[0:00]

[0:49] Are you doing?

[0:50]

[0:52] Could for the first meeting?

[1:01] Yeah, for the first meeting I was in.

[1:03]

[1:08] Of this discussion.

[1:11] No know.

[1:12] It snuck up on me because we made a mistake.

[1:15] We should have that night just so we don't.

[1:19] So now I feel like we've created this.

[1:23] And that was not.

[1:24] On his slide.

[1:26] Table well, now we can have some lively.

[1:34]

[1:37] We had anything, really?

[1:39] That was the last.

[1:42] Dealer oh, Yeah.

[1:44] Yeah that was pretty lively.

[1:46] That was the most lively when I. So far I've been to.

[1:52] You there was one.

[1:53] There was an email just like, what, 24?

[1:55]

[2:00] Do you still want to be, chair?

[2:01] Because apparently.

[2:03] Yeah Yeah.

[2:04] I don't have a good.

[2:06] I think we can kick off.

[2:08] So we can nominate you and you'll just keep doing it.

[2:13] Give me a 50% increase.

[2:15] I'm like, I don't know.

[2:17] Yeah increase 50% on zero.

[2:20] We can do that.

[2:20] Zero we can do that.

[2:23] Get to.

[2:24]

[2:27] Yeah anybody?

[2:34] Yeah Christian and.

[2:36]

[2:39] Then? victoria?

[2:39] I'm not sure.

[2:41] Are we good, kurt?

[2:43] No one online.

[2:44] OK well, let's get underway.

[2:46]

[2:50] Hey, welcome to the March planning commission meeting.

[2:53] Thank you.

[2:55] Get oriented here in front of microphone.

[2:57] I've got a brief statement to read

[2:59] and then we'll get underway with our items on the agenda today

[3:06] is the 20th of march, 5:02 PM and at least we do have

[3:11] a few commissioners missing.

[3:14] Christian Larson, I think you saw his email and Ian Wright.

[3:19] And then maybe Vicki Reed will show up.

[3:24] Or Duane.

[3:26] Oh, Vance said he'll be on line.

[3:28] But, Kurt, nobody on line yet.

[3:30] Nobody on line yet.

[3:31] OK, I'll let if they show up.

[3:35] Yeah, we have a quorum.

[3:36] We've got five.

[3:37] So we're good.

[3:40] The planning commission is a voluntary citizen.

[3:42] Board commissions.

[3:43] Agenda items fall within two main categories

[3:45] administrative and legislative.

[3:47] And we do have a legislative item on our agenda tonight.

[3:51] The sign ordinance.

[3:53] Examples of administrative items are I'm going to skip that.

[3:57] Those are the conditional use and subdivision applications.

[3:59] That doesn't apply this evening because we're not

[4:00] going to hear any of those examples of legislative items

[4:03] or rezoning applications and changes

[4:05] to the zoning ordinances.

[4:07] The planning commission will provide a recommendation

[4:09] to city council and we have more discretion in the suggestions

[4:12] we provide to them.

[4:14] Our decisions are based upon planning staff, recommendations

[4:18] from planning staff and other agencies,

[4:20] Community Council recommendations, field

[4:22] observations and information presented

[4:24] at the public hearing, including a presentation

[4:27] by the applicant, which in this case is going to be the city

[4:30] and then testimony from the public.

[4:32] So if you're.

[4:34] Oh, and we do have another commissioner.

[4:37] Victoria Reid.

[4:38]

[4:44] So I think there's going to be a slight change on the agenda,

[4:47] because we have the election of vice chair and chair for 2024,

[4:52] and we probably should do that before we

[4:53] get underway with the.

[4:54]

[4:57] With our actual items.

[4:59] So chair and vice chair can be official.

[5:02] Right now, the chair is me, Shawn

[5:04] Lamar, and our vice chair is.

[5:07] Victoria, read the commissioners.

[5:10] We have to get a nomination from you folks.

[5:14] I don't have a campaign speech.

[5:15] I'm happy to continue on being a chair.

[5:19] And Victoria, I don't know your feelings

[5:22] or if you're content, but if someone else wants to do it,

[5:24] it's fine.

[5:25]

[5:30] Think in the same.

[5:34] OK now if you can do it together.

[5:37]

[5:40] Uh, I move that we keep the same commissioner

[5:43] and vice commissioner or vice chair and vice chair for 2024.

[5:49] Second OK.

[5:51] Motion by Nielsen.

[5:53] Second by Diane.

[5:57] For the discussion.

[5:58] Do you have a speech?

[5:59] No you are fabulous.

[6:01] Oh, OK.

[6:02] Well, Thank you.

[6:03] Let's go ahead and do a voice vote.

[6:05] All in favor say Aye or yes?

[6:07] A Yes.

[6:08] Anybody opposed?

[6:10] OK, we're on for another term.

[6:15] Thank you.

[6:18] Yeah so you don't want a speech?

[6:21] You'll probably hear enough from me later on this evening.

[6:24] So now we'll move to our first item on the agenda,

[6:28] a real first time 23 016.

[6:30] And this is continuing business, looking

[6:33] at amendments to our sign code.

[6:38] And Francis, you'll be.

[6:41] Presenting this.

[6:42] Yes to us.

[6:43] OK all right.

[6:44] So let me just do this.

[6:48] Can everybody see?

[6:50] OK, so I'm just going to get right into the meat

[6:52] of the meat of the matter.

[6:54] Um, so the first, the first part of this presentation is,

[6:58] is a response to changes that were discussed

[7:04] or potential changes that were discussed by this body

[7:06] at the last meeting.

[7:07] So I sent you a staff report last week.

[7:11] Hopefully that made sense to you,

[7:12] but I just kind of wanted to go through each of these in order

[7:18] in how they appear in the code.

[7:19] So in section 1860 820, we had language

[7:27] that said that sign alterations that are in excess

[7:30] of 25% of the total sign, sign, face

[7:32] square footage shall require conformance to this title.

[7:37] What that meant was that a nonconforming sign could expand

[7:40] up to 25% of its square footage without having

[7:43] to come into compliance based on comments

[7:47] from the planning commission.

[7:48] I we struck that out and simply said that sign alterations

[7:52] that increase signs face square footage shall require

[7:55] conformance to this title.

[7:58] Um, the next question pertained to window signs

[8:02] and there was quite a bit of conversation on window signs

[8:07] and what counted as a window sign.

[8:09] The language that we're proposing here

[8:11] and we put this in three different places,

[8:13] one in applicability, one in the definitions

[8:15] and one in the window sign language

[8:16] itself is that any sign that is hung within three

[8:20] feet of a window, any interior sign that

[8:23] is hung within three feet of a window

[8:25] is considered a window sign.

[8:27] OK this was brought up because a planning commissioner raised

[8:32] the example of a bank in Heber city

[8:35] that hung a digital display right against the window.

[8:40] And Heber city had strong feelings about digital signage

[8:43] in general.

[8:44] And so, you know, that was brought

[8:48] up as a potential loophole.

[8:49] And in fact, there's an example of this right here in Millcreek

[8:52] the emissions plus folks have hung a digital display

[8:57] inside their window.

[8:58] Currently, we really can't regulate that because

[9:00] technically it's a window sign.

[9:02] But in the future, we would be able to

[9:04] with this 3 foot minimum.

[9:07] I didn't find very many cities that had language like this,

[9:10] so I just made what I thought was a Prudential judgment

[9:14] on that question.

[9:16] With respect to pole covers, that's in 1960, 1868,

[9:20] 100 sub B were suggesting that pole covers and sign

[9:28] bases shall be constructed of brick, stone

[9:30] or architectural metal panels that extend at least

[9:32] three inches beyond the pole, and that

[9:34] fully conceals the entirety of the sign pole structure.

[9:38] One one commissioner brought up, you

[9:40] know, ambiguity in the code about what a sign

[9:43] pole cover meant and whatnot.

[9:46] We thought that might be a reasonable approach.

[9:49] Here's an example of an effective sign.

[9:51] Pole cover, of course.

[9:52] Right the brick yard sign itself wall signs.

[9:58] So a question was raised about the,

[10:03] you know, the appropriateness of our 15% or 20%

[10:08] of the wall area requirement for wall signs.

[10:11] Um, commissioners brought up rightly that there

[10:14] ought to be a maximum.

[10:16] I looked at our peer cities, mostly Sandy Murray, Cottonwood

[10:19] heights, Salt Lake City and in fact, in all cases

[10:21] and even in West valley, there is a maximum.

[10:24] It's something similar to this.

[10:25] And many cities kind base it on the zone.

[10:27] So we're proposing that there's that keep that 20% of the wall

[10:32] area up to a maximum of 200ft in a residential zone,

[10:36] 300ft in a commercial c, one zone and 600ft

[10:39] in a CMD md3 and f zone.

[10:42] And that's where you have the greatest

[10:44] kind of opportunity for a large building such as this.

[10:47] And this is the fat cats and bluffdale, right?

[10:50] And so that, that speaks to the idea

[10:53] that there ought to be kind of a maximum square footage

[10:56] threshold.

[10:56] And these thresholds aren't out of line with what

[10:59] other cities have done.

[11:01] In fact, I think that 600ft is identical to what Sandy Sandy

[11:06] recently adopted in their code.

[11:10] Um, you know, upon the, you know, at the suggestion

[11:14] of the international sign Association's Utah chapter

[11:19] and and at the suggestion of some planning commissioners,

[11:21] we adjusted the light temperature maximum.

[11:25] And then, you know, we, we talked this wasn't necessarily

[11:28] a planning commission recommendation per se,

[11:30] but this is something that I'd been

[11:31] thinking about for some time.

[11:33] And the idea of, you know, incentivizing

[11:37] the creation or the incentivizing

[11:39] of more attractive signs.

[11:41] One thing that occurred to me is the draft that you received

[11:46] did allow electronic message centers on pole

[11:48] signs in the commercial zone.

[11:50] What if we just prohibited them on pole signs

[11:52] in the commercial zones, such that if anybody wanted

[11:54] to do an electronic message center,

[11:56] they would have to replace their sign with a monument sign.

[11:59] It is a form of an incentive, potentially a

[12:02] challenging one for some folks.

[12:03] Right but it would force them to choose between keeping

[12:07] their pole sign or maybe coming up with a lower profile sign

[12:10] to enjoy the benefit of an electronic Message Center.

[12:13] I don't know how the planning commission feels about that.

[12:16] I welcome your suggestion, but as I

[12:18] was kind of going through your notes,

[12:20] that thought came to me in the last week or so.

[12:25] And then let's see, clarified proposed

[12:28] standards for window signs.

[12:29] So here's what we wrote, and this is language

[12:32] very similar to what Sandy did.

[12:33] So window signs shall not cover more than 50%

[12:36] of any single window, no more than 33%

[12:39] of an entire surface area of a group of Windows

[12:41] on each building face.

[12:42] And they we have a definition of what we mean by a single window

[12:47] and also a picture that I borrowed from Sandy

[12:50] that I'll have our code consultant adapt,

[12:52] if you like this approach.

[12:54] Essentially it says 50% of a single window

[12:56] or 33% of a group of Windows.

[12:57] And you know, acknowledging that the door is always separate.

[13:01] And then we put that language that

[13:03] said that any interior sign placed

[13:05] within three feet of a window is considered a window sign.

[13:09] Then I have I have Commissioner Lamar to Thank

[13:15] for this beautiful picture of the beautiful trailer sign we

[13:21] added to the mobile TC sign definition

[13:22] to address signs on vehicles and specifically the language

[13:26] that we added was this.

[13:30] A mobile TC sign means a sign mounted on a trailer frame

[13:33] lighted or unlighted, which is not permanently

[13:34] attached to a structure of the ground or a sign

[13:37] that is greater than 16ft in area

[13:39] and that is mounted on a vehicle.

[13:40] And that's language that chair, commissioner Lamar suggested.

[13:45] And we thought that might be reasonable.

[13:47] So those are in essence, those are, in essence,

[13:50] my changes to the sign code.

[13:52] I know this is a matter of continuing business,

[13:54] but but I also know that there are folks here who were not

[13:56] here at the last meeting is, of course, up

[13:59] to the discretion of the chair.

[14:00] But it might be good to hear from the public

[14:02] on these questions as well, if you're so inclined.

[14:06] Chair but before we move on to sign discussion,

[14:10] do you have any questions or thoughts

[14:12] respecting the changes that we proposed

[14:14] for you for the sign code?

[14:16] Commissioners questions for Francis.

[14:20] Francis on item number five.

[14:21] You talked about a maximum temperature.

[14:23] What is that?

[14:24] Maximum temperature?

[14:25] The it is 4,000 degrees Kelvin.

[14:29] OK it's a light color.

[14:32] Right?

[14:33] color.

[14:34] Temperature that's good.

[14:35] Thank you.

[14:35]

[14:39] Um, Francis, could you refresh my memory

[14:41] about what the current limits are on the M6 in terms of size?

[14:47] Um, I believe it's in the commercial zone.

[14:49] Yes can you give me just one minute?

[14:52] I can pull it up.

[14:53]

[14:56] So you see this as being more restrictive?

[14:58] Correct well.

[15:01] Yes, let me look.

[15:04]

[15:20] So what I can do is.

[15:22]

[15:25] I can pull up the staff report and then we can.

[15:28] Then I can tell you what.

[15:31] What it is in the current version of our code here.

[15:34]

[15:39] Excuse me.

[15:40]

[15:48] Oops OK.

[16:03] So bear in mind, this is a previous draft,

[16:05] but the EMC dimensions weren't changing.

[16:10]

[16:17] Just one second and excuse me for the time here.

[16:19]

[16:23] OK so.

[16:29]

[16:35] These numbers are the same.

[16:38] These percentages are the same as what is allowed

[16:41] in the current CNM zones.

[16:44] So the percentages themselves have not changed.

[16:46] What has changed is the minimum separation.

[16:49] So we now say may not be located within 150

[16:52] of a residential zone.

[16:53] And in the draft that you received on Friday,

[16:57] I'm suggesting that maybe we only make

[17:00] monument signs in the C zone eligible

[17:02] for electronic message centers.

[17:06] But the percentages themselves have not changed.

[17:09] From from the existing code.

[17:12] Does that answer your question?

[17:13] Yeah Thank you.

[17:14] OK um, just a question on the windows sign.

[17:23] Yes, doors are separate, but can doors have signs?

[17:27] Yes if it has a window in it, yes, it can.

[17:30] Then why is it separate?

[17:31] It's just counted as a separate.

[17:33] It's just counted as.

[17:34] It's just counted as a separate window.

[17:36] OK and Francis.

[17:41] I also have a.

[17:42] Clarifying question two regarding window assigns,

[17:44] I was looking at the table, the 1868 113 table.

[17:53] And it has.

[17:55] Window size 12ft per use.

[17:58] And I was wondering that illustration

[18:00] that you had borrowed from Sandy with the 50% windows.

[18:03] Is that does that go along with the 12ft?

[18:07] So they have a 12ft per the front of their building

[18:10] or per window, it's 50% and then limited to that

[18:14] or that's a good point.

[18:15] What I'll do is I'll make the I'll make this table.

[18:19] And I'm sorry I missed that, but I'll make this table align

[18:23] with the standards in this.

[18:27] This is the table in question that you're referring to.

[18:29] Right?

[18:31] and I'll make this table align with the standards stated here.

[18:36] We can do.

[18:39] A maximum of 12ft if you want, if that concerned about it.

[18:46] Or we can just do the 33% that Sandy does.

[18:49]

[18:54] Yeah I mean, when my thoughts were,

[18:57] I can bring my thoughts when we come back to our discussion.

[19:00] OK well, I mean, the other thing that I would recommend that we

[19:03] add is that this allowance only be for Windows

[19:07] on the ground floor.

[19:08] OK right.

[19:09] And so what about above?

[19:10] There would be no window signs allowed

[19:12] on upper story of a building.

[19:14] OK also with the.

[19:20] With the three foot buffer.

[19:21] So if you put a TV.

[19:23]

[19:26] A TV would be considered within three feet, would be considered

[19:29] a window sign.

[19:30] Does a window signs have a prohibition

[19:33] on being electronic?

[19:35] So let's say you put a TV.

[19:37] One foot away from your window.

[19:39] That's now considered a window sign.

[19:41] But can window signs be electronic?

[19:43] Well, technically, yes, because if you read this,

[19:47] I mean, the way our ordinance is structured, if you let me see

[19:52] if I can find it here, our table regarding electronic message

[19:57] centers tells you what sign type and electronic Message Center

[20:00] is allowed in.

[20:02] And in none of these cases is window sign

[20:05] ineligible eligible for some sort of EMD

[20:09] under the current code.

[20:10] Right we don't regulate signs on the inside

[20:14] whether they're moving images or not.

[20:16] But under this new code we would write,

[20:18] if it's within three feet of a window and it's an electronic,

[20:21] then that would be an electronic message center,

[20:23] which is not in this table.

[20:24] Right so that basically says window

[20:26] signs cannot be electronic.

[20:29] Now, I mean, what's going to happen,

[20:30] right, is some code enforcement is going to go out to someone

[20:34] and say, well, I mean, you can't have that within three feet

[20:37] of the window and then they're going

[20:38] to move it 3 feet in an inch.

[20:40] Right so, I mean, no matter what we do,

[20:43] right, someone's going to figure out some way.

[20:46] Yeah, Yeah.

[20:47] And we can probably talk about that more in our discussion.

[20:49] Because I'm just thinking of maybe

[20:50] there are some electronic like the small open signs

[20:53] that are blue and red.

[20:54] Maybe those are maybe we feel like those are OK, but large 72

[20:59] inch screen TVs are not.

[21:01] But yeah, so that's not an electronic Message Center.

[21:03] That's just a lighted sign.

[21:04] That's just lighted sign.

[21:05] OK electronic Message Center has changeable message type.

[21:08] It scrolls, it does all these things.

[21:09] Right? so that wouldn't prohibit if you

[21:11] have your little open sign.

[21:12] OK the.

[21:15]

[21:23] verify led.

[21:24]

[21:29] The other comment and we don't have to talk a lot about this,

[21:32] but I didn't see any change to the temporary sign language.

[21:36] And I just.

[21:38] I think if that language was rewritten

[21:41] to make it a little more clear.

[21:44] That was on page 19 of this report.

[21:48] And it talks about, you know, you

[21:49] get six month temporary sign plus three additional

[21:51] if it's a grand opening, all of their temporary signs

[21:56] are get six weeks.

[21:59] It felt kind of clunky trying to understand

[22:02] what the meaning was by looking at just that paragraph.

[22:06] I got a little confused.

[22:08] OK I remember that discussion.

[22:12] Remind me what code section this was.

[22:14] The page 19.

[22:16] So this is.

[22:16]

[22:21] A Scott 68.140 temporary signs and it was.

[22:26]

[22:31] I understand.

[22:33] OK Yeah.

[22:34] Um, we could do this as a bulleted list.

[22:38] I have a question on that temporary sign issue,

[22:41] too, because I've never paid attention to signs like you

[22:44] did in the last two weeks.

[22:47] What do we have?

[22:48] Something about temporary signs on roofs, because I was driving

[22:52] down 900, I don't know if it was holiday or mill creek,

[22:55] but there's an apartment complex that

[22:57] put this big, huge sign on their roof that says now renting.

[23:02] Which I take it as a temporary sign,

[23:05] but it could probably live there for a very long time.

[23:08] Yeah um, and then the other one I noticed

[23:12] is same type of thing on balconies,

[23:17] like on the corner of an apartment complex.

[23:21] Does that fall into these other rigs

[23:23] where we talk about the clearance?

[23:27] From the street or the corner.

[23:28]

[23:31] Well so a temporary sign that's hung

[23:33] from the face of the building would, you know,

[23:35] should automatically meet all the clear view considerations.

