Molalla planning commission backs easement-based mural code, urges zoning limits

The Molalla Planning Commission recommended city council pursue an easement-based approach to a mural code, saying the method would allow the city to control content on donated wall easements while reducing legal risk.

Associate Planner Clarissa Davis presented three options and told commissioners the third — a public‑easement method under which property owners grant the city an easement over a wall so the wall is treated as governmental speech — would allow content selection without the same First Amendment exposure that comes with direct content restrictions. "Based on our research, we believe that the easement method would provide the best of both worlds to the city of Molalla," Davis said.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about how an easement would be initiated and whether property owners would retain approval over content. Davis said property owners would need to grant the easement voluntarily and that staff had not yet finalized procedures for owner input. "We haven't really explored down that path yet," Davis said, adding staff sought the commission's guidance on how much owner input to include in code drafting.

Several commissioners urged limiting murals to public‑facing locations. One commissioner said the code should focus on the downtown core or commercial zoning so murals do not appear on the sides of private residences; another suggested an overlay district. "I think limiting to certain districts or zonings should definitely be in place," a commissioner said.

A commissioner moved to recommend option 3 (the public‑easement method) with zoning restrictions to the council and to direct staff to return with a more detailed draft; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission used a hand‑raise consensus and recorded five in favor; the deputy city recorder noted the motion passed by a 5‑0 count. The commission asked staff to research initiation procedures and owner‑input options and to return with drafted code language for council consideration.

The motion was procedural — a recommendation to council rather than a final code adoption. Staff said the next steps would be to draft code language based on the commission's guidance and then refer the draft to the city council for consideration and any further public process.

The commission's recommendation follows staff research that included conversations with other Oregon cities and an example referenced from Silverton's mural program. Commissioners repeatedly urged simplicity and clarity in any draft code, and asked staff to return with specific zoning and owner‑input proposals.

The commission took the vote and then continued to other business, directing staff to bring back a draft for review in a future meeting.