Council affirms planning commission denial of Empower's request for 300‑sq‑ft electronic sign

The McMinnville City Council on its first reading voted 5–1 to affirm the planning commission’s denial of Empower USA’s land‑use request to install a 300‑square‑foot stand‑alone electronic changeable‑copy sign at 750 Southeast Booth Bend Road.

The hearing centered on whether the proposed sign meets the city code’s definition of a prohibited “video sign” or whether it could be treated as an electronic changeable‑copy (ECC) sign subject to an exception for size. Community Development Director Heather Richards told the council the planning commission concluded the display “has the capacity to be a video sign” — horizontal and vertical copy and continuously changing imagery — and therefore is prohibited under McMinnville code unless the applicant met the substantially higher Part C hardship test for prohibited signs.

Empower representatives said the sign would be operated only as static images and offered a suite of conditions they said could be written into a use agreement: no animation or video, minimum display times, automatic brightness controls, and a frame tying the display to a permanent wall sign. Counsel for Empower argued that the critical test is how the sign is configured and operated, not the theoretical capability of its LED hardware. “Just because there is a light bulb inside of a sign does not necessarily mean that sign is capable of playing video under the code’s definition if it is programmed the appropriate way,” counsel Matthew said, asking the council to consider enforceable technical conditions.

Opponents and several residents told the council that the sign ordinance was the result of a multi‑year citizen process to limit large and distracting signage, and they warned that permitting a large, programmable display would erode community standards and create enforcement burdens for staff. “Programming can change,” said Sidonie Winfield, who also acknowledged she had posted a social media disclosure earlier in the hearing. Mark Davis, a neighborhood resident, framed the issue as a safety concern: video or dynamic signs can distract drivers and increase crash risk.

John Olson, president and CEO of the McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of Empower, saying the company’s rapid local growth and hiring needs make visibility along Highway 18 a legitimate business concern.

After extended questioning about alternatives (monument or pole signs, wall signage, or different framing of the display) and enforcement, Councilor Stokowski moved to adopt the planning commission’s findings and deny the exception. The motion carried 5–1, with Councilor Chenoweth voting no. The ordinance memorializing the council’s decision (No. 5175) passed on first reading and will return for a second reading May 12.

What’s next: The council’s decision was technical and based on local sign definitions and the evidence in the record. If the council had reversed the planning commission, the body would have had to adopt targeted findings explaining how the applicant met the exception criteria and may have included recorded use conditions to enforce operation. Because the council affirmed the denial, Empower may refine or appeal the company’s options through the normal appeals pathways or propose a revised design limited to code‑allowed formats.

Key sources: Staff report and findings presented by Community Development Director Heather Richards; testimony from Empower representatives Sheila Wolfe Howe (applicant), counsel Matthew, and land‑use consultant Laura LaRock; public comment from Sidonie Winfield, Mark Davis, John Olson. The public hearing record remains the primary source for the council’s findings and decision.

The council’s official vote and the ordinance language will be published after the May 12 meeting.