both aesthetics and traffic safety, no sign shall be located within five feet of a property line of a parcel proposed for development; Neon Si�ns And Li�hting �ax�i b�o2�z_1 -40- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to address circumstances when neon lighting should not be regarded as signage for purpose of land development regulations that regulate signage, and to provide for circumstances when neon lighting used as freestanding designs or murals or as attached murals or designs unrelated to the architectural features of the building should be counted toward the allowable area of the property's or occupancy's freestanding or attached signage, as applicable; Illuminated Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to provide that the light from any illuminated sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed away from adjoining street rights-of-way and properties; that no sign shall have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights or other illumination devices which have a changing light intensity, brightness, color, or direction or as otherwise prohibited in the new Section 3-1804; that no colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffic-control devices; that neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary light sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares; and that the light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that no structure, including sign supports or awnings, are illuminated by such lighting; Banners And Fla�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to provide that a banner or flag may be used as a permitted tTPPgtwn�i_nb nr attarhari ci�on anri� it cn itcPri� ThP arPa nt thP hanner nr tlaa chail hP_. ln�lll[7P_.C't in_ and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property, unless otherwise provided in Division 18, such as in the new Section 3-18056.G; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that there were legally required or justifiable exceptions such as construction signs [former Section 3- 1805.F.] and for sale signs [former Section 3-1805.0.], and that the exceptions for flags [former Section 3-1805.G.], was also not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345- 1347]; Gasoline Price Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, gasoline price display signs shall be allowed in all non-residential districts except where specifically prohibited; gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall not extend above any pump island canopy or they shall be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the property; if attached to the freestanding sign, the area of the gasoline price display sign shall be counted towaxd the allowable area for the freestanding sign; and a gasoline price display sign may be changed manually or electronically in recognition of intermittent changes in fuel prices which may occur mare often than once per day; �.vc�i 6�oz�z_� -41- WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Dutdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), addressed Article 3, Division 18's General Standards, wherein the City specifically regulated the placement, size and location of gasoline price signs [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336), rejected the contention that former Section 3-1804.E [now renumbered to Section 3-1805.E] was an impermissible content-based exception rendering the ordinance unconstitutional, and observed that this sign category (gasoline price signs) and its regulations were a good example of how the ordinance was content-neutral [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the federal district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision concluded that the category for "gasoline price signs" was content-neutral inasmuch as the provision was not an attempt to censor speech or enforce regulations based on viewpoint inasmuch as a gasoline price sign has no viewpoint and merely relates factual information; hence, the provision is not an attempt to censor speech or limit the free expression of ideas-especially in light of the City of Clearwater's specific prohibition in then Section 3-1804.H on placing any limitation on a sign based on the content of the message [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336]; Awnin�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of both aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to regulate signage, inclusive of graphic elements, that appear on awnings; Buildin� and Electrical Code Compliance WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to specify that in addition to land development regulations identified in Division 18, signs shall comply with all applicable building and electrical code requirements; Messa�e Content WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision cited former Section 3-1804.H. (providing "no sign shall be subject to any limitation based on the content of the message") in determining that the challenger could not make a facial challenge to Article 4 of the Code; and the district court stated that the City's ordinance was content-neutral under Thomas v. Chicago Park, 534 U.S. 316 (2002) [see Granite- Clearwater at 1325, n.20]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with prior code provisions contained within former Section 3-1804.H. [renumbered to Section 3-1805.H.], notwithstanding any other provision of the Community Development Code, no sign shall be subject to any limitation based on the content of the message contained on such sign; Substitution of Noncommercial Speech for Noncommercial Speech JAXU670272_1 _[}2_ WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has allowed noncommercial speech to appear wherever commercial speech appears; and the City desires to continue that practice through the specific inclusion of a substitution clause that expressly allows non-commercial messages to be substituted for commercial messages; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that by confirming in its ordinance that noncommercial messages are allowed wherever commercial messages are permitted, the City will continue to overcome any constitutional objection that its ordinance impermissibly favors commercial speech noncommercial speech [see Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Lenexa, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1236-1237 (D. Kan. 1999}); Si�ns Permitted Without a Permit WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there are many signs and sign types that may be allowable and permitted without development review pursuant to Article 4 of the Community Development Code; Address Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, there should be allowed without permitting one address sign of no more than two square feet of total sign face area for each parcel of land used for residential purposes and no more than one square foot for each number contained in the property address for each parcel of land used for non-residential purposes, with the square footage for the address sign being allowed in addition to the total square signage footage allowed in the renumbered and mnriitiari `artinn {_I X11%• ...,,...�..,.. .�.,.,...,__ � _.,.. , WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "address numbers" from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(1)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086(2004); WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "street addresses" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. RockAgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); �Ax��6�oz�2_� -43- Temporary Free Expression Signs WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g.,LinmarkAssociates v. Town of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)], on-site real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, should be allowed given the important role and unique function that real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, perform on the premises where they are located; and also that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g.,Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994)], signs that allow property owners, especially residential homeowners, to freely express a particular point of view on their own property should be reasonably accommodated and may be uniquely valuable, which may be accommodated by the allowance of a free expression sign; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), addressed the constitutionality of provisions governing non-election yard signs in residential areas, which provisions contained both a six-foot size limitation and a durational limitation of ninety days during a one year period [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite-Clearwater agreed with the reasoning of Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.1994) (upholding an ordinance that allowed one non-commercial sign all year long and additional non-commercial signs during the election season), and found that the provisions were constitutional if the ninety-day durational limitation was struck and severed, thereby allowing one temporary yard sign (in residential areas) all year long [see Granite-Clearwater at i?�v'i'�ZQI ��liinh mu��fiuiivtivii.��5 ��.±:�� vr�rP.�,.�,:�;: �:n^.� J� J Y b' � WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to expressly provide for the display of one temporary free-expression sign on each parcel within the City without any durational limitation, and that the allowance of a free expression sign on each parcel be in addition to the right to display temporary election signs prior to an election to m�imize the opportunity for political speech, subject to reasonable time, place and manner provisions that address height, size, number, location, setback, and other factors that control the spread of visual blight and sign clutter, and that such right to display a temporary free expression sign be in addition to the right to utilize a message substitution clause to display a noncommercial message in lieu of a commercial message on a lawful sign; Temporary Election Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence, election signs are generally accorded a higher level of protection under the First Amendment than any other classification or type of speech; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that durational limitations on election signs, sometimes referred to as political signs, are frequently problematic when the limitations affect the posting of election signs prior to the election concerning the candidate or �a��6�oa�z_i -44- ballot issue to which they pertain, but durational limits requiring the removal of election signs following such election are generally permissible [see, e.g., Election Signs and Time Limits, Evolving Voices in Land Use Law, 3 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 379 (2000)]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that free expression signs are sufficient to allow for political speech unrelated to particular candidates or ballot issues; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, as set forth above, it intends to expressly provide that property owners may display at least one temporary sign for free expression at all times (free expression signs}, and that in addition thereto it intends to expressly provide that properiy owners may maintain additional temporary signs displaying their support or opposition to political candidates and ballot issues before the election to which they pertain (election signs); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions for temporary real estate signs, free expression signs, election signs, and certain other sign types are not intended to diminish or lessen the City's interests in aesthetics or traffic safety, but the same are adopted in recognition of the useful functions and practical needs served by such signage in the City's commerce and/or in the political freedom that must be accorded its citizens to freely express their points of view and political desires; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater recognizes that under current jurisprudence its sign regulations may be under-inclusive in their reach to serve the City's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, while at the same time balancing the interests protected by the First Amendment [see, e.g., Members of Ciry Council v. Tczxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984); Cordes, Sign Raonlatinri Aftar T arinP• Fxaminin�a tha H'vnlvma� I ,imitc nt Nirct AmP.nClmP.ni i't'ntP_.l'.tiptl i4 .�..b........'.," '��.... �.»......... .�..."' _.'----"' -------'-----"- Neb.L.Rev. 36 (1995); Longview Outdoor Advertising Co., L.L.C. v. City of Winter Garden, Florida, 426 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1272 (M.D.FIa. 2006)]; and the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City may from time to time modify the sign regulations herein so as to provide additional limitations to further serve the City's interests in aesthetics and/or traffic safety; Holiday Decorations WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that "holiday decorations," as defined in the accompanying amendments, should not be included within the definition of the term"sign" for purposes of the land development regulations under Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, and that the definition of "sign," as defined in the accompanying amendments, has been revised to accomplish the exclusion of such decorations from the definition of"sign"; WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.D. that allows holiday decorations as signs falling under a land development regulation; Temporary Grand Openin�and Special Event Si�ns �.vcv 6�oa�2_� -45- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), determined that the provisions incorporated into the former Section 3-1805.C.2 allowing temporary special event and/or public purpose signs of a temporary nature had lacked sufficient criteria to guide an official's decision as to the type of sign, size, design and length of display, and the provision was severed in its entirety as providing an official with too much discretion to withstand constitutional scrutiny [see Granite-Clearwater at 1338-1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City amended former Section 3-1805.C.2., previously struck by the district court from the Community Development Code, to eliminate the undue discretion and to add content-neutral objective criteria [see Ordinance No. 6997-02, Section 2, adopted on July 18, 2002]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that given the unique function served by temporary grand opening signs and temporary special event or public purpose signs, it is appropriate to continue to allow such temporary signs without a permit; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that one temporary grand opening sign shall be permitted for thirty (30) days after the issuance of an occupational license for any new business, new owner of an existing business, or business name change, and that such sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in total sign face area or such sign may be a temporary covering, such as a toaster cover, sign boot, or sign sock, which covers an existing lawful and permitted sign,whether an attached sign or a freestanding sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in order to provide flexibility for the holding of a special event or for the display of information for a public purpose it is necessary to allow for temporary special event or public purpose signs that meet certain objective content-neutral criteria, as initially developed and adopted in July 2002 by way of Ordinance No. 6997-02, Section 2; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that temporary special event or public purpose signs shall be allowed subject to approval by the community development coordinator provided the temporary signs meet the following criteria: (a) the signs are temporary signs for a limited time and frequency, (b) the signs are for a special event or a public purpose of a temporary nature, (c) the signs do not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for freestanding signs under the Community Development Code, (d) the display of temporary signs for a special event shall not begin any earlier than two calendar days before the event and shall be removed within one business day after the event, and (e) the signs will meet the following purposes of Article 3, Division 18, to wit: (1)the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802.F.], (2) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]; �a�c��6�o2�z_� -46- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the general standards in renumbered Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval of temporary special event or public purpose signs shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs, that the community development coordinator shall render a decision within ten (10) days after an application is made for such signs, and that such decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-501(A); Valet Parkin� Station Si�n WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that given the prevalence of valet parking within areas frequented by visiting tourists and given the unique function served by on-premise signage that indicates the location of a valet station, it is appropriate to allow for a single sign indicating a valet parking station, provided such sign meets reasonable criteria that is based upon the purposes of Division 18 and further provided that such sign is visible only during the hours that the valet is operating; Temporary Construction Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow one temporary construction sign located on a parcel proposed for development during the period that a building permit is in force, provided that such sign does not exceed a reasonable size restriction based upon the nature of the land use as residential or non- residential; tZ�TTTTT . c7 ,__ n_�_. r �i__----_ r__a_ � a_._-�-.--__ L_� • • a VVI1L'1<L'H�J, lt1G l..11y Ul l.1GGl1 W�tlGl 1111UJ Q.11U LLGLG1111111GJ Lll'ctl ll 1J 11Gl:GJJilly iL11U appropriate to establish reasonable criteria for the dimensions of such signs based upon the zoning districts and/or land use; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the balance achieved for the modest display of temporary construction signs as limited by land use classification and placement strikes the appropriate balance that meets the principles of the City's land use regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is not necessary to require a permit for temporary construction signs as allowed under Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Community Development Code; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (llth Cir. 2003}, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), rejected the assertion that the allowance of a temporary construction sign as provided in former Section 3-1805.F.1 ran afoul of equal protection considerations inasmuch as that provision was among the City's time, place and manner regulations that were both reasonable and narrowly tailored to advance the substantial and carefully enumerated government interests set forth in JAX�1670272_1 -47- Section 3-1802 of the Community Development Code, and the district court further noted that private residences are given ample alternatives to express their viewpoint by a window sign, a temporary yard sign, or a flag [see Granite-Clearwater at 1340]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that there were legally required or justifiable exceptions such as construction signs [former Section 3- 1805.F] [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a similar provision that exempted "construction/contractor signs" not to exceed a certain size while the work was in progress or during the period of time that a building permit was valid from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(5)) and that this provision was among the provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *15-16 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ciry ofSt. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that provisions such as the one that exempted "construction/contractor signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); [�ITiTTT ♦ Cv t VYriL't'CL',H�, LIIe I,IlV OT t:IP_.�TW?iPr tinfl� anwi uP��,;,,00 rl,,,+ +1.,, �t,._.,._.L n�-_--'. � � �iii�+o �iiu� u1�. i:1GVGlll11 L.11UU1L� up�n a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the St. Petersburg ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Fla�s WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in a prior version of the land development regulations, in effect in 1991, there was an impermissible distinction drawn within the text of those regulations as to flags of a governmental unit or body, such as the American Flag or the flag of the State of Florida, and non-governmental flags, such as hypothetical examples of a Greenpeace logo or a union affiliation, and that this content-based distinction between flags was struck down in Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, 782 F. Supp. 586 (M.D.FIa. 1991),affirmed and modified, 985 F.2d 1565 (l lth Cir. 1993); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in 1992 the City of Clearwater adopted amendments designed to eliminate impermissible content distinctions JAX\1670272_1 -48- between government flags and non-government flags (see Ordinance No. 5257-92 adopted September 17, 1992); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there is no intent to distinguish between flag messages, and the content neutrality of flag regulations established by ordinance in September 1992 is continued within the accompanying sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that for flags displayed on a flag pole not exceeding thirty-five feet in height or on an attached bracket it is appropriate to allow one flag per detached dwelling unit, three flags per parcel of land used for multifamily residential purposes, and three flags per parcel of land used for non-residential purposes, and this allowance strikes the appropriate balance between allowing flags on the one hand, and controlling clutter on the other hand, and that this balance meets the principles of the City's land use regulations, and that if so used the area of the flag shall not be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that the exceptions for flags [§ 3-1805.G], was not content-based [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; Gara�e-Yard Sale Si�ns tSITTTTT 1 CY t_.. !'�_a._ 1� /-'�l,_....._�...�.... .(:«.�.. .a .�,.4.........:...�i. 41...4 � 4 4�oro ��ii�� o VYnr,tCr.t'��, i11G L,iiy vi l�1GQ1WClLG1 uiiva aiiu u��ciiiuuw wa� iuS� aS �iiw� Siivu�u v.. reasonable accommodation for temporary on-premise real estate signs to facilitate the purchase, sale or rental of real property ,there should also be reasonable accommodation for the temporary display of signage for a garage or yard sale of personal property that is limited to the day of the sale, that is limited in size to no more than a total of four square feet of sign face area per sign, and that is limited to no more than one such sign on the property where the sale is conducted and no more than two such signs on other privately owned parcels of land; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there should be no restraint on the content of such temporary signage for the sale of personal property, and that the provisions are designed to be content-neutral; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (l lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004), noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as the provision for garage/yard sale signs [§ 3-1805.H] [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1346]; JAXU 670272_1 -4C�- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "garage or yard sale signs" not exceeding four square feet from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 670(a)(18}) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS,the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg determined that the provision exempting "garage or yard sale signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Machinery-Equipment Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that "machinery and equipment �irtn� " u� �I�tin�ri i»th� µ��nm�an�nn� amPnwmPnt�� hniN�ri nnt IhP inrliwiiP�l �z�ithin thP i1n�,T�n�Tinn s•• of the term "sign" for purposes of the land development regulations under Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, and that the definition of "sign," as defined in the accompanying amendments, has been revised to accomplish the exclusion of such objects from the definition of"sign"; WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.I. that allow signs which are integral and incidental to equipment, or machinery and cover not more than 20 percent of the exterior surface of such equipment, facilities or machinery; Attached Menu Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that menu signs serve a unique function in connection with land used for restaurants within the City, and that given the unique function served by such menu signage it is important to allow for the same in addition to any other permanent freestanding or attached signage allowed on a non-residential parcel; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is therefore appropriate to continue to allow for attached menu signs with reasonable criteria as to their dimensions based upon their function; JAX\1670272-1 -5�- Onsite Directional and Traffic Control Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow onsite directional and traffic control signs subject to reasonable dimensional criteria in recognition of their function; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.J. for onsite directional and traffic control signs are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18; Parkin� Space Number Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to continue to allow signs identifying parking space numbers provided that such signs are painted on the paved surface of each space or do not exceed one-half square foot of sign face area per sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.K. for signs identifying parking space numbers are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forih in Division 18; Marina Slip and Directional Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is necessary and appropriate to allow signs identifying marina slip numbers provided that such signs are painted �n tha �lnrk ;,, fr�nt nf eac_.h slin or do not exceed one square feet of sign face area per sign; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, notwithstanding de minimis exceptions such as marina slip numbers [former Section 3-1805.T.] [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334,n.36 and 1345-1346]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions set forth in Section 3-1806.L for marina slip and directional signs are consistent with the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18, and are based upon and oriented to the function served by such signs in connection with marinas; Temporary Yard Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to delete the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.N. that pertained to temporary yard signs and to separate those provisions into separate sections pertaining to temporary free expression signs and temporary election signs, as Section 3-1806.B. and Section 3-1806.C., given the different functions that each such sign type serves, and to codify current practice; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed the constitutionality of provisions governing yard signs �ax�i6�oz�z_� -51- for a political candidate or issue, which provisions contained both size limitations and durational limitations [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision found that based on the totality of the case law and commentary on this issue the sixty (60) day time limit on such signs before an election was unconstitutional and that the seven (7) day limit on removing the sign after the election was constitutional and a reasonable limitation justified by Clearwater's purpose of controlling aesthetics, and severed the sixty day time period [see Granite-Clearwater at 1336-1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the guidance of the district court is incorporated into the codified revisions that appear in the new Section 3-1806.C., governing temporary election signs; Temporary Real Estate Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is necessary and appropriate to allow one temporary real estate sign per parcel of land indicating that a parcel of land or a building located on the parcel of land or part thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise available for conveyance, provided that such sign does not exceed a reasonable dimensional or other restrictions based upon the designation and/or use of the land, such as family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units, multi-family purposes other than town house units, or non-residential purposes; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the balance achieved for lI1C IIlUUCSI U1JIJiAy �i i�ai �Siaic Si�iiS aS iiiiiii�u vy iaiiu uS� aiiu �^^^""""'` +,-:7,,,� .l.o �.l1Ql.