Signs of the Times - December 2012 - 96

EDITORIALLY SPEAKING
By Wade Swormstedt

“The code seeks to reduce subjectivity often encountered in the regulation of signage that is either based on aesthetics or lacking in substantiation.”

The Evidence-Based Sign Code
Kudos to Dawn Jourdan and her cohorts.
Ev-i-dence, n. 1. The data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based; something that furnishes proof. –The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition conducted the requisite research, can you rationally concoct a sign code, which then covers the final 12 pages. As for the code itself, its second sentence speaks volumes: “The code seeks to reduce subjectivity often encountered in the regulation of signage that is either based on aesthetics or lacking in substantiation by providing a set of quantitative and research-based criteria to support restrictions on signage that take into account minimum scientific requirements for providing signage that meets generally accepted safety standards for visibility, legibility and conspicuity.” Much of the code is somewhat standard: prohibited and exempt signs, a list of definitions, etc. The permitting process is basic, but there’s a suggested time frame as well. Any permit properly submitted must receive a ruling in 10 days, or it’s considered approved. (A footnote says the 10-day period can be adjusted to coincide with the complexity of a municipality’s review process.) If a permit is denied, the applicant has 15 days to resubmit. The critical component is the letter-height equation. The code doesn’t provide sign sizes, per se. You plug your data into the equation to determine size. However, as do federal-highway-signage requirements, it specifies minimum letters sizes based on the adjacent roadway’s speed limit. Maximums are reserved for sign heights, based on the constant of a 30 ft./in. legibility index (a combination of the speed limit and viewer reaction time). But it’s not a laissez-faire, anything-goes code. Distances must be maintained between signs. Pole signs can’t be used in conjunction with multi-tenant signs. Temporary signs have 30-day limits. Signs can’t be in the public right-of-way. Nonconforming signs that need modifications that exceed 50% of the replacement cost must be brought into compliance. Although the NSREC presentation said the code should be content-neutral, I didn’t see that specifically addressed in the model code, although “real estate signs” was the one content-oriented definition I saw. You can read the entire code at: https://www.ou.edu/ content/architecture/regional_city_planning/faculty/ dr–dawn-jourdan/jcr%3acontent/mid_par/download_0/ file.res/UDA%20Model%20Sign%20Code.pdf Let’s hope it spreads like wildfire. ■

Edescribe aJust one little word.constitutesas an adjective vidence. Using it to sign code typically an oxymoron,
because perhaps nowhere else are legal documents so abjectly subjective. The greatest document to emerge from the 2012 National Signage Research & Education Conference (NSREC), which produced several great pieces of research, is called “An Evidence-based Model Sign Code.” (I’ll refer to it as the E-B.) The “what,” of course, is the most important component, but, as reality dictates, the “who” isn’t far behind. (No, not Roger Daltrey.) Here’s the good news. Dr. Dawn Jourdan is a city planner, a land-use attorney and a planning professor at the Univ. of Oklahoma. She was joined in her efforts by three other college professors: notable transportationexpert (and fellow NSREC speaker) Dr. H. Gene Hawkins (Texas A&M Univ.), Kimberly Geideman (Univ. of North Texas) and Dr. Robin Abrams (North Carolina State Univ.). Here’s the better news. The code is free for anyone to use. The following sentence, which appears in the E-B’s Executive Summary, would solve 90% of sign-code problems if regulators took it to heart: “Unlike most modern sign codes, which attempt to regulate on-premise signs on the basis of police powers, Urban Design Assoc. has drafted this municipal sign code, which is based on the best-available transportation and engineering research.” At the time, UDA was in College Station, TX, the home of Texas A&M, headed up by Dr. Abrams. It’s night and day compared to what’s often seen. What is a sign code’s underlying premise? Are signs primarily necessary evils that require restraint, or integral components of a vibrant local economy? And is this premise based on subjective or objective opinions? Most impressively, the actual model code begins on page 31 of the 42-page E-B document. Novel concept in an instant-gratification world: Know what, why and how to regulate something before you start writing the regulations. The entire document is actually three sections. It suggests Thomas Edison’s declaration that genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration. It’s the legwork that matters. The tangible result is the easy part, the icing on the cake. The E-B’s first 13 pages outline sign-code legal aspects. The next 17 pages address sign-legibility technical aspects. Then, and only then, after you’ve
96 SIGNS OF THE TIMES / DECEMBER 2012 / www.signweb.com

https://www.ou.edu/content/architecture/regional_city_planning/faculty/dr–dawn-jourdan/jcr%3acontent/mid_par/download_0/file.res/UDA%20Model%20Sign%20Code.pdf https://www.ou.edu/content/architecture/regional_city_planning/faculty/dr–dawn-jourdan/jcr%3acontent/mid_par/download_0/file.res/UDA%20Model%20Sign%20Code.pdf https://www.ou.edu/content/architecture/regional_city_planning/faculty/dr–dawn-jourdan/jcr%3acontent/mid_par/download_0/file.res/UDA%20Model%20Sign%20Code.pdf http://www.signweb.com

Signs of the Times - December 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Signs of the Times - December 2012