City of Estacada planning staff previewed a proposed reorganization of the city's sign code at the June 23 council work session, proposing a step‑by‑step “how to” guide, a picture gallery of sign types and clearer definitions to distinguish temporary banners from permanent signs.

The presentation, given by a city staff member, outlined changes staff said would make the code easier to read and apply, including a visual glossary of sign types, grouped standards for types and locations of signs, and a consolidated procedural section on permits and construction. "By the end of the session, I'm hoping to get confirmation from you all as to whether there's general support for the code revisions," the presenter said.

Why it matters: Councilors and staff said the current code is difficult for business owners and code enforcement to interpret, and that the recent case involving banners at the ranger station highlighted gaps in the definitions and enforcement process. Several council members recommended tools — such as a map overlay tied to the picture gallery and a clearer rule distinguishing cross‑street banners from temporary promotional banners — to reduce future confusion.

Key points from council discussion

- Banners versus signs: Council members and staff repeatedly returned to the need for clearer definitions. Staff said many of the signs at the ranger station should have been classified as temporary banners under current rules (60 days) rather than permanent freestanding signs. One council member summarized the problem: the same item can be treated differently depending on how the code defines "banner" or "sign," and that ambiguity led to inconsistent enforcement.

- ODOT jurisdiction: Councilors asked staff to define how the city will treat signs "visible from the highway" and whether the code should specify a measurable buffer (for example, a fixed number of feet from the right‑of‑way). Staff said ODOT has not given a precise distance and that the city can research a clarified standard; staff recommended adding a cautionary note in the city code that ODOT rules may apply to signs visible from state highways and that ODOT enforcement can supersede city permits.

- Temporary signage rules and material standards: Councilors discussed keeping a 60‑day limit for promotional banners but asked staff to confirm whether temporary banners should count against a site's total allowed sign area. Staff noted current formulas in the code: total allowed sign area can be calculated as 2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage or 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage (code section cited during discussion: 16.72.005(a)(1)). Staff said they will review whether building frontage should be the standard metric rather than lot frontage.

- Size and location limits: Staff described existing site allowances discussed for a specific property (maximum of two freestanding signs on highway frontage plus one additional freestanding sign elsewhere; a 600 square‑foot total signage cap for the site; freestanding signs up to 150 square feet and 30 feet tall). Councilors asked staff to collect several local examples and return with recommended changes to size and time limits for temporary signs.

Council direction and next steps

Councilors supported the reorganization concept and asked staff to: (1) add a picture gallery that ties sign examples to zoning map layers (interactive, if feasible); (2) clarify the banner vs. sign definitions (including cross‑street banners); (3) research and recommend a measurable approach or cautionary language for ODOT jurisdiction (distance or other objective standard); and (4) analyze whether building frontage should replace lot frontage for sign area calculations. Staff said it will return with recommended language and examples at a future meeting.

Councilors also noted enforcement practice and clarified they could delay active enforcement while the code language is refined and legal review occurs. Several council members emphasized keeping the code usable for small local businesses that rely on temporary promotional signs.

Ending: Staff said the code is roughly 20 years old and that the proposed reorganization aims to make it shorter and more usable for applicants and enforcement staff. The council did not take a final vote; the session served as direction and a request for follow‑up work.