�Gllllilll J111I�VJ lllV appropriate balance that meets the general principles and purposes of the City's land use regulations as set forth in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the dimensional criteria set forth in the new Section 3-1806.M. for temporary real estate signs are appropriate based upon their function and based upon the general principles and purposes set forth in Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that allowing exemptions or exceptions for certain signage based upon the function served by the signage (e.g., warning signs, directional signs, real estate signs, and other sign types described herein), is preferred to requiring permits for all such signs or alternatively, banning all such signs; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under current jurisprudence [see, e.g.,LinmarkAssociates v. Town of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)], on-site real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, should be allowed given the important role and unique function that real estate signs, such as "for sale" signs, perform on the premises where they are located; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that Article 3 in general was not content-based, and that "for 1AX\1670272-I -52- sale signs" were among the legally required or justifiable exceptions [see Granite-Clearwater at 1334, n.36 and 1345-1347]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision rejected the argument that an exception of "for sale signs" was impermissibly content-based, describing that argument as an "almost-conclusory mandate" or "conclusory theory" [see Granite-Clearwater at 1327-1334]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that signs are speech and can only be categorized or differentiated by what they say; that this makes it impossible to overlook a sign's content or message in formulating regulations and making exceptions for distinctions required by law (i.e., for sale signs), and that there is no other way to make an exemption or classify a "for sale" sign as a "for sale" sign without reading the words "For Sale" on the sign [see Granite-Clearwater at 1333]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that in looking at the general principles of the First Amendment, as guided by Members of the Ciry Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984), the real issue is whether the distinctions or exceptions to a regulation are a disguised effort to control the free expression of ideas or to censor speech; and further noted that common sense and rationality would dictate that the only method of distinguishing signs for purposes of enforcing even content-neutral regulations, such as number, size or height restrictions, is by their message [see Granite-Clearwater]; ---__��_-, . ,. .. �.. ,..-,. � , . , . . ,, . ,, W HH.KH.A� TY1P l :tiV ht l :IP.AT'WATP.T T1T1(1Q ATl(1 11P_,TP_.t'I7111'1P_.Q TItaT TnP_, l.1LV QT lT: YeTeTR1�l1TLJ�ti ..__�.__._..'_.`.� J .._ _'_�_..�___ _' "_'� � _ _ o _ sign code contained a provision that exempted "real estate signs" (sometimes known as for sale signs) from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16- 670(a)(12)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. l, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "real estate signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the similar ordinance at issue in St. Petersburg was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2))was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. RockAgainstRacism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); ��i6�oz�2_� -53- Stadium Si�ns Not Visible Outside Stadium WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is not necessary to regulate through the issuance of sign permits for those signs within a stadium provided the same are not oriented toward and readable from outside of a stadium; Window Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, window signs should have a size limitation that limits such signs or combination of such signs to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window where the sign or signs are located and face a right-of-way, with the twenty-five percent limitation allowed for the window sign(s) that face each right-of-way where there is a corner lot or through lot; provided further that in no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs located inside an enclosed area for purposes of advertising exceed fifty square feet, if oriented toward and visible from an adjoining roadway or navigable waterway or body of water; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision struck the former prohibition in former Section 3-1803.U. (prohibiting temporary window signs in residential areas) due to its conflict with former Section 3-1805.Q. (allowing window signs of up to eight square feet in area, not to exceed 25% of the window area, without making a residential/non-residential distinction within former Section 3- 1805.Q.) [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335), but upheld the restriction in former Section 3- 1805.Q that allowed window signs of up to eight square feet in area, but not to exceed twenty- in�ni� t`.t-' - � -7— I1Ve DerCell[ IG.�%0) Ul U1C W111UUW Q1GQ, WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is appropriate to continue a similar size limitation in former Section 3-1805.Q for window signs as modified in a revised Section 3-1806.0.; Safety and Warnin�Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in the interest of aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to continue to provide for the allowance of safety or warning signs subject to reasonable dimensional criteria; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg's sign code contained a provision that exempted "warning signs" not to exceed six square feet from permitting and other regulatory requirements (see St. Petersburg's Code at § 16-670(a)(15)) and that this provision was among more than 50 different provisions that were challenged by Granite State in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956, *12, n.23 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (llth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004) [see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., Case No. 8:01-cv02250-JSM (M.D.FIa.), Doc. 1, Exh. A and Doc. 54, p. 11, n. 6]; JAX\1670272-1 -54- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State v. St. Petersburg, determined that the foregoing provision exempting "warning signs" did not render the ordinance unconstitutional per se (id. at *12, n. 23); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Eleventh Circuit, upon a de novo appellate review, confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the fact that the government's stated interest in regulating speech (see St. Petersburg's Code at Section 16-667(b)(2)) was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety, and based upon the fact that the government's objective in regulating speech was the controlling consideration under the governing precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Substitution Clause WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the principles and purposes of Division 18 and constitutional considerations, it is appropriate to continue the substitution clause in the current Section 3-1805.5. in the renumbered Section 3- 1806.Q., specifying that "a change in a sign message or panel on a previously approved, lawful sign, e.g., any sign allowed under this ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that complies with all other requirements of this ordinance." And clarifying that the provision does not permit "design" changes from a sign previously approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program; Vessel Slip Si�ns i��iiil�LAlCI� �:i� �,j' �f r��^.:'�� f:n�� an� r�PtPrm�nPg that thP r�rnyicinnc nf thP r current Section 3-1805.T. will be obsolete upon the adoption of the new Section 3-1806.L.; Balloons, Cold Air Inflatables, Streamers, Pennants -As Governmental and Public Purpose Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is an appropriate balance to allow "balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" as governmental and public purpose signs if the city manager finds that this sign type meets the following criteria: (1) the sign type is for a special event, (2) the special event is for a limited time, (3)the special event is for a limited frequency, and (4)the sign type, if allowed for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of Division 3, to wit: (a) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs (Section 3-1802.F.), (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3- 1802.J.], (c) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.], provided that consistent with the general standards in the new Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on any such sign, and further provided that the city manager renders a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type at a special event; JAX\1670272_1 -55- Si�ns on Publicly Owned Land, Easements, Inside Street Rights-of-Way WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes of Division 18, it is appropriate to allow a sign on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way if the city manager finds that the sign meets certain criteria as set forth in the proposed Section 3-1806.5. and provided that consistent with the general standards in the proposed Section 3-1805 the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign; DirectionaUInformational Si�ns Servin� a Public Purpose WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to allow a permanent sign on public easements or inside street rights-of-way provided the city manager finds that the sign meets the criteria set forth in the renumbered Section 3-1806.T.; Si�ns Durin� Construction Proiects WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, consistent with the purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to continue to allow temporary sidewalk signs during construction subject to reasonable criteria based upon the function that such temporary signs serve for properties abutting public construction projects that are scheduled to last one hundred eighty days or longer; City Park/Recreational Facility Si�ns Wli�;iZr;AS, the Lity of C:learwater tincis anci cietermines that, consis2ent witn ine purposes set forth in Division 18, it is appropriate to allow one attached sign per city park or city recreation facility for the purposes of identifying a program provider or information concerning programs at such park or recreation facility based upon dimensional criteria that takes into account the sign function and subject to a design established by the appropriate governmental agency for a sign on city-owned property; Adopt-a-Park and Acknowled�ement Si�ns WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that consistent with the City's interest in aesthetics and traffic safety it is appropriate to make provision for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs within Division 18; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that provisions should be included within a new Section 3-1806.W. of the land development regulations to provide content-neutral criteria for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs on city rights-of-way and city-owned property, where the criteria is based upon the unique function served by such signage and sign types; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the provisions allowing for adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs are limited to a unique class of signs located on city �a�c�i 6�oa�2-� -56- rights-of-way and city-owned properly (see Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) (the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause does not extend to government speech)); JAX�1670272_1 -5 7- Permitted Signs Requirin�Development Review WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there axe permitted signs and sign types that should have development review as part of the City of Clearwater's land development regulations, and that development review of such sign types is continued in Division 18 of Article 3 of the City's Community Development Code as a renumbered Section 3- 1807; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision determined that the categories and regulations set forth in then Section 3-1806.A.1.-3. for freestanding subdivision development entry signs, freestanding multifamily entry signs, school and park monument identification signs, and transit shelter signs were not impermissible content-based provisions inasmuch as these provisions did not limit the expression of ideas or censor speech [see Granite-Clearwater at 1338]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the criteria set forth in the renumbered Section 3-1807 (renumbered from Section 3-1806] for various sign types in different zoning districts and for different land uses and various are based upon the purposes set forth in Division 18 and are not content-based distinctions but are instead based upon the function and location of the signs described; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that in connection with transit shelter signs the City settled litigation with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., formerly known as Eller Media Company (previously known as Patrick Media) in that certain case captioned Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Case No. 93-174-CI (21), in the Circuit Court of the C' +1, T ra� �ol (�'� r,�;t ,; �°iIi`�, i�i:�i;;��.a.a, :.�vi"ni�-�� 1.;�;:�u �:; .�.$�.r�iµlatPyi ��ttlPmPnt �uhPrPhv I��IIPr vintii ✓u�xiviw �.ii�.ua� i J� . � i r J Media Company agreed to remove numerous billboard structures throughout the City of Clearwater upon certain conditions precedent, including the City of Clearwater's adoption of an ordinance that would allow up advertising on up to 50 transit shelters that might be placed within the boundaries of the City of Clearwater pursuant to an interlocal agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County dated January 14, 1992; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it agreed to allow signs on transit shelters as necessary to secure the removal of much larger billboard structures that were inconsistent with the City of Clearwater's land development regulations and the City's aesthetic goals, and such signs were permitted on transit shelters approved in accordance with Article 3, Division 22 of the Clearwater Development Code, and subject to restrictions that were identified in the provisions of the current Section 3-1806.B.3.a.-d. and that are carried forward in the renumbered Section 3-1807.B.S.a.-d. of the Clearwater Development Code; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater did not agree to or accept any further incursion of advertising on street furniture within its public rights-of-way other than as set forth in the interlocal agreement and secured the removal of more than twenty billboard structures as the end result of the stipulated settlement terms and the adoption of Ordinance No. 6306-98, the Transit Shelter Ordinance; J AX\1670272_I -5 g- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed then Section 3-1806.B.5 which allowed certain signs by permit through the development review process, including "[c]hangeable copy signs provided located on public properly serving a significant public purpose," and rejected the argument that that the phrase "significant public purpose" gave officials impermissible discretion, and further found that this discretion was reasonable especially given that this section only applied to signs on public property [see Granite-Clearwater at 1339]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that its determination of significant public purpose may extend to certain properties that host large entertainment venues, provided that criteria are established to prohibit impermissible discretion; Comprehensive Si�n Pro�ram WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of Clearwater has previously adopted a comprehensive sign program that was the subject of judicial scrutiny in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1334, n. 6 and 1345-1346 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112, 1118-1119 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 48 (2004); WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed a challenge made in 2001 to the discretion afforded in the City's Comprehensive Sign Program, as the same was then set forth in Section 3-1807, and the court determined that the flexibility criteria were sufficiently objective and clear, including those references to "community character," "existing unattractive signage," and "improvement of �� f�nn �_'rl.