[1:04] I call the Umatilla Planning Commission
[1:06] meeting to order. Nancy, can we have
[1:08] roll call, please?
[1:21] » Okay, and we have um
[1:27] Commissioner we have a new commissioner
[1:29] um Daniel uh
[1:32] >> Joel
[1:33] >> Ochoa Jr. and our Commissioner Cooper
[1:37] are both absent today, excused absences.
[1:41] So, as four and then we have
[1:43] Commissioner Leon Tejeda
[1:47] on Zoom.
[1:48] So, I will start roll call.
[1:51] Commissioner Jared Tesch
[1:53] >> Present.
[1:54] >> Commissioner Yesenia Leon Tejeda
[1:57] >> Here.
[2:01] » Commissioner Kelly Nobles.
[2:02] >> Here.
[2:03] >> Commissioner Carmen Porta.
[2:06] >> Here.
[2:06] >> And Commissioner Carol Jones.
[2:08] >> Here.
[2:09] >> Okay. We have a quorum.
[2:11] >> Thank you, Nancy. Please stand up for
[2:12] the Pledge of Allegiance.
[2:16] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[2:18] United States of America,
[2:20] and to the republic for which it stands,
[2:23] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[2:26] liberty and justice for all.
[2:28] >> Thank you.
[2:31] And uh
[2:32] we next we'll have approval of the
[2:34] minutes. Is there a any uh
[2:37] any conversation about uh correction of
[2:39] the minutes?
[2:43] If if not, do we have a motion to
[2:45] approve the minutes?
[2:46] >> I move that we approve the minutes.
[2:51] » I second.
[2:55] » Commissioner Tesch.
[2:58] >> Aye.
[2:59] >> Commissioner Leonel Tejeda.
[3:01] >> Aye.
[3:03] >> Commissioner Porta.
[3:05] >> Aye.
[3:06] >> Commissioner Jones.
[3:07] >> Aye.
[3:09] >> Motion passes.
[3:11] >> Thank you, Nancy. At this point, we'll
[3:13] move into the public comment section. Uh
[3:15] I'm going We have a few people that have
[3:16] signed up to speak, but I think first
[3:19] I'll read this uh public comment script,
[3:21] and we have uh somebody that's written
[3:23] in. We'll read that into the record, and
[3:25] then I'll give the opportunity for
[3:27] people to speak.
[3:29] >> Yeah, I would uh
[3:31] um recite the script as per our council
[3:34] and commission procedures, and then read
[3:36] the written comment into the record,
[3:38] then we would invite our public comment
[3:40] if they want to testify verbally to the
[3:42] podium.
[3:43] >> Okay.
[3:43] >> Give name and address, but uh go to the
[3:45] first written comment, and then that.
[3:47] Yep.
[3:48] >> Okay.
[3:49] uh
[3:50] the public comment segment allows
[3:51] community members to share their
[3:53] opinions, raise concerns, and provide
[3:55] information directly to the city council
[3:57] or planning commission.
[3:59] Comments should address city-related
[4:01] issues and must not pertain to items
[4:03] scheduled for public hearings
[4:05] on on the same evening of the agenda of
[4:08] the same evening's agenda. If you wish
[4:10] to speak, please complete the sign-up
[4:12] sheet, including the topic you wish to
[4:14] address. Please begin by stating your
[4:16] name and address when called to the
[4:19] podium. Speakers are allotted 5 minutes
[4:21] unless otherwise directed. Please note
[4:24] comments criticizing city programs and
[4:27] operations are permitted during this
[4:29] segment. However, criticism of
[4:31] individual city employees is not allowed
[4:34] during the public comment period.
[4:36] Concerns regarding city employees should
[4:38] be submitted in writing to the city's
[4:40] human resource manager for proper
[4:42] review. Thank you for your
[4:43] consideration. At this time, I'd like to
[4:46] read into the record
[4:48] an email that was submitted.
[4:50] And it's addressed to Mr. Ratke,
[4:52] Chairman Chairman Nobles, and the
[4:54] members of the Umatilla Planning
[4:55] Commission.
[4:58] It says, "Please accept this
[4:59] correspondence as written public comment
[5:01] regarding agenda item 7.1.
[5:05] Discussion sign code districts of
[5:07] special control section 8-2A-18.
[5:12] We respectfully request that this
[5:14] comment be included in in its entirety
[5:16] in the record for this matter.
[5:18] Sign man is not opposed to the city
[5:21] reviewing, updating, or modernizing its
[5:24] sign regulations. In fact, we have
[5:26] previously expressed our willingness to
[5:28] serve as an industry resource during
[5:31] such a review.
[5:32] Our concern is that the information
[5:34] presently provided by city staff is not
[5:37] sufficiently developed, independently
[5:39] examined, or submitted supported by
[5:41] objective data to justify affirmation
[5:45] affirmative direction from the Planning
[5:47] commission toward a specific ordinance
[5:49] change.
[5:51] The packet The agenda packet identifies
[5:53] a recently submitted sign permit
[5:56] application exceeding the existing
[5:58] height limitations.
