City of Peoria Sign Ordinance Modernization, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Stakeholder Meeting #1. April 6, 2016.

2. Sign Ordinance Modernization
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Stakeholder Meeting #1
April 6, 2016

3. AGENDA
Introductions
Existing Conditions:
 The Peoria Sign Code
The New Legal Landscape:
 Supreme Court Decision: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
 Other Legal Decisions
 Sign Code Implications
Modernizing the Sign Code:
 Objectives and Approach
 Process and Timeline

4. Introductions

5. Existing Conditions

6. Background - Existing Conditions
Peoria’s Sign Code
• Article 14-34 of the Zoning Ordinance
• Regulates all Sign types within City
Sign Code Purpose:
• Promote public safety
o Pedestrian and motorist distractions
o Free flow of traffic
• Support effectiveness of signs
• Promote an attractive environment
o Protect against visual and physical intrusion
o Avoid overconcentration or excessive signs
• Promote economic development
o Induce business, tourism and residents by protecting
natural/built character

7. The Peoria Sign Code
Current Sign Code:
• No comprehensive changes since 1989
• Outdated terminology
• Sign standards not content-neutral
• Challenging to navigate

8. The Peoria Sign Code
Current Sign Code:
• 48 pages long
• Text-heavy – lacks graphics
• 33 different sign types
Sale, Lease, or Rent Sign
Menu Board Sign
Sign Walker
Building Mounted Wall Signs
Freestanding Monument Sign
Permanent Subdivision Advertising Sign

9. Sign Ordinance Modernization Project
Objective and Purpose For Update
• Modernize the Sign Code
o Create a more user-friendly code
o Reflect current trends in signage technology and
advertising products
- Address modern technology
- Modernize terminology
• Maintain legal enforceability of regulations

10. The new Legal Landscape

11. Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
• Gilbert regulated temporary signs based on
message content.
• Regulated signs included:
• Each sign type had a different sign area and
duration (time) allowance within ROW
• Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) reversed lower
court’s decision in favor of Good News Church
• Majority Opinion plus four (4) Separate Opinions
o Ideological Signs oHOA Event o Religious Event
o Election Signs oReal Estate
Temporary Sign Types

12. Majority Opinion Conclusions
• Gilbert’s Sign Code found to be “content-based”
regulations of speech
• Laws that regulate speech are presumptively
unconstitutional -- only allowed when they serve
compelling state interest
• Gilbert’s restrictions /exceptions in the code depended
“entirely on the communicative content” of the sign.
• Differentiation between temporary signs message does
not demonstrate compelling governmental interest.
• Code did not survive strict scrutiny test – Court found
Gilbert’s Sign Code to be unconstitutional.
Gilbert’s Temporary Sign
Area Allowances
Reed v. Town of Gilbert

13. Majority Opinion Conclusions (cont’d)
• Reasoned that “ample” content-neutral options for
regulating signage may remain for municipalities
o Safety
o Aesthetics
o Size
o Building materials
o Lighting
o Moving parts
o Portability
Reed v. Town of Gilbert

14. Sign Code Implications
Implications for Peoria’s Sign Code:
• Past methods for permitting and enforcing signs are invalid
• Differences in content not sufficient justification for
differing regulations for same sign type
• Codes which only regulate [time, place and manner] may
not necessarily be sufficient to pass scrutiny test
• Sign codes across the nation -- including the Peoria Sign
Code must be rewritten to be content neutral
o You can’t read the sign to enforce the code

15. Modernizing the Sign Code

16. Approach
Items to Address:
• What types of signs are
appropriate in the City?
• How large should a sign be?
• How many signs should be
allowed on a property?
• What duration should they be
allowed for?
• When is a permit required?
Example of Sign Types

17. Approach
Objectives
• Analyze regulations for relevancy and
effectiveness in meeting purpose
o Promotes public safety, and creates an attractive environment
that encourages businesses and residents to locate and stay
• Create a clear, concise, legally defensible Code
o Remove any distinction in the Code that regulates a sign based
on its content/message
• Modernize the Sign Code
o Improve usability of Code through graphics & formatting
o Many regulations remain untouched since the Sign Code was
adopted in 1989…
A
B
C
D

18. Potential Sign Code Framework
• Identify sign types by features
such as:
o Location
o Zoning
o Duration
o Features
Instead of content!
• Should not read sign or
graphics to determine sign
standards
Generic Sign Type Example

19. Approach
Modernizing the Sign Code
Utilize a chart/matrix so that users can easily find information
Add graphics/illustrations as examples

20. Process Timeline
Goal: Council approval by end of 2016
PROPOSED PROCESS TIMELINE
STAFF RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT Winter/Spring 2016
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 1st
P&Z COMMISSION STUDY SESSION March 3rd
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1 Today’s Meeting
INTERNAL DEPARTMENT MEETINGS Spring 2016
DRAFT Spring 2016
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2 Spring 2016
P&Z COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Summer 2016
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Fall 2016
P&Z COMMISSION HEARING Fall 2016
CITY COUNCIL HEARING Fall/Winter 2016

21. Feedback

22. Industry Trends
• Sign technologies
• Trends in customer preferences
• Challenges of today’s code