Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palm Coast considers allowing digital signs with brightness and timing limits; board raises legal concerns about vehicle‑mounted displays
Summary
Planning staff proposed a regulated approach to allow digital monument signage in non‑residential areas — specifying brightness controls, an 8‑second hold time, pixel spacing and 150‑foot residential setbacks — while the board debated enforcement and potential legal exposure from banning vehicle‑mounted digital signs.
Estelle (planning) and Alicia Mobly presented proposed revisions to Chapter 12 (Signs and Advertising) that would, for the first time in Palm Coast, allow regulated digital signage in non‑residential zoning districts under technical and siting constraints.
The draft defines digital signs as displays that can change content electronically and sets technical controls intended to balance legibility with driver and neighborhood safety: automatic dimming with manufacturer certification not to exceed 0.3 foot‑candles above ambient light; an 8‑second message hold time; only instantaneous or fade/dissolve transitions (no scrolling or level‑three transitions); and a maximum pixel spacing of 10 millimeters. Staff summarized the proposal by saying, "We're actually going to propose an 8‑second hold time." (Estelle).
Location and size limits: staff proposed allowing digital displays only on specified principal, minor arterial and certain major collector roadways (the code lists roadway names for clarity) and limiting the digital portion of the sign face to 75% on principal arterials and 50% on other allowed roadways. The draft requires digital signs be monument signs (no pole/pylon signs) and includes a minimum 150‑foot setback from residentially zoned property.
Malfunction and content rules: staff would require a malfunction protocol that defaults the display to a black screen or turns it off when malfunctioning; they also proposed prohibitions on flashing, blinking, strobing, animation, audible components and on placing digital displays on trailers or vehicles (staff further proposed an owner affidavit acknowledging the standards).
Enforceability concerns: the vehicle‑mounted prohibition prompted sustained discussion. Board members and staff questioned how the city could practically enforce a ban on vehicles with digital displays while vehicles travel on state roads and across jurisdictional boundaries; some warned a local prohibition could raise legal challenges. Staff and members recommended postponing or removing a blanket vehicle prohibition until the city lawyer and enforcement agencies (sheriff/FHP) review enforceability and liability risks. When asked how the rule would apply to a vehicle driving through the city, staff said enforcement would be difficult unless the vehicle was parked on private property where the owner could be cited.
Other items and council feedback: Council members previously asked staff to consider larger setbacks (some suggested 300 feet) to reduce residential impact; staff said 150 feet is typical and increasing the buffer would eliminate viable sign locations at certain downtown entrances. Staff showed renderings of downtown monument signs as a placemaking tool and cited case studies of economic benefit from other cities, while assuring the draft follows Reed v. Gilbert constraints and does not regulate message content.
Next steps: staff will compile Planning Board comments, refine the draft (remove or revise vehicle provisions per board direction and clarify window‑sign rules to limit restrictions to signs visible from public roadways), and return to the board and council for wrap‑up and hearings.
