A Times Editorial

Revamping rules for signs could resurrect old problems

Clearwater city government has launched few projects with more public support than its effort to clean up the city's appearance by reducing the size, height and number of business signs.

And what a phenomenal success that project, which began in the 1980s and continues today, has been.

Anyone who has lived in Clearwater since the beginning of the effort can attest to the difference it has made on the city's primary commercial thoroughfares, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and U.S. 19. Where once pedestrians and motorists saw a forest of enormous signs dominating the roadsides, they now can see treetops and sky. Businesses have been forced to erect freestanding signs that are much smaller and shorter than before, and the signs attached to buildings also are smaller.

The evidence is there for all to see: Reducing the size and height of business signs brings a marked improvement to the landscape of a city without harming the opportunity for businesses to succeed.

That's why it is important for Clearwater residents to know that the City Commission is considering changes in the sign ordinance that could lead to bigger and more numerous signs under some circumstances. In some cases, those signs could be substantially bigger. After many weeks of discussion, the commission is scheduled to take its first formal vote on those amendments at 6 p.m. today in City Hall. (The meeting is televised on cable channel 15.)

Why even consider such backtracking when the city finally has achieved the success it sought? Because the business community has complained that the current sign code goes too far -- that it is so tough that it no longer gives merchants a fair chance to attract business. And because the influential developers of two major commercial projects, Clearwater Mall and the Drew 19 Plaza, say the success of their projects may hinge on the city modifying the rules.

Those are good reasons to sit down and talk about the code and its impact on particular businesses, especially those that will be located at new overpasses on U.S. 19, as both Clearwater Mall and Drew 19 will be.

But those are not good enough reasons to modify the code in substantial ways that apply citywide, as the current code generally has proven that it has the desired aesthetic impact on the environment and does not prevent businesses from thriving.

It is clear that there are a few problems with the existing code. An example is the new sign attached to the Olive Garden restaurant on U.S. 19 in north Clearwater. The sign, which is the size that was permitted, is much too small to effectively communicate the restaurant's presence to passing traffic. The city staff has suggested that a minimum sign size be added to the code to prevent such problems in the future -- a reasonable compromise.

Another potential problem exists at U.S. 19 overpasses where motorists may not be able to see signs for malls or shopping centers below because of the current height limitations for signs. Developers of Clearwater Mall are seeking taller signs for that reason, and there may be a need for a minor adjustment. But there is no reason to even approach the 60-foot-tall signs that now tower over overpasses at Clearwater's two mall properties. After all, motorists can be notified of where to exit the highway via a road sign, rather than a mall sign.

More troubling are proposals that could permit bigger attached signs and bigger free-standing sign faces under some circumstances, without a square footage cap that exists in the current sign code. Most local governments have a cap to prevent the huge signs that can result when sign size formulas are applied to businesses with a certain amount of road frontage or a building of a particular size. It seems unwise for the Clearwater commission to eliminate that cap.

Also worth debating is the amount of authority vested in the city's community development coordinator, whoever that might be in the years ahead, to judge whether a proposed sign is proportional, to apply the community's aesthetic and design standards, and then approve a sign. It is a largely subjective decision.

Clearwater commissioners and the city staff may feel they have given enough time to the issue and that it is decision time. We urge the commissioners, none of whom were in office for the sign battles of the 1980s and early '90s, to delay if they are not certain of the impacts of the proposed changes. They also should keep in mind that Clearwater is a more attractive city today for both residents and tourists because previous commissions took a tough stance on signs and for the most part held their ground when the business community complained that the rules would ruin them.

A good sign code should be about minimums: What is the minimum size required to announce the presence of a business and allow the public timely and safe access to that business? Seldom is that minimum as big as businesses claim it must be. Further, the code should require good sign design that does not detract from the appearance of the community.

Clearwater's current sign code needs some minor tinkering, but city commissioners should do as little as possible and only with great care.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright