111721 TA2018001 BOS REPORT_PART14.PDF

FORMAL COMMENTS T0 TA2018001

currently owns/leases land within Maricopa County with existing billboards. While the Applicant
contends the change will be a benefit to the community by reducing the total number of billboards,
it will only do so to the advantage of a single billboard company, and to the detriment of the
Applicant's competitors.

Article 1403.3.1(3)

Comment: As noted in "Attachment 1" within the revised edits and comments packet provided to
stakeholders during the June 29, 2018 stakeholder workshop, there is a recommendation to
increase the 150 foot distance requirement from a residential zone to 400 feet. We would support
an increase to 400 feet to ensure illuminated billboards are not impacting homes. However, we
are not in favor of the Applicant's request to include "rural" zoning districts, unless the Maricopa
County Planning Department has specifically categorized a rural district as "residential."

We also recommend an exception to the 400 foot separation requirement. The distance should be
reduced to 150 feet if the signs in question are separated by an arterial street.

Article 1403.3.2

Comment: We are opposed to any language which applies greater restrictions upon LED/digital
billboards and specifically any provisions which impose an increased separation/distance
requirement between LED/digital signs. The separation requirement between a digital sign and a
non-digital sign should be identical. The off-premise sign industry has completed studies showing
that LED/digital signs produce less light (fewer lumens) than traditional, externally lit billboards.
Therefore, there is no evidence of additional harm or impact of a digital sign warranting increased
distance requirements. LED/digital signs are simply a newer technology, with a decreased
brightness. The only purpose of providing increased separation requirements is to further
empower the Applicant to grandfather its existing billboards and convert them pursuant to Article
1403.3.2(10), while ensuring that no competitor can place an LED/digital billboard within the
increased distance requirement.

Article 1403.3.2(9) & (10)

Comment: These new provisions are specifically written to allow all of the Applicant's existing
billboards to be "altered" or "modified" into digital billboards in "compliance with the standards
of this Chapter [per the revisions proposed within the Text Amendment]." All "non-conforming
off-site advertising sign[s]" are automatically given the ability to be updated to digital billboards
per this provision. In other words, the Text Amendment is drafted to provide a significant windfall
to the Applicant, while implementing increased restrictions to its competitors. It must be
emphasized again that a governmental agency, through its power to enforce and amend its
ordinances, should not be requested to use such authority to eliminate competition within a private
and competitive market.

We are strongly opposed to the requirement in Article 1403.3.2(10) stating that a non-conforming
off-site sign cannot be rebuilt/modified to a digital face, unless 1,200 square feet of existing non-
conforming signs are removed from the County. This provision has the direct impact of prohibiting

ADAY GRAFF PC

2200 E. Camecsack Ro., Surre 221, PHoenix, Arizona 85016
Ortice: 602.726.2197 Fax: 602.726.2361

FORMAL COMMENTS TO TA201 8001

a large number of the Applicant's competitors from applying for and obtaining digital signs within
Maricopa County. For example, if an advertising company is not large enough, new to the Arizona
market, and/or has not yet established 1200 square feet of existing signs within Maricopa County's
unincorporated land, that company is defacto prohibited from ever applying for a digital sign. We
are confident it is not the County's intent to favor larger companies with a stronger foothold within
County property and therefore, this provision must be stricken from the proposed amendment in
order to create equitable opportunities for all advertising companies.

Additionally, the revised ordinance, if approved, should ensure that a legal non-conforming off-
premise sign can be replaced with an identical structure, even if the property owner/landlord
chooses to lease its property to a different billboard company. We recommend language which
clarifies that both the legal non-conforming status, and right to replace/modify the structure in
conformance with the revised ordinance, runs with the land and not the billboard/structure or the
existing/prior billboard company.

Conclusion

We want to thank you for the opportunity to provide formal comments on this text amendment and
incorporate said comments into the case file and records before the Planning & Zoning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. It is our recommendation that the proposed text
amendment be denied unless the provisions of the proposed amendment can be modified to provide
an equal playing field for the off-premise signage market.

Best regards,

ALMA.

Benjamin W. Graff
Shareholder

ce: Darren Gerard, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Planning & Development Department

ADAY GRAFF PC

2200 E. Camereack Rp., Suite 221, PHOENIX, Arizona 85016
Orrice: 602.726.2197 Fax: 602.726.2361

MVP

OUTDOOR

July 13, 2018

Maricopa County

Planning & Development Department
Attn: Ms. Jaclyn Sarnowski

501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85008

Re: Formal Comments on TA20118001 (Off-Site Signage)
Dear Ms. Sarnowski,

My name is Ted LeClair and I am the managing partner of MVP Outdoor Advertising
(“MVP”). Please accept this letter as MVP’s formal comments regarding TA20111801, the Text
Amendment requested by Becker Boards.

The chief concern of MVP is that the Text Amendment be fair to outdoor advertising
companies of all sizes. Any requirement that signage square footage be given in exchange for
digital entitlements, makes it impossible for smaller businesses to operate or even exist.