[23:39] Right because the sign wouldn't sign itself,

[23:41] wouldn't change the clear view it's affixed to a building.

[23:46] You know, technically in this code,

[23:47] there's probably nothing stopping someone from putting

[23:49] a temporary sign on a roof.

[23:52] However, we could make that Amendment right.

[23:56] You know, if you want.

[23:59] It's true.

[24:00] It's a really big sign.

[24:02] Well, Yeah.

[24:02] And once you.

[24:03] Once you spend your world thinking about science,

[24:05] you do see them everywhere.

[24:06] Right and it's annoying.

[24:07] I get it.

[24:08]

[24:11] That's all the clarification questions I have.

[24:13] Francis chair Lamar, just so you're aware,

[24:18] we're having issues with issues with the GoToMeeting.

[24:21] So commissioner Vance is on the call

[24:24] and watching the live stream.

[24:26] So our audio is on your phone.

[24:28] Correct?

[24:29] you can see us.

[24:31] Going to wave to them wherever the cameras

[24:32] don't know where it is.

[24:34] That's why I came here, because I couldn't get it to go.

[24:36] OK do you want to see if he has any questions for francis?

[24:41] I doubt that he has seen anything at this point.

[24:44] He just joined.

[24:45] Right OK.

[24:46] OK Thank you.

[24:47] You any questions for.

[24:50] Francis when you say three feet with it.

[24:57] With it from a window.

[24:58]

[25:02] You know you still put.

[25:04] You know, large 72 inch, 85 inch screen, three feet.

[25:08] Straight back from the window.

[25:10]

[25:13] That's still a sign in the window or even

[25:17] if it's on the wall back behind it.

[25:18] I guess that 3 feet means within, not in the.

[25:22]

[25:25] Anyway, you can't do much different.

[25:27] I'm not.

[25:27] I don't have any questions.

[25:29]

[25:32] Right Dave, any questions from you?

[25:36] I just want to say I looked at that language.

[25:38] And I think it's not here in.

[25:41] Table, but in the actual language in the law,

[25:45] I think I think Francis had put the sentence before, as I

[25:48] recall, was something like.

[25:50] If it's facing outward or something.

[25:52] And then the next sentence that you put in here in the table

[25:55] was about the three feet.

[25:56] Is that not correct?

[25:58] That Yes.

[25:59] So it's covered that is correct.

[26:01] Right it still has to face outward.

[26:04] So anyone anything that was facing

[26:05] outward, would you please use your mic so he can hear us?

[26:08] So anything that was facing outward out the window

[26:12] would be a problem, correct.

[26:13] As you've written it, because there's another sentence

[26:16] in the actual right.

[26:17] And if it's within three feet, we could pick a number,

[26:20] it could be four, it could be five.

[26:21] Right like I think we just pick a reasonable number that that,

[26:24] you know, notwithstanding whatever you do on the inside.

[26:28] Right it counts as a it counts as a window sign.

[26:31] Now, I mean, there are things that I

[26:33] don't necessarily think it's appropriate for us to regulate.

[26:37] For example, you know, there's an ice cream shop downtown

[26:40] that has this really pretty kind of Neon Art piece

[26:43] on the back wall.

[26:45] You can see it through the window, right?

[26:46] But it's on the back wall.

[26:48] A lot of restaurants do that.

[26:49] I don't necessarily want to regulate that.

[26:52] There's another business downtown.

[26:54] Well, it's actually a really beautiful building

[26:59] with a really beautiful digital display inside of it

[27:02] on the corner of First South and State Street.

[27:05] And it's in the lobby of the building.

[27:07] And that's and it rotates kind of images

[27:09] of national parks and whatnot.

[27:11] It's quite stunning.

[27:13] And and I don't know that it's appropriate for us

[27:15] to regulate that sort of thing either.

[27:17] So the question is the question is, where do you draw the line

[27:22] up adjacent to the window knowing that someone's going

[27:24] to walk right up to that line and put something there

[27:26] and we're not going to regulate it?

[27:28] That's that's the issue that we.

[27:30] That we have.

[27:32] I appreciate that, too.

[27:32] And I also want to make sure that we're not.

[27:34] We didn't go so restrictive.

[27:36] Or if you have a restaurant or bar.

[27:38] And you have a.

[27:40] TV that's kind of facing the people that might be sitting

[27:43] at the window, that it doesn't become

[27:44] non-compliant because they want to watch sports.

[27:46]

[27:49] Let's move to.

[27:52] I want to just cover the updated Community Council.

[27:56] Um, recommendation.

[27:58] But Francis, I think that was pertaining to district signs.

[28:01] Yes, it was.

[28:02] Do these in too.

[28:02] Yeah, and I'll cover that in my presentation as well.

[28:05] OK Do you want to continue on with the rest

[28:09] of the second part and then we'll move to community

[28:12] council, then up to you.

[28:14] However you want to do it all together.

[28:17] OK OK.

[28:22] So with respect to sign and the Billboard exchange agreement.

[28:28] So subsequent to our last meeting,

[28:30] I visited with many of you individually and, and just kind

[28:34] of got, you know, Herd Herd, whatever,

[28:38] whatever concerns or things you like, things you

[28:40] dislike about the proposal and.

[28:43]

[28:46] I have I have crafted four options

[28:48] that hopefully encapsulates all of your concerns.

[28:53] And and the truth is, from a land use perspective,

[28:55] I think any of these options are defensible.

[28:59] And again, this is just to reiterate,

[29:01] this is a difficult issue.

[29:03] A lot of heartfelt feelings about this.

[29:05] And and just a reminder, although there

[29:07] are monsters on the screen, there

[29:10] are no monsters in this room.

[29:11] And that, you know, we're all, I think, trying to do the best we

[29:15] can to make Mill Creek a better place

[29:18] and that the issues at the fore here really are, you know,

[29:22] aesthetic and deeply held.

[29:24] And I just again, want to just affirm that whatever happens

[29:28] tonight and you know, I have great respect and consideration

[29:35] for, you know, everybody's deeply

[29:38] held beliefs on this matter because, you know,

[29:39] it is what it is.

[29:42] So there were other cities that have done Billboard exchanges,

[29:47] not many, but the Kansas City Metropolitan area has

[29:52] experimented with this concept.

[29:53] It's different than mill Creek's concept.

[29:55] But I just kind of wanted to walk through both of these.

[29:58] One is Lee's Summit and Lee's Summit

[30:00] is a city of about 100,000 people in the Southeast.

[30:05] Side of the Kansas City Metropolitan area.

[30:08] And in about 2004, they enacted an ordinance

[30:12] that allowed any nonconforming Billboard

[30:15] to be converted into a digital Billboard on a face

[30:18] to face basis.

[30:19] So two faces to one face, 2 to 1, basically.

[30:23] But they also said that digital signs

[30:24] could be larger, could be 10% larger than the faces replaced.

[30:29] In the case of Lee's summit, they

[30:32] had in essence, a holding zone or a receiving

[30:34] zone for these new signs.

[30:35] And those were along certain highways.

[30:38] So they were taking nonconforming

[30:40] billboards in their city core and putting

[30:42] them along certain highways.

[30:44] They limited their exchange to nonconforming signs.

[30:47] So, in other words.

[30:49] Not any Billboard could just be eligible for some sort

[30:51] of exchange.

[30:52] It had to be non-conforming in some way.

[30:55] They didn't necessarily say which way it

[30:57] was non-conforming, but they said

[30:58] they made an important kind of policy decision about that.

[31:02] And the reason why I bring this up is, you know,

[31:05] a number of you have brought up the question about what

[31:07] billboards should we consider in some sort of or should

[31:09] the city council consider in some sort of sign exchange?

[31:13] And for what it's worth, both Lee's Summit and Kansas City

[31:16] came up with this concept that really,

[31:18] if we're going to bear the burden of digital signage,

[31:22] you know, the signs that are nonconforming

[31:24] or the signs that are larger ought to be the ones

[31:27] that are thrown into the mix.

[31:29] Lee's Summit reduced their number of billboards

[31:31] from 12 to 6 using this method, and they moved the billboards

[31:34] away from areas that they found more offensive to areas

[31:37] that they found less so.

[31:39] And they did this over about 15 years

[31:43] in the case of Kansas city, the conversion rate

[31:46] depends upon sign size.

[31:47] So bigger signs have a lower conversion ratio

[31:51] and that's described below.

[31:53] So there's what they call a junior poster, which

[31:55] is those 72 square foot signs.

[31:57] That's the so-called fan sign up on 23rd East that

[32:01] converted it a 7 to 1 ratio.

[32:04] A poster, which is an example mean.

[32:08] This the.

[32:11] The ambulance chaser sign over just East of the East

[32:17] of the Walgreens is a poster.

[32:19] The bulletin board sign is the large one.

[32:22] An example of the bulletin board sign

[32:24] is the large one next to Burger King.

[32:27] That I think currently advertises a plumbing business.

[32:30] So the posters in the junior posters, Kansas City

[32:33] decided to exchange at a ratio of 7 to 1.

[32:36] But the bulletin boards, all things being equal,

[32:38] they felt that the larger signs had more value.

[32:41] Even on a per square footage basis.

[32:43] They recommended a 3 to 1.

[32:45] And here again, just like in Lee's summit, they, you know,

[32:50] created kind of holding zones for or receiving

[32:53] zones for these digital signs.

[32:57] So it's important to note here and I asked

[32:59] and this is another question that was brought up

[33:01] how do we come up with a rational basis

[33:04] for deciding what signs are removed and what ratio?

[33:09] This is a particularly tricky question.

[33:11] And and I brought this up to both the planning

[33:13] director of Kansas City and the planning director of Lee's

[33:15] Summit.

[33:16] And they gave me an answer that was

[33:18] both very obvious and in a way, very unsatisfying.

[33:24] And that answer it was a negotiated process

[33:28] with the sign companies because they felt that there was

[33:31] no point in having an exchange ordinance

[33:33] that no one would participate in.

[33:35] If you set the price too high at an arm's length transaction,

[33:38] no one's going to buy what you're selling

[33:40] or no one's going to, you know.

[33:43] And so in a sense, it's much like, you know,

[33:46] anything that we do at an arm's length transaction

[33:49] where neither party is under duress, you know,

[33:51] you have to find an exchange that's that both parties are

[33:55] willing to do.

[33:56] And it was through a negotiated process

[33:58] that the sign companies and Lee's Summit in Kansas city,

[34:03] respectively, came up with the numbers that they came up with.

[34:06] I know that's not like thrilling to hear, but it is informative.

[34:12] Right and I've asked, you know, Kansas City is a big city

[34:15] and I've asked their planning director.

[34:17] Right like what?

[34:18] How did you do this?

[34:19] And that was the answer they gave me.

[34:22] It's important to note that Billboard companies

[34:23] in the Kansas City and Lee's Summit situation

[34:26] were not compelled toward an exchange.

[34:27] There was no property exigency, there

[34:30] was nothing kind of forcing this, no threat

[34:33] of condemnation, nothing.

[34:35] It was truly arm's length.

[34:38] Kansas City and Lee's Summit also

[34:40] did not select the billboards eligible for exchange.

[34:42] But what they did do is they created

[34:43] categories of signs that were eligible for exchange.

[34:46] In other words, the signs that were non-conforming.

[34:48] In addition, I believe.

[34:51] I believe Lee's Summit actually added language that

[34:54] said that any sign that was within 500 feet

[34:56] of their municipal boundary.

[34:57] Right could be eligible for an exchange.

[35:00] Because I think in that case, they were saying, well,

[35:02] we're moving the sign.

[35:03] We're moving this old sign away from,

[35:05] you know, an arterial road on our municipal boundary

[35:08] toward a highway.

[35:09] And that was a policy decision that they made.

[35:11]

[35:14] so there are some differences between Missouri and Mill

[35:16] Creek.

[35:19] unlike the Missouri examples, Mill Creek

[35:20] would own the resulting sign and we

[35:22] would limit the advertising sign advertising time on the sign.

[35:24] And I think that means something with respect to the ratio.

[35:27] And it also means something with respect

[35:29] to how that sign is controlled and managed.

[35:31] The Missouri examples created a permanent vesting

[35:34] for the resulting signs and Mill creeks proposal.

[35:37] At least the previous proposal was for a 40 year lease.

[35:41] I don't know.

[35:41] 40 years is a long time.

[35:42] But you know, in terms of rights and vested rights, right.

[35:46] 40 years is a lot less than forever.

[35:49] And that's the situation that we deal with existing billboards.

[35:54] Mill creeks are digital district sign out here

[35:57] is smaller and shorter than the Missouri

[35:59] digital billboards, right.

[36:01] Mill Creek also has more control theoretically,

[36:03] over the design and operation of the sign due to ownership.

[36:06] So that is to say that that's the council

[36:08] could negotiate that, right?

[36:09] We could negotiate time.

[36:11] We could negotiate when the sign is on or when the sign is off.

[36:14] We could negotiate the range of the aspect,

[36:18] the view of that sign are the louvers set at 38 degrees

[36:22] or 35 or 32 or whatever.

[36:25] We we could negotiate the illuminance again, you know,

[36:28] in I ownership of the sign really

[36:32] helps the city control how that sign is used in the long term.

[36:37] Also, I noted that I've done a lot of reading on state law

[36:41] and state statute right now makes

[36:43] for makes a Missouri style conversion

[36:45] scheme kind of unworkable.

[36:47] And here's why.

[36:49] For for cities that have a lot of billboards,

[36:52] it's important to note two things.

[36:54] One, a Billboard company can relocate that Billboard

[36:58] within a mile of the existing sign in any

[37:00] commercial or industrial zone.

[37:04] Up to a certain height.

[37:06] And if we were to.

[37:10] Deny them that permit.

[37:12] We would trigger an eminent domain process.

[37:14] OK so if a Billboard and this happened in South Salt Lake.

[37:20] Right if and South Salt Lake has had a digital sign

[37:24] prohibition at the time.

[37:28] So what happened was a Billboard a Billboard company said,

[37:30] I'm going to move this Billboard from this location

[37:32] to the highway.

[37:34] And then they came in later for a service upgrade

[37:37] to put a digital sign on that Billboard.

[37:40] And they did This following two provisions in state law.

[37:43] One is in the land use development management act,

[37:45] but the other is in the Utah outdoor advertising act, which

[37:48] says that, you know, notwithstanding any city

[37:51] ordinances, signs that face highways

[37:53] can have a changeable message face

[37:57] with a minimum of 8 seconds.

[37:59] So is our GoToMeeting back on OK.

[38:03] Commissioner Vance, if you could hear our GoToMeeting

[38:05] is back on.

[38:07] Um, so that is to say that, you know,

[38:11] basically Billboard companies, if they

[38:12] have a Billboard within a mile of a highway, right?

[38:15] And there's the zoning in most of these cities,

[38:18] it can move a sign to that corridor

[38:21] and then digitize it subject to state, state rule.

[38:24] So we don't.

[38:25] Mill Creek lacks the ability to create a highway based holding,

[38:30] receiving zone like Missouri allowed their cities to do

[38:35] right through their state law.

[38:36] So that leaves us with some other exchange agreement

[38:42] if the city council wants to do it.

[38:45] So when we talk about assessing the value of a Billboard

[38:48] in an exchange agreement, it's important to understand

[38:51] how condemnation works for billboards.

[38:53] And this was a question that was brought up by Commissioner

[38:55] Vance in the last meeting.

[38:56] In the last meeting.

[38:57] What is the value of a Billboard in terms of condemnation?

[39:00] It's expensive and it depends because very rarely

[39:04] when you condemn a billboard, you're not just

[39:06] condemning a billboard, you're condemning

[39:07] all associated rights.

[39:08] That's in state statute, too.

[39:09] So if they have a view shed or a right

[39:12] of first refusal or whatever, right on that sign,

[39:15] you're condemning that.

[39:16] You're condemning the value of a lease, whatever's remaining

[39:18] on that lease, you're condemning the cost of the business

[39:22] opportunity of that sign and its contribution

[39:25] in a rotary market area, what they call it.

[39:27] And so I've seen examples ranging from 150,000

[39:31] to more than approximately $500,000,

[39:34] depending upon what precisely is being condemned

[39:36] and for what purpose.

[39:38] The other thing is, you know, we can only condemn when we are

[39:41] planning a public improvement like a road or a park

[39:43] or whatnot or in a case where a Billboard company says that we

[39:49] are removing a Billboard or removing

[39:50] a Billboard pursuant to state law, and the city says,

[39:53] no, right, we can do that.

[39:56] Right? but we would have to pay for it.

[39:59] So our opportunities to remove billboards through condemnation

[40:03] are pretty limited.

[40:04] They're limited to really when a Billboard moves a sign

[40:07] and we choose to say no or we're building something that

[40:10] is in the way of a Billboard.

[40:13] So neither Lee's Summit nor also important to note, right?

[40:19] Neither Lee's Summit nor Kansas City used a market

[40:21] analysis to establish ratio.

[40:23] Right they looked for an optimal ratio

[40:25] that was amenable to both the city and the sign companies.

[40:28] Now, we don't know the value of each sign.

[40:31] I just don't.

[40:32] And and there's nothing I can do to tell you.

[40:34] And we can make we can make assumptions, but we don't know.

[40:37] But we can rely on visual impact.

[40:39] We can rely on height and sign area.

[40:41] We can rely on the nonconforming status of billboards

[40:44] to prioritize the removal first.

[40:46] That is to say, you know, if the city council,

[40:49] if the planning commission and the city council

[40:51] ultimately are amenable to a deal,

[40:53] we can kind of frame it in a way that maximizes

[40:57] the public benefit of this.

[40:58] And the public benefit not only includes the opportunity

[41:03] to promote messages of the city on this sign,

[41:06] but also the opportunity of removing billboards

[41:10] elsewhere in Mill Creek.

[41:12] And there is value in that, right,

[41:14] whether the trade is worth it or not

[41:16] is another question to have.

[41:18] But you know, there is value in at least considering it.

[41:24] The role of the planning commission

[41:26] and the city council.

[41:27] Is this.

[41:27] So really an allowance for additional digital district

[41:30] signs in our code?

[41:32] Right gives the city council the option to consider

[41:34] an exchange agreement.

[41:36] It creates, in essence, a receiving

[41:37] zone for Billboard rights.

[41:40] Right it's important to note that the city

[41:42] council has the authority to negotiate

[41:45] an exchange agreement.

[41:46] It's just like a development agreement.

[41:48] We can kind of say we would like the city council to consider

[41:51] a development agreement that includes x or trees here

[41:53] or whatnot.

[41:54] But note that the city council is

[41:56] the one that actually negotiates that development agreement.

[41:59] But we, the planning commission and staff

[42:01] should consider what are the impacts

[42:03] of additional district signs in their appropriate locations.

[42:06] And that question was brought up by a number of planning

[42:08] commissioners in the form of, you know,

[42:10] does a sign make does a sign make more sense on 1,300

[42:14] East than on Highland drive?

[42:16] Given proximity to given proximity to residential,

[42:22] we should also consider the opportunity

[42:24] to reduce the number in square footage

[42:25] of billboards in Millcreek.

[42:28] We could consider we could.

[42:29] We could consider safety.

[42:31] You know, we could consider the aesthetic impacts, right?

[42:35] We can also consider I think the city council would welcome

[42:39] hearing from you on what should an agreement look

[42:44] like in broad kind of categories.

[42:47] Right should we limit it to nonconforming billboards

[42:50] or does it make more sense to remove billboards immediately

[42:52] adjacent to the city center to maximize the visual benefit

[42:58] near the city center?

[42:59] I don't know.

[42:59] I don't know the answers to these questions.

[43:01] But the point is, there is precedent to consider

[43:05] these in the Kansas City area.

