Councilman Dan Irving (5th District) is leading the charge for a change to the city’s electronic sign ordinance. So far, no one with the city is on his side. The Zoning Commission voted against it. City staff is recommending denial. Still, Irving is still planning to bring it to a vote on the council floor Tuesday night, hoping that his council colleagues will see things his way.
How does he see things? Well, right now, the sign ordinance requires that electronic message boards change their images instantaneously instead of scrolling, fading, or dissolving. According to the council communication, he wants to change the ordinance so that such gradual transitions are allowed as long as the transition lasts no longer than three seconds. This, he says, will “promote Peoria’s business-friendly atmosphere” and “provide additional marketing of products in this challenging economic environment.”
In his testimony before the Zoning Commission, Mr. Irving stated what led him to ask for this change, which was summarized in the meeting minutes this way:
Council Member Dan Irving . . . commented that the intent of the Ordinance is that these electronic signs are popping up all over the City. He stated that a business owner who has purchased one of these signs, who was not aware of the Ordinance, had approached him and wanted to utilize the technology on his sign. He commented that he does not have the answer regarding these signs and stated there is a much bigger issue because most of the signs that keep popping up are not in compliance.
I personally like Dan Irving, and in fact I even endorsed him for election to the council. But this is a ridiculously ill-conceived council request. Let me count the ways:
- First of all, when you look out over Peoria and consider its challenges, is the dissolve rate on electronic signs really the one you want to spend a lot of energy and political capital attacking? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
- How, pray tell, does a three-second dissolve, fade, or scroll between marketing messages “provide additional marketing of products”? Answer: it doesn’t. This supposed benefit is empty rhetoric.
- “Requests for signs with non-static transitions shall be considered on a case-by-case basis and through approval of a Special Permit. Standards for consideration will include the location of the proposed sign, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.” So, in order to get this coveted three seconds of cross-fading time, a business has to apply for a special use permit, which starts into motion a whole chain of events including: setting a public hearing date, mailing a notice of the hearing date to all properties within 250 feet of the subject property, review of the application by the Site Plan Review board, holding a public hearing, deliberation and decision by the Zoning Commission, and finally approval or denial by the city council. In addition, it appears the city staff would also need to conduct a traffic count and speed study of some sort as that information is one of the standards for consideration. I fail to see how this is in either the business’s or the city’s best interests. It will cost the city money in staff time, and it will be more trouble than it’s worth for businesses. What business owner is going to go through all that for a three-second dissolve rate?
- Non-compliance with the code is not, in itself, a compelling reason to change the code. If signs that keep “popping up” are not compliant, they should be brought into compliance through code enforcement, not sanctioned.
When Irving originally proposed having the Zoning Commission consider this idea, I asked him what changes he wanted to see. He told me via e-mail toward the beginning of December that “more and more businesses are putting up these electronic signs and then finding out they cannot use them because of our electronic sign ordinance” which requires static images that last at least ten seconds and change instantaneously. He continued, “Proctor Hospital has one of these [electronic signs] and it was allowed an exception or variance to our current ordinance. It is like watching a movie when you go past. I am looking to allow these types of signs in commercial area where there is no residential present and where the changing or fading of the image would not create a traffic risk.”
This sounds to me like he was favoring no restrictions on how often the images change on signs in certain areas (they could be “like watching a movie”), which is quite a different scenario than what is now being proposed. One wonders if the businesses who contacted Irving will be satisfied with such a scaled-back response to their request for unfettered use of electronic signs.
If I were Dan Irving, I would either withdraw the item or table it. It looks like a lose-lose situation all the way around.