[6:00] States that business Businesses near
[6:02] Highway 730 and Interstate 82 are
[6:05] primarily commercial and intended to
[6:08] attract regional travelers and concludes
[6:12] that expanded sign height standards
[6:14] within a newly created district of
[6:16] special control would be reasonable.
[6:19] However, that information provided does
[6:21] not appear to include an inventory of
[6:24] existing signs within the proper
[6:26] proposed district, their heights, sizes,
[6:29] or permit histories.
[6:31] An analysis of previous variances or
[6:34] approvals.
[6:36] Applicable
[6:38] information concerning visibility or
[6:41] traffic conditions, safety or sight
[6:44] distance analysis,
[6:46] comparison of alternative regulation
[6:48] approaches,
[6:49] objective justification for particular
[6:53] increased height standard,
[6:55] or a detailed explanation of how the
[6:57] proposed boundary was selected.
[7:00] The information presented therefore
[7:02] appears to consist primarily of a staff
[7:05] conclusion rather than a sufficient
[7:07] developed factual record upon which the
[7:10] commission can independently evaluate
[7:12] whether the proposed solutions are are
[7:15] appropriate.
[7:17] There is also a significant issue
[7:19] involving the application of the city's
[7:21] existing sign ordinance that we believe
[7:24] should be fully examined before the city
[7:26] proceeds toward changing the that
[7:28] ordinance.
[7:30] Based upon the information presented
[7:32] available to us, the freestanding sign
[7:36] cited by city staff as the impetus
[7:40] for agenda item 7.1 it appears to have
[7:43] been approved despite exceeding
[7:46] uh standards contained in the current
[7:49] sign ordinance without the applicant
[7:51] being required to obtain a variance.
[7:58] At the same time, a separate potential
[8:01] applicant seeking approval for a sign
[8:04] that also falls outside existing
[8:05] dimension limitations has been informed
[8:08] that a variance will be required and
[8:10] that city staff intends to recommend
[8:12] denial of that variance.
[8:14] For clarity, Signman presently has no
[8:17] contractual commitment with that
[8:19] potential applicant and we are not
[8:21] submitting these comments on that
[8:23] applicant's behalf.
[8:25] Our concern is with the consistent and
[8:28] equitable interpretation and
[8:29] administration of the city's sign
[8:31] regulations.
[8:33] If the sign that promoted
[8:37] item 7.1 was approved without requiring
[8:40] the process that city staff is now
[8:42] requiring of another applicant under the
[8:45] same existing ordinance,
[8:47] that discrepancy should be identified,
[8:49] examined, and explained before the city
[8:52] proceeds with an ordinance amendment
[8:54] affecting this area.
[8:56] The sequence of events is particularly
[8:59] important.
[9:00] We are not asking the planning
[9:02] commission tonight to determine why the
[9:04] prior approval occurred or to assign
[9:07] fault with any individual.
[9:09] We are asking the commission to
[9:10] establish the facts before directing the
[9:13] staff toward a legislative solution.
[9:16] A code amendment should result from a
[9:18] neutral and comprehensive planning
[9:20] analysis of what standards best serve
[9:22] the city as a whole.
[9:24] It should not function or appear to
[9:26] function as a means of retroactive
[9:29] retroactively accommodating a prior
[9:31] administrative decision while existing
[9:34] ordinances is sub is simultaneously
[9:37] being applied more restrictively to
[9:40] another applicant.
[9:42] We also believe section 8-2A-18
[9:45] itself deserves more thorough
[9:48] examination before the commission
[9:49] provides direction.
[9:51] The city should establish how the
[9:53] proposed direction of special control
[9:56] fits with the existing ordinance,
[9:59] whether the proposed mechanism is
[10:02] appropriate for the circumstances being
[10:04] considered, and whether a targeted
[10:06] special district is preferred to a
[10:07] broader or more complex more
[10:09] comprehensive review of the city's sign
[10:11] regulations.
[10:13] Accordingly, we respect we respectfully
[10:16] request that the planning commission
[10:18] treat tonight's decision as preliminary
[10:21] and refrain from providing affirmation
[10:23] decisions, recommendations, or consensus
[10:26] towards a specific ordinance until a
[10:29] more complete factual record has been
[10:31] developed and made available for public
[10:34] review.
[10:35] At a minimum, we believe
[10:37] that the record should include
[10:39] an inventory of existing freestanding
[10:41] signs within the proposed district,
[10:43] including approximate heights, sign
[10:46] areas, dates of installation, permit
[10:48] histories, and any variance or other
[10:51] special approvals associated with them.
[10:54] An explanation of the permitting and
[10:56] approval basis for the sign cited by
[10:59] staff as an impetus for agenda item 7.1,
[11:03] including how to approve how how that
[11:06] approval complied with the ordinance
[11:10] is is in effect at that time.
[11:13] The analysis of how the proposed
[11:14] district of special control fits within
[11:17] the satisf- within and satisfies the
[11:19] requirements of the intent of sections
[11:23] 8-2A-18.