�itn (']nirr.�rlrinr ui i??Q�� uy�,�u:u:�C� �.�cc vi uruac-�coui rrueoi �� WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has made several changes to the Comprehensive Sign Program to refine that program based upon experience, including modifications as set forth in Ordinance No. 6928-02, §§ 88-91, Ordinance No. 6997- 02, §§ 5-7, Ordinance No. 7631-06, § 17, and Ordinance No. 7835-07, § 29, while maintaining objective and clear flexibility criteria; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that, based upon further experience with the Comprehensive Sign Program and based upon the recommendations from its professional planning staff, several additional changes to the Comprehensive Sign Program would be appropriate; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the permitted signage under the Comprehensive Sign Program should continue to preclude and bar all prohibited sign types, including all prohibited signs identified in the renumbered Section 3-1804, as set forth in the attachment hereto, and other prohibited signs or sign types that would not be appropriate for the Comprehensive Sign Program; �,vcv 6�oz�z-' -59- Severability WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Granite-Clearwater), 213 F.Supp.2d 1312 (M.D.FIa. 2002), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 351 F.3d 1112 (1 lth Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004), cited the severability provisions of both Section 1-107 of the Code and the Development Code, Ord. No. 6348-99, § 4 (January 21, 1999), as a basis for severing isolated portions of Article 3 of the Community Development Code [see Granite- Clearwater at 1326, n.22]; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Community Development Code's severability clause was adopted with the intent of upholding and sustaining as much of the City's regulations, including its sign regulations, as possible in the event that any portion thereof (including any section, sentence, clause or phrase} be held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that under Florida law, whenever a portion of a statute or ordinance is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the act will be permitted to stand provided (1) the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the remaining valid provisions, (2) the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of those which are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the legislative body would have passed the one without the other, and (4) an act complete in itself remains after the valid provisions are stricken [see, e.g., Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1990}]; Wi�I+.F2H'.At_ thP (�itv nf I�.IParwatP.r finrle an�l nPtPrminP� tnat ThP_.rP_, havP hP_,P_,Tl �everai ..___._W_-�, � judicial decisions where courts have not given full effect to severability clauses that applied to sign regulations and where the courts have expressed uncertainty over whether the legislative body intended that severability would apply to certain factual situations despite the presumption that would ordinarily flow from the presence of a severability clause; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the failure of some courts to uphold severability clauses has led to an increase in litigation seeking to strike down sign ardinances in their entirety so as to argue that the developers' applications to erect prohibited sign types, such as billboards, must be granted; WHEREAS, the Ciiy of Clearwater finds and determines that the City has consistently adopted and enacted severability provisions in connection with its ordinance code provisions, and that the City of Clearwater wishes to ensure that severability provisions apply to its land development regulations, including its sign regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record of its intention that the presence of a severability clause in connection with the City's sign regulations be applied to the maximum extent possible, even if less speech would result from a determination that any exceptions, limitations, variances or other provisions are invalid or unconstitutional for any reason whatsoever; JAX\1670272_1 -60- WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the prohibition on billboards, as contained herein, continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all, other provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s)whatsoever; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record that it intends that the height and size limitations on free-standing and other signs continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all other, provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s} whatsoever; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that there be an ample record that it intends that each prohibited sign-type identified in Section 3-1804 (Prohibited signs) continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all, other provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; WHEREAS, even though there are other provisions that pertain to severability and that extend to Article 3, Division 18, of the Community Development Code, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to emphasize the importance of severability and the desires expressed herein above that severability be applied even if less speech results, and that a new Section 3-1809 (Severability) be added to Article 3, Division 18, as set forth in the new Division 18 attached hereto and made a part hereof; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is aware that there have F1PPT1 I�lIIF1Q?1'fI C{P.VP.I(1rP_.Y.0 wi,n i,avP mn»nreci iegai cnaiien�es to a sign ordinance; eitner in iis entirety or as to some lesser portion, and argued that there existed a vested right to erect a billboard through the mere submission of one or more prior permit applications, so that in the event that the billboard developer is successful in obtaining a judicial decision that the entirety or some lesser portion of a sign ordinance or its permitting provisions are invalid or unconstitutional, the billboard developer might then seek to compel the local governmental unit to issue a permit to allow the billboard developer to erect a permanent billboard structure within the local government's jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it desires to make clear that billboards are not a compatible land use within the City and that there can be no good faith reliance by any prospective billboard developer under Florida vested rights law in connection with the prospective erection or construction of new or additional billboards within the jurisdictional limits of the City; WHEREAS,now therefare, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: �ax�i6�oz�2_� -61- Section 1. Article 8, Section 8-102, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows, with deletions noted by strike-throughs and additions noted by double -underlining.: n,.+ , ,,,.i, .,., � a,-.,.,,:,,..� ,.+,,,.o� ,,,t,,,�� „+;r,.� „ „t�+,,,,o .,,�.;,,�, a„ �„+ <u� :.`v.,� ...�.�...i.� uaurriia�.�� iv�urc+ � � '� in� �r r�r`.�4 n r��4 or�4orn,�ino � • Artwork means a two- or three-dimensional renresentation of a creative idea that is exnressed in a form and manner as to provide aesthetic eniovment for the viewer rather than to snecificallv convev the name of the business or a commercial messa�e about the products or services offered on the propertv upon which the artwork is displaved. * * * Decorations. holidav and seasonal mean decorations that nertain to le�allv or otherwise reco�nized holidavs or to a season of the vear. * * * Element, �ranhic, in connection with a si�n, means anv non-text lo�o, svmbol mark, illustration, ima�e, or other desi�n element, used either alone or in combination with text, to draw attention to a si�n surface, fabric, device or displav. * * * Sign means any surface, fabric, device or display which bears lettered, pictorial or sculptured matter, including forms shaped to resemble any human, animal or product designed to convey information to the public and is visible from an abutting property, from a public street�sidewalk or right-of-way, or from a body of water. For the purpose of this development code, the term "sign" shall include all structural members. A sign shall be construed to form a single unit. In cases where matter is displayed in a random or unconnected manner without organized relationship of the components, each such component shall be considered a single sign. Except for banner, flags, temporary and portable signs, all signs shall be permanently affixed to, and/or incorporated into, the sign cabinet, or building wall or other base material. All signs shall be constructed of materials designed to be permanent, withstand weather conditions, and shall have permanent supports appropriate for its size. The term si�n shall not include: artwork, holidav or seasonal decorations, cemeterv markers, machinerv or eauipment si�ns, memorial si�ns or tablets. �nu°c-vuadir°c��--aC�i;o�-E0�3E�ttE�@�-6��6�E�-c1'o��3 i� i�,• 1„ 0 1; o oa� � r,;,,,,oa �,- ., „a „�zn ,a�..� ��ix�ib�oz�z_� -62- � Sign, adopt a park or acknowledgment means a sign that functions to reco�nize ��;e��-aes a sponsoring agency which has been given the opportunity to install and maintain landscaping in city rights-of-way or on a city-owned property at the site where the landscapin� is located. * * * Sign area or surface area means the area, in square feet, enclosed by a rectangle, parallelogram, triangle, circle, semicircle, cross, other geometric figures, or other architectural design, the side of which make contact with the extreme points or edges of the sign, excluding the supporting structure which does not form part of the sign proper or of the display. Unless otherwise indicated, area means area per sign face. For a double- sided si�n, the area of a sin�le si�n face shall be counted. Illuminated portions of a sign structure shall be considered part of the sign area. Also, any portion of the surface area of a freestanding sign structure that exceeds 50 percent of the permitted area of the sign face shall be considered part of the sign area. The area of a sign for attached signs is based on the smallest geometric shape(s) around the graphics/text; area for sign cabinets used as attached signs shall be based on the entire sign cabinet. * * * Si�n cabinet means a three-dimensional structure which includes a frame, borders and sien face within the frame on which the si�n letters and lo�os are placed or etched. The si�n mav include internal li�htin�. 1 J� (" � t , nti�,.. m n +omr.�rnrcr cirtx-� �ir�in� i�anti�ocT�t��` iiirvi'r'�`� ,. onr�c. .__ ir�.� 0..� �...._,.' ."_""_"" ____•_"__: __ _____r___"_J -_O_ . • • •, SiQn construction means a temnorarv on-premise si�n that functions to identifv . - _ the on�oin� construction activitv durin�the time that a buildin�nermit is active and nrior to comnletion of the work for which the permit was issued, and that mav function to identifv the contractor and/or anv subcontractor en�a�ed to nerform construction activitv on the site. * * * Si�n discontinued means anv si�n and/or si�n structure (al disnlavine advertisin� for a product or service which is no lon�er available or disnlavin� advertisin� for a business which is no lon�er licensed. (bl which is blank, or (cl which advertises a business that is no loneer doin�business or maintainin� a presence on the premises where the si�n is displaved; brovided that such circumstances have continued for a neriod of one hundred ei�htv davs. * � * �ax��6�oz�2_� -63- Si�n, election means a temnararv si�n erected or disnlaved for the t�umose of exnressin� sunnort or opnosition to a candidate or stating a nosition re�ardin� an issue u on which the voters of the Citv mav vote. c�;n,� r. ,., „ �,. .,.t,;,.t, � ,...,.,:r ; ,,. ,. „oa icoo ca,.*;,,,, n vibi�, i..:i�ii yi iiivui.`�i u i�' .iibii iv . -��;�}� * * * Si�n. free expression means a sien, not in excess of three sauare feet in total sien face area and whose too is not more than six feet off the �round that functions to communicate information or views on matters of nublic policv or nublic concern or containin� anv other noncommercial messa�e that is otherwise lawful. * * * SiQn. Qara�e-vard sale means anv temnorarv sien nertainin� to the sale of personal propertv at or upon anv residentiallv-zoned nrot�ertv located in the Citv of Clearwater, nrovided that the on-site sale at a residentiallv-zoned parcel is lawful under the land use re�ulations and other applicable laws of the Citv of Clearwater. Sign, gasoline price display means any on-site sign which functions exclusivelv to displays the prices of gasoline for sale. * * * l,o Y ,o.l . ,;+1,;,, +o„ �l�<>� �,4'+ha � ,.1„�;.,,-, �,f'+l,o l,,,l;rl.,,. Sign, identification means any sign which indicates no more than the name, address, company logo and occupation or function of an establishment or premises on which the sien is located. * * * Si�n, machinerv or eauipment means a si�n which is inte�ral and incidental to machinerv or eauinment. and that is incornorated into machinerv or eauipment by a manufacturer or distributor to identifv or advertise the product or service dispensed bv the machine or eauinment, such as a sien customarilv affixed or incoroorated into a vendine machine, a telephone booth, a �asoline numn, a newsnaper rack, an exnress mail dron-off box, or the like. * * * �Ax�i6�ozn-' -64- Si n, racewav means a si�n comnrised of channel or other cut-out fi�ures or letters mounted to an electrical enclosure with the enclosure bein smaller than the hei�ht of the attached letters * * * Si�n. safetv means a si�n that functions t� r,rn�;�1P a Wa,-,,;n� nf a .�a„nP,-,,,,� � ..,u� condition or situation that mi�ht not be readilv atiparent or that tioses a threat of serious iniurv (e.e., �as line, hi�h voltaee, condemned buildin� etc 1 � �_— SANDWICH BOARD , SiQn, sidewalk (sometimes referred to as a sandwich board signl mean� a„� freestandin� sin�le or double faced sien which is desi�ned to be nlaced unon but not affixed to. the �round, or sidewalks or navement, and that is nortable and readilv moved from place to place. �,ax�i6�oa�z_i -65- si�n, sidewalk Sign, snipe means an off-premises sign which is tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glued, or otherwise attached to trees, poles, stakes, or fences, . Si�n, statutorv means a si�n reauired bv anv statute or reeulation of the State of Florida or the United States. * * * � , � �,.