The electronic sign at Oak Ridge High School is pictured above. (Photos courtesy City of Oak Ridge)
The public debate gained notoriety in December with a dispute over an electronic sign featuring an animated Santa. After months of meetings and hours of discussions, it could be close to being resolved, although the community appears to remain divided.
On Monday night, the Oak Ridge City Council voted 4-3 to approve, in the first of two monthly votes, ordinance changes that would, among other things, prohibit videos or continuously scrolling messages on electronic signs, revisions that would presumably prevent an animated Santa.
The revised ordinance would require messages on the increasingly popular signs to be static and remain displayed for five seconds. The changes, which still have to be approved on second and final reading in September, would also govern signs used for sporting events, set maximum brightness levels, and require the displays to automatically dim through photo cell technology.
In a 3-4 vote, the City Council rejected a proposed amendment by Oak Ridge Mayor Pro Tem Jane Miller to remove the language prohibiting animated videos or continuous scrolling, two features that business leaders continue to support.
But other city officials objected to Miller’s proposed last-minute change.
“That sounds like a pretty deep cut in the ordinance,†Council member David Mosby said.
“I think that is the real crux of why we’re here,†Oak Ridge Community Development Director Kathryn Baldwin said of the debate over animated videos and scrolling messages. “This is the one issue that is still outstanding.â€
Oak Ridge City Manager Mark Watson said municipal officials have received complaints about the TitleMax sign on South Illinois Avenue.
The debate has pitted residents who sometimes find the signs too bright, obnoxious, or distracting against business owners who way they are effective advertising tools.
Terry Domm, chair of the Oak Ridge Municipal Planning Commission, said those involved in the negotiations during the past six months have come to a consensus on three issues: traffic distractions, business needs, and the residential impacts.
But whatever is put into place has to be measurable and enforceable, Domm said. He said the proposed ordinance changes, which could be amended later, are not extreme.
“In fact, it is far more reasonable than most communities,†Domm said.
City officials say they want to avoid sign clutter, keeping the town attractive, but also serve the business community.
Voting in favor of the ordinance changes, and against Miller’s amendment, were Mosby, Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan, and City Council members Anne Garcia Garland and Charlie Hensley.
Voting against the ordinance changes and in favor of Miller’s proposal to allow animated videos and scrolling messages were Miller and Council members Trina Baughn and Chuck Hope.
Sam Hopwood says
Ironic that the sign at the high school should be displayed with this article. It is located where students cross the turnpike and where an exit and entrance to the high school parking lot is located. I doubt if it could have been placed in a more dangerous location. Very distracting trying to read it and watch for students crossing a four lane highway. So far no one has been hit. Oh well…
johnhuotari says
Sam,
I didn’t consider the irony. I just thought that was the best picture to use from the city’s presentation. I’ve used a picture of the Rivers Total Car Care sign for several stories and thought it was time for a new picture. I guess I need to go take more pictures of signs. 🙂
Angi Agle says
I recommend one of the title loan place on Illinois (near Arby’s) as an example of why the ordinance is needed.
Denny Phillips says
Also curious that flashing lights and scrolling text are two of the major tools the COR uses to create cautious driving patterns (i.e. flashing lights at school zones and “Your Speed” signs also in school zones and elsewhere).
Does the COR want children hit by distracted drivers?
Jack C. says
I agree that Oak Ridge will have a better look and feel about it with conservative signage.
johnhuotari says
Jack,
Thank you for reading Oak Ridge Today and participating in the discussion. Please remember to use your last name when posting here.
Thank you,
John
Lauren Biloski says
As a member of the Oak Ridge Planning Commission, I thank City Council for their vote and passing the revised ordinance.
Kay Williamson says
to begin with the purpose of the moving and very expensive signs are to attract business to those businesses, GO AHEAD AND ADMIT THAT ONCE AGAIN YOU DIDN’T THINK BEFORE YOU ALLOWED THEM,, I guess the red light camera’s are another fine example of this council NOT THINKING……………
Ellen Smith says
Actually, as I discussed on my blog three years ago (http://ellensmith.org/blog/2010/06/06/signs-too-soon-and-signs-too-flashy/), the existing city ordinance (the one that existed before any of these signs were installed) prohibits flashing and animation. Section 14.16 of the city zoning ordinance says: “2. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights or other illuminating device, which has a changing light intensity, brightness or color.” Section 14.15 lists several kinds of signs that are prohibited, including: “Flashing signs or signs that contain reflective materials, which present a hazard or danger to traffic or the general public.” A “flashing sign†is defined in the ordinance as “Any sign which contains an intermittent or flashing light source, or which includes the illusion of intermittent or flashing light by means of animation, changes in the degree of light intensity, an externally mounted intermittent light source, or reflective metal strips.â€
City Council passes ordinances; it does not have any role in implementing its ordinances. That’s the job of city staff. The city staff says that these provisions have been difficult to enforce, apparently because they require judgment calls. The proposed changes to the ordinance are intended to eliminate the need for subjective judgment calls.
Trina Baughn says
The ordinance as currently written does NOT prohibit
moving copy, flashing, scrolling or fading.
Ellen states: “The existing city ordinance…prohibits flashing and animation. Section 14.16 of the city zoning ordinance says: ‘2. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights or other illuminating device, which has a changing light intensity, brightness
or color.’”
If the existing ordinance prohibited flashing and animation, then it is the city’s fault for accepting money and approving the applications for the 16 businesses who installed signs that have these very functions. However, as it is written, blinking, flashing, fluttering or other illuminating characteristics are prohibited ONLY if they change in light intensity, brightness or color. No criteria for intensity or brightness are provided which are why the current code is unenforceable.
Further, the current code does not prohibit flashing or reflective signs entirely; rather it only prohibits those “which present a hazard or danger to traffic or the general public.” The ordinance provides no criteria for establishing a hazard or danger making this section also unenforceable.
Sally Sanders says
We are grateful that the Council is attempting to resolve this question equitably. I wonder though, what percentage of the anti-signage folk are really only bothered by only one of these. One has to wonder, what percentage of discontent is centered around the one sign on the beautiful waterfront. Certainly, trying to be equitable is indeed exacting an unfairness on those business not blessed by waterfront placement.
One has to feel sorry for the folks who bought a riverfront view home, and are trying to sell one with a sign in the back yard. Surely, this should not be legal ( I don’t know these people), just guessing….