[43:06] And it's and it's worth asking.

[43:08] So based on the planning commissioners concerns,

[43:12] I crafted four possible options.

[43:15] Right?

[43:16] option one is to amend the site ordinance

[43:20] to allow for up to two digital district signs.

[43:22] And that's what was written here, subject to an exchange

[43:24] agreement that removes billboards

[43:26] in the Mill Creek city center.

[43:27] So this option could allow for the council

[43:31] to consider the construction of up to two

[43:33] digital district signs.

[43:34] They could do one.

[43:35] They could do none.

[43:37] One at either end of chambers avenue, subject

[43:39] to an exchange agreement.

[43:40] Billboards to be removed would be in the city center

[43:42] and have a model motion here.

[43:46] Option two would be to allow for up to two additional district

[43:48] signs subject to an exchange agreement that removes

[43:51] any nonconforming Billboard in Mill Creek

[43:53] or a Billboard that is located near a gateway.

[43:55] And I suggest some additional criteria.

[43:59] So any Billboard that's taller than 32

[44:01] in height, any Billboard that's larger than square feet

[44:04] and signs on any two decked Billboard

[44:11] or any Billboard that is within 500 feet of municipal boundary.

[44:14] So four of those five things are actually listed in our code

[44:17] as types of billboards that we don't want any more.

[44:19] Right?

[44:20] and so, you know, this body could advise the city council.

[44:24] Look, you know, it's not it's not worth it's not worth

[44:28] the effort to remove a small short sign when really our goal

[44:33] ought to be right to remove the signs

[44:36] that have the greatest impact.

[44:38] And one way to do that and maybe the best

[44:40] kind of rational policy basis to do that

[44:42] is to say, look at the signs that wouldn't be allowed today

[44:46] and remove those and find the signs

[44:49] that are most in non-compliance in some way or the other.

[44:51] What are the tallest signs?

[44:53] What are the biggest signs?

[44:55] You pick?

[44:56] I think that's entirely reasonable.

[44:58] That's option two.

[45:01] Option 3 is essentially an amalgamation of this option,

[45:04] but it would only allow for one additional district sign.

[45:07] So again, you know, I heard from planning commissioners that

[45:11] really like what's causing some heartburn is

[45:14] the idea of a digital district sign on Highland drive.

[45:17] Well, maybe the city council would

[45:19] be well advised to do one just on 1,300

[45:21] East and chambers Avenue.

[45:23] And that could also be approached with the idea of,

[45:26] well, do we want to move?

[45:27] do we want to move just the most nonconforming

[45:29] signs in the city for that one?

[45:31] Or do we want to focus the sign removal in for signs

[45:35] in the city center?

[45:37] And I've got I've got two model motions for that.

[45:40] And option four is, is no changes.

[45:43] Right if the planning commission has really strong feelings

[45:48] that the trade off of a digital of a digital signage

[45:52] is just not worth an exchange agreement at any price.

[45:56] Right then the city council should hear that too.

[45:59] And in that case, you would be making a motion.

[46:03] To change table 1861 13 the draft ordinance to state

[46:08] that only one digital district sign is allowed.

[46:10] And that's that one.

[46:11]

[46:13] So again, kind of my last couple slides here,

[46:18] and this is a repeat from the last presentation.

[46:20] But to my knowledge and I've looked all over the country,

[46:23] right, this is the only voluntary exchange

[46:26] concept where the square footage of billboards gets reduced.

[46:29] And I know that this is a policy of the city.

[46:32] I the digital signs have an impact, right?

[46:35] But I also know that this digital sign is not nearly as

[46:40] bad as some of the digital signs that we've approved

[46:43] even a few years ago, because we've controlled better

[46:46] for brightness, we've controlled better for, you know,

[46:49] where that sign, how the images of that sign is directed.

[46:52] We limit it to a certain degree of aspect from the sign.

[46:57] It is it is better designed in the sense that it has a base.

[47:03] It has, you know, materials that associate it with Mill Creek

[47:08] common.

[47:09] It also has controls in the form of public messaging

[47:13] that, you know, that allows us to communicate on the sign.

[47:17] And that has value, too.

[47:18] Right now, again, this is just a preference, right?

[47:23] I know this is not everybody's preference, but.

[47:27] I priced digital signage differently

[47:29] than I think some people do.

[47:31] People younger than me.

[47:32] Price sometimes digital signage differently than others do.

[47:36] But when I see a big tall billboard, right.

[47:40] I personally would prefer a smaller

[47:42] sign if it were digital.

[47:44] I understand that some people may not feel that way, right?

[47:50] Because I acknowledged that a set of considerations

[47:52] also kind of prompt these divergent and deeply

[47:54] held attitudes that we really can't square

[47:56] right at the end of the day.

[47:58] You know, I can come up with four options for you

[48:01] to consider or to base your motion

[48:02] or to base your recommendation on.

[48:04] But what I can't do is, is change

[48:07] anybody's mind in this room about aesthetic issues.

[48:10] Right we like some things.

[48:13] We dislike some things.

[48:14] And that's and that's hard to square.

[48:18] The other thing is and I know this issue,

[48:20] this issue comes up in the traffic in the traffic safety

[48:25] memorandum I, I put together.

[48:29] And it's important to note what I didn't say

[48:31] and what I didn't say was that there

[48:34] was not an impact on digital signage,

[48:36] that digital signage is.

[48:37] I did not say that digital signage is not distracting.

[48:40] What I did simply do was look at traffic accidents

[48:43] that happened.

[48:44] And I looked for a simple correlation,

[48:47] you know, in the sense that you can tell when the pandemic

[48:51] hit by looking at traffic data.

[48:52] Right you can make a really easy kind of assessment about that.

[48:57] And I couldn't identify a correlation

[49:00] between the presence of a digital Billboard

[49:01] and an increase in accidents.

[49:03] Now, admittedly, we have limited data for this sign.

[49:07] I did find or I did get from the traffic

[49:10] from unified police, an indication of the traffic

[49:15] accidents at 2,300 East.

[49:18] There really isn't much discussion

[49:20] on the nature of that accident, whether it's

[49:22] caused by distraction or speed or drunk driving or whatever.

[49:25] But that number 31 is in line statistically with the trend

[49:32] that we've seen for years on this road.

[49:36] And so really the question is, you know,

[49:38] the fact is we tolerate all sorts

[49:39] of distractions when we drive.

[49:41] Right you know, some people some people are, you know,

[49:46] changing dials or some people are swiping right when

[49:48] they should be turning left.

[49:50] Some people are doing all sorts of things

[49:53] that cause distraction.

[49:56] And the real question is, you know, in the midst of all that.

[50:00] Right does a digital Billboard create

[50:03] an intolerable distraction?

[50:06] And would we be talking about distraction

[50:08] if the city owned and operated all the time on that sign?

[50:12] It?

[50:13] I don't know.

[50:14] I really don't know.

[50:15] This question tends not to come up in the context of smaller,

[50:19] slightly smaller signs.

[50:20] It does come up in the context of this sign.

[50:22] And I don't know how much of that

[50:23] has to do with the nature of the exchange agreement

[50:26] the last time or the sign itself.

[50:28] I just don't know.

[50:30] But there are a lot of these signs out there.

[50:33] They're on our highways.

[50:34] And it would stand to reason that if they were deadly.

[50:41] Right we would know about it.

[50:42] We would.

[50:43] We would see we would kind of we would.

[50:46] We would be able to see that in the data.

[50:48] I can't I can't distinguish that from the noise in the data.

[50:50]

[50:53] So my professional recommendation

[50:56] can't speak to political or financial considerations.

[50:59] I think that if the city council pursues this exchange, that it

[51:02] should pursue an advantage as advantageous

[51:04] agreement as possible.

[51:05] We should ask for the most billboards as possible.

[51:09] Ownership and control matters.

[51:11] And that's why I like Mill Creek's kind

[51:12] of approach to this better than Kansas City's.

[51:15] So in exchange, where a sign company maintains

[51:17] private ownership of the resulting digital sign,

[51:19] I think which should be much higher than 3.1.

[51:21] I mean, it's interesting to think that that's where, you

[51:25] know, that's roughly where Lee's city and Kansas City

[51:27] landed on signs that are permanently vested.

[51:31] And again, there's no real perfect solution

[51:33] to reducing the number of square footage

[51:35] of billboards in Mill Creek.

[51:37] But based on my negotiating with Billboard companies,

[51:41] working with them, working against them

[51:43] in some cases over 2 decades.

[51:45] Right I think my recommendation is when we have an opportunity

[51:48] to be proactive with Billboard companies,

[51:50] we should at least try.

[51:51] Right and this is a method to actually permanently remove

[51:56] billboards which are among the most difficult vested land use

[51:59] rights that we have in the state next to railroads,

[52:02] mines and water to manage and.

[52:08] You know, some sort of exchange of owned billboards

[52:10] to lease time on a city owned sign

[52:11] is the most effective method I can think

[52:13] of to achieving a policy goal.

[52:15] So just to recap our Community Council recommendations.

[52:18]

[52:22] You know where they are.

[52:23] I'll just read you the Mount Olympus community councils.

[52:25] That's that's the additional one.

[52:27] They met in March and they made a unanimous recommendation

[52:30] to deny among the members of attendance.

[52:33] The motion was based on concerns about traffic safety

[52:36] and the aesthetics of digital signs.

[52:38] And the verbatim summary of the recommendation

[52:41] is included in the staff report, which is

[52:44] available on the Creek website.

[52:46] That's that's my presentation tonight.

[52:48] I don't know if you have any questions.

[52:50] There are a number of people in the audience that may

[52:51] want to speak to this as well.

[52:53] Of course I welcome that.

[52:54] That's at your discretion as a chair,

[52:56] but let me know if you have any questions.

[52:59] Thank you, Francis.

[53:00] Questions right now for Francis on the digital signs.

[53:02]

[53:06] I just have this is just more of my curiosity to understand

[53:11] the whole sign business.

[53:14] To what extent may a property owner

[53:16] raise a Billboard rental rate when the lease expires?

[53:20] Can they potentially just raise it to an absurd amount?

[53:24] And that would be a way to get rid of a Billboard.

[53:26]

[53:29] I don't know.

[53:31] I've only seen I've only seen one Billboard lease.

[53:33] And it's pretty difficult to do.

[53:38] I think it can be done and I think it has been done.

[53:40] And that's probably why the state

[53:43] why there's that provision.

[53:44] That's one of the reasons why there's

[53:45] that provision in state law that allows

[53:47] these billboards to move.

[53:48]

[53:50] But I mean, I could tell you the Billboard list that I

[53:52] have seen is pretty punishing.

[53:56] It's difficult to get out of.

[53:59] Yeah, I mean, because we keep wondering, like our billboards

[54:02] really going to always be the way to advertise.

[54:05] But I mean, that's not a decision for us to make.

[54:08] But I'm just saying, I mean, I saw one

[54:11] the other day that's, you know, advertising to advertise there,

[54:15] right?

[54:16] Yeah OK.

[54:22] The other question I think I can't remember,

[54:24] I didn't write it down.

[54:25] I think it was the Kansas City.

[54:27] One of them required that the billboards, the digital

[54:30] billboards be within two could not be within 250 feet

[54:34] of a residential correct zone.

[54:37] That would not be true for the ones

[54:38] that we are proposing for the comments.

[54:43] Correct so this sign, if one were to go on Highland drive,

[54:47] it would be 300 and something feet to the nearest

[54:50] residence, which is that duplex that's being built on woodland.

[54:53] OK then how about on the other side, on highland?

[54:58] Not close.

[54:59] I mean, this isn't a mixed use zone, right?

[55:03] So, I mean, there will be residences.

[55:08] Right right.

[55:08] All all around us.

[55:10] But but it's mixed use.

[55:12] It's not but it's mixed use and it's not residential.

[55:14]

[55:17] Other questions for Francis.

[55:19]

[55:21] Yeah, I have a general question on this.

[55:25] So I understand that the city is the applicant here.

[55:28] What's initiating the change?

[55:30] Like what's the motivation behind it?

[55:32] Is it income for the city?

[55:33] Is it the idea to reduce to try to reduce billboards

[55:37] within the city limits?

[55:39] And this is a method in order to do that.

[55:41] And I'm just curious on why this is coming to.

[55:45] Yeah so this is initiated by the city.

[55:49] And it's initiated for two reasons.

[55:51] I have I have a city manager and a marketing department

[55:55] and a community life team that has

[55:57] worked very hard on promoting events on Creek common.

[56:01] And they see and they hear the value.

[56:07] From people who live nearby in understanding

[56:12] what's happening on Mill Creek common.

[56:14] In other words, they like it as an effective communications

[56:16] tool and they consider it an effective communications tool.

[56:19] The city does not make any revenue off of this sign.

[56:22] But what we do get I mean, in fact, in fact, the Billboard

[56:25] company, the billboard, the Reagan,

[56:27] which participated in this digital district

[56:30] sign, paid for it.

[56:31] All right.

[56:32] We pay for the electricity, but that's it.

[56:35] They pay to they pay to erect the sign.

[56:37] They pay to manage it on our behalf.

[56:39] We control the messaging on 40% of the time on the sign.

[56:42] That's what the city gets, right?

[56:44] We don't get any residual from the advertising revenue

[56:48] that Reagan puts on the sign.

[56:49] We do we do have a 10% discount for Creek owned businesses.

[56:55] And that's why you do see some local businesses

[56:58] advertising on the sign.

[57:00] And we hear from Creek owned businesses that they

[57:08] like having that opportunity.

[57:11] So those are the city's reasons.

[57:15] Now, from my perspective as a planner,

[57:17] like I don't necessarily care about the marketing, right?

[57:20] As a planner, I'm more interested in that's

[57:25] 1 hat that I wear, right?

[57:27] I'm more interested in its impact visually

[57:30] and aesthetically.

[57:31] And and so that's why I've always recommended that.

[57:36] And I've always thought that a sign like this

[57:38] doesn't make sense absent some sort of exchange agreement.

[57:41] Right? because if we just put a sign up that's that big,

[57:44] I think we're just adding to the visual clutter,

[57:45] not taking it away.

[57:48] However, if we can come up with some sort of exchange agreement

[57:51] whereby a sign company agrees to take down signs that we find

[57:55] annoying, then maybe that sign has

[57:58] a little bit more value to me.

[57:59]

[58:03] Does that answer your question?

[58:04] It does.

[58:05] Yeah I appreciate that.

[58:06] And I. Yeah I think I'll for our discussion point,

[58:12] I'll have some follow UPS to that.

[58:13] But that at least just the data on why that is.

[58:16] That's that's great.

[58:17] Thank you.

[58:18]

[58:21] I just have a clarification question as well.

[58:24] Francis so we as you know, because you've sent them to us,

[58:30] received.

[58:31] You know, stuff from the community and stuff

[58:33] from the sign companies.

[58:35] And in some I don't know how much time you've

[58:37] had to look at them because you know, some we got like today

[58:42] but have you looked at there are some comments in these that

[58:48] say this is against your code and are we

[58:52] matching those up in our code?

[58:56] Like if it is going to be are we overriding your code

[59:01] or do we have to look at these few comments

[59:05] and make sure we're meeting you?

[59:07] I didn't I didn't receive that comment.

[59:09] I mean, what I can say is if you go to the state

[59:13] statute on Billboard relocation and and city's relationship

[59:18] with billboards, it it does.

[59:22] It does speak to the ways in which a city and a sign company

[59:26] can remove a Billboard.

[59:29] One of them is an exchange agreement,

[59:32] and that's way up at the top right?

[59:34] Deed gift exchange, condemnation.

[59:38] And that exchange agreement.

[59:40] We've done one already seems to be

[59:43] a plenary power of the city council

[59:47] to consider within the context of the zone.

[59:50] Right and that's why we're proposing a zone change

[59:54] to create this kind of receiving area

[59:57] for some of those sign rights.

[1:00:01] 33rd South is a road, right?

[1:00:05] But it is not a highway.

[1:00:06] It is not a grade separated interchange.

[1:00:10] And so those provisions of the Utah outdoor advertising act

[1:00:13] that apply to grade separated highways

[1:00:17] don't apply to 33rd South.

[1:00:18]

[1:00:21] It's regulated as though it were a city street

[1:00:23] as far as UDOT is concerned.

[1:00:25]

[1:00:28] Thanks, Diane.

[1:00:29] Hey, Dwayne.

[1:00:30] Do you have any questions for Francis at this point?

[1:00:33] OK all right.

[1:00:36] We see you saying shaking your head no.

[1:00:40] And you can hear us OK.

[1:00:43] Dwayne, can you hear us?

[1:00:44]

[1:00:48] OK all right.

[1:00:50] Thank you.

[1:00:50]

[1:00:53] Well, Thank you, Francis, for covering the DEIB Community

[1:00:56] Council recommendation, because there

[1:00:59] are some changes to the ordinance

[1:01:01] when we reviewed it last month.

[1:01:04] I would like to hear additional comments from.

[1:01:06] The public so we can gather all the information we need.

[1:01:09] And then we can have our discussion.

[1:01:11] So those of you that are here, I'll

[1:01:14] ask you to come up in no particular order.

[1:01:17] Give us your name and if you'd like your address

[1:01:19] and your comments about three minutes is amount of time

[1:01:22] because I do have quite a few to read.

[1:01:23] And then we can intersperse and I'll read some, hopefully.

[1:01:27] Victoria you can read some so people don't

[1:01:28] have to hear from me too long.

[1:01:30] But go.

[1:01:31] Go ahead.

[1:01:32] Thank you.

[1:01:32] I'm Angel vice 3610, Carolyn street and.

[1:01:38] I'm not going to repeat what I said last time

[1:01:39] because you heard that.

[1:01:40] So there's a couple other things that came up.

[1:01:43] One, I would assert that billboards are a dying breed.

[1:01:46] You do see this Billboard available signs all the time.

[1:01:50] And by converting them to digital billboards,

[1:01:55] we are giving Billboard companies a lifeline.

[1:01:58] We are helping them to make it into the next century.

[1:02:01] I hope we don't do that.

[1:02:04] Francis said that it is a benefit to the city center

[1:02:07] to have digital billboards.

[1:02:09] I disagree, and I think that's an assumption, not a fact.

[1:02:15] And when he talks about helping venture out,

[1:02:19] venture out doesn't make money for the city,

[1:02:21] it costs money for the city.

[1:02:22] So really, is that something we should sacrifice

[1:02:26] our aesthetics for to help that people

[1:02:28] want to come ice skate great.

[1:02:30] If they don't hear about it, it's not the end of the world.

[1:02:32] We're not making money off of that exchange.

[1:02:36] There is a fifth option.

[1:02:38] I would assert that wasn't in the five options of what

[1:02:41] you could propose tonight.

[1:02:42] The fifth option would be you've already

[1:02:44] polluted my neighborhood here.

[1:02:46] How about Olympus cove?

[1:02:49] Get the next digital one.

[1:02:50] If we have to exchange static billboards for a digital,

[1:02:54] why not up by Dan's or up by smith's?

[1:02:58] Spread the love.

[1:03:01] And then finally, I would remind you

[1:03:05] that in 2021 and now members of the community have come out,

[1:03:10] have emailed, have texted not as many tonight

[1:03:13] as there were three years ago.

[1:03:15] A lot of people are burned out, but people

[1:03:17] have made it known aesthetically,

[1:03:19] it's not what we want.

[1:03:20] I would rather stay with the status quo,

[1:03:23] and I've heard that over and over again.

[1:03:25] So I hope that y'all would consider aesthetics is,

[1:03:31] like Francis said, an important thing.

[1:03:33] And the community keeps saying it's not the aesthetic we want.

[1:03:37] Thank you.

[1:03:38]

[1:03:43] My name is Marv Paulsen.