[11:25] And number four, objectively and inform
[11:29] informa- objective information
[11:30] supporting whatever heights, area,
[11:33] location, and design standards staff may
[11:36] ultimately recommend.
[11:39] Number five, an explanation of the basis
[11:42] for the proposed district boundary and
[11:44] why similarly situated properties are
[11:47] included or excluded.
[11:49] Number six, consideration of alternative
[11:52] approaches, including whether a
[11:54] comprehensive review of the city's sign
[11:56] regulations would produce more
[11:58] consistent standards
[12:00] than created the creation of a narrowly
[12:03] defined special district. Number seven,
[12:06] an explanation of how existing sign
[12:08] regulations will be interpreted and
[12:10] administered consistently among
[12:13] applicants while any legislative is
[12:16] being considered.
[12:18] We believe the planning commission and
[12:19] interested parties, members of the
[12:21] public,
[12:23] should have an opportunity to review a
[12:25] complete factual record before the
[12:27] commission is asked to recommend or
[12:29] advance a particular particular
[12:31] legislative solution.
[12:34] Again, Sign Man is not opposed to
[12:36] modifying modification of the city's
[12:39] sign code.
[12:40] There may be a legitimate and compelling
[12:42] reason to revise portions of that
[12:44] ordinance.
[12:45] Our request is simply
[12:47] that any such change be developed
[12:49] through an open, objective, fact-based
[12:52] process supported by meaningful evidence
[12:56] applied consistently and informed by
[12:58] appropriate industry and public inputs.
[13:02] We therefore respectfully ask the
[13:03] planning commission not to prejudge
[13:06] the
[13:07] application the appropriate solution
[13:10] based upon the limited information
[13:12] currently before it and not to provide
[13:15] affirmation directions toward a specific
[13:17] ordinance until these issues have been
[13:19] adequately examined.
[13:21] Thank you for your consideration.
[13:28] At this time, uh
[13:30] do we want to start with the list?
[13:31] Dancy, do you have a sign-up list? Thank
[13:33] you.
[13:45] Okay, thank you.
[13:48] Okay, we have uh two people signed up
[13:51] for the list. Uh first would be Chad. Do
[13:53] you want to
[13:55] Please state your name and address.
[13:59] » Chad Milberger, uh 13
[14:02] Can you hear me now? Okay.
[14:04] Uh Chad Milberger, 1310 Southwest 3rd
[14:07] Place, Pendleton, Oregon.
[14:09] First, I want to thank you guys for the
[14:10] opportunity to come out here and speak
[14:12] to you. Um obviously, this isn't our
[14:14] direct community, but it is really part
[14:16] of our community
[14:17] um in whole.
[14:18] And I wanted to take an opportunity to
[14:20] introduce who we are. Um we've been in
[14:22] Umatilla County as a fully licensed and
[14:25] full-service sign company since 1946.
[14:28] Um and my grandparents actually used to
[14:31] own uh a hotel right at the exit to the
[14:34] bridge here where ODOT now has their
[14:35] weigh station.
[14:37] Um so, it's kind of interesting full
[14:39] circle, but
[14:40] uh the information that was provided in
[14:43] that documentation that you just read
[14:45] out is a very formal and very
[14:47] thought-out process, and it's important
[14:49] for us to get it all out on paper so
[14:51] that it's all on record. This is kind of
[14:53] more of an informal approach to it. Um
[14:56] so, our thought on it is that something
[14:59] like this is something that takes a lot
[15:02] of really deep thinking and a lot of
[15:04] open minds to be able to come to a
[15:06] conclusion of what the best uh thought
[15:07] is. And today, I couldn't tell you what
[15:10] that is um because every municipality is
[15:13] different, and it takes so much
[15:15] dedicated time and thought to be able to
[15:16] get to what that right answer is for
[15:18] each community.
[15:19] Um the approach here today is just to
[15:22] kind of uh slow it down a little bit and
[15:25] help towards the idea of thinking
[15:27] openly. Signage is an extremely
[15:29] multifaceted industry
[15:31] um and it touches on the idea of free
[15:34] speech. So, there's a lot of motions
[15:35] that come into play um from everybody in
[15:38] the mix. And so, having something that's
[15:41] cohesive is really hard to do and that
[15:43] comes down to the table. Um and so, uh I
[15:47] think with this uh opportunity here, um
[15:51] there's really an opportunity to maybe
[15:52] look at developing the entire um sign
[15:55] code so that it matches the needs of the
[15:57] community in whole.
[15:58] And there's a really good uh resource
[16:00] that I'd like to pitch out there um for
[16:03] the city to lean on that has no cost to
[16:05] it at all that actually represents all
[16:07] of the sign companies um of the region
[16:09] and actually the nation. It's called the
[16:11] International Sign Association. And they
[16:14] have an entire department that's set
[16:17] towards the idea of helping communities
[16:18] develop the sign codes that match the
[16:20] needs of the areas that they're in. Um
[16:22] we've worked with them in the city of
[16:23] Pendleton and they helped to develop
[16:25] some of the sign code that just recently
[16:27] went through there.
