2005 NAHBA Conference Manchester, New Hampshire August 28-31, 2005 FHWA News Becky Bennett Office of Real Estate Services 2005 NAHBA Conference Manchester, New Hampshire August 28-31, 2005

Outdoor Advertising Control Domestic Scan July 13-14, 2005, Phoenix, AZ 13 states represented 24 State DOT participants 6 FHWA participants

Purpose of OAC Scan Foster Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Exchange Share best practices Identify challenges & potential solutions

OAC Scan Activities Breakout Session - OAC implications of mega-retail development OAC efforts in individual states with FDOT ODA-IMS Demo Panel - Outsourcing and Non-traditional approaches to OAC Site visits

OAC Implications of Mega-retail Development Breakout Session HBA Background States must provide effective control 23 CFR 750.709(d) requires State determination of “On Premise Activity”

OAC Implications of Mega-retail Development Breakout Session Definition of Mega-retail: Developments with multiple uses and/or ownerships and a common scheme of branding or identification of the development itself Mega-retail Development Examples: Big box malls Planned unit developments Multiple lots or ownerships within single development

OAC Implications of Mega-retail Development Breakout Session Issues to be considered regarding OAC: Development-Ownership Nature of the Development Ownership Status Zoning

How Should Mega-retail Developments Be Treated Under the HBA How Should Mega-retail Developments Be Treated Under the HBA? Breakout Session Most said treat as on-premise Issue of internal roadway remains a problem

Mega-retail Developments: Case Study 1 A state proposes a law permitting large “comprehensive developments” separated by a road to advertise businesses on both sides of the road. The legislation defines as a single "premises" any comprehensive development with a common ownership plan, whereby all owners have the right to use all common areas. Any signs advertising activities conducted within that comprehensive development would be on-premise and exempt from compliance with portions of the HBA.

Mega-retail Developments: Case Study 2 A developer plans a development on both sides of an Interstate. The developer wants to erect a sign spanning the Interstate. The sign would carry the name of the development and the names/logos for some of the stores. The take-off and touchdown points for the sign are located outside the right of way on property that is part of a “mega development.” The bulk of the sign face is located within the right-of-way.

Mega-retail Developments: Case Study 3 A large city has adopted a zoning amendment that permits Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). A PUD is a zoning overlay that may be applied to residential, commercial or industrial property for a specific project. PUDs encourage mixed uses, and result in a planned combination of diverse land uses, such as housing, recreation and shopping, in one contained development.

What Issues Have the States Faced Similar to the Case Studies What Issues Have the States Faced Similar to the Case Studies? Breakout Session Property whose ownership is unclear Signs placed on properties that are not contiguous or on strips that have no purpose except for a sign Convention centers; public arenas

How Have the States Addressed These Issues? Breakout Session Strictly enforce current federal and state regulations Employ premises test, i.e., unity of title, use, and contiguity Address issues on a case by case basis Educate LPAs on the rules

What Are the General Challenges to Outdoor Advertising Control What Are the General Challenges to Outdoor Advertising Control? Breakout Session Politics (lack of support; opposition) Difficulty in determining land ownership Determining local government intent: mixed use zoning, etc. Lack of legal precedent; issues have not been litigated Beyond premises advertising on an on-premises sign Electronic variable message signs

What Is Working Well? Breakout Session Enforcing existing regulations Educating the public on the definition and application of the on-premises and purposes tests Cooperating with developers to maintain the marketability of parcels

What Needs to Be Improved? Breakout Session Consistency in application and enforcement Greater clarity as to current laws Communications with developers and sign companies Improved surveillance of electronic signs

Are Federal or State Legislative or Regulatory Changes Needed Are Federal or State Legislative or Regulatory Changes Needed? Breakout Session Majority of states answered no! More guidance from FHWA would be helpful Two states expressed a desire for more flexibility  

Florida Billboard GIS Database Demonstration Used to manage inventory, permitting and billing Field system integrates GPS, laser rangefinder and digital camera Integrated with Microsoft MapPoint for mapping Accessible to the public over the internet

Site Visit: Young Electric Sign Company Presentation & Tour by David Jones & Ron Wardle Evolution of sign technology Electronic Variable Message Signs Sign manufacturing facility tour

Site Visit: Chandler Fashion Square Target store located in mega-retail development Sign separated from store by 4-lane divided roadway On-premise v. off-premise signs

2005 NAHBA Conference Manchester, New Hampshire August 28-31, 2005 Thank You Becky Bennett Office of Real Estate Services Rebecca.Bennett@fhwa.dot.gov (202) 366-2039 2005 NAHBA Conference Manchester, New Hampshire August 28-31, 2005