[1:03:45] I live at 3631 South Caroline.

[1:03:48] And three years ago.

[1:03:51] No, I'm not complaining at you guys.

[1:03:54] OK this goes back to what I thought was a.

[1:04:00] Binding compromise three years ago,

[1:04:03] and I feel personally betrayed now that is brought back up

[1:04:08] and I feel that the community is being betrayed

[1:04:10] by bringing this back up.

[1:04:13] And I guess I could say that option 4 was the choice.

[1:04:19] But I have to emphasize my feeling of major betrayal

[1:04:25] by the council.

[1:04:28] And I hope you'll carry that message to them.

[1:04:32] Uh, just to comment on this little thing

[1:04:33] that was put out here on 33rd south,

[1:04:36] this electronic Billboard.

[1:04:38] I don't know who's running that thing, but in a previous life.

[1:04:41] I was in advertising and who's ever doing

[1:04:44] the graphics on that thing.

[1:04:47] I got to tell you, it's.

[1:04:49] It's uncommunicative.

[1:04:52] Thanks, guys.

[1:04:54] Thank you, Mr Paulsen.

[1:04:55]

[1:05:05] Congratulations on your re-election.

[1:05:07] I can tell you're thrilled.

[1:05:09] Thank you.

[1:05:11] Yes so just before I comment, because I've got it in writing,

[1:05:15] can I just submit for the record what I've

[1:05:19] got here after I've read it?

[1:05:20] Is that OK or is that against the rules or.

[1:05:23] No save somebody the summarizing effort.

[1:05:25] You could do that.

[1:05:26] I think I have it here if it's the one you emailed.

[1:05:29] No, I haven't emailed anything.

[1:05:31] So this is just.

[1:05:32] You can give it to us.

[1:05:33] You can shoot me an email and I'll make sure

[1:05:35] that it gets into the record or just I'm willing to just

[1:05:37] hand it over to.

[1:05:38] That works too.

[1:05:39] OK, perfect.

[1:05:40] All right.

[1:05:42] So why isn't the one sign we have already enough?

[1:05:47] In the staff report submitted for this meeting in the section

[1:05:50] titled options for an exchange agreement.

[1:05:53] Is this opening phrase after hearing from city staff

[1:05:56] and community partners about the effectiveness of city messaging

[1:06:00] on the Mill Creek common digital district sign,

[1:06:03] I want to repeat that the effectiveness of the Mill Creek

[1:06:08] common digital district sign, as in singular, as in one

[1:06:12] Billboard.

[1:06:14] So staff and others are saying the one Billboard already

[1:06:17] installed managed to draw in enough people

[1:06:19] to make all the Mill Creek common events for the last two

[1:06:22] years super successful.

[1:06:25] One is clearly enough.

[1:06:27] We don't need two more to do the job when one can do it.

[1:06:31] Signage saturation in the current

[1:06:35] sign code 19.80 2.1 85 called off

[1:06:39] premises signs and billboards.

[1:06:41] Section h describes a minimum 500 lineal feet

[1:06:45] separation requirement for billboards

[1:06:47] on the same side of the street.

[1:06:49] The trace ombres Billboard is only 314ft away

[1:06:53] from and on the same side as the proposed

[1:06:56] location on Highland drive.

[1:06:58] That violates the separation requirement.

[1:07:01] That spot is also only 69ft from a self storage ground

[1:07:05] sign directly across the street.

[1:07:08] That violates the minimum 100 foot separation requirement

[1:07:11] between a Billboard and a ground sign as described in section I.

[1:07:15] So why can this proposal go forward without conforming

[1:07:18] to those requirements?

[1:07:20] It's because it's being called a digital district

[1:07:22] sign rather than a Billboard.

[1:07:24] So poof.

[1:07:26] Separation requirement doesn't apply anymore.

[1:07:29] My guess is that we have these separation requirements

[1:07:31] because we don't want to saturate an area with too

[1:07:33] much Billboard signage.

[1:07:35] Three digital billboards all on a single city block

[1:07:38] is ridiculous, in my opinion.

[1:07:40] And exactly the density the Billboard

[1:07:42] code is designed to prevent.

[1:07:43] Except when we weirdly pretend that

[1:07:45] it doesn't apply because we're not calling it a Billboard.

[1:07:48] Calling them district signs rather than billboards

[1:07:50] is a distinction, in my opinion, without

[1:07:52] a functional difference.

[1:07:54] So what will you be doing in 40 years?

[1:07:57] Some people are claiming that the Billboard exchange is

[1:08:00] a good deal because the digital billboards will be temporary

[1:08:03] as then they would tolerate the visual blight

[1:08:05] because the digital billboards would come down after 40 years.

[1:08:09] That's misleading, and it's not based in fact.

[1:08:12] 40 years isn't temporary.

[1:08:14] It's the rest of my life.

[1:08:16] God willing, I'll maybe be dead by then.

[1:08:19] So it's know, if you think about it,

[1:08:21] if you have a five-year-old kid or a grandkid,

[1:08:23] they'll be married and they'll have their own college

[1:08:25] age kids in 40 years.

[1:08:28] So it's not a temporary thing.

[1:08:31] And secondly, I've never heard staff or the city council

[1:08:34] ever make a serious statement or commitment

[1:08:36] that the digital Billboard would be

[1:08:37] entirely removed while the board and the framework.

[1:08:41] At the end of the lease.

[1:08:42] So any consideration should presume

[1:08:45] that these digital billboards will be a permanently

[1:08:47] installed Visual blight.

[1:08:49] So lastly, I don't want to ever complain.

[1:08:51] I want to bring a solution as well what my thoughts were.

[1:08:54] So what would Kathy do?

[1:08:56] Obviously, I don't want any more digital billboards,

[1:08:58] but if I were forced to make a decision right now,

[1:09:01] if you were nailing my foot to the floor,

[1:09:03] I would pick option three.

[1:09:05] Just one digital Billboard down on 13th.

[1:09:08] Opposite harmons and would expand

[1:09:10] the exchange options to include nonconforming billboards.

[1:09:13] That aren't necessarily next to the city center.

[1:09:16] I'd be very aggressive about getting a better

[1:09:18] exchange ratio, whether that's.

[1:09:21] Square footage or the entire Billboard

[1:09:23] face like was mentioned in one of the other cities.

[1:09:26] I would make sure that the updated language is very clear.

[1:09:29] No more digital billboards in the city

[1:09:31] center so that we don't have to go through this again.

[1:09:34] Thank you.

[1:09:35] Thank you.

[1:09:36] Didn't catch your name.

[1:09:38] Thank you.

[1:09:39]

[1:09:44] Greetings My name is Jeff young.

[1:09:46] 2401 South Foothill today happens to be our sign

[1:09:52] company's 104th birthday.

[1:09:53] Can you believe that?

[1:09:55] 104 years.

[1:09:56] So my grandfather emigrated from England in 1910,

[1:09:59] started the company in Ogden, Utah.

[1:10:01] Thank you for the partnership we've

[1:10:02] enjoyed with Creek for more than a century

[1:10:06] and the Bill of theater adebise is

[1:10:10] one of our projects among many.

[1:10:12] I want to address a couple of things on premise code.

[1:10:15] First, we don't get many requests for TVs in Windows.

[1:10:18] The glare, they're not bright enough

[1:10:20] and the glare is horrible.

[1:10:21] So if you're setting a TV back three feet inside,

[1:10:24] you might be able to see a little bit at night.

[1:10:26] You can't see it during the day and it's not really practical.

[1:10:29] So I would perhaps suggest you remove that

[1:10:31] from your list of anxieties.

[1:10:34] We just don't see that working very well.

[1:10:36] We love pole covers.

[1:10:38] Great move.

[1:10:39] A lot of cities that we work with include this in their code

[1:10:42] and it makes a big difference as far as sign

[1:10:45] companies are concerned.

[1:10:46] When you ask for pole covers, we know exactly what you mean.

[1:10:49] If you're asking if you want to specify

[1:10:51] masonry or some other element, we're happy to do that too.

[1:10:54] And it makes a big difference.

[1:10:57] We're actually fine with the square footage.

[1:10:59] We appreciate you being so thoughtful and considerate

[1:11:02] of these businesses who are advertising what they do.

[1:11:06] I want to address the light temperature that Kelvin, Thanks

[1:11:10] for the adjustment to 4,000.

[1:11:11] There's a reason why these lights are 6,500 Kelvin.

[1:11:15] It's because you can see the blue on the flag.

[1:11:17] You can see the Mill Creek logo, you can see your sweater.

[1:11:20] When you go to 4000, you wash everything from yellow to blue

[1:11:24] goes away.

[1:11:25] It turns autopsy gray.

[1:11:27] It's horrible.

[1:11:28] And so in terms of color rendition,

[1:11:30] the Kelvin temperature is not something we recommend at all.

[1:11:34] I'm not sure where that came from.

[1:11:35] We're big advocates of brightness and hundreds

[1:11:39] nits is I'm sorry to say, it's a little crazy

[1:11:44] because on page 10 on e, it says illuminance level.

[1:11:47] I know you don't have that read.

[1:11:48] So it is draft.

[1:11:49] I don't know if that's new or old,

[1:11:51] but the following page on page 11,

[1:11:53] you have 0.2 candles above ambient lighting.

[1:11:57] That is what hundreds and hundreds of cities

[1:12:00] have adopted successfully.

[1:12:01] And just 0.2 candles above ambient light

[1:12:05] is hardly brighter than what you see around it.

[1:12:09] And those light levels are very, very conservative.

[1:12:14] To give you a sense, going back to 100

[1:12:15] and it's not many people have a nit gun.

[1:12:18] We own one.

[1:12:19] We never use it.

[1:12:20] It sits in a cabinet.

[1:12:21] I don't know if you've got one.

[1:12:22] Francis, do you have a net gun?

[1:12:24] No, but I have a consultant.

[1:12:25] Yeah OK.

[1:12:26] Well, someone's got one somewhere.

[1:12:27] That's the problem.

[1:12:28] The photo meter that you use is really cheap.

[1:12:31] And it's easy to use.

[1:12:32] I pointed my nit gun at my lights on my car,

[1:12:35] and it hit 10,000 and then it went off to error.

[1:12:39] Then I turned at high beams.

[1:12:40] And I couldn't even get it to register.

[1:12:41] To give you a sense how bright headlights are on cars,

[1:12:45] it's the NIT gun doesn't even work.

[1:12:49] So 100 nits is hardly bright at all.

[1:12:53] And I recommend that the city consider

[1:12:56] just deleting E and keeping f the 0.2 foot candles.

[1:13:00] So I'd mention that for you to consider in terms

[1:13:04] of electronics on pole signs, let me just mention there's

[1:13:07] a series we're advocates of having electronics on poles

[1:13:10] for a series of reasons.

[1:13:12] First off, customers want the visibility

[1:13:13] of their advertising.

[1:13:14] We understand that.

[1:13:16] When the sign goes on the ground.

[1:13:18] Vandalism sprinklers.

[1:13:20] Radiant heat from the ground.

[1:13:22] Snow from snow plows.

[1:13:25] It's the signs.

[1:13:27] Ends up looking horrible in a short amount of time.

[1:13:30] They're very hard to maintain and it just

[1:13:33] puts all sorts of complications in the way of us keeping

[1:13:36] the signs, looking well and looking good over a long period

[1:13:40] of time.

[1:13:40] So you might guess that I would say

[1:13:44] that we would love to continue to put

[1:13:46] electronics on pole signs.

[1:13:49] If I may switch over to the off premise side for a minute.

[1:13:53] And Nathan is here.

[1:13:54] Nathan is my nephew.

[1:13:55] He's fourth generation with the company.

[1:13:57] I'm third.

[1:13:58] Mr young, will you be able to summarize in about a minute?

[1:14:00] We're coming.

[1:14:01] I know I've taken way too much time and I'll stop on page 16.

[1:14:05] You have one change to the copy face in a 24 hour

[1:14:09] period on digital billboards.

[1:14:12] If I'm reading that correctly.

[1:14:14] Is that what you intend to do?

[1:14:15] Francis that's the existing.

[1:14:17] So it is existing.

[1:14:18] That's in the existing requirement.

[1:14:20] We're not making any changes to the off premise or off premise

[1:14:25] section because we have to notice that separately would

[1:14:27] have received a separate notice if we were

[1:14:29] making any substantive changes.

[1:14:30] Yeah, I have not seen 24 hour holds

[1:14:32] in all the meetings I've gone to in the decades and decades.

[1:14:36] So I wave a little red flag on K on the 24 hour period,

[1:14:40] Virginia Tech transportation established

[1:14:42] the safety threshold on distraction

[1:14:45] and drivers texting is 4.6 seconds.

[1:14:49] Looking away from the road, Virginia Tech says two seconds

[1:14:52] is the safety threshold.

[1:14:53] The federal study commissioned to investigate.

[1:14:57] I glances at signs say number one,

[1:14:59] eye glances at digital signs happened twice as often.

[1:15:02] People look at electronic signs twice as often

[1:15:05] and they glance no more than 1.3 seconds.

[1:15:08] Most of them were less than 1 second.

[1:15:10] So, yes, your attention is drawn.

[1:15:11] I know.

[1:15:12] I'm done.

[1:15:13] Yeah, we let me have if you want to have

[1:15:15] Nathan carry on from the comments and I'll finish up.

[1:15:18] Signs are not.

[1:15:20] Unsafe signs are.

[1:15:22] They're not causing traffic accidents.

[1:15:24] Thank you.

[1:15:25]

[1:15:34] Yeah good evening.

[1:15:35] Thanks for the opportunity, Francis.

[1:15:37] Very well done.

[1:15:38] Really appreciate the energy, effort

[1:15:39] you put into all of this.

[1:15:41] First and foremost, I would just say engage us, please,

[1:15:45] as a member of the community, I'm the demographic

[1:15:47] that you want in your city.

[1:15:49] Engage us.

[1:15:50] We know billboards.

[1:15:51] So please, as you go through these renditions,

[1:15:54] reach out to us.

[1:15:55] Reach out to Reagan.

[1:15:57] We're here.

[1:15:58] We're here to help.

[1:15:59] I drafted a letter today with 11 points talking predominantly

[1:16:03] about the sign code on the off premise side, the touch

[1:16:09] on four of them quickly.

[1:16:11] The first one is related to the exchange program.

[1:16:13] I look at your economics on that and understand which companies

[1:16:17] have the most to do any exchanges in your city

[1:16:20] because that's going to create a monopoly pretty quickly.

[1:16:24] And from the industry's perspective,

[1:16:26] that's not favorable.

[1:16:28] We want healthy competition because it then

[1:16:32] starts changing rates and prices,

[1:16:33] which then business owners, communities

[1:16:36] start to feel the impact of it.

[1:16:38] So that's something to consider.

[1:16:40] Jeff mentioned the other one on the sign change.

[1:16:42] I've never seen that before.

[1:16:45] I'm new to that one, so.

[1:16:48] Our we run eight slots and they change every eight seconds.

[1:16:52] That's industry standard for us.

[1:16:55] The next one is there was a provision

[1:16:57] in there that was related to.

[1:16:59]

[1:17:02] On 0 2 about providing a demo permit in order

[1:17:05] to get a new permit, and we had to provide our lease agreement.

[1:17:09] No, please, please, please, no.

[1:17:12] Because as soon as we hand over our lease

[1:17:13] agreement to the city, it becomes

[1:17:15] potentially public document.

[1:17:17] And that's our proprietary information.

[1:17:19] And we're healthy competitors in this space.

[1:17:22] And by doing that, it's harmful to our business.

[1:17:25] Other cities and municipalities.

[1:17:27] Udot does it great.

[1:17:28] There's a form that we fill out with the landowner.

[1:17:30] It gets notarized, says, hey, this is a real deal lease.

[1:17:34] And then the next was the lighting.

[1:17:38] There was a request in there for the lighting to be

[1:17:39] downward instead of upward.

[1:17:41] I think we need to talk about technology

[1:17:43] and what LEDs have done to the industry,

[1:17:45] both from the sign perspective and the Billboard side.

[1:17:48] So in summary, I would love to sit down and have more

[1:17:52] conversation to help answer any questions

[1:17:54] you would have from billboards.

[1:17:56] Valuations we are a unified industry

[1:18:00] and we love what we do because it promotes small business

[1:18:04] and that's at the core of what makes communities like Creek

[1:18:07] great.

[1:18:08] And so Thank you for your time.

[1:18:10] If you have questions, you should

[1:18:11] have my information there.

[1:18:12] Look forward to working with you.

[1:18:14] I didn't catch your name.

[1:18:16] My name is Nathan young.

[1:18:18] Thank you.

[1:18:19] Thank you, Mr young.

[1:18:20]

[1:18:23] Let's take a little break and I've

[1:18:25] got some comments to read here that have

[1:18:28] come through on email.

[1:18:31] Some of these are lengthy.

[1:18:33] And I do want to have the comments comply

[1:18:36] with our rough three minutes.

[1:18:38] So I'm condensing.

[1:18:41] Some of what the comments are.

[1:18:43] But at least you I think you have

[1:18:45] the same emails that I have.

[1:18:48] So you'll have the full comment for the record.

[1:18:52] I just finished the proposals at 23 016.

[1:18:55] I have to say, and this is also from Jake Hathaway in the Mount

[1:18:58] Airy neighborhood, I have to say I'm

[1:19:00] disappointed that we will still that we are

[1:19:02] still discussing this topic.

[1:19:03] Let me start with this calling them

[1:19:05] district Stines is disgraceful.

[1:19:07] Changing the words we use for electronic or electric

[1:19:10] seems like a deliberate way to deceive the public.

[1:19:13] Let's be honest with the citizens of Mill Creek.

[1:19:15] These are digital billboards.

[1:19:17] Well, you've proposed some innocuous changes

[1:19:19] to the sign ordinance.

[1:19:20] It is clear that the primary objective of these changes

[1:19:22] is to allow more digital signs.

[1:19:24] I don't know why we must keep telling you

[1:19:26] that the citizens of Mill Creek don't

[1:19:28] want additional billboards.

[1:19:30] We don't want the first one.

[1:19:31] We certainly don't want more.

[1:19:32] The planning commission should be helping solve real problems.

[1:19:35] The city has not trying to facilitate a wealthy sign

[1:19:37] company to have more rights against the expressed desires

[1:19:40] of its citizens.

[1:19:41] The planning commission has outlined four options.

[1:19:44] Not surprisingly, three of them increase the number

[1:19:46] of digital signs in the city.

[1:19:48] Those are wrong choices.

[1:19:49] The citizens of Creek have spoken up about this.

[1:19:52] There's got to be other options.

[1:19:54] I would rather live in, with what we have

[1:19:57] than add more digital signs.

[1:19:58] I'm guessing the city council and others

[1:20:00] are getting a lot of pressure from the sign company on this.

[1:20:03] My suggestion is rather than change our code

[1:20:05] to help the sign company, we change our codes to protect

[1:20:09] the citizens of the city.

[1:20:10] After all, this is our city, not theirs.

[1:20:13] They already have a history of legal action

[1:20:15] against cities and towns.

[1:20:16] We should protect our city from that in our own codes

[1:20:21] and ordinances and restrict digital billboards to just

[1:20:24] the one we already have.

[1:20:25]

[1:20:31] These comments are from Tom Stevens.

[1:20:36] The city's plan for two more digital billboards

[1:20:39] in the city center is troubling for a number of reasons.

[1:20:42] One, the city continues to advance a false equivalency

[1:20:45] narrative that digital and static billboards are

[1:20:49] more similar than they are different in terms

[1:20:51] of safety, risk, blight and economic value

[1:20:54] to Billboard owners.

[1:20:55] In fact, each digital Billboard has

[1:20:57] a safety risk, as evidenced by credible studies

[1:21:00] far more lucrative.

