[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.

Planning Commission Meeting - Aug 25 2026

Transcript