Commission to consider plan for more billboards

Thursday, April 19, 2001 | 10:58 a.m.

Clark County Commissioners introduced a new ordinance Wednesday that might mean more billboards along roads throughout the county.

Despite concerns registered by environmental groups, the county's advisory town boards and county planning staff, the commission voted unanimously to hold a May 2 public hearing to consider the proposal.

The proposal would allow billboards in most commercial or manufacturing districts throughout the county, restricted to 300 feet from homes, 150 feet from apartments and 500 feet from other billboards. Clark County commissioners also would get the final say in approving or denying all billboard requests.

The rules on the books now generally restrict billboards to an "overlay district" that covers the Strip -- from the Las Vegas Beltway in the south to Sahara Avenue, from Paradise Road in the east to Decatur Boulevard. However, billboard companies have sought and received exemptions from the restriction to place the signs outside of the overlay district.

Those exemptions have made the existing law governing billboards in the county vulnerable to a legal challenge, argue sign industry representatives and Commissioner Erin Kenny, who together wrote the proposed replacement ordinance.

Commissioner Myrna Williams, who voted for the May 2 public hearing and potential final vote on the issue, nonetheless expressed concerns about the new rules.

"This could have a very negative impact on older areas, especially on the east side of town," she said. Williams said members from at least six different town boards have asked her to delay or oppose the project.

Those members of citizens councils and town boards, who advise the planning commission and county commissioners on land use issues, have particularly expressed concern that the new rules would mean a proliferation of billboards.

The boards do not have veto powers over land use requests, but members argue that they should have been part of the process to draft the new rules.

"It needs to be written with more than one interest group involved," said Donna Tagliaferri, chairwoman of the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council. "And this one interest group is the one that will benefit financially."

She said board members aren't automatically opposed to the new ordinance, but they want the opportunity to review the proposal and evaluate the potential impact of the rules.

"I don't think that the approach here has been reasonable."

Tagliaferri said she is concerned that the new rule would lead to billboards going up in her area, in the northwest quarter of the Las Vegas Valley, along the beltway. She characterized that area as pristine.

"There's not a single billboard there," Tagliaferri said.

Kenny said after Wednesday's zoning meeting that commercial zones along the beltway might be appropriate places for billboards. She added that the town boards usually don't play a role in drafting new ordinances.

An industry representative also questioned the involvement of town boards in the ordinance-drafting process.

"They're ordinarily not involved," said Don Krueger, vice president of Connell Outdoor Advertising, a billboard company.

M.J. Harvey, chairwoman of the Paradise Town Advisory Board, said that in this case the boards were involved early in the process, then cut off from further input.

Billboard industry representatives and board members met for about an hour in early January, but those representatives were apparently unhappy with the feedback from the boards.

Harvey said she heard nothing more about a new ordinance until late March, when Kenny's proposal surfaced.

The planning staff also was cut off from input, Harvey said.

"The staff was ignored, everybody was ignored," she said.

Krueger said the planners didn't support industry proposals.

"They're bringing personal opinions into the process," he said. "I think it was recognized by county commissioners that they (county staff) didn't remain impartial."

Harvey agreed with planning staffers who have expressed concern that the proposed rules could mean many more billboards throughout the county.

"You consider the ramifications of no boundaries -- all over the county, down Las Vegas Boulevard, Blue Diamond, you name it -- there's no restrictions," she said. "All they have to do is come in with a special use permit."

Planning staff members are still analyzing the possible impact of the proposal on the county's roads and highways. Kenny said that their concerns are "pure speculation" until their studies are complete.

"The notion that everybody would put up signs on every street is ludicrous," she said.

The new rules are actually more restrictive than the existing law, Kenny said. The "clutter" of billboards along Paradise Road and other parts of the Strip is too dense, and elected officials do not now have a way of curbing new billboards in that area, she said.

"No sign is allowed by a matter of right in this ordinance," a change from the existing rule, Krueger agreed.

The rules proposed for the unincorporated county are very different from those adopted in the cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas.

In 1997 the Las Vegas City Council banned billboards on U.S. 95 north of Ann Road and in an area bounded by Sahara Avenue, Durango Drive, Hualapai Way and West Charleston Boulevard and the city border.

The North Las Vegas City Council in June passed a controversial ordinance which restricts billboards to 300 feet of Interstate 15 and within 500 feet of Rancho Drive, and requires billboard companies to remove nonconforming signs at their own expense within a decade.

The proposed ordinance in the county substitutes blanket prohibitions with the judgment of the county commissioners. Kenny said residents of the county should trust their elected representatives to make judgments on where billboards can go.

"Those are the people who need to make these decisions," she said. If people are unhappy with the land-use judgments of the commissioners, the public can vote them out, she added.

But Harvey said that town board and others have had to frequently fight the commissioners on land-use approvals, and that if this ordinance is adopted the public would likely face more such battles.

Harvey had fought one such battle earlier Wednesday, when county commissioners considered a zone change and land-use waiver requested to allow two billboards in the existing overlay district.

Harvey strongly objected to the request because the company seeking the approval, Seiler Outdoor, hadn't attended a required meeting of the town board to weigh the proposal, which included less-than-code setbacks from residential areas.

Paul Larsen, representing Seiler Outdoor, said difficulties with the previous representative made attending the town board meeting impossible. While Harvey argued that the request should be kicked back to the board in a coming meeting, Larsen said a lease agreement for the property at Koval Lane and Tompkins Avenue would expire before that meeting next week.

The commissioners approved one of the two requested signs, to be located about 50 feet from an apartment building.

Harvey, angered by the decision, said if existing rules are not followed there can be no guarantee that residential protections in the new ordinance would be followed either.

"This is a separation issue, which is serious," she said. "It is obligatory for an applicant to appear before a town board. ... They asked for setbacks that are not conforming ... (the request) does not meet separation requirements in the existing code.

"We have rules in place. Let's stick to them," Harvey said.

archive