�;�,,��,-�om.. ror-u-�ctrci�urc:ii cctnYvi�j �ib.i u:�°v. * * * SiQn, traffic control device means anv si�n located within the ri�ht-of-wav that functions as a traffic control device and that is described and identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCDI and anproved bv the Federal Hi�hwav Administrator as the National Standard. Traffic control device sien includes those si�ns that are classified and defined bv their function as re�ulatorv si�ns (that �ive notice of traffic laws or re�ulationsl, warnin� si�ns (that �ive notice of a situation that mi�ht not readilv be apnarent), and �uide si�ns (that show route desi�nations. directions, distances, services, points of interest, and other �eo�ranhical, recreational. or cultural informationl. * * * Si�n, vehicle means one or more si�ns which have a total si�n area on anv vehicle in excess of ten (101 sauare feet, when the vehicle is not "re�ularlv used in the conduct of the business or activitv"advertised on the vehicle. and (al is visible from a street ri�ht-of- wav within one hundred(1001 feet of the vehicle. and (bl is parked far more than five (51 consecutive hours within one hundred (1001 feet of anv street ri�ht of wav; for the purnoses of this definition, a vehicle shall not be considered "reeularlv used in the �ax��6�oa�a-' -66- conduct of the business or activitv" if the vehicle is used nrimarilv (il for advertisin� or (iil for the nuroose of advertisinQ or (iiil for the nuruose of nrovidin� transnortation for owners or emtilovees of the business or activitv advertised on the vehicle , � b � f > > � � � � ,�* n l.n.�.,r.a�., 4L,o l,l' ..., .�.,,t,.... �.� �...�.�.µi.< <.. �iiv Yuvii� , > > * * * �igrt, wiriuuw i]]cai1� � aily S1�i1 �idCcu iii�iuc �I u�,vii a wii�uvw �aCii�� i ic outside and which is intended to be seen from the exterior through a window or other openin�, and (bl anv si�n or combination of siens that exceed fiftv sauare feet in sien area and that is located inside an enclosed area and oriented toward and visible from an adioinin� roadwav or navi�able waterwav or bodv of water for nurooses of advertisin . Window signs may be permanent or temporary with different requirements for each type of window sign. Section 2. Article 3, Division 18, Signs, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, Sections 3-1801 through 3-1807, is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by Revised Article 3, Division 18, Sections 3-1801 through 3-1809, City of Clearwater Community Development Code, to read as set forth in the new Division 18 attached hereto as "Exhibit 1," which is hereby adopted as part of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code. Section 3. All references to Article 3, Division 18, of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code contained elsewhere in said Code or in other Ordinances or Resolutions of the City shall be deemed to refer to Revised Article 3, Division 18 as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. »c�ib�o2�2_i -67- PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND F1NAL READING AND ADOPTED George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk JAXU 670272_I -68- EXHIBIT 1 To Ordinance No. 8343-12 DIVISION 18. - SIGNS Section 3-1801. - General principles. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. Section 3-1803. - Exempt signs. Section 3-1804. -Prohibited signs. Section 3-1805. - General standards. Section 3-1806. - Signs permitted without a permit. Section 3-1807. - Permitted signs requiring development review. Section 3-1808. - Comprehensive sign program. Section 3-1809. - Severability. Section 3-1801. - General principles. The city is a resort community on the west coast of the state with more than five miles of beaches on the Gulf of Mexico. This city has an economic base which relies heavily on tourism. In order to preserve the city as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually attractive urban environment is of foremost importance. The regulation of signs within the city is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end. These sign regulations are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the city. The Florida Constitution provides that it is the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic h�auty and the regulation of signage for purnoses of aesthetics directly serves that policy. The enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a tourist destination, and the sign control principles set forth herein create a sense of character and ambiance that distinguishes the city as one with a commitment to maintaining and improving an attractive environment. Section 3-1802. - Purpose. It is the purpose of this division to promote the public health, safety and general welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements. These sign regulations are intended to: A. Enable the identification of places of residence and business. B. Allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce. C. Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. D. Enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, JAXU 661875 12 - -2- vacation and conduct business. E. Protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs. F. Permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and preclude placement of signs in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs. G. Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zoning district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain. H. Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business. I. Establish sign size in relationship to the scale of the lot and building on which the sign is to be placed or to which it pertains. J. Preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites. K. Regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. L. Require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner. M. Preserve and enhance the natural and scenic characteristics ot this watertront resort community. N. Implement the City's comprehensive plan and comply with the minimum requirements established by state law that requires the regulation of signage. Section 3-1803. - Exempt signs. The following signs are exempt from regulation under this Division 18: A. A sign, other than a window sign, located entirely inside the premises of a building or enclosed space. B. A sign on a car, other than a prohibited vehicle sign or signs. C. A statutory sign. D. A traffic control device sign. E. Any sign not visible from a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way or from a navigable waterway or body of water; except that the foregoing does not exempt a sign for a commercial use that is visible from an abutting residential use. JAX11661875_12 -3- Section 3-1804. - Prohibited signs. The following types of signs are prohibited: A. Balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants, except as allowed on public property in Section 3-1806.R. B. Bench signs, other than the identification of the transit company or its route schedule. C. Billboards. D. Discontinued signs. Discontinued signs and/or sign structures which are determined to be nonconforming with the provisions of this Division 18 shall be required to be removed by the property owner after receipt of notification, or refusal to accept delivery of notification by certified mail, that such removal is required. E. Electronic changeable message signs unless otherwise allowed herein (e.g., gasoline price signs), with the following exceptions: 1. Menu signs that change no more frequently than once every three hours and that are not otherwise prohibited. 2. Existing and legally nonconforming message signs: a. General messages which change no more frequently than once GVGl�% Jili 11VU1J� iill:lUUii1� vilJiiG �CtJViiitG" �Jiil,c ji�ilj iiiai iii�,i.i �i.iiC requirements of this Division 18; or b. Signs which only display time and/or temperature which change no more frequently than once every fifteen seconds. F. Menu signs on which the message changes more rapidly than once every three hours. G. Pavement markings, except street addresses. H. Portable signs. I. Roof and above roof signs. J. Sidewalk signs, except as provided herein. K. Signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs. L. Signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water. JAX\1661875_12 -4- M. Signs located on publicly-owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way, except (a) as allowed in Section 3-1806.5., (b) signs on transit shelters erected pursuant to Section 3-2203 and permitted pursuant to Section 3-1807.B.5.), (c) sidewalk signs to the extent permitted in Section 3-1806.U. or Section 3- 1807.B.4.,(d) as allowed in Section 3-1807.A., and (e) as allowed in Section 3- 1806.V. and 3-1806.W. Prohibited signs shall include but shall not be limited to handbills, posters, advertisements, or notices that are attached in any way upon lampposts, telephone poles, utility poles, bridges, and sidewalks. N. Signs that emit sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles, or gaseous matter. O. Signs that have unshielded illuminating devices or which reflect lighting onto public rights-of-way thereby creating a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard. P. Signs that move, revolve, twirl, rotate, flash, scintillate, blink, flutter, or appear to display motion in any way whatsoever, including animated signs, multi-prism signs, tri-vision signs, floodlights and beacon lights (except when beacon lights are required by the Federal Aviation Agency or other governmental agency for a public purpose involving public safety), unless otherwise expressly allowed by another provision within this Division 18. Q. Signs that obstruct, conceal, hide, or otherwise obscure from view any traffic control device sign or official traffic signal. R. Signs that present a potential traffic or pedestrian hazard, including signs which obstruct visibility. S. Signs attached to or placed on any tree or other vegetation. T. Signs carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of- way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way. This provision is directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events. U. Snipe signs. V. Three-dimensional objects that are used as signs. W. Vehicle signs, and portable trailer signs. X. Any permanent sign that is not specifically described or enumerated as permitted within the specific zoning district classifications in this Community Development Code. Section 3-1805. - General standards. A. Setback. No sign shall be located within five feet of a property line of a parcel JAXU 661875 12 - -5- proposed for development. B. Neon signs and lighting. Neon signs and lighting shall be permitted as freestanding and attached signage as provided in this Division 18. When neon lighting is utilized to emphasize the architectural features of a building, such as when used to outline doorways, windows, facades, or architectural detailing, or when used to accentuate site landscaping, it shall not be regarded as signage. In , addition, neon lighting used as freestanding designs or murals or as attached murals or designs unrelated to the architectural features of the building to which the lighting is attached shall be permitted, but shall be counted toward the allowable area of the property's or occupancy's freestanding or attached signage, as applicable. C. Illuminated signs. l. The light from any illuminated sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed away from adjoining street rights-of-way and properties. 2. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights or other illumination devices which have a changing light intensity, brightness, color, or direction or as otherwise prohibited by Section 3-1804. 3. No colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffic-control devices. 4. Neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary light sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. 5. The light which illuminates a sign shall be shaded, shielded, or directed so that no structure, including sign supports or awnings, are illuminated by such lighting. D. Banners and flags. A banner or flag may be used as a permitted freestanding or attached sign and, if so used, the area of the banner or flag shall be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property. E. Gasoline price signs. Gasoline price display signs shall be allowed in all non- residential districts except where specifically prohibited. Gasoline price display signs shall be placed in the vicinity of the pump islands and shall not extend above any pump island canopy or they shall be attached to the primary freestanding sign for the property. If attached to the freestanding sign, the area of the gasoline price display sign shall be counted toward the allowable area for the freestanding sign. A gasoline price display sign may be changed manually or electronically. JAX\1661875_12 -6- F. Awnings. Awnings may be allowed a graphic element in addition to the permitted attached sign area provided such graphic does not exceed 25% of the awning surface area on which the graphic is placed or sixteen square feet, whichever is less. If a graphic element is placed on an awning valance, such graphic element shall be limited to 25% of the valance surface. If text and a graphic element are proposed on an awning, such text and graphic element shall be governed by the attached signs provisions set forth in Section 3-1807.B.3. This provision does not apply to back-lit awnings. G. Building and electrical code compliance. All signs shall comply with applicable building and electrical code requirements. H. No limitation based on message content. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Community Development Code, no sign shall be subject to any limitation based on the content of the message contained on such sign. I. Substitution of noncommercial speech for commercial speech. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Community Development Code to the contrary, any sign erected pursuant to the provisions of this Division 18 or this Community Development Code with a commercial message may, at the option of the owner, contain a noncommercial message. The noncommercial message may occupy the entire sign face or any portion thereof. The sign face may be changed from a commercial message to a noncommercial message, or from one noncommercial message to another, provided that the sign is not a prohibited sign or sign-type, provided that the manner or frequency of the change does not violate restrictions on electronic or illuminated signs, and provided that the size, height, setback and other dimensional criteria contained in inis i�ivision i$ and tne i:ommuniiy Development Code have been satisfied. Section 3-1806. - Signs permitted without a permit. The following signs may be developed without development review pursuant to Article 4 of this Community Development Code: A. One address sign of no more than two square feet of total sign face area for each parcel of land used for residential purposes and no more than one square foot for each number contained in the property address for each parcel of land used for non-residential purposes. The square footage for the address sign shall be allowed in addition to the total square signage footage allowed in Section 3-1807. B. Free expression signs. For each parcel, one free expression sign may be displayed. A free expression sign may be displayed as an attached sign or as a freestanding sign. A free expression sign shall not exceed three square feet of total sign face area. If a free expression is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height if located on a parcel of land designated or used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units or six feet in height if located on any other parcel. The free expression sign is in addition to any sign JAX\1661875_12 -7- displaying a noncommercial message in lieu of a commercial or other noncommercial message pursuant to Section 3-1805.I. C. Temporary election signs. For each parcel, one election sign for each candidate and each issue may be displayed. An election sign may be displayed as an attached sign or as a freestanding sign. On parcels that are in residential use, the election sign shall not exceed three square feet of total sign face area; and, if the election sign is displayed as a freestanding sign on the parcel, the election sign shall not exceed four feet in height. On parcels that are in nonresidential use, the election sign shall not exceed eighteen square feet of total sign face area; and, if the election sign is displayed as a freestanding sign on the parcel, the election sign shall not exceed six feet in height. An election sign shall be removed within seven calendar days following the election to which it pertains. D. Temporary grand opening and special event signs. l. One temporary grand opening sign shall be permitted for thirty days after the issuance of an occupational license for any new business, new owner of an existing business, or business name change. Such sign shall not exceed twenty-four square feet in total sign face area or such sign may be a temporary covering, such as a toaster cover, sign boot, or sign sock, which covers an existing permitted attached or freestanding sign. 2. Other temporary special event and/or public purpose signs of a temporary nature shall be approved by the community development coordinator if the signs meet the following criteria: (a) the signs are temporary signs for a iiii i�i°vu �'.:1;v aa.2'iu �i�rnN�n�v (hl �h� cinnS w;P f^: w S'�'�L'„w� �:�ant nr a niwh�:.r. `l J� \ / "`b" Y Y purpose of a temporary nature, (c) the signs do not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for freestanding signs under this Community Development Code, (d) the display of temporary signs for a special event shall not begin any earlier than two calendar days before the event and shall be removed within one business day after the event, and (e) the signs, if temporary for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of Division 18, to wit: (1) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802.F.], (2) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3- 1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such signs. The community development coordinator shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for such signs. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-501.A of this Community Development Code. JAX\1661875_12 _g_ E. A single sign no more than four square feet in sign area and indicating a valet parking station and that is visible only during hours that the valet is operating. F. Temporary construction signs. One temporary construction sign located on a parcel proposed for development during the period a building permit is in force or one year, whichever is less, which sign shall not exceed: 1. Sixteen square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units; 2. Thirty-two square feet of total sign face area for parcels of land used or proposed to be used for multi-family purposes other than townhouse units or for non-residential purposes. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed six feet in height. G. For flags displayed on a flag pole not exceeding thirty-five feet in height or an attached bracket: One flag per detached dwelling unit, three additional flags per parcel of land used for multifamily residential purposes, and three flags per parcel of land used for non-residential purposes. If so used, the area of the flag shall not be included in, and limited by, the computation of allowable area for freestanding or attached signs on the property. H. Temporary garage-yard sale signs. One temporary garage-yard sale sign of no m�r? th�n thre� �9»�re fe�t of total si�n. face area l�cated on the narcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. In addition, no more than two directional signs of no more than three square feet of total sign face area per sign face related to a garage or yard sale which are located on privately owned parcels of land other than the parcel of land where the garage or yard sale is to be conducted only on the date or dates on which the garage or yard sale is conducted. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height. I. Attached menu signs of no more than six square feet of total sign face area located at the entrance or service window of a restaurant. One freestanding drive- through sign no more than twenty-four square feet in total sign face area and six feet in height oriented toward the vehicles utilizing drive-through service for the purpose of placing an order or picking up an order at a service window. J. Onsite directional and traffic control signs of no more than four square feet of sign face area provided that business logos or other non-traffic control symbols do not exceed 25 percent of the sign face area. K. Signs identifying parking space numbers provided that such signs are painted on the paved surface of each space or do not exceed one-half square foot of sign face JAXU 661875_12 _9_ area per sign. L. Marina slip and directional signs. 1. Signs identifying marina slip numbers provided that such signs are painted on the dock in front of each slip or do not exceed one square feet of sign face area per sign. 2. Each individual charter/commercial vessel slip located at a commercial marina may have one sign placed in the vicinity of the slip that does not exceed six square feet in total sign face area identifying the business located at the slip and one additional sign of not more than eight square feet in total sign face area placed in the vicinity of the slip to identify the vessel rate/embarking schedules, or other information. 3. Unless otherwise approved by the community development coordinator, two directional signs, not to exceed six square feet in total sign face area and not to exceed six feet in height may be displayed at any marina for purposes of way finding. The community development coordinator may approve additional signs based on the following criteria: overall size of marina, number of pedestrian and vehicular access points, visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation and consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan. M. Temporary real estate signs. One temporary real estate sign per parcel of land iiiui�aiiii� iiiai a �rai��.i vi iuiiu vT u uuiiuiii� ivCui�,u vii iii� t,uiC�i v�iui,u vi l:,uii thereof is for sale, for lease or otherwise available for conveyance, provided that such sign does not exceed: 1. Six square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for single family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units; 2. Thirty-two square feet of total sign face area on parcels of land designated or used for multi-family purposes other than townhouse units or for non- residential purposes. In the event that more than one dwelling unit or non-residential space on a single parcel of land is for sale, for lease or otherwise available, one attached sign per dwelling or space of no more than two square feet in total sign face area in addition to the permitted freestanding signage. In addition, one freestanding waterfront sign of no more than six square feet of total sign face area, not more than three square feet of sign area per sign face, for each waterfront parcel of land. If the temporary sign is displayed as a freestanding sign, the sign shall not exceed four feet in height if located on a parcel of land designated or used for single JAX\166I 875_12 -l 0- family dwellings, duplexes and townhouse units or six feet in height if located on any other parcel. N. Signs located within a stadium which are not oriented toward and readable from outside of a stadium. O. Window signs may be located on any window area provided such sign or combination of signs do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window where the sign or signs are located and face a right-of-way, with the twenty-five percent limitation allowed for the window sign(s) that face each right- of-way where there is a corner lot or through lot. In no case shall the cumulative area of all window signs located inside an enclosed area for purposes of advertising exceed fifty square feet, if oriented toward and visible from an adjoining roadway or navigable waterway or body of water. P. Safety or warning signs which do not exceed six square feet of total sign face area per sign. Q. A change in a sign message or panel on a previously approved, lawful sign, e.g., any sign allowed under this ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that complies with all other requirements of this ordinance. This provision does not permit design changes for a sign previously approved under the Comprehensive Sign Program. R. The following sign type "balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers, and pennants" shall be allowed as governmental and public purpose signs if located on public i,ivy ,.+., rl 'f t1,n '4�, �norrar �nrlo tl�ot t1�A oinn tvna maatc �}i� f�ll��z�inn ��,y C111U 11 LllV �1L� 111U11(4�v1 1111uJ Lll{Lt 1.11V Jl�ll ��1V VV�J �+S criteria: (1) the sign type is for a special event, (2) the special event is for a limited time, (3) the special event is for a limited frequency, and (4) the sign type, if allowed for a limited time and frequency, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (a) the signs will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs (Section 3-1802.F.), (b) the signs will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the signs will not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the signs will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802(L)]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3- 1805,the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on any such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing this sign type at a special event. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. S. A sign on publicly owned land or easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: (1) the sign provides notice to the public of a public meeting or other public event, (2) the JAX\1661875_12 -1 1- sign is temporary and for a limited time, and (3) the sign, if allowed for a limited time, will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (a) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802.F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (c) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (d) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. The city manager shall render a decision within ten days after an application is made for utilizing such a temporary sign on public property. Such a decision shall be deemed an administrative interpretation and any person adversely affected has the right to appeal the decision to the community development board pursuant to Section 4-SO1.A of this Community Development Code. T. Directional/informational signs serving a public purpose. A permanent sign on public easements or inside street rights-of-way shall be allowed if the city manager finds that the sign meets the following criteria: 1. The sign provides directions and/or information regarding public facilities and/or places of interest; and 2. The sign will meet the purposes of Division 18 to wit: (a) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802.F.], (b) the sign will not conflict with adjoining sites, (c) the sign will not interfere witn or onsiruci tne vision oi moiorists, nicyciists or pedestrians, (dj ine sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.), (e) the sign is consistent with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan and (� the sign is consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805. The city manager or designee shall render a decision within fifteen days after an application is made for utilizing such a sign on public property. The decision is not subject to the provisions of Section 4-501.A of this Community Development Code. U. Signs during public construction projects. Temporary sidewalk signs are permitted for properties abutting public construction projects that are scheduled to last one hundred eighty days or longer, in accordance with the following criteria. l. There shall be a maximum of two sidewalk signs permitted per parcel adjacent to the public construction project, and parcels with multiple businesses shall coordinate copy on the signs permitted. 2. Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be allowed to be displayed for the duration of the public construction project starting with project commencement and shall be removed within seven days after the JAX\1661875_I 2 -12- final acceptance, by the city, of improvements. 3. The size of any sidewalk sign shall not exceed eight square feet in total sign face area, and shall not exceed four feet in height. 4. Sidewalk signs permitted under this section shall be constructed in a professional and workmanlike manner from treated wood or other durable material, and copy displayed shall not be spray painted onto the signs. 5. No sidewalk sign, permitted as part of this section shall be permanently erected, and shall only be displayed during hours of operation for the business being advertised. 6. No sidewalk sign shall be placed so as to block any public way, or within the visibility triangle of intersections or driveways. V. One ten square foot freestanding sign not more than five feet in height or one ten square foot attached sign per city park or city recreation facility for the purposes of identifying a program provider or information concerning programs at such park or recreation facility. The design of any such signs shall be approved by the parks and recreation department. W. Adopt-a-park and acknowledgement signs. l. Adopt-a-park signs may be erected in city rights-of-way or on city-owned property. An adopt-a-park sign shall not exceed three square feet in total sign face area. If freestanding, and adopt-a-park sign shall not exceed eighteen inches in height and shall be located in a landscaped setting. Adopt-a-park signs shall be selected from the approved city street signs catalogue maintained by the manager of traffic operations, provided the sign design conforms with one of the city prescribed designs maintained by the parks and recreation department. The community development coordinator may approve additional adopt-a-park signs based on the following criteria: overall size of site, number of entrances, frontage, access and visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation. 