[1:21:01] Two Billboard the Billboard owner,

[1:21:03] as evidenced by the Billboard industry's own claims

[1:21:05] and represent far more blight.

[1:21:08] And due to their design, color, images, brightness

[1:21:10] and pulsating screen changes changes every 8

[1:21:13] seconds to the city appears.

[1:21:15] I'm willing to accept the evidence

[1:21:16] that digital billboards represent

[1:21:18] an unacceptable safety hazard, as evidenced by its continuing

[1:21:22] effort to gain a positive recommendation

[1:21:24] for its digital Billboard plan.

[1:21:26] This action exposures the city to future litigation arising

[1:21:31] from accidents in the immediate vicinity

[1:21:33] of its digital billboards.

[1:21:35] Three, the city asserts that exchanging static billboards

[1:21:39] for digital billboards will reduce the number

[1:21:41] of billboards in Mill Creek.

[1:21:43] This is correct, but only on the margin

[1:21:45] and at the and at a very high price.

[1:21:48] The city is proposing that for each digital Billboard

[1:21:50] face installed, three static Billboard

[1:21:52] faces will be removed.

[1:21:53] For the sake of discussion, let's say each of the existing

[1:21:56] 51 billboards in Mill Creek represent 600ft of sign face

[1:22:00] double sided, which adds up to 30,600in

[1:22:04] aggregate square footage for the entire inventory of billboards.

[1:22:07] Getting rid of three static billboards,

[1:22:09] 1,800 square feet, adding one digital billboard,

[1:22:13] 600ft for a net reduction of 1,200 square feet being

[1:22:16] on average, two of the existing 51

[1:22:19] static billboards, a 4% reduction

[1:22:21] in the current aggregate of 30,600 square foot.

[1:22:26] As at the proposed sign phase trade ratio,

[1:22:30] Creek will end up with 25 digital Billboard faces, which,

[1:22:34] as bad as that is, is an unlikely outcome

[1:22:36] as the Billboard owners will probably

[1:22:38] be interested in trading out a minority

[1:22:41] of their static billboards, keeping the balance

[1:22:42] and leaving Creek worse off.

[1:22:45] For the reasons above and the others, and that

[1:22:47] others will express a negative.

[1:22:49] Recommendation to the city council

[1:22:51] is the best course of action.

[1:22:52]

[1:23:03] And this is from Janine Terrill.

[1:23:06] Oh, no.

[1:23:06] This is from Dr. Jan Schwartz.

[1:23:08] I'll do that one first.

[1:23:09]

[1:23:12] I am a 30 plus year resident of the Salt Lake valley,

[1:23:14] and like many of you, I have lived

[1:23:16] in various parts of the Valley throughout those years.

[1:23:18] A typical week I spend time in South salt lake,

[1:23:21] Murray millcreek, Murray Murray again, guess Riverton and West

[1:23:24] Jordan as I go about accessing doctor's appointments,

[1:23:27] my home, my office, shopping and more.

[1:23:29] In fact, I drive-through Creek to get

[1:23:31] from home to work each day.

[1:23:32] I'm strongly opposed to the addition

[1:23:34] of electronic billboards in Millcreek that

[1:23:36] is being discussed tonight.

[1:23:37] Studies have shown that electronic billboards are

[1:23:40] more distracting to drivers.

[1:23:42] I've listed one such study below and tagged the source

[1:23:45] and Creek is already experiencing

[1:23:46] increased traffic and the hazards that come with it.

[1:23:49] While there may be a financial benefit to the city,

[1:23:51] the potential cost of injury to people and property

[1:23:54] cannot be overlooked.

[1:23:55] I hope that the council will reconsider the idea of adding

[1:23:58] more digital billboards.

[1:23:59] Maintaining the safety of residents

[1:24:01] should be the priority.

[1:24:02] Dr. Jean Schwartz.

[1:24:04] Then there's a couple others on this page.

[1:24:06] I understand it.

[1:24:08] This is from Brian workman.

[1:24:10] As a resident of Mill Creek for over 20 years,

[1:24:12] I oppose the addition of more digital billboards.

[1:24:15] That's one of the things that I love

[1:24:16] about the area of Mill Creek.

[1:24:18] It's quiet and there's less obnoxious advertising.

[1:24:21] There's a vote to be taken.

[1:24:22] I vote against additional billboards.

[1:24:24] Please take this into account for the record.

[1:24:26] Sincerely, Ryan workman.

[1:24:28] The last one is from Janine Terrill.

[1:24:30] I ran opposed to these in 2021.

[1:24:33] I know they installed one and are now trying to install more.

[1:24:36] I'm just trying to keep it to the one.

[1:24:38] I feel like these are a real nuisance.

[1:24:40] These electronic billboards.

[1:24:41] Billboard jail.

[1:24:42] I'm not sure I can make it to the city council meeting,

[1:24:45] but I would very much like to be included in the narrative.

[1:24:47] I have a daughter that's on the spectrum.

[1:24:49] And these kind of billboards make her seizure.

[1:24:51]

[1:24:55] Thank you, Victoria.

[1:24:56] Yeah, just check that off.

[1:24:57] Um, this comment is from Gary Blake, 1189 East iris lane.

[1:25:04] A comment on billboards.

[1:25:05] The negative effect upon traffic safety of any type of Billboard

[1:25:10] is so obvious.

[1:25:11] Any Billboard company obviously believes

[1:25:13] and intends that drivers will look at their Billboard.

[1:25:15] Otherwise the Billboard company would have nothing

[1:25:17] to sell to its customers.

[1:25:19] The Billboard company obviously knows

[1:25:21] this implicitly and will therefore

[1:25:23] make its displays attractive.

[1:25:25] Therefore, a degree of driver distraction

[1:25:27] is a natural result. Furthermore,

[1:25:29] the rapid recycling of bright colored

[1:25:31] digital Billboard messages results in even

[1:25:33] more driver distraction.

[1:25:35] Obviously we should not want to make traffic on our city roads

[1:25:38] more unsafe by increasing the distraction distraction

[1:25:41] of our drivers.

[1:25:42] Therefore, instead of wanting more billboards, especially

[1:25:45] digital ones, we obviously should

[1:25:47] want fewer rather than more.

[1:25:49]

[1:25:52] This is a.

[1:25:54] Comment from Brent crane.

[1:25:57] Ukraine apologies.

[1:26:05] I'm with border.

[1:26:06]

[1:26:11] Yeah, you did that one.

[1:26:12]

[1:26:16] It seemed like his first.

[1:26:17]

[1:26:20] No BLEEP.

[1:26:20] Here we go.

[1:26:23] Of he's opposed to.

[1:26:32] The billboards said they.

[1:26:36] Their blight to one census.

[1:26:39] And there he's being constantly barraged by.

[1:26:43] Advertising I don't want to see the boards that are hawked.

[1:26:45] Beauty makeovers and erectile dysfunction

[1:26:47] are especially offensive.

[1:26:49] One of the reasons I love traveling, especially

[1:26:51] to other countries, is their lack

[1:26:52] of billboards and other advertisements

[1:26:54] that are unwanted by the population.

[1:26:56] I see the landscape and enjoy people and sights and

[1:26:58] the natural beauty of the area.

[1:27:01] This is particularly true for the Salt Lake

[1:27:03] Valley and suburbs nestled beneath the grandeur

[1:27:05] of the Wasatch Front.

[1:27:07] I realized that the ship sailed long ago,

[1:27:08] but we must learn to live with the visual and cultural damage.

[1:27:12] However, I believe it's not too late to stop

[1:27:13] spoiling the beautiful city of Mill Creek.

[1:27:16] When I saw the current digital sign at City center,

[1:27:17] my first thought was of Las Vegas, downtown Los Angeles

[1:27:21] or times square, new York, with their garish digital signs

[1:27:24] and light shows.

[1:27:25] Please may the council be better than that.

[1:27:27] Let us turn Mill Creek into a kinder and gentler

[1:27:29] city as boulder, Colorado.

[1:27:31] Stowe, Vermont.

[1:27:32] Carmel, California.

[1:27:33] Please strive to be a city that values

[1:27:35] peace and tranquility over blatant light show advertising.

[1:27:39] At the very least, please press the pause button

[1:27:41] for a couple of years and then reevaluate the need

[1:27:44] for effects of digital signs.

[1:27:46] Once they are up, they will never come down and more

[1:27:48] will be added.

[1:27:49] I understand that digital signs are also a driver safety issue,

[1:27:52] but I'll leave that to issues, that issue

[1:27:55] to others that are more knowledgeable.

[1:27:57] And that's from Brent crane.

[1:27:59]

[1:28:04] I'll summarize because it was a long letter.

[1:28:08] This is from the president of scenic America, mark Falzone.

[1:28:14] We understand that the town of Mill Creek

[1:28:16] is currently considering a proposal that will bring added

[1:28:18] visual pollution in the form of digital billboards

[1:28:21] three within a single city block to the community.

[1:28:24] We have read through the details of the proposal,

[1:28:26] including the history that is setting the stage

[1:28:28] for this potential project.

[1:28:30] We would like to offer the Mill Creek planning

[1:28:32] commission the following scientific facts

[1:28:34] about outdoor advertising.

[1:28:36] The first point is about driver pedestrian safety,

[1:28:41] and it does go into some quite a bit of studies.

[1:28:48] But summarize.

[1:28:51] 27 studies found that average outdoor advertisings were

[1:28:54] designed specifically to grab drivers attention away

[1:28:57] from the roadway.

[1:28:59] Talks about when there's inclement weather, higher

[1:29:02] speeds, traffic changes that they

[1:29:04] are distractions and not safe.

[1:29:07] The second is environmental degradation.

[1:29:11] Billboards require large consumption

[1:29:13] materials as well as the removal of trees and vegetation.

[1:29:17] Talks about.

[1:29:18] The illuminated Billboard says it can consume over 7,000

[1:29:21] kilowatt hours annually in a single board,

[1:29:24] can consume nearly 163,000 kilowatt hours annually.

[1:29:29] For comparison, an average home in the US

[1:29:33] is 11,000 kilowatt hours.

[1:29:35] Led signs also contribute to high levels of light pollution.

[1:29:39] Fewer billboards leads to a reduction

[1:29:42] in resource consumption, waste, pollution and the energy

[1:29:45] for maintenance.

[1:29:46] The last is.

[1:29:48] Guess he's got for social economic implications.

[1:29:53] Talks about the contribute to maintenance

[1:29:55] costs, decrease property values, loss of tourism revenue.

[1:29:58]

[1:30:03] Cities may also incur costs associated

[1:30:04] with regulating the placement and maintenance of billboards.

[1:30:08] It goes on to some stuff about zoning and signing ordinances,

[1:30:11] which I don't think really speaks to what

[1:30:13] this application is about.

[1:30:15] I'll skip that part.

[1:30:16] And then.

[1:30:18] Athletics and community character.

[1:30:20] One of the most important apparent impacts

[1:30:22] that billboards have on communities

[1:30:23] is the immediate decline of the visual appeal of billboards.

[1:30:26] Often large and imposing can dominate the landscape

[1:30:28] and distract from the natural beauty of the surroundings.

[1:30:31]

[1:30:34] So he.

[1:30:40] The one.

[1:30:42] This is a different point we haven't heard.

[1:30:44] But furthermore, scenic America is strongly

[1:30:45] concerned about the ways in which the town

[1:30:47] leadership allowed for the installation of billboards

[1:30:49] in the first place.

[1:30:50] The rewriting of the sign code to remove off premise signs

[1:30:53] and to allow for district signs.

[1:30:55] And the concerning relationship between the mayor

[1:30:57] and his wife to Reagan outdoors do not reflect

[1:31:01] well on the town leadership.

[1:31:02] These are tactics that raise red flags

[1:31:04] and are more likely to be seen in communities where corruption

[1:31:07] is rampant and certainly not to be expected in a state

[1:31:10] as highly regulated as Utah.

[1:31:12] It is for these reasons that we implore the planning commission

[1:31:14] to carefully consider the implications that

[1:31:17] added outdoor advertising will have

[1:31:18] on your beautiful community.

[1:31:20]

[1:31:26] We go back to.

[1:31:29] Audience you're the last one if you'd want to.

[1:31:32]

[1:31:35] Oh oh, Yeah.

[1:31:39] I didn't know I have one from Susan that just came through.

[1:31:43] I'm sorry.

[1:31:44] I'm glad you're here, too.

[1:31:45] Oh, it's OK.

[1:31:46] Yeah my name is Mitchell Weiss.

[1:31:48] I live at 3610 South Caroline Street.

[1:31:52] And I'll just read this email.

[1:31:53]

[1:31:56] As a professional advertiser and marketing director of over 30

[1:32:00] years, I can attest to the inefficacy of Billboard

[1:32:04] advertising, their limited audience targeting,

[1:32:07] lack of interaction and attribution,

[1:32:10] short exposure time are just a few

[1:32:12] of the parallel perils that have all but

[1:32:15] decimated the outdoor advertising industry.

[1:32:18] This is why the outdoor advertising industry cannot

[1:32:21] sustain itself without government partnerships

[1:32:24] and lobbying that produce ironclad 100 plus year leases,

[1:32:29] provisions and other guarantees through state legislation.

[1:32:32] Fans of the free market would certainly exclaim, let

[1:32:35] the market decide their fate.

[1:32:38] The outdoor advertising industry is

[1:32:39] desperately trying to stay relevant by moving

[1:32:42] to more digital formats.

[1:32:44] But I would assert that this strategy is merely a better

[1:32:47] profit model for them, selling multiple advertisements

[1:32:50] on a single Billboard as it does not

[1:32:53] solve the above mentioned perils of their advertising services.

[1:32:57] I have a hard time believing that any corporation

[1:33:00] would trade down assets without guaranteeing itself a windfall.

[1:33:05] Our city's motto, connected by nature, is in direct opposition

[1:33:10] to our city administration's penchant for digital billboards

[1:33:14] these past few years.

[1:33:16] When I consult organizations regarding their brand stories,

[1:33:20] I cannot stress enough that each employee of that organization

[1:33:23] has the opportunity to be a brand

[1:33:25] ambassador by exuding their brand message and essence.

[1:33:29] Doing so can create a lifestyle and an ecosystem that attracts

[1:33:33] their targeted audience, bringing them

[1:33:35] into their organization's story, creating

[1:33:38] fervent and devoted buy in.

[1:33:41] I have heard of no such buy in favor of digital billboards.

[1:33:46] Now the boring stuff safety.

[1:33:49] There are many studies showing the potential hazards

[1:33:51] of digital roadside billboards.

[1:33:53] Here's one from the National Center of transportation

[1:33:56] systems, productivity and management in 2015,

[1:34:00] showing that 23% of crashes and near crashes that occur

[1:34:04] in Metropolitan environments are attributable to eyes

[1:34:08] off the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds.

[1:34:11] Nearly 80% of the crashes and 65% of the near crashes

[1:34:16] were caused by distractions that made the driver look

[1:34:19] away for up to three seconds.

[1:34:23] Of course, there are contradictory studies.

[1:34:26] We just mentioned one by the Virginia

[1:34:28] Tech transportation institute, which was made in 2004.

[1:34:32] They found that digital billboards.

[1:34:35] Our safety neutral because they found that the typical glance

[1:34:39] in the direction of a digital Billboard

[1:34:41] was less than 1 second.

[1:34:44] If this is the case, we have come

[1:34:46] full circle to the inefficacy of outdoor digital advertising.

[1:34:52] My proposal is sorry.

[1:34:54] My proposal is that we let the static billboards stand where

[1:34:57] they are, where they have become ubiquitous,

[1:34:59] irrelevant, and invisible.

[1:35:01] Maybe this could give outdoor advertising

[1:35:04] the incentive to become connected

[1:35:05] by nature to Creek city.

[1:35:08] Thank you.

[1:35:09] Thank you.

[1:35:11] This year.

[1:35:12] I've got two more.

[1:35:14] This is from MJ Merkley.

[1:35:18] Mark Lee.

[1:35:20] I implore you to seriously reconsider the decision.

[1:35:23] Due to significant safety hazards,

[1:35:25] these billboards pose digital billboards

[1:35:27] while visually intrusive and unsightly present far more

[1:35:29] pressing concern in terms of public safety.

[1:35:32] The bright flashing lights and constantly changing messages

[1:35:34] serve as an unnecessary distraction distraction

[1:35:37] to drivers potentially leading to accidents

[1:35:39] and endangering lives on our roads.

[1:35:41] Studies have consistently shown that such distractions

[1:35:44] contribute to driver fatigue, decreased

[1:35:46] reaction times and an increased likelihood of accidents.

[1:35:50] Mill Creek prides itself on being

[1:35:52] safe and a welcoming community for all residents and visitors.

[1:35:55] Introducing more digital billboards

[1:35:57] contradicts this commitment and puts our citizens

[1:35:59] at unnecessary risk.

[1:36:01] Moreover, these billboards detract

[1:36:03] from the aesthetic appeal of our neighborhoods

[1:36:05] and commercial areas, diminishing

[1:36:07] the overall quality of life for those who call Mill Creek home.

[1:36:10] As our elected representative on the planning commission,

[1:36:13] I urge you to take Swift and decisive action

[1:36:16] to prevent the installation or expansion of digital billboards

[1:36:19] in our city.

[1:36:20] It is imperative that we prioritize

[1:36:22] the safety and well-being of our community above all else.

[1:36:25] I implore you to consider the long term ramifications

[1:36:28] of allowing such structures to proliferate, proliferate

[1:36:30] in Mill Creek and act in the best

[1:36:33] interests of those you serve.

[1:36:34] The safety of our community depends on.

[1:36:38] Your on our collective action and responsibility.

[1:36:41]

[1:36:44] Hits this one here from Chris Kaiser.

[1:36:48] OK the last one is from Chris Keyser.

[1:36:52] KSR as a Mill Creek resident and taxpayer, I am frustrated.

[1:36:57] The planning commission is yet again

[1:36:59] trying to put more digital billboards in the city center.

[1:37:03] Don't sell our city center to the sign companies

[1:37:06] on my daily commute when I stop by the red light at 33rd

[1:37:11] and see that billboard, it disappoints me

[1:37:14] in my elected officials every time,

[1:37:16] especially when there is a huge picture of the mayor's face.

[1:37:19] What a conflict of interest.

[1:37:22] I don't think I personally drive by it all the time

[1:37:24] and I've never seen his face, but.

[1:37:26] OK Thank you there.

[1:37:29] Thanks, Elise.

[1:37:30]

[1:37:32] One just came through from.

[1:37:36] I got one from scenic America.

[1:37:38] Scenic Yeah.

[1:37:40] I saw the one from scenic America.

[1:37:42] This is scenic to Utah.

[1:37:44] This is from Kate.

[1:37:48] it's scenic Utah.

[1:37:50] Yes and then the one I heard read was from the I

[1:37:54] think from the National with scenic America.

[1:37:59] Before I jump to that one, there was I

[1:38:00] want to make sure I get Susan b, Susan.

[1:38:03]

[1:38:06] Bolden.

[1:38:06] Bowe N I live in your neighbor, neighboring

[1:38:11] city of South Salt Lake.

[1:38:12] I'm writing to ask you to please vote

[1:38:13] no on those horribly distracting signs.

[1:38:17] I do a lot of my shopping near your city center,

[1:38:20] and we have a few retail spaces in my area.

[1:38:23] I am frequently at harmons, La Frontera

[1:38:26] and the brickyard shops, but I reroute or go to other places

[1:38:30] when those large too bright ever changing and therefore

[1:38:33] ever distracting signs are there blocking

[1:38:36] my view of the mountains and distracting me.

[1:38:39] If you allow these signs, I will shop elsewhere.

