[MissoulaGov] committee update 7-29-09

[Michael Loftis]

--On Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:07 PM -0600 Bob Jaffe 
<BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> wrote:

<snip>

>

> Then we started our morning session of PAZ. The intent was to get through

> the issues with the sign ordinance today. I figured in the morning we

> could knock out the issues unrelated to dynamic electronic signs and then

> take up the electronic stuff in the afternoon session.  Instead we blew

> the first 45 minutes talking about whether outdoor signs could stay lit

> after business hours. Besides being fraught with technical difficulties

> like defining the hours of operation for a business with a pop machine

> outside, it was clear that there was not majority support for the

> proposal. Still, motions to call for the question failed and folks kept

> on wanting to talk for quite a while beyond where we could have dispensed

> with the matter.  There were also about twenty five people in the

> audience, many of whom wanted to participate. I like to give everyone a

> chance to say their piece considering that they took the time to come

> down.


<snip>

> Next was window signs. There was much discussion but no changes from the

> planning board draft. Window signs can cover one third of any given

> window. We did agree that a window means an entire sill and not just an

> individual pane.

>

>

>

> Then we were finally on to electronic signs with just two hours left.  If

> we could move efficiently we may just be able to finish it. No such luck.

> We had some presentations to get us all up to speed on the issues and the

> definitions. Dave made a motion that would have restricted electronic

> signs to one frame per eight seconds essentially making them static signs

> that could change to another static image every eight seconds.  Pretty

> much like the sign at Tremper's shopping center. I was in support of

> this motion but it met much opposition from folks on council and all the

> industry reps in the audience.  Between lengthy discussion and much

> public comment we worked through our remaining time talking this lost

> cause to death. At one point Dick and I got in a spat over the

> appropriate level of participation in the discussion I could have. I have

> a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the rules than he does.

> Considering it was the only real fight in an eight hour day that was

> pretty good. After the meeting Ed was able to broker a peace between us

> and we shook hands.

>


Chicago's limitations are similar to this, the point is not to distract 
drivers and cause accidents.  Another aspect is how bright they can be.  On 
the 101 in California if you're going north bound towards the airport, a 
ways before that there was (is? this was several years ago so I hope they 
forced it to be removed or atleast dimmed at night) a sign that is so 
bright it causes MANY accidents at night by simply blinding drivers.  I was 
able to experience that monster first hand going home from work in San 
Francisco to Sunnyvale.  The monster popped over to an Oracle Ad, that was 
almost all very bright white, with some red lettering.  It was as bad a if 
someone had turned their hi-beams on, and their off-road lights on, all at 
the same time right in your face.  You couldn't see.