Signs & Billboards

Many of us are alarmed when we see proposed bills during Utah Legislative sessions that aim at lessoning municipal oversight of commercial signage.

I thought you would want to be informed with following update from Kate Kopischke of Scenic Utah: 

“Following the defeat of two digital billboard bills in the 2021 legislative session (SB61 and SB144), a number of local jurisdictions asked Scenic Utah for guidance on improving their ordinances to better control the number and location of digital billboards and signs in their communities. 

Based on our analysis of local sign and billboard ordinances throughout Utah, many municipalities lack provisions or language in their sign codes that would prohibit billboard owners from converting static billboards to digital, or from installing new digital billboards at new locations. In the absence of such language, communities will have to allow permanent conversions, even in areas where digital billboards are unwanted or inappropriate. And they’ll likely face the difficult choice of either paying billboard owners hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to remove them, or have them remain forever.

To help communities navigate these issues, we developed the attached “Primer” for local governments and community groups seeking to strengthen their sign and billboard ordinances so that they – rather than big-city billboard companies – can decide the appropriate type and placement of digital outdoor advertising. 

Written and reviewed by planning professionals with many years of experience in the complexities of billboard and sign ordinances, the Primer offers guidance and key considerations, a checklist for creating durable and defensible ordnances, and links to useful resources. 

There are two compelling reasons local jurisdictions should act quickly to review their sign ordinances.

First, requests by billboard companies and business owners to convert to digital outdoor advertising are increasing quickly in Utah and nationwide – catching many jurisdictions off guard and unsure how to limit or prevent these conversions.

Second, in the next several months the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising that will have major implications for how cities and towns regulate digital outdoor advertising. Communities need to be prepared, regardless of how the Court rules.

An approach worth considering immediately is one adopted by the Houston (Texas) City Council, in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision. In February, they voted unanimously to put in place, upon the Court’s ruling, a temporary moratorium on all new or converted digital signs. During that period, no new permits will be issued while the City conducts a Sign Code Review to determine whether ordinance changes will be necessary to comply with the decision.

Utah jurisdictions who begin reviewing their sign codes now – and adopting measures similar to Houston’s moratorium – will be better prepared to manage any immediate regulatory changes required by the court, and to address the growing challenges of digital outdoor advertising in their communities. 

We encourage you to consult with your city attorney and planning personnel about adding this issue to your agenda – and we hope this Primer will serve as a catalyst for discussion and action.” -Kate Kopishke

In response, we can thank Councilman Bracken for providing this insight:

"Our off premises sign ordinance already prohibits any additional  billboards being added within our city boundaries. Under state law, there are some abilities to move them in certain situations.

Our sign ordinance also has regulations on luminance output (automatically adjusted to time of day and copy being displayed), as well as requirements for PSAs to be provided.

We have used our ordinance at the Legislature on a number of occasions as a model/example of how things can be done and have kept onerous bills at bay - with one primary reason being we worked out our ordinance mutually with some of the major owners. We got what we needed, and they got regulations they could live with.

A couple of notes I recall from those discussions: electronic billboards often have 1/8 the power consumption of traditionally lit signs, and much lower light trespass when regulated as those in CH are. Over 95% of electronic sign components are recyclable and are recycled. They can be a fairly green option.

It's been some time since we had our ordinance created, so some of those details may have changed, but I assure you, as I drive through other towns/cities I can clearly see which have poor or little control over electronic signs.

I would love to see our regulations expanded to on premises signage as well, as some of those are woefully bright with light pollution."

Here are my thoughts:

I remain interested in a presentation from Kate because even though previous council, and we thank you for your contribution in that regard, Scott, did an excellent job to ward off unwanted signage, my constituents do not want more electronic signs, billboards on premise or otherwise (unless they are small, appropriate, etc. to a given location).

Despite the lesser carbon footprint of electronic signs, I would like to make sure that our roadways are not further littered by commercial signs.  

Walking or bicycling in or through the junction of Highland Drive and Fort Union Boulevard to access the wonderful stores located there within the strip mall on the north west corner (including Whole Foods, Play It Again Sports, Blue Lemon restaurant, etc.) or Dan’s or Zions Bank on the other corners, the huge commercial billboards towering over one feels oppressive and is counter to the Fort Union Blvd. master plan. This 2017 plan with its steering committee of 42 residents describes a small town “Main Street feeling” from Highland Drive eastbound along Fort Union Boulevard. 

It is our responsibility as the Cottonwood Heights City Council to protect residents from any further urban blight. 

Thus, I think a short presentation from Kate could assist us in making sure that our ordinance is as up-to-date and sturdy as possible. Let’s see what other councilmembers  think. Understanding time in our work sessions each month is extremely limited, but if we could carve out even 15 minutes on this so that we can give staff direction when/if it the ordinance needs to be revised. 

Even ozone and PM2.5 pollution in small amounts is harmful for ALL of us. And, did you know that the average cost to own and operate a car annually is $10,000? Until SLCo citizens demand viable transit, Utah business & legislative leaders and UDOT will continue to build out more lanes inducing car demand with its associated danger, air, noise & light pollution. NOW is the time for a well-planned Micro-hub bus system for SLCo that is clean, reliable and free. Clean, quiet, reliable electric buses could be phased in NOW. Demand this transportation alternative from your legislators.