2. Acknowledgment signs may be erected in city rights-of-way or on city- owned property as follows. Such signs may also be affixed or incorporated into a public amenity such as an ash tray or public bench that is located on public property and that is approved by the community development coordinator provided that it is no greater than one square foot in area, is rust-free, and is unobtrusive. Section 3-1807. - Permitted signs requiring development review. A. Residential. The following signs shall be permitted in all residential zoning districts: 1AX\1661875_12 -13- 1. Freestanding single family subdivision and multi family development signs. a. Unless otherwise approved by the community development coordinator one permanent freestanding sign up to twenty-four square feet of total sign face area and up to six feet in height may be erected at no more than two entrances into a single-family subdivision or multi-family development. In lieu of one twenty- four square foot sign, two permanent single-faced signs not exceeding twelve square feet in total sign face area each may be located at an entrance provided that such signs are placed in a symmetrical manner and/or are located on opposite sides of the entrance to which they are oriented, will meet all sight visibility triangle requirements under the provisions of Section 3-904, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner and will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites. The community development coordinator may approve signs to be placed at additional entrances based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility of the site, intended and existing traffic circulation, hierarchy of signage, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the subdivision or development. b. Such sign(s) shall be erected on privately-owned property. In the eveni tnere is insuiiicieni iand owned by a singie-iamiiy subdivision association or multi-family development developed prior to March 8, 1999, however, the community development coordinator, parks and recreation department, and public works administration may approve the location of such sign in a city right-of-way or on city-owned property provided that such signs are in compliance with Section 3-1807.A.1.a. above and will not obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians, be installed and maintained in safe and neat manner, will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites; and that a city right-of-way permit be obtained prior to the installation. c. All freestanding signs shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign. d. A freestanding sign for any multi-family development shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. 2. Subdivision name/logo on street signs. Street signs incorporating single- family subdivision names/logos may be located in city rights-of-way JAXU 661875_12 -14- within the subdivision provided by such signs do not exceed three and one-half square feet in area and are selected from the approved city street signs catalogue maintained by the manager of traffic operations. The city and the neighborhood shall enter into an agreement that prescribes the installation and maintenance requirements of such signs. 3. Assisted living facilities, community residential homes with seven to fourteen residents, congregate care facilities, and nursing homes signs. a. One freestanding sign at the primary entrance of the property up to twenty-four square feet in total sign face area. b. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed six feet in height. c. A freestanding sign shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign and shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. B. Non-residential. All signs must be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design and style features, materials and colors. Attached signs shall be horizontally and vertically proportionately located on each facade with no protrusions above roof lines, over windows, trim, cornices, or other building features. Signs for new shopping centers with three or more tenants, including all out parcels, office parks or any master nlan develonment shall be reviewed and annroved through the Comprehensive Sign Program set forth in Section 3-1808. l. Freestanding signs in the Commercial, Office, Institutional and Industrial Research and Technology Zoning Districts. The following shall govern permanent freestanding signs in the Commercial, Office, Institutional and Industrial, Research and Technology zoning districts. Certain uses in these districts may have additional sign restrictions set forth in the flexibility criteria contained in Article 2 and shall supersede these standards. a. One freestanding sign per parcel proposed for development with no more than two sign faces, unless located on a corner lot or through lot. b. Corner lots or through lots have the option of erecting one freestanding sign or two freestanding signs, one on each street frontage. The total maximum area of the sign faces of the one sign or of the two signs shall not exceed the total maximum allowable area allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.d. or Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below plus an additional fifteen square feet, provided that the maximum area remains no more than sixty-four square feet in total sign face area on all sign faces. Sign area is JAX11661875_12 -j S- measured from the road frontage which results in the greater square footage. c. All freestanding signs shall be setback at least five feet from the property lines of the parcel proposed for development. d. The total sign face area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed twenty-four square feet unless in compliance with Section 3-1807.B.1.e. below. e. The total sign face area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed three percent of the building facade facing the street or one square foot of signage for every three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less, but in no case more than thirty-six square feet. Such sign design shall be consistent with or complement the architecture of the building through the use of colors, materials, textures, design features, and architectural style as set forth below. i. The sign design shall include a distinctive design or architectural element used on the building such as an arch, capstone, pediment, distinctive roof form/material, column, pilaster, cornice; or a shape, form or motif that portrays the business. Such elements shall be used on the top and/or side of the sign face/panels. ii. Defining materials, textures and colors used on the building shall be included on the sign. iii. The sign base andlor supports shall be with a width that creates proportionality to the overall sign design. Signs mounted on a single pole without any covering at least thirty-six inches in width shall be prohibited. iv. The sign shall be consistent with or complementary to the overall design, colors, font style of the attached sign on the property. v. The sign may include no more than two lines of zip track for manual changeable messages provided the zip track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the sign. vi. In the event the building lacks architectural details or distinguishing design features or materials, the sign shall be designed to improve the overall appearance of the site. To achieve this, the sign shall include a distinctive design feature and use colors and materials that present a high quality finish. JAX\1661875_12 -16- f. The total area of all sign faces on all freestanding signs shall not exceed seventy-two square feet per parcel proposed for development. g. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed one and one-half times the width of the sign structure or fourteen feet whichever is less unless allowed in Section 3-1807.B.1.h. below. h. All freestanding sign structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign. i. Sites which front on an elevated roadway (including US 19 and McMullen Booth Road) having limited visibility are permitted one freestanding sign to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of the barrier wall located on the elevated roadway as measured at its highest point adjacent to the sign location. Sites which front on US 19 or its frontage road that have a barrier wall located adjacent to the property either along the frontage road or within the center of the US 19 right-of- way are permitted one freestanding sign to a maximum of fourteen feet above the top of either barrier wall whichever is higher. 2. Monument signs in the Tourist and Downtown Districts. The following shall govern permanent monument signs in the Tourist District and Downtown District as follows: a. One monument sign not exceeding six teet in height per parcel tor development in the Tourist District with no more than two sign faces, unless located on a corner or through lot. One monument sign with no more than two sign faces per parcel for development in the Downtown District provided the primary building on the parcel is setback at least twenty feet from the front property line, unless located on a corner or through lot. b. Corner lots or through lots have the option of erecting one monument sign or two monument signs, one on each street frontage. The total maximum area of the sign faces of the one sign or of the two signs shall not exceed the total maximum allowable axea allowed in Section 3-1807.B.2.c. below plus an additional fifteen square feet. Sign area shall be measured from the road frontage which results in the greater square footage. c. The area of a monument sign face shall not exceed three percent (3%) of the building fa�ade facing the street or one square foot of signage for every three feet of linear lot frontage, whichever is less, but in no case less than twenty-four square feet and no more than thirty-six square feet. JAX\I 661875_12 -17- d. The total area of all sign faces on all monument signs shall not exceed seventy-two square feet per parcel proposed for development. e. Sign design shall be consistent with or complement the architecture of the building through the use of colors, materials, textures, design features and architectural styles as set forth below and as may be required by the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and Beach by Design. i. The sign design shall include a distinctive design or architectural element used on the building such as an arch, capstone, pediment, distinctive roof form/material, column pilaster, cornice; or a shape, form or motif that portrays the business. The design elements shall be used on the top and/or side of the sign face/panels. ii. Defining materials, textures and colors used on the building shall be included on the sign. iii. The sign base and/or supports shall be of a width that creates proportionality to the overall sign design. iv. The sign shall be consistent with or complementary to the overall design, colors, font style of the attached sign on the property. v. The sign may include no more than two lines of zip track for manual changeable messages provided it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the sign face area and the zip track and letter colors are coordinated with the color of the sign. vi. In the event the building lacks architectural details or distinguishing design features or materials, the sign shall be designed to improve the overall appearance of the site. To achieve this, the sign shall include a distinctive design feature and use of colors and materials that present a high quality finish. f. All monument sign structures shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign..- g. Properties located within the area governed by the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan shall only be permitted to erect a monument sign if the primary building is setback at least twenty feet or more from the front property line. Areas for manual JAX\1661875_IZ -1 g- changeable copy cannot occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the sign face area. 3. Attached signs in non-residential districts. The following attached signs shall be permitted in all non-residential districts: a. One attached sign shall be permitted for each building structure. For any building structure with multiple business tenants on the ground floor, one attached sign may be permitted per business establishment with a principal exterior entrance. The area of an attached sign face shall not exceed: i. Twenty-four square feet in total sign face area; or ii. Three percent (3%) of the primary fa�ade area not to exceed thirty-six square feet in total sign face area. Such signs are limited to one of the following sign types: channel letters mounted directly to the building, flat cut out letters, contour cabinet, illuminated capsule, sign applied to awning provided awning is externally illuminated, letters on backer panels if designed as an integral part of the sign and any other sign type of a higher quality of design if approved by the community development coordinator. Square/rectangular cabinet signs, back-lit awnings, and signs on raceways are prohibited. b. In addition to the attached sign allowed in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above, corner lots or through lots may erect one attached sign on each building wall (or facade) abutting a street frontage. Any such attached sign shall not exceed the sign face area specified in Section 3-1807.B.3.a above. c. Where individual business establishments with exterior entrances are located in a single building, multi-tenant buildings, or as part of a business/office complex or shopping center, attached signs shall be designed according to a common theme including similar style, color, materials or other characteristics to provide a sense of uniformity. Changes to individual tenant signage shall be reviewed for compliance with the established or projected theme of the development site. d. Projecting signs may be used as a type of attached sign in the Downtown (D) and Tourist (T) Districts, unless otherwise permitted by the community development coordinator. They shall be installed with a minimum eight-foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to grade or the sidewalk. Projecting signs shall comply JAX\1661875_12 -19- with encroachment into setback and rights-of-way Section 3-908. The community development director coordinator may permit such signs for second story or businesses above the first story in the