[1:38:41]

[1:38:45] Francis, if you've got that one from the public comment.

[1:38:49] You want to do that one?

[1:38:50] Sure if it's long, you can summarize.

[1:38:54] I'm just scrolling through it now.

[1:38:55] It looks.

[1:38:56] Yeah so scenic Utah.

[1:38:58] This is.

[1:38:58] This is from Kate kopischke from scenic Utah.

[1:39:01]

[1:39:05] scenic Utah has been following mill Creek's most

[1:39:06] recent static digital Billboard exchange proposal

[1:39:09] and responding to requests for information

[1:39:10] from residents concerned about the impacts of more digital

[1:39:13] signage in the new city center.

[1:39:15] We provided comments about the same issue in 2021,

[1:39:17] when the city first disclosed its negotiations with Reagan

[1:39:20] outdoor advertising to remove static billboards that

[1:39:23] were preventing completion of the Mill

[1:39:24] Creek common redevelopment.

[1:39:25] We opposed then and opposed now digitizing

[1:39:27] this attractive and pedestrian friendly new space, which

[1:39:30] the city promotes as a place where Mill Creek makes memories

[1:39:32] and where its showpiece event space boasts spectacular views.

[1:39:35] There's nothing memorable, visually spectacular,

[1:39:37] or even aesthetically pleasing about

[1:39:39] digital outdoor advertising.

[1:39:40] We understand the challenges cities across Utah and America

[1:39:42] face in moving long standing static billboards,

[1:39:45] Thanks to state law that gives billboards

[1:39:47] the right to maintain and remain in perpetuity.

[1:39:49] Sign owners can refuse to remove the billboards unless cities

[1:39:52] agree to spend huge sums of public money buying them out,

[1:39:55] or they agree to the kind of digital trade deals

[1:39:57] Mill Creek is now cutting with the industry.

[1:40:00] The benefits to Billboard companies of these exchanges

[1:40:02] far outweighs the benefits to cities and residents.

[1:40:05] By industry's own estimates, digital billboards

[1:40:07] allow for replacement of 12 to 16 ads on one structure,

[1:40:10] especially if they're double sided.

[1:40:12] This means reaping profits from multiple advertisers

[1:40:14] at the same time generating the same amount of revenue

[1:40:16] as at least six to eight static billboards.

[1:40:18] Industry also profits by eliminating

[1:40:20] the material costs of static, static billboards,

[1:40:22] vinyl, steel, labor.

[1:40:24] Et cetera.

[1:40:24] The revenue of these deals generate

[1:40:26] for cities pales in comparison to the money

[1:40:28] Billboard companies earn.

[1:40:29] But even in light of the extra income from Mill Creek

[1:40:31] treasury, this plan does not align from the city's stated

[1:40:34] goals to improve the safety and visual image of the community

[1:40:36] by enhancing the look and feel of major corridors

[1:40:38] and protecting our scenic viewsheds.

[1:40:40] Instead, it saddles residents and visitors

[1:40:42] with a range of negative impacts,

[1:40:43] including safety hazards.

[1:40:45] There is no opting out.

[1:40:46] One reason so many people object to billboards

[1:40:48] and what makes them such an effective medium

[1:40:49] is that you can't not look at them.

[1:40:51] Unlike smartphones, televisions or printed material,

[1:40:54] outdoor advertising is in our public realm.

[1:40:56] It's forced on views with no way to opt out.

[1:40:58] The city provided a lengthy overview of studies related

[1:41:01] to safety risks in digital billboards,

[1:41:02] a key concern of residents opposition

[1:41:04] to the digital design proposal.

[1:41:06] It concluded there is no evidence in any of these data

[1:41:08] sets to suggest a correlation between the digitization

[1:41:10] of billboards at Mill Creek's intersections

[1:41:12] or an increased number of distracted driving

[1:41:14] accidents or even accidents.

[1:41:15] Overall, however, scenic Utah researchers

[1:41:17] who have been investigating this issue for the past three years

[1:41:20] reached a different conclusion.

[1:41:22] Excuse me.

[1:41:23] For example, this map and data set crashes in proximity

[1:41:26] to digital billboards produced by scenic Utah's data manager

[1:41:29] offers as evidence correlating billboards and safety risks,

[1:41:32] digital billboards are increasingly incorporating

[1:41:34] facial recognition enabled another technology

[1:41:36] to target customers based on their location, age,

[1:41:39] gender and online interests.

[1:41:41] Raising privacy concerns.

[1:41:42] The data are captured anonymously

[1:41:44] without consumers consent and without a means of opting out

[1:41:46] of the surreptitious targeting.

[1:41:48] These and other considerations about the impacts and public

[1:41:50] sentiment regarding digital billboards in Mill Creek

[1:41:52] should give pause to the city leaders

[1:41:54] before moving forward to approve this exchange mechanism

[1:41:57] rather than acquiescing to industry's

[1:41:58] onerous and community unfriendly demands.

[1:42:00] We urge the city to consider other mechanisms

[1:42:02] for removing unwanted billboards,

[1:42:04] or at the least requiring more stringent conditions in terms

[1:42:07] for how future digital signage will be sited regulated

[1:42:10] and managed to meet the city's character and protection goals.

[1:42:12] We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective

[1:42:15] on this difficult decision and would welcome

[1:42:17] an opportunity to meet with city leaders

[1:42:18] to offer additional input.

[1:42:20] Sincerely, Kate kopischke, scenic Utah.

[1:42:23] Thank you, Francis.

[1:42:25] I haven't done that since I was debating in high school.

[1:42:28]

[1:42:32] And I think that's all the public comments.

[1:42:33] Unless I'll just check with Elise quickly

[1:42:36] to see if anything has come through in the last couple

[1:42:38] of minutes.

[1:42:39] OK, so I'll close the public comment portion

[1:42:43] for this application and bring it back to commission

[1:42:47] for discussion and.

[1:42:51] Emotion and we can think our emotions are

[1:42:53] we can do a recommendation in favor,

[1:42:56] in favor of changes, denial or even possibly continuance

[1:43:00] if we have a need to do that.

[1:43:02]

[1:43:05] Francis, do you have a slide that shows all four proposed

[1:43:07] options on the same slide?

[1:43:09] No I don't.

[1:43:13] I wish I did.

[1:43:14] I can kind of cycle through them.

[1:43:15] Right if you want.

[1:43:15] Real quick.

[1:43:16]

[1:43:22] So option one is to allow for up to two digital district signs

[1:43:28] that would emphasize removing of digital removing of existing

[1:43:31] billboards in the city center.

[1:43:33] Option two would be to digital district signs

[1:43:37] subject to an exchange agreement that removes

[1:43:40] nonconforming billboards anywhere in Mill Creek

[1:43:42] subject to these standards.

[1:43:43] These five.

[1:43:44] Option 3 is 1 sign.

[1:43:46] OK and we can treat that as either

[1:43:49] removing billboards in the city center

[1:43:51] or these nonconforming signs.

[1:43:53] And option 4 is the null option.

[1:43:55] Don't do anything.

[1:43:56] Leave it alone.

[1:43:59] That's the option.

[1:44:00] And I took some notes related to the notes

[1:44:02] that you had on the sign code that I

[1:44:05] put up here, too, because we'll need

[1:44:06] to talk about that as well.

[1:44:08] We can handle this however you want.

[1:44:10] And I think these are good options.

[1:44:12] We can use this as a jumping off point,

[1:44:13] but we could also look at a combination of these

[1:44:17] or a different option, too.

[1:44:20] But this I think from last week.

[1:44:21] I don't want to speak for you, Francis,

[1:44:22] but you're presenting this from direction

[1:44:26] from the city to look at ways to reduce digital billboards,

[1:44:30] since that was part of a policy in our general plan, right?

[1:44:34] So I think that's why these are one,

[1:44:36] two, three are looking at exchanges to reduce billboards.

[1:44:40] And Mr chair, I have one suggestion.

[1:44:44] If you put the exchange agreements out

[1:44:47] to a bid or proposals from various sign companies,

[1:44:50] if you pick one of the options that contemplate an exchange.

[1:44:54] Thank you.

[1:44:58] And before we got into the discussion,

[1:44:59] I just wanted to do just a brief,

[1:45:01] clarifying, clarifying response.

[1:45:05] Nathan and I do I read your letter and Thank you.

[1:45:09] Since we were looking at the sign

[1:45:11] regarding the outdoor advertising, the billboards.

[1:45:16] Since this sign change, the part that covers billboards

[1:45:19] is just for these district signs.

[1:45:21] The points you referenced aren't things we're

[1:45:25] looking at changing right?

[1:45:27] Right now.

[1:45:28] So Yeah.

[1:45:33] Yeah and I think, I think it was something

[1:45:34] I was talking with Jeff about is we stumbled upon all this

[1:45:39] through an employee getting on the site to apply for a permit.

[1:45:42] And so all of this is completely for us.

[1:45:46] Brand new.

[1:45:46] And so were a little bit surprised to just

[1:45:49] be finding out about this now, considering.

[1:45:53] Yeah, what we do.

[1:45:54] And so I think for that reason, if we can help on the Billboard

[1:45:57] side, on the sign side.

[1:46:00] We're all ears.

[1:46:01] We live and interact in these communities.

[1:46:05] Yeah so whatever questions you have, we're here.

[1:46:07] Yeah and I appreciate you putting that later

[1:46:09] because I just want to clarify.

[1:46:10] So we weren't ignoring the points you brought up.

[1:46:14] They're just not germane to the part of the ordinance

[1:46:18] that we're looking at.

[1:46:18] Yeah, well, because we have the digital Billboard out

[1:46:21] on the 15, if that one piece of code is,

[1:46:24] it can only change once every 24 hours.

[1:46:27] Doesn't happen.

[1:46:29] So sorry.

[1:46:30]

[1:46:34] Yeah, that's.

[1:46:35] Yeah, that's existing code.

[1:46:37] But I suggest you call me and then we can talk

[1:46:39] about your particular issue.

[1:46:40]

[1:46:52] Commissioners thoughts.

[1:46:53]

[1:46:58] And Dwayne.

[1:46:58] I don't want to ignore you.

[1:46:59] We see you on the screen so you can jump in.

[1:47:01] You're still part of this discussion.

[1:47:03]

[1:47:14] And what do we vote for?

[1:47:15]

[1:47:18] And with this, the major issues on this safety aesthetics

[1:47:23] and to me, value is what it really boils down to.

[1:47:27] Um, safety.

[1:47:28] There's, you know, arguments on both sides of this.

[1:47:30] I think that's kind of a push.

[1:47:32] Aesthetics of value to me are the two big issues.

[1:47:35] Um, aesthetically, I'm not a fan of digital billboards.

[1:47:40] I really, really don't like the existing district sign

[1:47:42] for a number of reasons, primarily because this

[1:47:45] is the entryway into the Commons and I don't think

[1:47:48] it's welcoming to the Commons.

[1:47:49] I don't think it's consistent with,

[1:47:51] you know, people arriving at a city center.

[1:47:54] It's so digital and lacking in real design and components

[1:48:01] there that, you know, branded as you know, hey,

[1:48:04] you've just arrived at the city center and this,

[1:48:06] this is Mill Creek.

[1:48:08] Um, if there's going to be another district sign,

[1:48:10] I would want a completely different design

[1:48:12] than what is there so that there's more than just a

[1:48:16] hanging digital signage there.

[1:48:19] Um, but for me on this, the value on this,

[1:48:22] is it worth the trade offs?

[1:48:25] Is it worth dealing with the digital signs

[1:48:28] in order to get rid of some of these existing billboards?

[1:48:32] Um, personally, I don't think that the trade

[1:48:36] off is worth it at this point.

[1:48:37] If I'm going to make a change to the status quo,

[1:48:40] I want to be persuaded that I'm moving in a better direction.

[1:48:44] And quite frankly, I'm not persuaded that this is

[1:48:46] moving in a better direction.

[1:48:48] I really don't like static billboards

[1:48:50] or digital billboards, but unfortunately, you know,

[1:48:53] we're faced with an either/or situation

[1:48:56] rather than neither of them.

[1:48:58] And so if it's an either/or situation,

[1:49:00] I'll take the devil I know.

[1:49:02] And I would say, you know, let's just, um, keep the existing

[1:49:07] billboards until we come up with what I would believe

[1:49:09] would be a better solution for getting rid of billboards

[1:49:12] rather than charging into these digital billboards

[1:49:15] coming into the Commons.

[1:49:17] Um, if inevitably there's going to be digital billboards,

[1:49:20] I would only do the one on 13 piece

[1:49:22] and get the one off Highland drive.

[1:49:23] And when it comes time to make a motion and vote,

[1:49:27] my recommendation would be because there's so much tied up

[1:49:31] with the district digital signs compared

[1:49:33] to the rest of the sign code.

[1:49:34] In general, my preference would be to

[1:49:37] for two separate recommendations to the city council.

[1:49:39] One regarding the sign code overall exclusive

[1:49:44] of signs, and then a separate recommendation

[1:49:49] regarding signs aspect of it.

[1:49:53] Thank you, Dwayne.

[1:49:55] That got loud.

[1:49:56]

[1:49:59] Other thoughts.

[1:50:00] Diane? go ahead.

[1:50:03] Diane so I would totally agree with Duane.

[1:50:07] I think about the same thing back and forth.

[1:50:10] For me personally, on the changes to the basic code,

[1:50:15] I think we can make some of those that needed

[1:50:18] to be changed or adjusted.

[1:50:20] I think that from the ASCO letter

[1:50:24] we should look to make sure that what we're doing in code

[1:50:28] doesn't really go against every piece of technology

[1:50:31] that's already out there.

[1:50:33] So those are like I think he talked about lighting

[1:50:37] and this the safety issues.

[1:50:40] So safety for me, big issue.

[1:50:45] I don't feel like I have enough data.

[1:50:48] We have had like two people send us tiny little studies

[1:50:54] and I'm a data queen, so I don't feel like from a safety

[1:50:59] perspective, I can say whether they're

[1:51:01] good or bad, digital or static because we

[1:51:05] don't really have data.

[1:51:08] So my vote would be to do nothing from the standpoint

[1:51:12] of I don't have enough data to make

[1:51:15] a solid decision either way.

[1:51:17] I think the other piece for me is.

[1:51:22] This exchange conversation.

[1:51:25] And I and I did tell Francis, if we had to have one

[1:51:28] here in the city center, a digital billboard,

[1:51:31] I would only put one more and put it on the 1,300 side

[1:51:35] because there's no housing and it's all commercial.

[1:51:39] And frankly, it's facing Salt Lake City.

[1:51:42] So, you know, it's not Mill Creek

[1:51:44] that would be so obnoxious for.

[1:51:47] Not yet.

[1:51:50] I we might want it someday, huh?

[1:51:52] The other portion for me, though, is in the discussion

[1:51:55] of the exchanges.

[1:51:57] Again, I don't feel like I have enough information.

[1:52:00] And frankly, what I do know, based on calculations

[1:52:03] and I don't know which gentleman it was who sent the email where

[1:52:07] he actually went through the square footage

[1:52:09] of the signs that existed in Mill creek,

[1:52:11] and he added them all up.

[1:52:13] To me, there needs to be a formula for exchange.

[1:52:16] A very mathematical formula that if we're going to give you

[1:52:20] a billboard, you have to give us some relatively equal

[1:52:24] amount of the old static ones.

[1:52:26] But again, I feel like I don't have

[1:52:28] enough information to make a logical motion

[1:52:33] to say we should do anything.

[1:52:36] And then on the final part of it, I'm kind of with everybody

[1:52:42] we've heard from and I guess this

[1:52:44] was the same result three years ago is people don't like them.

[1:52:48] And I know you guys run the business, so I'm really sorry,

[1:52:50] but people don't like them.

[1:52:52] And so the reality is, if we want a community, which

[1:52:56] our general plan says, mountain views, mountain views don't

[1:52:59] take away views, we've already made adjustments by taking away

[1:53:03] views for people with housing.

[1:53:06] And I think if we can get rid of signage.

[1:53:10] To keep or get views.

[1:53:12] I would always vote for views.

[1:53:16] And I know there's a lot of people who don't really

[1:53:18] make that into a thing because they've lived here

[1:53:21] their whole lives and make assumptions about how

[1:53:23] cool the mountains are.

[1:53:24] But I haven't.

[1:53:25] And I want mountain views all day long.

[1:53:28] So to me, we should just go take them all down.

[1:53:32] So sorry.

[1:53:34] I know you guys probably run a great business, but so again,

[1:53:37] I don't have I don't feel like I have

[1:53:39] enough information to make.

[1:53:41] I can make minor code.

[1:53:44] But option wise, I would be at 3:00 or four.

[1:53:49] Thanks, Diane.

[1:53:50]

[1:53:55] I think on the just with the several issues that have been

[1:53:58] pointed out here on the safety item, again,

[1:54:01] I think I know a lot of these studies

[1:54:02] can go you can read it either way, but just

[1:54:05] from personal experience and living in this neighborhood,

[1:54:08] when I drive in the day and even at night,

[1:54:11] it's not that much of a problem when you're driving

[1:54:14] past this sign, but as soon as the snow or the rain falls,

[1:54:17] it can't see anything.

[1:54:19] It just erases the lines all through this.

[1:54:21] And I hate it because that happens on I-15, too.

[1:54:23] And that's really my big opposition and where

[1:54:25] the safety concern comes in.

[1:54:26] And usually the studies, at least

[1:54:29] the ones that I've reviewed, have,

[1:54:31] don't really address that.

[1:54:33] So that's as far as the safety that I'd like to make note of.

[1:54:38] So and just again, to my understanding is because this

[1:54:41] is a legislative item, we are just making a recommendation

[1:54:44] to the city that.

[1:54:46] Correct and so if we're making a recommendation,

[1:54:51] I would vote for four that we keep it the way it is.

[1:54:54] However, if the city is going to move, since they're

[1:54:58] the applicant, if they're going to city council is going to go

[1:55:01] and do what they want to do, I I'm

[1:55:03] with you where I want a very clear understanding

[1:55:05] of what this exchange is.

[1:55:07] And we talked about value also where

[1:55:11] there are certain signs that have a greater value

[1:55:15] for being removed than others.

[1:55:16] Right and and also, there has to be an equitable approach

[1:55:20] because if we provide one digital sign that's

[1:55:23] an advantageous to one company, however,

[1:55:26] the signs that we want to remove might

[1:55:27] be from different companies.

[1:55:29] So that's how that balance works.

[1:55:31] It sounds like a nightmare of a formula,

[1:55:33] but I think that's something that I would like to have

[1:55:37] a very hopefully that city council has a very

[1:55:39] clear understanding of what it is

[1:55:40] that they would be accepting if they

[1:55:42] decided to go that direction.

[1:55:44] That would be my recommendation.

[1:55:45] Thanks, David.

[1:55:46]

[1:55:54] Yeah, I. I definitely prefer option four.

[1:55:59] I don't see a pressing need to do

[1:56:03] the sign right now I feel like.

[1:56:07] Like Diane.

[1:56:08] I feel like data has not presented.

[1:56:10] And I'm thinking a little bit different data

[1:56:12] and that's I just heard anecdotal data about the need

[1:56:16] for this, for the sign that it was helpful for the city

[1:56:19] and publicizing its events and also

[1:56:21] that it was been effective.

[1:56:22] So far.

[1:56:23] But the reality is that's not the only way

[1:56:25] the city publicizes its events.

[1:56:27] So I feel like that's sort of an assumption

[1:56:29] that the sign is another sign is going to make this huge,

[1:56:34] this huge difference.

[1:56:36] I, I also think that I mean, I think competition is good.

[1:56:42] I thought that was interesting what

[1:56:43] you was saying about having competition

[1:56:47] if we were going to.

[1:56:50] Build a district sign.