[16:28] Um and I think it's a really good
[16:29] opportunity to utilize resources that
[16:31] have a lot of data about every type of
[16:33] sign that ever existed
[16:35] um to develop your sign code into what
[16:37] it needs to be.
[16:38] Um with that, I I just wanted to
[16:42] introduce who we are um and say thank
[16:44] you for the opportunity to
[16:46] uh be a part of this.
[16:49] >> Thank you, Chad. Appreciate that.
[16:51] Ed, would you like to make a comment?
[16:53] Please state your name and your address.
[16:58] » I'm Edward Melton. Edward Meltonberger,
[17:01] 803 Southwest Court, Pendleton, Oregon.
[17:04] And actually, we we had a small motel
[17:07] here for since the dam was built. But uh
[17:11] so, we have some history here. Uh I
[17:13] remember when there was a museum where
[17:15] the big truck stop is now. So, it's
[17:17] Yeah, it goes back quite a ways.
[17:19] Uh
[17:20] myself uh
[17:22] I bought the sign company at the estate
[17:25] and uh I decided to keep it running
[17:27] because I thought it was a it was a
[17:29] talent that I knew how to do.
[17:31] And uh give you a little history, my dad
[17:33] was a neon glass bender and I am a neon
[17:36] glass bender also.
[17:38] But uh to carry on a tradition of
[17:40] signage, to see things develop
[17:42] throughout the '60s, we all work very
[17:44] close together. They see how
[17:47] the mechanics of sign control became
[17:49] something of an important thing because
[17:52] small representation brings customers in
[17:54] our door.
[17:56] And that's what we need.
[17:58] Um this is a very fast street out here.
[18:00] Uh you have exactly about 8 seconds to
[18:03] 15 seconds to read it. National uh regs
[18:07] on that are like uh for a big sign
[18:12] or a small sign, you have
[18:15] Valentine's Day, Veterans Day,
[18:17] congratulations.
[18:19] Uh 6-in letter reads for about 250 ft,
[18:22] an 8-in letter reads for 460 ft.
[18:26] And these types of things are what
[18:28] actually make a progressive
[18:30] uh business areas. And that's what uh
[18:33] the International Sign Organization is
[18:35] all about is they can help you organize
[18:37] things throughout your traffic patterns
[18:40] that will help you regulate that.
[18:42] Now, the insistence of re-zoning
[18:44] something, I fell into this
[18:47] uh when I bought up the property from my
[18:50] folks's estate, they had an idea that
[18:52] they were going to re-zone the property.
[18:55] Well,
[18:56] we're grandfathered in, but you have to
[18:58] protect the businesses around you.
[19:01] And we're just kind of like out of the
[19:02] blue, someone says, "We're going to have
[19:04] this new district and you're going to do
[19:06] this."
[19:07] We We're what? We're restricted.
[19:10] I mean, I I could hope that the property owners
[19:14] are aware of what's going on.
[19:16] I didn't see any of any
[19:18] uh
[19:19] public information printed out in the
[19:21] newspaper or anything where they
[19:23] normally do that type of a thing.
[19:25] So, uh with that in mind, I respectfully
[19:28] say I got a little history here and
[19:31] I do like Umatilla. It's a good spot.
[19:33] Thank you.
[19:36] >> Thank you. We appreciate your comments.
[19:40] That concludes our sign-up list. Um
[19:43] Jack, do we Do we do discussion after
[19:44] the public speaking, or do we just put
[19:46] that in our discussion items? Any
[19:48] discussion?
[19:49] >> Uh not typically with a public comment,
[19:52] just with the difficult rules. You You
[19:54] solicit, you get your comments um on the
[19:56] item.
[19:57] >> Um So, at this point, we can just move
[19:59] on.
[20:00] >> on.
[20:01] >> Okay.
[20:03] Uh we do have no new business on
[20:06] the agenda.
[20:07] So, um
[20:08] uh we can move into the the uh
[20:10] commissioner information and discussion
[20:12] portion. Does the staff have something
[20:13] you'd like to address first?
[20:15] >> Uh we don't have specifically on this
[20:17] evening for the planning commission.
[20:19] We're just glad to have everyone here.
[20:20] We do have a new member, um Daniel Ochoa
[20:23] Jr., who was confirmed by city council
[20:24] last week. Unfortunately, he could not
[20:26] make the meeting, but it was a quick
[20:28] turnaround since confirmation to getting
[20:30] that there. So, he will be occupying
[20:32] position three. And um we're excited to
[20:34] have a full uh full roster on the
[20:37] planning commission moving forward.
[20:39] >> Yeah, that's great. Thank you.
[20:41] >> Yep.
[20:42] >> Um commissioners, have any uh discussion
[20:44] items you want to
[20:46] ask or review?
[20:55] Yeah, because
[20:56] Yeah, it's a
[20:58] It was just for our information, pretty
[21:00] much, and then
[21:01] we'll be able to discuss it when it's on
[21:02] the agenda for
[21:05] >> When when when we get to item 7.1, we'll
[21:08] go through the protocols of what we're
[21:10] seeking here this evening
[21:12] and future opportunities for full public
[21:14] hearing.
