July 6, 2017 @AZSurprise , the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss and vote on changes to the city sign ordinance. Specifically, changes to wall signs and free-standing signs. These changes are discussed on pages 34-56 of the proposed sign ordinance.
Signs should be adequate to the task, visible and legible.
WeMAR and WeMAR members participated in public meetings during March, and in April WeMAR responded to the proposed sign ordinance.
WeMAR contends signs are still the most cost effective and least expensive method for business to advertise goods and services as well as location.
Individuals who start a business place their finances, savings, homes, assets and their family’s future at stake. These individuals believe they can provide a product or service the market needs or wants, and is willing to pay for. These businesses will fail if no one knows what they do, where they are located or who they are. Studies from the University of San Diego and the University of Cincinnati have shown adequate signage is a significant component of business success, no matter how big the business. This makes signage an economic development issue as well as a free speech issue.
Surprise has several businesses located in retail, medical and industrial complexes with limited signage to the street and passersby.
We question the compelling government interest and the practicality in limiting building signage, particularly on buildings facing more than on street or buildings that are part of an office/industrial complex. We also question government limiting signage and directories within those complexes.
We have suggested the city establish minimum sign sizes based on science of the visual arc. Legibility and visibility are crucial to effective signage. A monument sign on a busy, multi-lane street with a high traffic count may need to be larger than a monument sign in a less congested area, on a two lane less traveled roadway.
WeMAR is concerned and has requested re-consideration of Building Mounted Walls Sings, item #1. We are concerned that businesses with more than one business under one roof will not have adequate signage. An example would be a real estate brokerage with a title company or lender under the same roof, or a grocery store with a bank and a Starbucks.
We are also concerned about the limited use of a business owner’s window space for signage. Businesses express specials, products or services to the public with window signs. We question the compelling government interest in limiting this and remind the City sunscreens are allowed and cover 100% of the window.
Section 113 -14 of the proposed sign ordinance discusses the Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP). The criteria specified and purpose is to insure the sign is “appropriate to the character of the community”. We are concerned this is an arbitrary measure. How will the CSP determine the sign is “appropriate to the character of the development” or is “appropriate to the neighborhood”? This appears to be an arbitrary measure and most likely will be determined by content or the identity of the speaker.
Section 113-15, B concerns non-conforming signs. We are concerned the city does not define abandoned and that the proposed ordinance demands a sign be removed once the ordinance has been in effect for 10 years. Signs are the business owner’s expression of their business character and identity. The City proposed using amortization and depreciation of the physical sign as a method for compensation for the government taking of the sign. But, the “business good will” of the sign is far more valuable than amortization or depreciation value. People recognize a business by the color and shape of the sign before reading this sign. An example would be McDonald’s Golden Arches.
Court cases in Arizona and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld the right of businesses to have a brand identity through their signage, and found that cities cannot demand a business change their logo, colors or other items that make that sign identifiable with that business.
I will be attending the July 6th Planning and Zoning meeting, and encourage WeMAR members who do business in Surprise or live in Surprise to attend as well. If you do decide to attend, please email or call me. The meeting will be held at Surprise City Council Chambers (16000 N Civic Center Plaza), 6pm.
Before attending the meeting, you may want to read:
Sign_Code_07-06-17_PZWS_Staff_Report (1)
Exhibit_A_-_Summmary_of_Comments with staff notes_-_July_6__2017_Excerpts
Public_Comment_#1 against all signs
Public_Comment_#2 in favor of A Frames
Public_Comment_#3 Courtland Homes
WeMar Response City of Surprise Sign Ord
Signage should be adequate to the task, visible and legible. In the end, WeMAR would like to see little sign regulation preferring property owners, business owners and their agents determine the most effective signage.