[1:56:52] But I think it's sort of interesting because it's also

[1:56:54] saying that they see value in terms

[1:56:56] of from a financial point of view

[1:56:58] and want to level the playing field.

[1:57:00] So that's telling me that they see potential.

[1:57:05] Financial remuneration that I'm not I

[1:57:08] guess I'm not really thinking the city is trying to.

[1:57:11] Um, build the coffers of.

[1:57:14] Billboard companies.

[1:57:16] I'm obviously because I've been on the planning commission

[1:57:18] for a while, I'm very much concerned

[1:57:22] about viewsheds and about protecting

[1:57:24] our views of the mountain.

[1:57:27] I also just want to make one more comment.

[1:57:31] I do feel like I like the conservative lighting standards

[1:57:34] that we have in the current code.

[1:57:37] I think that they were put together with thought and care

[1:57:40] and I see no reason to change those.

[1:57:43] And I also see that I would like to agree with separating

[1:57:47] the two sections of the sign ordinance that we're looking

[1:57:51] at, the digital I mean, just the regular Billboard

[1:57:55] ordinance or the sign ordinance and then

[1:57:57] the district sign ordinance and let's see, I think lasting.

[1:58:03] And I actually I'm the person that suggested the

[1:58:06] if we had to have a district sign,

[1:58:09] I was the one who suggested the one on Highland.

[1:58:14] Last time.

[1:58:15] I consider it an inferior solution, but, you know.

[1:58:21] If we can't if we can't ban it altogether.

[1:58:25] And I do think, as I agreeing with my fellow commissioners,

[1:58:28] that we need to have much clearer, stronger language

[1:58:31] of what kind of a ratio or how we would not just like,

[1:58:34] we'll make a good deal.

[1:58:37] Not very compelling to me.

[1:58:38] Thank you.

[1:58:40] Thanks, Victoria.

[1:58:41] Steve or Nils.

[1:58:42] Thanks I feel like I'm clearly in the minority

[1:58:48] here that I actually think the sign looks pretty good.

[1:58:52] If I could have two more of those

[1:58:53] versus a bunch of billboards, I'd

[1:58:55] rather have two more of those.

[1:58:57] Just from the aesthetics of the structure itself, I'm speaking.

[1:59:02] So that said, I think the caveat to that I'd probably prefer

[1:59:06] option two with the caveat that, you know,

[1:59:09] the exchange agreement would need

[1:59:10] to be quite aggressive to make it worth

[1:59:12] it to justify putting those in.

[1:59:16] I'd like it in the sense that it could take down

[1:59:19] some unattractive billboards and also in the vein

[1:59:24] that we've talked about, you know,

[1:59:26] sightlines and mountain views, these are much smaller.

[1:59:28] They're much shorter.

[1:59:30] I think it does a better job of protecting those views.

[1:59:33] But clearly, I'm in the minority here, so it's OK.

[1:59:38]

[1:59:42] Um, I don't know if you're totally in the minority males,

[1:59:45] but.

[1:59:45]

[1:59:48] You know, I mean, I wish we could get rid of all the

[1:59:53] off premise signs, actually, and replace them

[1:59:56] with if I knew all the square footage of off premise signs

[2:00:00] on 3,300 South all the way from through the city.

[2:00:04] I wish we could take that square footage

[2:00:07] and put them to every 8 seconds on a few billboards,

[2:00:12] have just three or four billboards

[2:00:14] in that whole entire area of 33 instead of the 100 or so.

[2:00:19] I don't know how many off premise

[2:00:20] signs should say we have.

[2:00:23] 54, 50, 51, 51.

[2:00:25] I'd like to take get rid of 51 off premise.

[2:00:28] Oh, in the city or on that corridor?

[2:00:30] Oh, in the city.

[2:00:31] In the city.

[2:00:32] I'd like to get rid of 51 off premise billboards

[2:00:36] and put it down to five or six digital billboards

[2:00:42] for throughout the entire city in strategic places.

[2:00:46] Yeah, I don't think that's an issue with one on.

[2:00:50]

[2:00:52] On 13th east, the Highland drive one.

[2:00:55] I mean, there will be a new building right there

[2:00:57] that blocks that whole neighborhood from even

[2:00:59] seeing that digital sign.

[2:01:02] But but maybe three digital signs isn't really needed.

[2:01:06] And right in this vicinity, we need these more

[2:01:09] spread out throughout the city.

[2:01:11] And look at that exchange agreement a lot

[2:01:15] closer and more have a better exchange on it.

[2:01:21] But it's.

[2:01:23] I don't know.

[2:01:24] It's hard to.

[2:01:28] Um, it's a.

[2:01:30] You know, signage is needed.

[2:01:32] It's a legitimate business, too.

[2:01:34] But on premise signs, too, is extremely important.

[2:01:38] And I like what we've done on premise stuff

[2:01:41] that we've changed in that.

[2:01:44] But anyway.

[2:01:46] And so I guess I'm not helping any.

[2:01:48] No, you kind of recommendation.

[2:01:50] That's helping.

[2:01:51]

[2:01:53] I kind of like to ask a question of the Glasgow guys.

[2:01:57] So do you know how many billboards

[2:01:59] you have in Mill creek?

[2:02:01] It's five.

[2:02:02] Yeah come on up.

[2:02:03] Just curious.

[2:02:04] I'm going to ask several questions.

[2:02:06] Yes, we have five structures totaling nine faces.

[2:02:08] OK so from an educational standpoint,

[2:02:11] for those of us who, you know, want to get rid of billboards,

[2:02:15] and I agree with you, I actually like the Mill Creek sign.

[2:02:19] What I want to be educated on is what

[2:02:23] is happening in your industry.

[2:02:25] The people are going electronic, right?

[2:02:27] I mean, there's Francis and I had this conversation.

[2:02:32] It's unavoidable.

[2:02:33] It's going there now, whether it's Billboard signs

[2:02:37] or whatever.

[2:02:38] You know, I brought up the fact that I don't know if anybody's

[2:02:41] paid attention that there is one now below the Golden arches

[2:02:46] at the McDonald's on 33rd.

[2:02:48] And it's not a huge one, but it's digital.

[2:02:51] And as businesses come down or up

[2:02:54] 33rd, are they going to be coming for permits

[2:02:59] and they will meet code and they're

[2:03:01] going to get digital signs.

[2:03:03] So from a Billboard perspective, as we've

[2:03:06] been talking, because I know you said

[2:03:08] you're new to what's going on.

[2:03:10] If if we said to you, we want you to take all five of those

[2:03:15] down and have one electronic sign, what would you say to me?

[2:03:20] It's a very good question.

[2:03:21] I think I think first you need to segment it out on premise

[2:03:25] and off premise are two very, very different worlds.

[2:03:28] So off premise, if you came to me and said, give me five.

[2:03:32] And I'll give you that one right there, it

[2:03:35] all depends on the terms.

[2:03:36] And the reality is Yes goes view.

[2:03:39] We haven't been here for 140 years

[2:03:41] just because we're never going away.

[2:03:45] We are long term committed company.

[2:03:48] And so when it comes to working with landowners

[2:03:51] and getting ground leases, we're not trying to make

[2:03:55] a quick escape on this thing.

[2:03:57] We we derive relationships and our landowners

[2:04:01] derive value out of our structures being there.

[2:04:03] They get money.

[2:04:04] And so by saying, yeah, let's take five away,

[2:04:08] you're ruining income of five potential landowners in

[2:04:12] your community and its income.

[2:04:14] And so it's a balance between what

[2:04:18] does the company need versus what

[2:04:19] do we do with the landowners?

[2:04:21] In in a market like this where we

[2:04:24] can't go to a commercial zone and just say, yep, got it.

[2:04:28] Got to deal with the landowner.

[2:04:29] We're going to put a new Billboard in the ground

[2:04:30] because you don't allow new billboards.

[2:04:32] It's tricky because there's the supply that's here is locked.

[2:04:38] You can't do anything.

[2:04:40] You can't add, you can't take away.

[2:04:41] So you're asking us to take away in exchange for a digital.

[2:04:45] In some respects.

[2:04:46] Yeah, it could make sense.

[2:04:49] But in our case, we've got five structures.

[2:04:53] Probably not because we've got five structures

[2:04:56] that are performing well.

[2:04:57] We've got great landowners, great agreements.

[2:05:00] It doesn't make sense.

[2:05:01] But if I had 200 structures.

[2:05:04] And I had of the 230 of them that were just kind of snoozers

[2:05:07] and I didn't really like them or the leases weren't that great

[2:05:10] or the structure was being obstructed by an apartment

[2:05:14] building road expansion, you know, all the other factors

[2:05:17] say, OK, yeah, I think I could negotiate with the city

[2:05:19] and say, OK.

[2:05:21] Give you these for this sure makes sense.

[2:05:24] And so I think to answer your question of would you.

[2:05:27] There are so many factors to it, because what's

[2:05:30] valuable to us on the side is the relationship

[2:05:33] and a location that is aesthetically pleasing,

[2:05:36] that has the eyes.

[2:05:38] And you know, that's how we grow our business.

[2:05:42]

[2:05:48] So at the moment.

[2:05:49] And I think that would be Yeah.

[2:05:51] One thought I'd add is looking at the total numbers

[2:05:55] of billboards you have in your city that's going to give you

[2:05:58] a perspective of who you'll be negotiating

[2:06:00] with because we've got five.

[2:06:02] There's two other there's two other larger groups than us,

[2:06:05] right?

[2:06:06] And so exchanging 5 to 1, getting rid of all of ours

[2:06:11] versus someone that's got 100.

[2:06:13] Well, then I understand that issue

[2:06:14] with competition kind of thing.

[2:06:17] Did you want?

[2:06:18] Need more information?

[2:06:19] Are we out of time?

[2:06:20] No, go ahead.

[2:06:20] Yeah, it's property rights.

[2:06:22] Straight property rights.

[2:06:23] And if we were talking about we hate walgreens,

[2:06:25] what would Walgreens be saying?

[2:06:27] You know, we hate tattoo parlors.

[2:06:29] Get rid of them.

[2:06:31] OK, well, we have land.

[2:06:33] We have invested.

[2:06:34] We have a business, and the cash flows are compelling.

[2:06:39] What's happened as print media, television, media.

[2:06:45] Is all being squeezed.

[2:06:47] Right?

[2:06:47] so it's all gone online.

[2:06:48] That's where all the money's gone.

[2:06:50] Our little teeny sliver of the advertising

[2:06:52] spend, which is barely see it in the great grand scheme.

[2:06:55] We're getting tons of pressure because people are

[2:06:57] looking for ways to advertise.

[2:07:00] The industry now has big data.

[2:07:03] So your cell phone information, we

[2:07:06] don't have facial recognition.

[2:07:07] I don't know where that came from.

[2:07:08] I've never talked to anybody identifying people that way.

[2:07:11] That's in a movie somewhere, probably, but.

[2:07:14] We know who's passing by.

[2:07:16] The signs and advertisers pay per 1,000.

[2:07:18] And billboards are compelling because it's

[2:07:20] $14 per thousand, 15, 16, 17 per thousand, not 35 on TV.

[2:07:27] And so if I'm a business trying to make my way and 2% more

[2:07:31] revenue makes a difference for me,

[2:07:32] I'm definitely going to do everything I can to advertise.

[2:07:35] So I say harmons foods.

[2:07:36] OK, how do we feel about harmons?

[2:07:38] You know, when you're talking about,

[2:07:39] hey, billboards, you're talking about hey and harmons

[2:07:41] too, because they advertise extensively

[2:07:44] and I imagine them trying to compete

[2:07:46] against Walmart and Fred Meyer and everybody else.

[2:07:48] Hard business, right?

[2:07:49] My grandfather on my mom's side was a grocer on the avenues,

[2:07:52] a little teeny store his whole life.

[2:07:54] That's all he did.

[2:07:55] Think about Harmon's plight.

[2:07:57] How do we feel about harmon's?

[2:07:59] They are paying immense amounts of money

[2:08:01] to advertise digitally, mostly because it makes sense

[2:08:06] and there's value there.

[2:08:08] Ken foster, University of Utah professor, communications

[2:08:12] department, did a survey.

[2:08:15] We get in our circles and I heard all this,

[2:08:16] you know, we've heard it before, too.

[2:08:18] And I don't dismiss any of your feelings about science.

[2:08:21] I got it.

[2:08:21] I understand it.

[2:08:23] People hate Barnes.

[2:08:24] People hate power poles.

[2:08:26] We all have my neighbor painted his house green.

[2:08:29] I don't like green homes.

[2:08:30] And then he made his roof green.

[2:08:33] Ken foster did this study.

[2:08:35] It's been about 10 years ago.

[2:08:36] 12 years ago.

[2:08:37] What do you think about science?

[2:08:39] And it was about ten, 12% hated him.

[2:08:44] So from that study, the University of Utah,

[2:08:46] we know there's a segment of the population that

[2:08:49] just hates signs vehemently.

[2:08:51] And you've heard it tonight.

[2:08:53] The rest of the people are actually

[2:08:55] rather interested in them and they're

[2:08:57] actually curious about them and they like looking at them.

[2:09:01] And even though the glance is one second,

[2:09:04] the branding makes a big difference on someone's

[2:09:07] decisions, amazingly so advertising does work,

[2:09:11] and we're grateful for the free enterprise system.

[2:09:13] We're grateful for property rights,

[2:09:14] we're grateful to be in business.

[2:09:15] And we know because I don't have a Billboard in my backyard

[2:09:18] either.

[2:09:19] There's residential zones and there's commercial zones.

[2:09:22] Commercial zones are there for a purpose, right?

[2:09:25] Let's let commercial zones be commercial zones.

[2:09:27] Let's let residential zones be residential zones.

[2:09:30] Thank you.

[2:09:31] Thank you.

[2:09:32] Thank you.

[2:09:33] That was helpful.

[2:09:34] So I think the only other discussion comment I have is

[2:09:37] I kind of do agree and I actually talked, I think

[2:09:40] with Francis about this, that.

[2:09:43] Do we really need them all in if we're

[2:09:46] going to do district signs?

[2:09:48] I mean, I would like to have a proposal to put a district

[2:09:53] sign in every district and not just in the city center

[2:09:57] and let the small businesses, because it's

[2:10:00] my understanding that electronic signs

[2:10:02] actually help small businesses.

[2:10:04] Correct because it's less expensive than doing

[2:10:08] the big Billboard.

[2:10:11] So is there.

[2:10:12] If we're going to do it, do we do some kind of spread out?

[2:10:16] And I, I live up near Mount Olympus, too.

[2:10:20] But I mean, fair is fair.

[2:10:23] You know, if we're going to put them up,

[2:10:25] do we spread them out across the whole city?

[2:10:30] I think that could be something that.

[2:10:33] You know it's outside of the scope for this.

[2:10:35] But it's a valid point for down the road

[2:10:38] if we want to reduce signs, maybe

[2:10:42] there is an appetite for that.

[2:10:44] I've got a few thoughts and I splitting in two parts.

[2:10:48] I really do like all the changes.

[2:10:49] And Thank you Francis.

[2:10:51] On the excluding the district signs

[2:10:53] all the different changes.

[2:10:54] I mean.

[2:10:55] Everything got.

[2:10:57] That clarified.

[2:11:03] In in your changes I think I had.

[2:11:06]

[2:11:09] The one thing that I was looking at, though, and this I think,

[2:11:12] was from the USCIS letter.

[2:11:14]

[2:11:17] Where I thought in the last meeting

[2:11:19] we talked about that pure white would

[2:11:21] be able to be used for logos.

[2:11:24] Was that accurate or was I misremembering?

[2:11:28] That's not really a word, but my.

[2:11:30] Give me a minute.

[2:11:31] I see.

[2:11:35] We would love to redraft that.

[2:11:36]

[2:11:43] What's we would love.

[2:11:46] I'll talk.

[2:11:47] I'll talk with you off the line.

[2:11:48]

[2:12:07] Yeah OK.

[2:12:08] So under on page 1868 120d no, cc3b, I think.

[2:12:18] C3b Yeah.

[2:12:20] Internally illuminated signs show you semi-opaque materials

[2:12:23] for signed copies such that light

[2:12:24] emanating emanating from the sign

[2:12:29] is diffuse, transparent or clear.

[2:12:30] Materials are not allowed for signed copy.

[2:12:32] Pure white material pure white materials

[2:12:34] are prohibited for non copy.

[2:12:37] Or let's see.

[2:12:41] Pure white materials are prohibited for non copier logo

[2:12:43] portions of the sign e.g. backgrounds of graphics

[2:12:46] and sign backgrounds should be made

[2:12:47] of completely opaque materials.

[2:12:49] I think there's a problem with the sentence.

[2:12:51] The intention is the opposite that you can use.

[2:12:53] Yeah that you can use pure white materials for the wording

[2:12:58] and logo a sign.

[2:12:59] OK and that's what I just wanted to clarify because I saw

[2:13:02] that the prohibition, I was thinking that we were agreeable

[2:13:06] for the logo to be able to be represented with,

[2:13:09] with a pure white.

[2:13:11] So I just wanted.

[2:13:14] That's that's the intention.

[2:13:16] So OK, I'm making a note of all of these.

[2:13:18] So we can so that you can craft a motion when you're ready.

[2:13:21] Yeah um, that's all I had for.

[2:13:26] And then my other comment earlier about maybe

[2:13:28] just looking at so here's, so here's

[2:13:35] what I have by way of notes.

[2:13:37]

[2:13:39] Clarify Yep.

[2:13:41] Yep the duration of temporary signs and.

[2:13:44] Yeah the parks commissioners about the district signed.

[2:13:49] And I appreciate the four options, but I'm looking at.

[2:13:54] Well, I'd mentioned last meeting was these are all

[2:13:57] looking, you know, 1 to 3 are looking

[2:13:59] at the exchange agreement.

[2:14:02] But I think there's another option.

[2:14:03] And that's just.

[2:14:05] Have the have a smaller district sign that's 100% of 100%

[2:14:11] of the turns are Mill Creek.

[2:14:14] And I think if you had a smaller sign

[2:14:16] and I use that example, last month about, you know,

[2:14:20] the Middle East.

[2:14:22] East high.

[2:14:24] You know, there.

[2:14:26] A sign like, you know, not to look just like this,

[2:14:29] but it's a smaller sign face than 288ft

[2:14:33] Or it could be like, you know, the Christian academy,

[2:14:36] they've got their sign there.

[2:14:40] And we've seen them around, you know,

[2:14:41] credit unions and stuff happened.

[2:14:42] So I'm not opposed to.

[2:14:45] Digital for if it were smaller and just for Mill Creek and.

[2:14:53] I feel like some of it is.

[2:14:55] Perhaps the cost, because I know this agreement would be,

[2:14:58] you know, advertiser, potentially

[2:15:01] Reagan would pay for it, install it and all of that.

[2:15:05] And while that may seem advantageous,

[2:15:09] I look at the whole concept of building the city center.

[2:15:12] We you know, we had district signs in there.

[2:15:16] I think they were called Monument signs initially,

[2:15:18] but from the beginning.

[2:15:20] So we knew there was going to be signs there.

[2:15:21] So I think that had to be considered

[2:15:22] in the construction cost.

[2:15:23] So I'm still looking at let's put signs on both sides,

[2:15:26] but let's have them be smaller.

[2:15:29] And let's have them be 100% for Mill Creek

[2:15:31] and let's do option for not do but but let's

[2:15:36] not do nothing at all.

[2:15:38] And don't have any district signs

[2:15:39] like no let's still have a district sign

[2:15:40] and I'm not opposed.

[2:15:41] If it were a small digital sign, I don't think the cost

[2:15:45] would be extremely expensive.

[2:15:46] I don't think East High's spending hundreds

[2:15:48] of thousands of dollars.

