Peoria council opens study on allowing digital billboards, asks staff to continue exploration

Peoria — City planning staff on Tuesday outlined an exploratory approach to allowing digital billboards and other electronic message signs in parts of Peoria and asked the City Council whether they wanted staff to pursue a formal code amendment.

The study-session presentation by Chris Hawkins, Planning and Community Development director, explained current state rules, existing grandfathered static billboards in Peoria, possible benefits such as increased revenue and business visibility, and concerns including driver distraction, visual dominance and proximity to homes.

The presentation noted that “the city does not currently permit static or digital billboards in the city,” and that about 14 static, grandfathered billboards already exist in the community. Hawkins emphasized that state law (Arizona Revised Statutes Chapter 28) sets minimum standards for freeway-adjacent outdoor advertising — notably a 500-foot minimum spacing between billboards along corridors, size limits and a requirement that digital signs be extinguished between 11 p.m. and sunrise except for emergency alerts or government messaging. He also described industry-standard sign faces (roughly 14 by 48 feet), a daytime brightness cap measured in nits, and timing limits that require each advertisement hold for a minimum of eight seconds with transitions of two seconds or less.

Why it matters: council members framed the issue as a balance between potential recurring revenue and community character. Hawkins said digital signage could support economic development and community messaging and could generate recurring lease or royalty revenue if placed on city-owned property. Opponents and cautious council members pointed to the Glendale experience and urged strong placement and setback protections to avoid negative neighborhood impacts.

Council discussion focused on where signs might be allowed (for example, the Loop 101 corridor), who owns qualifying parcels, whether conversions of older static signs to digital should be incentivized with a trade-in program (remove multiple older boards in exchange for fewer upgraded boards), and whether the city could restrict new boards to public property. Hawkins warned the council that restricting signs to public property may raise legal issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed decision, and that signs on private property would implicate free-speech limits on content control.

Councilmember Edwards said the council should avoid repeating controversies like those that arose in Glendale, adding, “we just don't wanna go through what Glendale had to go through. It was not not a fun event.” Several council members said they favored stricter local safeguards than the state minimums — for example, larger spacing, greater residential setbacks and controls on brightness and animation — but did not set specific standards at the session.

Outcome and next steps: Hawkins asked whether the council wanted staff to continue developing details. By the end of the session, the mayor and council signaled by voice that staff should continue exploration and return with more detailed options, community outreach plans and a draft ordinance for future study sessions. No ordinance or code change was introduced or voted on at this meeting.