[21:14] >> Yeah.
[21:17] Okay. Well, if there's no further
[21:19] uh
[21:20] no further discussion items uh
[21:23] the agenda bill that you have as a PDF
[21:26] is that uh something uh
[21:29] that you I have down here agenda bill
[21:30] PDF? What am I
[21:32] Is is that
[21:33] >> So, we're moving to
[21:35] the specific discussion items now?
[21:37] >> Yeah. That's That's what we want to
[21:39] review right now.
[21:40] >> Yeah, that's next in the order if
[21:41] there's no specific just general
[21:43] discussion items from the planning
[21:45] commission.
[21:46] Then we can go into the site.
[21:47] >> Okay.
[21:51] Do we need to open that as a
[21:53] >> No, it's not a hearing. Um
[21:55] so, I will just
[21:57] do an introduction. Thank you um Mr.
[21:59] Chairman, members of the planning
[22:00] commission. Good evening. For the
[22:01] record, Zach Rackhay, community
[22:02] development director. So, the item
[22:04] brought before you this evening was for
[22:06] um discussion
[22:08] as we heard a public comment as you've
[22:10] seen in your staff report. Um we did
[22:12] have a sign approved in
[22:15] um
[22:17] sort of the highway interchange area
[22:18] that was out of compliance. And as part
[22:21] of that, we identified an opportunity
[22:23] within our code to see if planning
[22:26] commission would entertain a
[22:29] district of um
[22:31] district of special control is allowed
[22:33] within section 8 to a 18 special
[22:36] provisions of our sign code. So, the
[22:38] idea here was to seek if planning
[22:41] commission wants to entertain this at
[22:43] which point the direction from planning
[22:45] commission would be for staff to do the
[22:48] research, draft the analysis, see if an
[22:50] ordinance to allow this is feasible, and
[22:53] then the process would be to take that
[22:55] to planning commission at a public
[22:57] hearing,
[22:58] um which would have proper notice and
[22:59] advertisement.
[23:01] Um you would have a lot more information
[23:02] to disseminate at that point as well.
[23:05] Um, and then that would seek a planning
[23:07] commission recommendation of approval or
[23:09] denial to the city council. So,
[23:13] what we've seen is we've seen some of
[23:14] the background here is in this region of
[23:16] the city, there are um, you know, your
[23:19] highway travel stops, your gas stations,
[23:22] things like that. Um, we had an
[23:24] application for a sign that uh, was for
[23:27] 40 ft tall. The limitation is 20 ft. Um,
[23:30] so in order to see how we can address
[23:32] the legal non-conforming signage in that
[23:34] area or how we can even go see it what
[23:37] was that approved with the prior
[23:38] ordinance? Um,
[23:40] was that approved without a permit? And
[23:43] do that research. We want to at least
[23:44] take planning commission's temperature
[23:46] if this is an item that the planning
[23:47] commission would like to consider at
[23:49] their September meeting.
[23:50] Um, which would therefore be a public
[23:52] hearing and have
[23:54] some more of the historical
[23:55] documentation behind it, um, analysis of
[23:58] the current situation in that area as
[24:00] well. Um, this is one region of the city
[24:03] that our code would allow to
[24:06] uh, go under a district of special
[24:07] control.
[24:09] Um, however, questions at the time of on
[24:12] the sign code and just some of the other
[24:14] things can certainly be taken at that
[24:16] time, too. But
[24:17] this was one of those items where we
[24:19] wanted to just bring it to the planning
[24:20] commission. Would you want to hear it
[24:21] from staff? At which point we would uh,
[24:24] prepare full analysis and bring it at a
[24:25] later date.
[24:29] » It's it's it's quite interesting that,
[24:30] you know, in in the 6-7 years I've been
[24:33] on the planning commission, we really
[24:34] haven't had sign um, applications that
[24:37] I'm aware of. It so doesn't seem like
[24:38] something that's very common for us.
[24:41] But what what we've been hearing tonight
[24:42] is it's important to make sure that it's
[24:44] fair consistent and thought through. Um,
[24:46] so I I think we're quite a bit in the
[24:49] dark as a commission on on this and and
[24:51] hearing a report would be a very good
[24:53] thing and gathering some information
[24:55] from the public in that report would
[24:57] probably be a great idea. Is that Is
[24:58] that what you have in mind?
[24:59] >> Yeah, that's what we have in mind. So,
[25:00] typically our sign code is going to be
[25:02] administrative in nature. It is governed
[25:04] by our building regulation section of
[25:06] the city code. Um there is a variance
[25:09] opportunity for uh
[25:12] to to you know, achieve a variance to a
[25:14] sign code approval or denial. That would
[25:17] go to planning commission, but a lot of
[25:19] the activities with signage we just
[25:20] don't see come up in this regard. So,
[25:23] um and our sign code was last updated in
[25:26] the year 2002. So,
[25:29] uh
[25:29] any like anything with our our
[25:31] development or building code
[25:32] regulations, any updates of to that from
[25:34] a legislative basis would come in front
[25:36] of the planning commission. So,
[25:38] um perhaps
[25:41] it it is an opportunity to educate
[25:43] planning commission a little bit more on
[25:44] sign code. I think that's an area that
[25:46] community development uh
[25:48] certainly facilitates for the community
[25:50] um
[25:51] as we look at this specific case and
[25:53] everything as well.