The basis for the exchange of square footage for digital entitlements is to prevent the
perceived “signage blight” caused by additional billboards. However, a small company with
little-to-no billboard inventory is not responsible for the perceived “signage blight” created by
many of the larger companies with numerous billboards and, therefore, should not be held
responsible for the “signage blight” created by the larger companies and held to the same
standards, with the same requirements, as those larger companies. To require smaller companies
to satisfy these same requirements would, in essence, prevent the smaller companies from
operating in those areas and give the larger, national companies exclusive rights. It is MVP’s
hope that any new sign code would encourage small, local business growth, instead of
obstructing it in favor of national companies.

MVP would like the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed Text Amendment to
be incorporated into the case file and records for the consideration of the Planning & Zoning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. It is our recommendation that the proposed Text
Amendment be denied unless the provisions of the Text Amendment can be modified to provide
an equal playing field for the off-premise signage market, as discussed in this letter.

Specifically:
o MVP is opposed to radial spacing re: Article 1403.3.1(1) & (2). The code is acceptable
as-is.

e Digital signs should be considered “illuminated.” Thus, there should be no need for
spacing between them.

¢ MVP contends that digital signs are more attractive forms of billboards, demonstrating
more so the lack of need for any separation between them. Re: Article 1403.3.2

* MVP is opposed to Article 1403.3.2(9) & (10) in its entirety. This provision only benefits
the applicant.

We look forward to working with Maricopa County and the local industry leaders to help
construct an equitable and fair code that will have a positive impact on the local community. In
doing so, MVP will provide honest feedback on methods for avoiding a negative impact on local
neighborhoods and cormmunity facilities (Re: Article 1403.3.1@). In return, we hope that no
individual company agenda will be served by approval of this proposed Text Amendment to the
exclusion and detriment of other companies. Instead, MVP believes that all outdoor advertising
companies should be given an equal opportunity under the language of the Text Amendment to
grow their business to the best of their abilities.

Sincerely,

Ted LeClair

H vVELLMANTEL
AFFILIATES

July 13, 2018

Jaclyn Sarnowski

Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
501 N. 44" Street, Suite 200

Phoenix, AZ 85008

RE: Formal Comments on TA2018001 (Off-Site Signage)

Jaclyn:

As you may know, I represent Outfront Media. Please accept this letter as our formal comments
relating to Maricopa County Text Amendment File Number: TA2018001 (Off-Site Signage),
requested by a private billboard company Becker Boards (“Becker” or the “Applicant”). While
we appreciate the County’s continuing efforts to address Applicant’s request, the latest draft
released on June 29, 2018, reflects several key areas that we believe need additional vetting and
discussion, prior to this application being set for a formal hearing.

The existing Code provisions related to off-site signage were developed after a long process
during which the County worked with all of the industry stakeholders interested in participating,
and the Code worked well for staff, residents and industry representatives because it was the
result of a collaborative effort. We would appreciate the opportunity to continue to be involved
throughout this process and to work with staff on this proposed text amendment to make sure
that it adequately addresses concerns from the industry.

Although the items listed below do not constitute a comprehensive list of items that are
potentially problematic to the day-to-day operations of an outdoor advertiser, we wanted to point
out some policy areas and a few specific sections to which we’d like to be involved in proposing
changes:

Article 1403.3.1(1) & (2):

We are opposed to changing the separation between signs from “on the same street” to
“radius.”

Page 2 of 3
Comments Maricopa County TA2018001

Article 1403.3.1(3):
We oppose the Applicant’s request to change “‘either by reducing or increasing” the

spacing requirement between an illuminated off-site sign to a rural / residential zone
boundary from the existing 150 feet.

Further, we oppose the Applicants’ request to include and allow for off-site signs closer
to rural zoning districts.

Article 1403.3.2:

We oppose digital embellishments (overall size of sign face should not exceed 672 sq.
ft.).

Further clarification is needed surrounding height limitations.

Article 1403.3.2(6):

Should Maricopa County allow for conversion to digital displays, the Code should not
limit placement to freeway only.

Article 1403.3.2(7) (8) (9):

We oppose all signs being deemed “legal non-conforming” as of the effective date of this
Text Amendment. Additional clarification is needed defining “non-conforming” status —
current language is ambiguous.

Requirement for Remoyal / Exchanges:

We feel very strongly that in order for a static sign face to be converted / relocated to
digital format, the entity requesting the new board should have inventory they are willing
to take down (removal) in exchange for a new digital face. The County would be better
served by requiring a specific ratio per each conversion to digital.

We strongly agree with the County that there should be public benefits given to the
County in connection with conversion to digital in the form of takedowns and other
community benefits. Further, the County should agree not to issue any new off-premise
sign permits for any location where a sign was taken down in consideration for
conversion. Any applicant should need to provide proof of permit of existing off premise
sign for both conversion and the sign to be removed. We disagree that documentation of
sign removal with a completed demolition permit must be provided before issuance of the
construction permit for the digital sign. An applicant needs to ensure that the digital sign
can be installed before removing existing signage. The takedown should be required to
occur after issuance of the construction permit but before actual construction of the
digital sign.

