By Michael Howell
The Ravalli County Commissioners are currently considering changes to the county’s “Off-Premise Outdoor Advertising Ordinance” which was adopted in June of 2000 following a series of public hearings. Review of the ordinance was instigated by changes in state law which created a few conflicts that needed to be reconciled. But critics say that some of the proposed changes go too far, effectively undermining the original purpose of the rules.
The purpose, as stated in the original ordinance, is to ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained so that public safety and traffic safety are not compromised, the aim being to minimize distractions and obstructions of view that contribute to traffic hazards. It includes encouraging a “standard for signs in order that they should be appropriate to and enhance the aesthetic appearance and attractiveness of the county and, further, create an aesthetic environment that contributes to the ability of the county to attract sources of economic development and growth.” The regulations should “allow for adequate and effective signs for communicating identification while preventing signs from dominating the visual appearance of the area in which they are located.”
Phyllis Bookbinder, who worked hard on fashioning the original regulations back in 2000, noted that several of the general standards that were developed back then appear to have been eliminated in favor of falling back on existing state rules. She argued that the state standards are too broad and too lenient to address the particular concerns that citizens raised in the original public process. She urged the commissioners not to give up local control over the issues. She urged them to reconsider some of the proposed changes.
Bookbinder noted the changes would raise the maximum height restrictions from 10 feet to 30 feet, reduce the separation requirement from a minimum of 1,000 feet to only 300 feet, and increase the maximum size from 32 square feet to 130 square feet. She rehashed the original reasoning behind the restrictions and argued that falling back on broader state rules would defeat the original purpose of the regulations and in the long run allow the kind of visual blight that citizens were trying to prevent. She argued that such restrictions are crucial to encouraging the development of the tourism industry in the valley and removing them would seriously impair one of the county’s most important economic sectors.
Planning Department Manager Terry Nelson also showed the commissioners several photographs of signs in the county that he had received from the state that were considered in violation of state law. He could not say what the specific violations were.
Commissioner Suzy Foss, who has long been involved in economic development efforts aimed at increasing tourism, said that she found many of Bookbinder’s arguments compelling.
Commissioner Ron Stoltz did not. He said that he found government regulations and restrictions in most cases to be unwarranted and burdensome and that this was no exception.
Commission Chair Matt Kanenwisher complimented Bookbinder on her knowledge of the issues, stating that she had obviously done a lot of research. He noted that with two commissioners missing it was not appropriate to make any decisions on the matter and that further discussions would be held before any decision would be made.