[25:54] >> It's
[25:55] >> I've certainly seen this in different
[25:57] communities when I lived in
[25:58] Pennsylvania, when I lived in in
[26:00] Virginia where there's a lot of taller
[26:02] signs by the road. I don't I think it
[26:04] could be very good. You know, it's it
[26:06] could be a positive, but I know they're
[26:07] going to let people There are going to
[26:09] be people with heartburn for it. So, I
[26:11] think a report would be great. I would I
[26:13] would love to hear and even maybe what
[26:16] they said about it in 2002. What was the
[26:18] problem with any taller signs then? That
[26:21] would be wonderful.
[26:22] >> In preparing a a staff report, what is
[26:25] there a process for the public to be
[26:26] able to help get with you or do they
[26:28] just How how how How would you make it a
[26:31] open for people to contribute?
[26:33] >> Certainly [clears throat] I'm open to
[26:34] meeting with the public, whether it's
[26:36] property owners, whether it's um people
[26:38] in the signage industry uh at at any
[26:41] time with this. Um what we would look at
[26:43] is just
[26:45] probably
[26:46] Yeah, we'd be open to taking
[26:49] comment and consideration at that point
[26:50] as well.
[26:51] Um I think our our our usual intent, you
[26:54] know, um, or process is to look purely
[26:57] at the code and the applications and
[27:00] what's the scene in the in the in the community itself, whether it's a
[27:03] larger sign
[27:05] um, doing the research on how those were
[27:07] approved. Was that done through a
[27:08] conditional use review? Was that done
[27:10] through a variance process? Was that
[27:12] done prior to the sign code change? Um,
[27:16] and just kind of provide that
[27:17] information to the planning commission.
[27:19] So, I don't want to speculate on what
[27:20] would be in the report, but we can
[27:22] certainly
[27:23] prepare a well-detailed report for this.
[27:26] Um, bring it back at September as well.
[27:28] So, we just know we meet with the
[27:29] planning commission once a month.
[27:31] And, um, with uh
[27:35] this coming up fairly recently, we
[27:37] wanted at least
[27:38] seek guidance from planning commission.
[27:40] Is it something, oh, no, we don't want
[27:41] to address the sign code at all, or yes,
[27:43] please provide us more information and something to consider at the
[27:46] September meeting.
[27:48] >> Well, I I personally appreciate uh
[27:51] the it being in in here even before Chad
[27:54] and and and Edward, right? Um, pres-
[27:58] pra-
[27:59] had their comments today in the sign
[28:00] men, but um cuz just reading it, it made
[28:03] me start to think, too, about oh, yeah,
[28:05] why do we have signage or not have
[28:07] signage in certain places and just
[28:10] reading through this and again, I know
[28:11] it was just conceptual, the the drawing,
[28:13] but it made me start to go, well,
[28:15] what about other areas that potentially
[28:18] cuz again, Umatilla has changed a lot
[28:20] since 2002.
[28:22] Uh I'll say this, you know, over and
[28:24] over. We were 3,000 people for 50 years
[28:26] and we were going to be 3,000 people for
[28:28] another 50 years and in 20 years, a lot
[28:31] has changed. So, I think it would be
[28:34] beneficial to just review all of that
[28:37] cuz, um, it I couldn't help but think of
[28:40] uh I was in Utah just this last month
[28:42] and my wife and I were joking that it's
[28:44] billboard heaven and
[28:46] or hell, depending on how you look at
[28:48] it. Like there's literally billboards
[28:51] everywhere along I-80
[28:55] or I-15, excuse me. Like from you know
[28:59] from the beginning to the end in the
[29:00] middle of nowhere and I was just you
[29:03] know so just started getting me thinking
[29:04] about like what what does this variance
[29:07] then open up
[29:09] and what other areas because we do have
[29:12] you know further stretch of freeway. We
[29:14] do have 73395 interchange. You could
[29:17] start to make an argument could be
[29:20] considered. Again, I'm not saying they
[29:23] should be but I'm just saying that that
[29:25] our community has changed a lot in 20
[29:27] years and it is definitely time for us
[29:29] to maybe look at this holistically and I
[29:32] appreciate Seaman coming and pointing
[29:34] out some additional resources. There is
[29:36] some international standards that could
[29:38] make your job a lot of you not that I
[29:40] need to do it but your job a lot easier
[29:43] in terms of codifying and someone else
[29:46] has already done a lot of the research
[29:47] and pointed out what just because
[29:50] somebody wants a sign doesn't mean that
[29:52] that's now how big the sign really needs
[29:54] to be to meet the goals that they are
[29:56] anticipating. So
[29:58] anyway, I I'm excited. I appreciate you
[30:00] guys coming and I definitely would
[30:03] support
[30:04] a review of our sign code if you will
[30:09] not just of this particular area because
[30:12] I think this particular area open opens
[30:14] up a lot of other potential questions
[30:16] and and it's probably a better idea that
[30:18] we look at it holistically and its
[30:21] effects on
[30:22] you know other areas of the community.