Page 3 of 3
Comments Maricopa County TA2018001

As a result of the foregoing, we strongly urge the County to continue this matter and refrain from
placing this item on a hearing agenda until there has been further opportunity for discussion
among the industry stakeholders and agreement on an amendment that has consensus among the
majority of the industry.

The current text amendment would significantly change the business and operating regulatory
environment for the outdoor advertising industry in Maricopa County. Proposed by a single
company, this text amendment would materially impact the business models and operating
environment of a significant portion of industry in Maricopa County. We respectfully request
that our input be thoroughly considered in order to achieve a fair and equitable ordinance.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our formal comments on this text amendment. If you

wish to speak further about any of these comments, please feel free to give me a call at (480)
921-2800 or contact me via e-mail at charles@huellmantel.com.

Sincerely,

A

Charles Huellmantel

Consultant(s) to:
New River/Desert Hills Community Association Board

To: Carol Johnson Related Case:

Review by date: 6/29/18 Planner:: Caro! Johnson
Type Case: | |P&Z BOA ¥|TAC Other
Current Zoning: N/A Current Use:

Property APN: County Wide

Owners: N/A

Applicant: Becker Boards Small, LLC
Developer: N/A

Request for: Chapter 14 Text Admendments

Background: The Applicant has made a request to make text amendments to

off-site signage.

Opinion: Members of the New River/Desert Hills Community Assocation have

eviewed ihe proposed text aomenamen gang oer ne TOVoOwing commen

See Attachment 1 for comments

text changes per attachmnt

Recommendation: Denial Approval ¥| Other

Respectfully submitted,

Darren Forstie, NR/DCHA

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com

Attachment 1

TA2018001 Off-Site Signage (Billboards) Text Amendment
Submit Comments for Stakeholder meeting - https://www.maricopa.gov/2778/Active-Regulatory-Process

NR/DHCA Comments follow red text (see bullets):
ARTICLE 1403.3.
1403.3.1
3. ... Any off premise sign within 150 feet of a rural or residential zone boundary shall be non-illuminated, except if
along a freeway.
e Change to 400 feet.

4. Such sign shall not be located within 100 feet of any rural ...
e Change to 400 feet.

7. Special Conditions:
a. On State Route 74 between U.S. 60-89 and Lake Pleasant Road, no off-site signs shall be permitted within six-
hundred sixty (660) feet of said highway right-of-way.

o “Lake Pleasant Road” should be changed to I-17.

o The description needs to be clarified. Route 74 ends at US 60. Then there’s Route 93 connecting to
Route 89 on the north side of Wickenburg. The sentences reads as if US 60-89 is one road but we
have found no map that reflects this.

b. On U.S. Highway 60-89 from Estrella Freeway to Wickenburg,

o Where is Estrella Freeway? Are you referring to Arizona State Route 303 which used to be called
Estrella Freeway? Is there really a Highway 60-89?

o If the amendment means Highway 60 from AZ State Route 303 to Wickenburg, we agree.

NEW TEXT - Carefree Highway Scenic Corridor (CHSC)

o Scenic Corridor Location. It is a 3.5-mile segment between 7th Ave. and the 28th St. alignment
including areas % mile north and south on either side of the highway right-of-way. (Note, the area may
be less now due to annexations by Cave Creek)

o This text amendment should adhere to the CHSC lighting guidelines.

NEW TEXT - reference Daisy Mountain / I-17 Scenic Corridor Overlay.

In this section or somewhere else within text amendment, this amendment should take into consideration the
proposed Daisy Mountain Area Plan (aka. ‘The New River Area Plan’) regarding the Daisy Mountain / I-17 Scenic
Corridor Overlay. This builds on what is currently in the Daisy Mountain Area Plan.

o For the Commercial Overly District (see below), there should be no off-site signs to be permitted
within six-hundred sixty (660) feet of said highway right-of-way.
o For the Natural Scenic Overlay (see below), there should be no signs allowed.

Text from the Proposed Daisy Mountain Area Plan

The Commercial Overlay District boundary is % mile on either side of the edge of the ADOT/I-17 right-of-
way between the southern edge of the DMAP and New River Road and certain areas outside the % mile
(which have been specifically identified for additional protection) within the unincorporated areas of
Maricopa County.

The 1999 New River Area Plan has a Neighborhood Retail Commercial (NRC) area in

the |-17/New River Rd intersection area. It seems that the logical place to end the “Commercial Overlay
District” would be at the I-17 Frontage Rd/New River Rd traffic intersection. This may be what was

|
|

meant in 1999, but the map is not clear on this point. Please make it clear on the map with a distinction
that clearly shows the boundaries of the Natural Scenic Overlay District and Commercial Overlay
District.

The Natural Scenic Overlay District boundary is % mile on either side of the edge of the ADOT/I-17 right-of-
way between New River Road and the Yavapai County boundary and certain areas outside the % mile
(which have been specifically identified for additional protection) within the unincorporated areas of
Maricopa County.

1403.3.3.
5. A Digital Off-Site Sign shall not be erected within five hundred (500)
o Change to 1000 feet.

13. Such sign may be double-faced or “V” shaped, provided the shape is designed so that is not greater than
fifty-four (54) feet between
o fifty-four (54) feet should be fifty-four (54) inches.