Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Bend planning commission debates sign-code overhaul, grapples with graffiti, fines and temporary-sign rules
Summary
Planning staff presented proposed changes to the city's sign code, including maintenance, nonconforming signs, and enforcement. Commissioners pressed for clearer fines, a specific holding location for removed signs, separate graffiti rules (48-hour removal), and clarification on demolition permits for tall ground-mounted signs.
Planning staff presented a package of proposed revisions to North Bend's sign regulations at the Planning Commission's Dec. 3 meeting, and commissioners spent more than an hour probing enforcement, timelines and definitions.
Caitlin, a planning staff member, told commissioners the city re-released a sign-code survey on Nov. 19 that will run through Dec. 17 and said, "we've already doubled our responses" (from roughly 17 to about 36). She said staff expects to incorporate comments and "anticipate[s] sending this to legal by the end of the week" before drafting residential sign standards and additional commercial provisions.
Commissioners focused on several points that staff said they would clarify or change before a formal legal review. They asked for consistent capitalization of titles such as "building official" in the draft code; for a cross-reference to the city fee schedule rather than hard-coding fine amounts; and for a clear statement of where seized or relocated signs will be held, with at least one commissioner suggesting City Hall so owners can retrieve property during a two-week window.
A contentious practical issue was how the draft treats graffiti versus other forms of vandalism. One commissioner noted an existing graffiti chapter elsewhere in the municipal code and said, "They have 48 hours to remove it," a staff-cited standard the commission discussed applying by reference. Staff recommended separating graffiti from general vandalism in the maintenance section so that graffiti removal follows the 48-hour timeline in the graffiti chapter, while damages that require repair (for example, posts hit by vehicles) could have a longer remediation window.
Commissioners also sought clarification on demolition permits for ground-mounted signs exceeding 6 feet. Staff described that requirement as targeted at tall monument-style signs that present public-safety concerns, not routine traffic-control signs, and said they would consult the building official (Colin Mercer, referenced in the meeting) for a precise interpretation.
On penalties, a commissioner pushed back against a hard-coded maximum daily penalty, arguing it could be regressive for small businesses; staff said the intent is discretion and a sliding approach tied to the frequency and severity of violations, with the building official applying enforcement discretion.
Other items flagged for revision or later review: defining "temporary sign" time limits; adding criteria to exempt certain temporary signs from building-permit triggers; clarifying when a sign is deemed "abandoned" and that abandonment affects nonconforming status (loss of grandfathering after a year of vacancy); and improving plan submittal scale language that currently lists conflicting scales.
No formal action or vote on the sign-code text occurred at the meeting. Staff will refine the draft, reference the fee schedule for fines, separate graffiti language or reference the existing graffiti chapter for the 48-hour removal rule, and return with revisions and a residential sign standards package in the coming months.
The commission moved on to other docket and work-plan items after the discussion.