Downtown and Tourist Districts if they meet all other criteria for attached signage. e. Business establishments with rear facades with rear public entrances facing parking lots or Clearwater Harbor or Mandalay Channel may erect one additional attached sign not exceeding sixteen square feet in area above or adjacent to the rear entrance provided such sign is not a traditional cabinet sign or channel letters erected on a raceway. f. Gasoline pump island canopies may be permitted one attached sign on the canopy fascia facing a public right-of-way provided such sign does not exceed eight square feet in total sign face area. 4. Sidewalk signs. Primary permitted retail and restaurant uses may erect one double sided sidewalk sign forty-two inches in height and twenty-four inches in width in accordance with the following provisions, but only in connection with the primary permitted use. Retail, restaurant or other uses which are accessory to another use are not allowed to display sidewalk signs. a. Display of Sign. Sidewalk signs shall be displayed only during the hn,�rc thP h�icinPCC ic nnen anrl chall hP mnvPrl in�l�nrc at thP �IncP nf r--- business. b. Location. i. Sidewalk signs shall be placed on the sidewalk in front of the business erecting the sign within its linear frontage. ii. The nearest point of the sidewalk sign shall be no more than two feet from the building wall. However, in the Cleveland Street Cafe District in the Downtown zoning district, the nearest point shall be five feet from the building wall. iii. A minimum pedestrian path of at least four feet shall be maintained at all times. iv. Sidewalk signs shall not impede ingress or egress to or from a business entrance, be located within a drive aisle, parking area or on any landscaped area, nor block any fire hydrant access or visibility or be located within the visibility triangle of intersections or driveways. JAXU 661875_12 -20- c. Design Criteria i. Sidewalk sign frames shall be constructed of durable wood or metal and present a finished appearance. Frames shall support black or green chalkboards, black wet markers boards or professionally designed advertisements/posters of a durable material with a clear, non-glare protective covering. Sidewalk signs known as wind signs may have a plastic base with or without wheels. Frame and base colors shall be limited to a metallic silver/grey, black, white or be a stained wood. Flexibility with regard to this design criteria may be granted by the community development coordinator in order to achieve a creatively designed sign using a particular symbol or logo indicative of the type of business and services being advertised. ii. Plastic signs, white marker boards, letter track panels (for manually changeable copy), acrylic/plastic panels, hand painted and spray painted copy, tri-folded signs, bases with hinged feet that fold flat and other similar features and sign designs shall be prohibited. Swinger style sidewalk signs shall also be prohibited unless of a unique design as determined by the community development coordinator. iii. Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated nor contain moving parts or have balloons, streamers, pennants or similar a � ,+,,,,�.,a .,, +t,�.... CLUVllll111rl11 aLL0.li111.0 lV Lll�.tll. iv. Sidewalk signs shall not be attached to any structure, pole, object, or sign. d. Permit Required Yearly. A permit for a sidewalk sign shall be obtained on a yearly basis. A permit application with a sketch, photo or drawing of the sidewalk sign and the required fee shall be submitted and approved prior to the placement of a sidewalk sign on public or private property. Sidewalk signs to be placed in a public right-of-way shall also submit evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars in a form acceptable to the City, with the City named as additional insured. A permit shall only authorize the sign submitted along with the permit application. Any changes to the approved sign will require the business owner to obtain a new permit. e. Removal by the City. The City shall have the authority to secure, remove or relocate any sidewalk sign located in the public right-of- way if necessary in the interest of public safety, in emergency JAX\I 661875_12 -21- situations, or if the sign is not in compliance with any provisions of this section. 5. Transit and shelter signs. Signs are permitted on transit shelters approved in accordance with Article 3 Division 22 of this Community Development Code, subject to the following restrictions: a. The advertising contained in the transit shelter shall be limited to the "downstream" end wall (furthest from approaching transit vehicles) for a two-sided or flared and secured panel. b. Lighting of advertising materials shall be limited to back-lighting. c. No advertising poster shall exceed twenty-four square feet in area, or be greater than six feet in height and four feet in width. d. The total number of transit shelters containing advertising shall not exceed fifty within the Clearwater planning area provided in the interlocal agreement between the city and county in effect as of January 14, 1992. 6. Certain changeable message and copy signs. a. Electronic changeable message signs shall be permitted for a facility or venue that has seating for more than two thousand people on property that exceeds thirty-five acres provided it meets the following criteria: (a) it is located on public property and (b) it serves a significant public purpose directly related to the facility or venue, and (c) the sign type will meet the following purposes of this Division 18, to wit: (1) the sign will not conceal or obstruct adjacent land uses or signs [Section 3-1802.F.], (2) the sign will not conflict with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites [Section 3-1802.J.], (3) the sign will not interfere with or obstruct the vision of motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians [Section 3-1802.K.], and (4) the sign will be installed and maintained in a safe manner [Section 3-1802.L.]. Consistent with the general standards in Section 3-1805, the approval or disapproval by the City shall not be based on the content of the message contained (i.e., the viewpoint expressed) on such sign. b. Any sign may include an area for manually changeable copy provided the sign meets all of the area and design requirements set forth in Division 18, including but not limited to any and all criteria that limits sign area by percentage or any requirement that requires any color coordination or other such design criteria. 7. Nonconforming uses. Any nonconforming use, which would be entitled to a sign if it were conforming, shall be permitted to erect the maximum JAX\1661875_12 -22- amount of allowable signage in the district in which the use is located. C. On premise signs in public parks and on school grounds. In any public park or on any school grounds in any zoning district, the following signs are permitted. 1. One freestanding entry sign for each major entry into a school or a park of not more than twenty square feet in total sign face area. 2. The height of the sign shall not exceed six feet. 3. A freestanding sign shall be installed in a landscaped area consisting of shrubs and/or ground cover not less than three feet in width around the entire base of the sign and shall include the address of the property on which the sign is to be located. Section 3-1808. - Comprehensive sign program. A. General principles. 1. The intent of the comprehensive sign program is to provide private property owners and businesses with flexibility to develop innovative, creative and effective signage and to improve the aesthetics of the City of Clearwater. 2. The minimum sign standards established in this Division 18 ensure that signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the Cityo uf Clearwater. The city recognizes, however, that in many circumstances, there are innovative and creative alternatives to minimum standard signage which are desirable and attractive and will enhance community character and individual property values. 3. The purpose of the comprehensive sign program is to provide an alternative to minimum standard signage subject to flexibility criteria which ensure that alternative signage will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetics, community character and quality of life of the City of Clearwater. B. Permitted signage. 1. Signage which is proposed as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program may deviate from the minimum sign standards in terms of number of signs per business or parcel of land, maximum area of a sign face per parcel of land and the total area of sign faces per business or parcel of land, subject to compliance with the flexibility criteria set out in Section 3-1808.C. A Comprehensive Sign Program shall be approved pursuant to the provisions set out in Section 4-1008. Prohibited signs in Section 3-1804 are not eligible for a Comprehensive Sign Program. Electronic changeable JAX\I661875_12 -23- message signs, back-lit awnings, cabinet signs, and raceway signs are not eligible to be utilized as signs as part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. 2. As part of a comprehensive sign program, the community development coordinator shall review all sign types (freestanding, attached, windows, interior site directional, etc.) for the business and/or the development parcel to achieve compliance in so far as possible with these current regulations. A master sign plan for shopping centers, including all out parcels, and office complexes shall include all types of signs for all tenants/uses within the development parcel. The community development coordinator may allow for flexibility in reviewing the master sign plan if it results in a substantially improved and comprehensive proposal. With a master sign plan, the community development coordinator may permit interior site directional signs at a size and location(s) related to the development project, with up to a maximum height of six feet. C. Flexibility criteria. 1. Architectural theme. a. The signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development and shall be constructed of materials and colors which reflect an integrated architectural vocabulary for the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/ar materials of all freestanding and attached signs proposed in a comprehensive sign program shall be demonstrably more attractive than signs otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum signs standards. All signs must be architecturally integrated into/with the design of the building and/or site using similar and coordinated design features, materials and colors, etc. 2. The height of all freestanding signs proposed through the comprehensive sign program shall relate to the design of the sign and shall not exceed fourteen feet in height, except in the D and T Districts, the height shall not exceed six feet in height except for signs associated with publicly-owned property and/or public projects which are architecturally and aesthetically integrated into a fence and/or wall. 3. Lighting. Any lighting that is internal to the sign letters or graphic elements (e.g., internally lit or back-lit, or that is indirect exterior lighting, e.g., goose neck lighting) proposed as a part of a comprehensive sign program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off at midnight or when the business is closed, whichever is later. JAX\I661875_12 -24- 4. Height, area, number and location of signs. The height, area, number and location of signs permitted through the Comprehensive Sign Program shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the following criteria: overall size of site, relationship between the building setback and sign location, frontage, access and visibility to the site, intended traffic circulation pattern, hierarchy of signage, scale and use of the project, consistency with Beach by Design, Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan or any other applicable special area plan and submittal of a master sign plan for the development parcel/project. Additionally, the maximum permitted sign area shall be based on the following formula when evaluated against the above criteria: a. Attached signs—The maximum area permitted for attached signage shall range from one percent up to a ma�cimum of six percent of the building facade to which the sign is to be attached. In no event shall the size of an attached sign exceed one hundred fifty square feet. For regional malls, the ma�cimum size of any attached sign that is otherwise allowed shall not exceed six percent of the building facade facing the street, but in no case more than three hundred square feet. b. Freestanding signs—The maximum permitted area of all freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed the range of sign area permitted by the street frontage or building facade calculation methods set forth in Section 1807.B.1.c.i. and ii. C /-'.�,.,.,,,...,.,..;r.� 7..,.r.l,f..i+ T� ' .�no c�n� ir� n nnmr�ra��cnc�i��n oinn ✓. VVn�neuiaaay i.iiui u�.ici. •ii�. �i�iiu��, 1,;0y�,o..., iii [A VV111tJ1 V11V11J1 Y� o.�i. program shall not have an adverse impact on the community character of the City of Clearwater. 6. Property values. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will not have an adverse impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 7. Elimination of unattractive signage. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program will result in the elimination of existing unattractive signage and nonconforming signage and will result in an improvement to the appearance of the parcel proposed for development in comparison to signs otherwise permitted under the minimum sign standards. 8. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The signage proposed in a comprehensive sign program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Section 3-1809, - Severability. JAXU 661875_12 -25- A. Generally; severability where less speech results. If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 is declared or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 or in Article 8 (definitions and rules of construction) of this Community Development Code, even if such severability would result in less speech, whether by subjecting previously exempt signs to this Community Development Code's permitting requirements, or otherwise. B. Severabiliry of provisions pertaining to billboards and other prohibited signs and sign-rypes. Without diminishing or limiting in any way the declaration of severability set forth above or elsewhere in this Division 18, or in the Community Development Code, or in any adopting ordinance, if any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this division or any other law is declared or held to be unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this Division 18 or Article 8 of this Community Development Code that pertains to prohibited signs, including specifically the prohibition on billboards and those signs and sign-types prohibited and not allowed under Section 3-1804 of this Article 3. JAX\I 661875_i Z _26_