[30:25] >> All right, thank you.
[30:27] And and just for clarity,
[30:29] when you when you prepare a report for
[30:31] us and we we do review that, it will be
[30:34] public input and they can get further
[30:37] input and there won't be a there won't
[30:39] be a meeting that will be setting code
[30:40] at. That's just started the process. We
[30:43] could take that input and continue from
[30:44] there, correct?
[30:46] >> So, if we're if we're looking at a
[30:47] review of the entire sign code, that
[30:49] might not be the September meeting,
[30:51] um just because of resources, um things
[30:54] like that we'd have to look at.
[30:56] Uh just the breadth of what that would
[30:58] be. Um if planning commission wishes to
[31:02] consider the district a special control,
[31:04] we can certainly provide the background
[31:06] specific to this
[31:07] um this case, this idea, this ordinance
[31:10] change. That would be an ordinance
[31:12] change through our legislative process,
[31:14] which means it would be a public hearing
[31:16] um with notice within our policies and
[31:20] regulations, and then it would have to
[31:22] go to city council for a public hearing
[31:23] as well, and two readings of an
[31:25] ordinance. So,
[31:27] it's not just a simple yes or no vote
[31:29] just among staff and commission.
[31:31] Um
[31:32] Should we should
[31:34] planning commission direct us to pursue
[31:35] this for consideration, not pursue it
[31:38] for approval or denial, but for
[31:39] consideration,
[31:41] then it would be noticed through our
[31:43] public hearing processes.
[31:44] >> The I get the I'm not asking the
[31:47] question clearly enough, I don't think,
[31:48] but the thing I'm trying to uh
[31:51] understand a little more is obviously
[31:53] when we bring it to a meeting, there is
[31:54] an opportunity for public input based on
[31:56] all of this that we've heard in the in
[31:58] the comments tonight, there almost seems
[31:59] to be a greater need for that to
[32:01] interface, and and like you said, you're
[32:03] welcoming that while you prepare the
[32:05] report, that might be part of it. And
[32:07] then at this meeting, uh when then we
[32:09] get the public input, and we go to to
[32:11] consider what those things are,
[32:13] this seems like it has the need to have
[32:15] more of a public interface, or I don't
[32:18] know about public, but the industry to
[32:19] help us assist us through that. And and
[32:22] uh I haven't seen us do that. You guys
[32:24] probably do that yourselves when you
[32:25] present the So, that's why I'm I'm
[32:27] trying to be a little conservative what I've said and what they're
[32:31] >> You certainly
[32:31] >> and how will we how will make that
[32:33] functional with with uh as we work
[32:35] through this.
[32:36] >> Yeah, certainly. And I mean, we spoke
[32:37] with the commenters this this evening at
[32:40] least just anecdotally that we do have
[32:42] another
[32:43] um sign discussion elsewhere in the
[32:45] community. Um so, we're trying to set up
[32:48] a time to talk about this. And certainly
[32:49] would love to have a sit-down and and
[32:51] talk about this and just overall signage
[32:53] as well as we
[32:55] It's all part of our research. So.
[32:58] >> Well, do we need a motion for to ask you
[33:00] to to do that?
[33:01] >> Not certainly need a motion, I think. If
[33:02] it's just general consensus of direction
[33:04] to pursue this, then we can prepare
[33:06] something for September.
[33:08] >> I think Jared said you're interested.
[33:10] >> Yeah, no. I would love
[33:13] to Well, if you want a motion, you don't
[33:15] need one, right? You just consensus.
[33:16] >> Not in discussion.
[33:17] >> I would worry about I again, I know that
[33:21] what you're cuz again, correct me if I'm
[33:23] wrong,
[33:24] but process-wise, this was initiated
[33:27] because we've had a request for
[33:29] potential variance.
[33:32] Correct?
[33:33] >> This was initiated
[33:35] on a mistaken approval for a sign that
[33:39] was out of compliance.
[33:40] >> So,
[33:41] a sign's already been approved that is
[33:44] out of compliance. Okay, got you. So, so
[33:47] that's that's done. That's already in
[33:49] the past. So, that's Yeah,
[33:52] I I would like the larger
[33:55] Say that again.
[33:55] >> Um is it hanging? Is it out?
[33:57] >> No.
[33:57] >> Okay.
[33:58] >> No.
[33:58] >> That was my question.
[33:59] >> But it's already been approved. So,
[34:00] whatever. It's been approved, but um
[34:02] uh I would rather, even if it takes
[34:05] longer than September,
[34:07] I would rather us look at the whole sign
[34:09] code um and what that might mean.
[34:12] Because like I said, I think this is
[34:13] bigger than just the section of road
[34:16] right next to the freeway where this one
[34:18] particular sign can go.
