Planning Commission continues public hearing on sign‑code reorganization; staff to clarify flashing‑sign, political‑sign and pole‑sign rules

The Estacada Planning Commission opened a public hearing on Ordinance 2025‑008, a package of development‑code amendments that reorganizes the city’s sign regulations (Chapter 16.72), clarifies definitions, adds visual guidance and updates cross‑references. Staff presented the draft reorganization and said the changes are intended primarily to simplify application of the current code rather than to introduce major policy shifts.

Planning staff (Alan) told the commission the council had directed the reorganization earlier in the year and that the ordinance would: reorganize the sign‑code chapter, amend sign standards referenced in eight other municipal code chapters, clarify definitions, add example photographs and delete content‑based or legally indefensible language where possible. Staff recommended approval without conditions but asked the commission to raise any clarity concerns.

Commissioners focused on several recurring topics. They asked whether flashing speed‑limit signs on Eagle Creek (the flashing 25 mph signs) or school district electronic message boards would be prohibited under the draft; staff pointed out that some signs are authorized by state or county authorities (and thus excluded by the code’s exemptions) and said the flashing‑sign prohibition language should be revised or cross‑referenced with the exempted‑signs section to avoid unintentionally banning traffic‑control devices. Staff said they would rewrite that subsection to clarify intent.

Members also asked about pole and freestanding signage (the draft distinguishes ground‑mounted signs from pole signs above 8 feet) and whether typical commercial highway signage for franchises (the example of a large Taco Bell sign) could be permitted through the regular permitting process; staff said the code’s current wording is unclear and they will clarify the definitions and permitting route for freestanding commercial signs.

Questions arose over the draft’s exemption for political signs and for signs attached to accessory structures such as shipping containers or phone booths. Commissioners asked whether the city’s place‑and‑manner rules (for example, prohibiting signs on utility poles) still apply regardless of content; staff confirmed the city can regulate time, place and manner and agreed to tighten the drafting and follow up with commissioners.

Several commissioners raised enforcement and practical questions, including whether staff would remove temporary signs posted on utility poles; staff confirmed current practice is to remove unauthorized postings when noticed. Staff said they will clarify the temporary sign time frames and how the political‑sign exemptions intersect with those time limits.

Staff also described a schedule for supplemental visual materials: staff will gather photos of sign types (to avoid copyright issues) and expected to have photos ready by Oct. 3 to include in the adoption packet for council; council review was scheduled for Oct. 13. Commissioners asked to defer action to the next meeting to allow staff time to revise definitions and incorporate photos.

A motion to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 2025‑008 to the commission’s next scheduled meeting was moved and seconded; the commission voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Oct. 8.