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