New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Picture a dozen politicians skating aimlessly around a frozen pond. Occasionally two collide, possibly exchanging words, sometimes cordial, other times heated. The remainder of the session consists of repetitious questions, poorly framed proposals, demands for clarification and declarations of confusion, all in a tone of general exasperation because no one seems to be listening to anyone else.
Now you have an image of Missoula’s Plat, Annexation and Zoning (PAZ) committee meeting this morning.
After several hours of discussion and public comment on electronic, reader board-style signs – mostly a repetition of previous discussions and comments — the PAZ committee finally came to a few tentative conclusions: new electronic signs will not be banned (yet); animation on electronic signs will be prohibited (no dancing turkeys for now); the hours of operation for electronic signs will not be restricted (still); and new electronic signs will not be allowed in the downtown business district.
“I have a feeling we will revisit this issue someday soon,” said PAZ chairman Bob Jaffe after the votes were taken.
Halfway through the meeting — a model of inefficiency — the committee got back to where last week’s meeting began, eliciting visible frustration from Jaffe. “We’re spending too much time on motions that have no chance of passing,” he said. “I wish we could just get this over with and get on with the ordinance.”
“We have to get to a vote,” insisted Jaffe, growing impatient after hearing an hour of public comment on whether or not electronic signs are safety hazards.
Councilman John Hendrickson objected to the push.
“We’ve heard a lot of public comment and we have to get on with it,” continued Jaffe.
Councilman Jon Wilkins joined Hendrickson’s objection.
“We’ve spent three hours on nothing,” said Jaffe.
Audible gasps came from the audience, which consisted of about two dozen pro-sign business owners who had taken valuable time out of their day to come say “nothing” to the committee.
“What I mean,” backtracked Jaffe, “is would anybody like to say something that hasn’t already been expressed?”
A few more people commented.
“Have we exhausted public comment?” asked Jaffe.
Not yet.
The committee will continue to work through the proposed zoning ordinance update while they wait for district judge John Larson to decide on a pending lawsuit that could further delay the review process.
I am all for businesses having their freedom from many regulations from federal, state, local government. Some of the bright signs are a distraction from safe driving. I would limit the nighttime brilliance of the lights, plus limit the rate of change of the animations allowed.
Like Mr.Sarsfield, I am pro business and favor fewer regulations from government, but also find the kind of signs springing up around Missoula to be objectionable. Aside from the safety issue, the signs are in poor taste and do not reflect the kind of atmosphere Missoula residents seek. After a short web search, I discovered the following definitions for lighted, animated signs like the ones the City Council is discussing.
Animated sign – means a sign depicting or involving action, motion, light, or color changes through electrical or mechanical means.
Level 1 Static Display Only. (messages changed with no transition)
Level 2 Static Display with “Fade” or “Dissolve” transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text.
Level 3 Static Display with “Fade”, “Dissolve“, Travel”, or “Scrolling” transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once.
Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video.
My suggestion is to restrict city signs to Level 1 or Level 2, and to restrict the dimension and light intensity of the sign.
Travis, I appreciate your covering city council committee meetings. That is just terrific. One tiny correction: it’s the Plat, Annexation and Zoning (PAZ) Committee (you can verify this on the city website). As for the sign regulations, I sure am grateful to the council for slogging through it. It’s thankless work, but important for the community. Finding a good compromise is tough but it looks like they’re well on the way. Nobody ever said public process is efficient, eh? Thanks for the write-up.
I’m also glad that New West is covering some of the council committee meetings. They can be frustrating, but I think it would be better to cover more of the content and less of the reporter’s clear frustration with the process. It’s hard from this piece to tell what exactly we were talking about- there was in fact a direction and method to the conversation. I would direct readers to the 2nd comment in this string by Tim Newhart, which breaks down the levels of regulation other communities have used, and are in fact what we were debating in committee. We ended up agreeing on allowing something similar to Levels1 and 2. Yes, public process often seems inefficient and tiresome, that is why elected officials and journalists provide such an important public service in these United States. (Finally, I like the image of city council skating around a frozen lake, but there were only 8 of us at this particular meeting).
Why doesn’t Bob Jaffe want the public to have a say in this? Jaffe has no problem throwing out nearly 10 years of public work on Russel Street in order for “his side” to get yet another chance for public comment. Talk about a waste of years, millions of dollars and huge inefficiencies.
Why is it ok for Jaffe and “his side” to get another chance for his public comment on the Broadway portion of the Downtown Master Plan? They are backing Broadway out and stalling unitil they can talk about it on and on and on ……… It’s so inefficient.
When the Libs want it their way they will make the time for LOTS of community conversation.
Thanks for pointing the PAZ error, Heidi. I’ve corrected it now.
And Marilyn, thanks for clarifying that there were only eight council members present at this week’s meeting. I intended the opening metaphor to give a sense of the general tone of the last few meetings, not the specific attendance of any particular meeting.