[34:20] >> Um and we already have one issue with
[34:23] another sign in town and some questions
[34:26] around that signage and with our sign
[34:28] code and um and you know, I just talked
[34:32] to Nancy about another sign this
[34:34] somebody from the community asked me
[34:36] about that I didn't know about either.
[34:38] So again, I think it's just time. It's
[34:40] just time to look at it more
[34:41] holistically. Um, and that that's my
[34:45] opinion. I would provide that direction
[34:47] for you guys to
[34:48] >> Okay.
[34:49] >> to go to work and I'm not saying it
[34:51] needs to be done, you know, by
[34:52] September, but um,
[34:55] understanding that we've got a lot
[34:57] there's a lot going on in the next
[34:58] couple of months, too.
[34:59] >> Yes.
[35:00] >> So we trust you guys and you you really
[35:02] lead us and and help us as far as like,
[35:04] you know, what the best thing to do is.
[35:07] Would it be best to address this first
[35:09] and then go on to changing the code, or
[35:11] should we change the, you know, work on changing the code and then
[35:14] address this? That would probably put
[35:16] these other people off.
[35:19] » We would have to look at just the
[35:21] timing, so
[35:22] >> Right.
[35:23] >> changing the sign code is going to
[35:24] require
[35:26] >> a lot
[35:27] >> amount research, assistance, it's going
[35:29] to require public input, public open
[35:31] houses, public hearings.
[35:34] Um, that's also something that's not in
[35:35] our budget currently, either. So that
[35:38] would require direction from city
[35:40] council and leadership, and it could
[35:43] definitely be something we put into the
[35:44] budget.
[35:45] So, um,
[35:47] >> If an applicant makes
[35:49] >> the timeline with especially a
[35:51] significant sign code, and as our
[35:52] commenters this evening had had said,
[35:54] you know, it does require public input
[35:57] and outreach.
[35:58] Um, so it's not going to be something
[36:00] that we can do over the next couple of
[36:01] months.
[36:02] >> Um, it does it does appear that we would
[36:04] like you to pre- prepare that it it and
[36:06] it if an applicant makes a an
[36:09] application prior to us changing a code,
[36:11] we have to respond to it with the code
[36:13] we have, cuz we haven't changed it yet
[36:15] probably. And and but we do need to have
[36:17] make sure that we're aware we're not
[36:19] just glossing over. We need to put a
[36:20] light on it and and follow, make sure it
[36:23] follows the code based on what we've
[36:24] seen. So we can we can be a little more
[36:26] sensitive about those but while we're
[36:28] getting this but I don't think we could
[36:30] we can't put applicants off until we
[36:32] have a code change, correct?
[36:34] >> I
[36:35] wouldn't be able to answer that. That
[36:36] would be more
[36:37] >> Yeah.
[36:38] >> city attorney
[36:39] question but that certainly with our
[36:41] conversation this evening too this is
[36:43] answers that I can get for the planning
[36:45] commission.
[36:46] >> Okay. Okay, well yeah with I think the
[36:48] consensus is that we'd love to to get
[36:50] more information and and follow up with
[36:52] this.
[36:53] >> Okay. [snorts]
[36:55] Thank you.
[37:07] » Okay, I think that probably
[37:10] concludes
[37:11] the discussion item 8.1. Is there any
[37:14] other additional discussion?
[37:17] >> Uh we have no other items for the
[37:18] planning commission this evening so
[37:20] uh we will likely have we do have some
[37:23] land use actions that are currently
[37:25] under application that will be most
[37:27] likely coming to be heard
[37:29] uh at the planning commission in
[37:30] September. Our next meeting is September
[37:32] 22nd at 6:30 p.m. That's the week of
[37:35] Rock the Locks so we expect everyone to
[37:37] be in town and then
[37:39] heading over to help with the festival
[37:40] after that but we are open for business
[37:42] that week so we'll be hosting our
[37:43] September meeting on that evening.
[37:46] >> Uh should we wear our 80s glam rock uh
[37:49] outfits that week or just
[37:51] >> I think it's it's entirely up to
[37:53] everybody. It's up to you if you want to
[37:55] yeah.
[37:56] >> I think they're up to the 90s now.
[37:58] There's little less 80s going on.
[37:59] There's more 90s early 2000s so they're
[38:02] going out of style.
[38:05] » If there's no additional information we
[38:09] can we entertain a motion to adjourn?
[38:12] >> It's up to you and the planning
[38:14] commission.
[38:15] >> I motion to adjourn our meeting.
[38:19] >> I second.
[38:22] » [laughter]
[38:33] » Commissioner Tesch?
[38:35] >> I.
[38:36] >> Commissioner
[38:38] Lom Tejeda?
[38:40] >> I.
[38:41] >> Commissioner Puerta?
[38:44] >> I.
[38:45] >> And Commissioner Jones?
[38:46] >> I.
[38:47] >> Meeting has been adjourned.
[38:48] >> Okay, we are adjourned. And and and
[38:51] Chad, thank you very much for your
[38:52] taking the time to come in and share
[38:54] with us. Appreciate it.
[38:58] » I.
[38:59] I I I I.