Peoria council asks staff to study permitting of digital billboards and electronic message signs

Planning and community development staff presented an exploratory review of digital billboards and electronic message signs during the Peoria City Council study session on Feb. 11, and council members asked staff to return with more detailed policy options.

Planning and Community Development Director Chris Hawkins told the council the city does not currently permit new static or digital billboards, although about 14 older static billboards remain in grandfathered status. He outlined state rules that would apply to freeway-facing digital billboards, including zoning and spacing minimums, brightness limits and required dark‑hours shutoffs.

The presentation framed digital signage as a potential economic development tool that could generate recurring revenue for the city and provide a platform for community messaging, but Hawkins and council members also listed operational and neighborhood impacts that would need rules and mitigations.

Hawkins summarized key state requirements: a billboard site must be zoned commercial or industrial, billboards along state transportation corridors must be spaced at least 500 feet from another billboard, signage faces are typically far below the 1,200‑square‑foot ceiling (industry standard is 14-by-48 feet, about 672 square feet), digital signs have daytime brightness limits measured in nits (roughly 300 nits cited in the presentation), and state rules require message displays to be held a minimum of 8 seconds with transitions no longer than 2 seconds. The state code also generally requires signs to be extinguished between 11 p.m. and sunrise except for limited government or emergency messages.

Hawkins reviewed a prior Peoria exploration from about 2012–13, which included resident surveys and neighborhood meetings; feedback at the time was mixed and the city did not pursue code changes then. He also noted that other nearby cities allow digital placements along Loop 101 and that the city previously opposed very tall billboards proposed just across the river in Glendale.

Council questions focused on legal defensibility, residential setbacks and potential incentive programs. Councilmember Edwards said the city should ensure any new placements “100% fall within a parameter” that protects nearby homes, citing the council’s prior opposition to tall billboards close to residences in neighboring Glendale. Councilmember Bullock said his judgment would hinge on the revenue potential and asked staff to provide realistic revenue projections per sign and likely sales‑tax yields. Councilmember Casper Finn said he is “not a fan” of large freeway billboards and questioned their long‑term advertising value.

Hawkins flagged two legal issues staff will investigate if directed to proceed: whether limiting new placements to publicly owned property (leasing sign sites on city land) is defensible after U.S. Supreme Court decisions on content‑neutrality and whether the city could craft spacing and setback standards that go beyond state minimums. He also warned the council that, if billboards operate on private leaseholds, the city would have little control over commercial content because of free‑speech limitations.

By the end of the session, council members indicated by voice that they wanted staff to continue gathering information, develop ordinance options and conduct community outreach; staff said they would return with a draft approach and public engagement plan. No ordinance or formal vote was taken at the study session.

What’s next: staff will research legal constraints, prepare model ordinance language, estimate revenue scenarios and propose community engagement steps before returning to council for further study sessions and a potential future ordinance.