Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seaside Planning Commission delays decision on electronic message signs after residents raise concerns
Summary
After a staff presentation and extended public comment on allowing electronic message display signs on local streets for churches and meeting facilities, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to Aug. 26 for further staff research on technology, definitions and neighborhood impact.
The Seaside Planning Commission on July 22 continued consideration of a zoning amendment that would allow electronic message display signs for places of worship and public/private meeting facilities on local streets, directing staff to return with clearer definitions and technical research. Chair Silva moved the continuance to the commission’s Aug. 26 meeting and the motion carried unanimously.
Staff described the proposed change as narrow: it would allow changeable electronic message displays for certain gathering uses while pointing the ordinance back to the city’s regular sign rules for height and area where appropriate. “Signs are regulated by Seaside Municipal Code chapter 17.40,” staff told the commission and proposed reducing the maximum freestanding message-board area from 24 to 18 square feet and lowering an upper freestanding height to 6 feet on local streets.
Residents who spoke urged caution. “This is a can of worms,” lighting professional Meredith Nore told commissioners, saying some color-LED displays were unreadable and arguing that local neighborhoods are not appropriate places for commercial‑scale digital signs. Diane Nielsen, a longtime resident, said the change would “introduce commercial style lighting into areas not designated to accommodate it” and urged the commission to uphold the existing prohibition for residential areas.
Commission discussion focused on two lines of concern: (1) technical details — how to define “electronic message display sign,” how to measure and limit brightness and animation, and how many churches or other gathering places would be affected — and (2) neighborhood impacts — sight lines, glare and the potential precedent of permitting changeable digital displays. Several commissioners said they were comfortable allowing modernized, non-animated replacements for existing internally illuminated static signs but not TV‑like animated displays.
The commission asked staff to research specific technology classes (including lower‑emission passive displays), provide an inventory or land‑use mapping showing which local streets are predominantly residential, and propose enforceable brightness/operation standards. The item will return to the Planning Commission on Aug. 26 for further consideration.