[2:15:49] Summit Christian Academy or the credit unions

[2:15:51] are spending lots of money for this.

[2:15:54] I don't think it's feasible.

[2:15:54] But, you know, having 100% of the turns instead of only 40%

[2:15:58] on a large sign, if you have 100% on the smaller sign,

[2:16:01] you're still I think you're going to have a larger

[2:16:03] impact for your community events because you have

[2:16:07] 100% of the rotations on there.

[2:16:10] I also work in advertising, have done it.

[2:16:12] Since the 90s.

[2:16:13] And I look at this as you know, you could

[2:16:17] have a large sign with a horrible graphic,

[2:16:20] a horrible messaging.

[2:16:21] It's not necessarily the size.

[2:16:22] Size can matter to a point.

[2:16:26] Like if you're on a freeway, having a 120 square foot

[2:16:30] sign is not going to work because of the speeds

[2:16:32] of the cars and the traffic.

[2:16:33] So that's why they have the larger signs.

[2:16:37] But I look, I make the comparison.

[2:16:39] Let's say you're at the bar and you know,

[2:16:41] you're watching the game on a 72 inch screen TV

[2:16:44] versus a 48 inch screen TV because you're

[2:16:47] sitting a little bit closer.

[2:16:48] I don't think you're.

[2:16:50] You know, your enjoyment of watching that game

[2:16:54] isn't drastically reduced.

[2:16:56] You're still getting the you're still seeing the action.

[2:16:58] You're still getting what's going on.

[2:16:59] Even though it's on a smaller screen.

[2:17:01] And because the speeds are lower here,

[2:17:03] I don't think we need this large sign.

[2:17:04] So I'm in favor of recommending, recommending

[2:17:08] to the city council, like we'll look at just doing our own.

[2:17:11] Let's not.

[2:17:12] You know, it could be an option to look at reducing

[2:17:16] square footage of billboards in the city,

[2:17:19] but I don't think there's a pressing need

[2:17:20] to do that right now.

[2:17:22] Let's go do the.

[2:17:24] Let's go to our district signs.

[2:17:25] Let's even have it be, you know, maybe 100 square

[2:17:28] foot digital sign as well.

[2:17:30] And later on, if we want to strike

[2:17:33] a deal with an outdoor advertiser

[2:17:36] to do like what you suggested, you know,

[2:17:38] maybe we figure out which ones remove something else.

[2:17:40] But I don't think this is our only opportunity to reduce

[2:17:44] billboards through an exchange.

[2:17:47] So just along those lines.

[2:17:51] When I was looking at this and thinking about this,

[2:17:54] I was thinking of big comparison between 33rd and 39th

[2:17:59] and 39th doesn't have any public as far as I mean,

[2:18:03] above, let's say 23rd any, you know, advertising billboards.

[2:18:06] But they do have the banners for the high school

[2:18:08] and that's local and it looks good

[2:18:10] and no one complains about that.

[2:18:11] And it's small and it's but it's very community.

[2:18:15] I mean, that and it looks good.

[2:18:17] Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too,

[2:18:19] is even though there would be some signage,

[2:18:21] I think some signage is appropriate for our city

[2:18:25] center.

[2:18:27] But I feel like it reduces the it's not it doesn't feel so

[2:18:31] cheap like we as a city sold out to like,

[2:18:33] well, we had to make this deal because we saved a couple

[2:18:37] hundred thousand dollars on Reagan

[2:18:38] putting them in because we wouldn't have to know,

[2:18:40] I don't think I wouldn't want the city to erect a two 188

[2:18:44] square foot sign in the messages.

[2:18:46] You know, it would be the same as this one here.

[2:18:48] I don't think that's necessary or appropriate.

[2:18:50] So I'm looking at a smaller sign like we had originally thought

[2:18:56] about when we looked at the city center plans,

[2:18:59] you know, five, six years ago.

[2:19:02] Um, so those are my thoughts on it.

[2:19:05]

[2:19:10] Well, they probably.

[2:19:11] I would look at it just for construction.

[2:19:14] Yeah, I've looked at it as just the same.

[2:19:16] As for building anything else, you know, like the sign

[2:19:19] that we put on Mill Creek common,

[2:19:20] you know, that went out to bid to somebody to put up there?

[2:19:23] Maybe, but I don't know.

[2:19:26] Yeah Yeah.

[2:19:30] Yeah so I don't know how we I mean,

[2:19:33] we can continue the conversation.

[2:19:35] I, I don't know if I don't feel like we have

[2:19:37] an appetite for a continuance.

[2:19:39] I think we have enough information

[2:19:41] to make a recommendation.

[2:19:42] But it.

[2:19:44] We and Dwayne.

[2:19:46] I don't want to ignore you.

[2:19:47] We've had a conversation now.

[2:19:49] Do you have any other thoughts you

[2:19:51] want to bring up since you went first

[2:19:52] and you've heard a lot of information now?

[2:19:54]

[2:20:01] And there should be I mean, that's what we're here for,

[2:20:04] is to hear different viewpoints.

[2:20:06] Yeah we had several commissioners looking at

[2:20:10] just let's go with option four.

[2:20:12] We have a prefer an option to.

[2:20:16] Steve, I don't know if you had a specific number option

[2:20:18] or if yours was kind of a hybrid.

[2:20:20] And we can when we make the motion,

[2:20:21] we can use the one, two, 3 as.

[2:20:25] There's a place to start if we want,

[2:20:26] and then modify it from there.

[2:20:30] Or one, two.

[2:20:31] One, two, four.

[2:20:32]

[2:20:40] well, you makes some good points and.

[2:20:43]

[2:20:46] And why do we need three large digital signs

[2:20:50] around their mean that can still be like the one

[2:20:53] if it was out there.

[2:20:54] It still have.

[2:20:56] Just like, I don't know.

[2:20:59] Well, doesn't necessarily have to be a monument sign,

[2:21:01] but it has to be a sign that would still scroll

[2:21:05] or have some digital to it.

[2:21:08] But it's just for Mill Creek city

[2:21:11] and it's something smaller.

[2:21:12] And we do it only for.

[2:21:15] Advertising for.

[2:21:16]

[2:21:21] I mean, I guess you could do it for any events or anything.

[2:21:24] Throughout Mill Creek city two or.

[2:21:26] Or just what happens to the commons?

[2:21:29] Or would there be advertising for businesses

[2:21:31] in the Commons area here on.

[2:21:36] I don't know.

[2:21:37] I guess my thought was just keep it within the city.

[2:21:41] So I'm not a personally I'm not opposed

[2:21:44] if we wanted to advertise the.

[2:21:47] It almost seems like we need to make a recommendation

[2:21:50] on what happens here.

[2:21:53] And then another recommendation on what

[2:21:55] happens as far as our whole entire sign ordinance and.

[2:22:00] A whole entire sign ordinance, I think.

[2:22:02] Gentleman from.

[2:22:05] Maybe there's a few things we should look at there and.

[2:22:08]

[2:22:12] You know, listen to their.

[2:22:14]

[2:22:16] Ideas along with Reagan's ideas.

[2:22:18] Maybe we've already had stuff from Reagan

[2:22:20] or some of the other large I don't know who all does

[2:22:22] signs here with Saunders or.

[2:22:25] Here in the city, but.

[2:22:26]

[2:22:30] to take some of their points and maybe look further at this.

[2:22:34] The whole overall sign ordinance, but at least

[2:22:36] make a recommendation on.

[2:22:38] Think should happen here.

[2:22:39]

[2:22:43] Yeah, that's what I think.

[2:22:44] Yeah, because I know we're looking at,

[2:22:46] you know, The changes proposed are

[2:22:48] really with the district signs.

[2:22:50] Um, you know, and should they.

[2:22:52] What should we do about the.

[2:22:54] What changes, if any, should we make for the sign ordinance?

[2:22:57] Ordinance regarding the district signs?

[2:22:59] And then the other part is, of course, the other weeks

[2:23:02] we have to our sign ordinance.

[2:23:04] I still think we should look.

[2:23:05] Change somehow because and only I mean only the sign

[2:23:11] companies are going to.

[2:23:12] It's got to be something.

[2:23:15] It's the benefits of them.

[2:23:18] I mean.

[2:23:19] I mean, that's what we're in the business

[2:23:20] just like Walgreens is in the business to be.

[2:23:23] They're in the same business.

[2:23:25] So it has to be something that would still be

[2:23:28] workable for any sign company.

[2:23:30]

[2:23:34] So I'm just trying to think about how we move this forward.

[2:23:43] And if we called Sean's proposal five.

[2:23:48] It really?

[2:23:48] It is.

[2:23:49]

[2:23:53] helpful for us to pull.

[2:23:55] Just choose a number right now and see where.

[2:23:59] I mean, I think yours has.

[2:24:02] Midst to it.

[2:24:04] I don't know if we can say we have.

[2:24:06] This choice, but our backup is this I don't know

[2:24:10] what we can do to give more.

[2:24:13] Or if it would be helpful if we each just said

[2:24:16] what our first choice number is and then we're taking the we're

[2:24:19] not taking the official vote, but just

[2:24:21] to know where people are and.

[2:24:23]

[2:24:26] How we can craft something.

[2:24:27]

[2:24:31] I'm looking at the votes, and I'm.

[2:24:33] Might be for.

[2:24:33]

[2:24:36] And then that would then help craft

[2:24:38] like where the motion goes.

[2:24:41] You could do that.

[2:24:41] Or if you want to make a motion, we can see where that goes.

[2:24:44]

[2:24:46] But my feeling is if you want to do a straw poll.

[2:24:49] Yeah, well, I'm right.

[2:24:50] I'm for that.

[2:24:54] I see merits in 3 and 5.

[2:24:56] So what do I do with that?

[2:24:59] Oh for five.

[2:25:00] I think we've achieved five.

[2:25:02] I think it's sitting right out here

[2:25:05] and I think that adding additional one

[2:25:07] doesn't accomplish anything.

[2:25:11] I think I'm appreciate the amount of advertising,

[2:25:13] the numbers that we got.

[2:25:14] That 40% is the city advertising that happens here.

[2:25:17] Fantastic but also it's there with the discount

[2:25:21] of helping Creek businesses.

[2:25:23] So I think five, in my opinion, is achieved.

[2:25:27] So I'd go for on my Dave is for hills where do you are

[2:25:31] you still like looking at two.

[2:25:35] Yeah I mean, my preference overall would

[2:25:36] be no signs like everyone else.

[2:25:39] I mean, not everyone literally, but.

[2:25:41] But if we're choosing sides and again,

[2:25:43] it's hard because we don't know what

[2:25:44] that exchange agreement is.

[2:25:46] If I could take down 5 billboards on 33rd

[2:25:49] for another one of those.

[2:25:50] Yeah, do it.

[2:25:51] But if it's one for one, probably not.

[2:25:56] so in that sense, it's hard.

[2:25:57] Like I said, I probably choose to with the caveat

[2:26:00] that exchange agreement needs to be substantial.

[2:26:04] I mean, it needs to have some meat to it.

[2:26:06] So that would be my preference if I could take down AI mean,

[2:26:09] if you drive up down 33rd, it's a lot of signs.

[2:26:12] If you could take some down for a smaller,

[2:26:15] more aesthetically pleasing sign, I'd love to do that.

[2:26:18] Um, so it's hard without knowing the details

[2:26:21] of exchange agreement, but that would be minus 2.

[2:26:23] With that caveat, the robust exchange and.

[2:26:27]

[2:26:30] Feel like I'm.

[2:26:32] I would do for from the standpoint of for right now,

[2:26:39] I just feel like we still don't have enough to do or enough

[2:26:44] to clarify.

[2:26:45] On the other hand, I do agree with you that

[2:26:49] is there an option 5 to say no on the district signs

[2:26:53] as they've been brought to us?

[2:26:55] But we recommend smaller signs.

[2:27:01] And we can recommend, if everybody

[2:27:03] agrees that they only be city owned and not advertisements.

[2:27:10] Um, I kind of feel like we should do that as one thing

[2:27:13] and decide, are we letting them do it or aren't we?

[2:27:18] And then can we then make recommendations to the city

[2:27:22] council or back to the city planners

[2:27:25] to say, we want you to look at smaller signs,

[2:27:28] we want you to look at an exchange,

[2:27:31] but we just don't have enough data yet

[2:27:33] to make any of those decisions.

[2:27:34] We'd like to have a what would it be like to those four city

[2:27:41] council people if we said, each of you get one, then

[2:27:45] and they have to figure out what to do with it?

[2:27:48] I mean, you know.

[2:27:50] I don't know how they feel about that.

[2:27:54] Because we don't have any representatives

[2:27:56] from the city council.

[2:27:58] I think we'd have to just craft that as a recommendation

[2:28:02] because if we make a recommendation and then said,

[2:28:05] but we want to see what the exchange agreement is then.

[2:28:09] Wants to make a recommendation.

[2:28:10] I think it would be we want a recommendation

[2:28:12] of a really robust.

[2:28:13] We have to suggest that.

[2:28:15] And I'm with you, I'd go for the 7 to 1.

[2:28:17] But if we can get rid of 7 and give them a one digital,

[2:28:20] I might be all about that.

[2:28:23] Uh, Victoria.

[2:28:24]

[2:28:29] Well, for you.

[2:28:30] Please use your microphone.

[2:28:33] The light on.

[2:28:36] Yes, I support forest, my first choice.

[2:28:39] But yes, the details.

[2:28:40] We got rid of all 3,300 signs and put one digital.

[2:28:44] Yeah, I'm all in.

[2:28:45] So what I see in what's being suggested right now

[2:28:51] is not robust enough for me to want

[2:28:53] to support one or two and even three

[2:28:58] where it would have less visual impact on the city.

[2:29:02] Again, you know, I'd be like five, 5 to 1.

[2:29:06] And I'm going to also point out that those numbers in Kansas

[2:29:11] City or Lee county, which one it was, but they were

[2:29:15] talking about how they had had 13 billboards and they

[2:29:18] went to six.

[2:29:19] And I'm thinking, you know, as a percentage of their billboards

[2:29:24] in the city.

[2:29:24] And as I recall, you said that, Lee.

[2:29:27] We've had only 100,000 people.

[2:29:30] Well, that's the size that we have.

[2:29:32] So they're talking about a city that has 13 billboards

[2:29:35] and they're trying to reduce it.

[2:29:37] I mean, they're getting rid of 50% That is so so that to me

[2:29:41] that those exchange rates are not equivalent to what we're

[2:29:45] talking about when we're talking starting at a smaller

[2:29:47] city with 51 billboards.

[2:29:50] So to make an impact, I feel like it

[2:29:53] needs to be much more robust.

[2:29:55] So given that what I'm seeing presented is not strong enough,

[2:29:59] I would go with.

[2:30:00] For Thank you.

[2:30:03] Steve I will go along with four.

[2:30:11] However So I just want to know the Billboard

[2:30:17] that's out out here now.

[2:30:20] Was there an exchange on that one at all?

[2:30:22] Yes OK.

[2:30:24] Because there was the removal of an existing sign

[2:30:28] that was there.

[2:30:30] Uh, plus.

[2:30:32] Plus 924ft of vested rights of billboards that Reagan

[2:30:38] had previously removed.

[2:30:39] We have a Billboard bank concept.

[2:30:42] One of those signs was actually over

[2:30:44] here on the corner of by the check cashing business,

[2:30:47] I believe.

[2:30:47] And then there was another sign that was down the road,

[2:30:50] and they were both kind of 30 sheet signs.

[2:30:52] I don't remember.

[2:30:52] It goes back a long time, but they had bank square footage

[2:30:56] that we threw in.

[2:30:57] They surrendered the rights to.

[2:31:00] So that's why I wouldn't mind.

[2:31:01] 3 with the option that we try to get a better

[2:31:03] deal for the one on 1,300 East.

[2:31:07] Option three or 4, I think initially you said for.

[2:31:12] I'm not sure which option it was, but we're.

[2:31:15] Is one Billboard and 4.

[2:31:17] Right so I'm saying 3 with the one Billboard on Richmond.

[2:31:23] Yeah out on that's on 1,300 East right.

[2:31:27] And that would be but to get a better exchange.

[2:31:32] Then you got on the original.

[2:31:34] At least tried to.

[2:31:34] If not.

[2:31:36] Don't do it.

[2:31:39] A Dwayne.

[2:31:40]

[2:31:48] If we change the sign code to give,

[2:31:52] to allow two additional district signs,

[2:31:55] and then it becomes a legislative matter for the city

[2:31:58] council where they essentially have

[2:32:00] a blank check to do whatever they

[2:32:01] want on an exchange agreement.

[2:32:03] With so many unknowns and variables still in play here.

[2:32:07] I would opt for you know, I would vote

[2:32:10] for option number four that we.

[2:32:14] Advanced the sign code in general because there's no need

[2:32:17] to hold up the remainder of the sign code

[2:32:18] just over district signs.

[2:32:19] Let's get the sign code updated and implemented.

[2:32:24] But I I'm not persuaded that now is the right time to move on.

[2:32:30] The digital district signs in the city center.

[2:32:37] OK thanks, Duane.

[2:32:38] Thanks and my thoughts are kind of that hybrid

[2:32:41] that I suggested.

[2:32:42] It's kind of like.

[2:32:44] 4 plus.

[2:32:47] I think a district signs are fine.

[2:32:50] They don't have to be digital.

[2:32:52] They could just be a nice district sign.

[2:32:54] Welcome to the city center chair, Lamar.

[2:32:57] Yes, actually, maybe propose some language

[2:33:00] here for you to look at.

[2:33:01] I don't know whether that'll work, but.

[2:33:02] OK let's see.

[2:33:06] Oh, you know what?

[2:33:08] Yeah, that's correct.

[2:33:10] So that would have the effect of,

[2:33:12] you know, so there's only one digital district sign.

[2:33:15] But, you know, we could create a district monument sign.

[2:33:18] Yeah, something along those lines.

[2:33:21] I'm just kind of spitballing and.

[2:33:24] And when you're saying the one digital district sign,

[2:33:26] that's the one that already exists.

[2:33:28] Yes this one out here.

[2:33:29] So not additional, right?

[2:33:31] Yeah and then this would be.

[2:33:34] We could have a district monument sign feet.

[2:33:37] Area of electronic message limited.

[2:33:39] Yeah that.

[2:33:40] So what's on the screen that captures kind of my feeling.

[2:33:45] I feel that's what I was trying to articulate earlier.

[2:33:50] But Francis did it a lot shorter.

[2:33:53] So in this case, we're saying only one that exists,

[2:33:58] only the one that exists.

[2:33:59] So so no additional no.

[2:34:01] No additional signs.

[2:34:04] Well, there would be additional they would be limited.

[2:34:07] But there's no exchange with Reagan

[2:34:10] for taking down Billboard.

[2:34:12] There's no exchange.

[2:34:12] It's not it's not a large one.

[2:34:14] It's a smaller one.

[2:34:16] Yeah so that's kind of where my feeling is.

[2:34:23] For me, this model motion would work.

[2:34:25] I don't know about you.

[2:34:28] May capture what we wanted with no additional sign.

[2:34:30] And I think we could also say if the city council.

[2:34:36] Had an appetite that they did want to do an exchange that we

[2:34:38] highly recommend, that it's a very aggressive, robust,

[2:34:42] you know, good exchange ratio of what they're going to.

[2:34:48] Exchange how many what the ratio is.

[2:34:50] And also which signs are removed.

[2:34:52] So they're not removing signs that while it's

[2:34:55] a billboard, signs that we don't really care about.

[2:34:57] Like there's a few that I didn't even know existed until.

[2:35:00] This, we started looking at billboards.

[2:35:03] So to me, if they remove those, I don't

[2:35:04] think anybody would even know.

[2:35:07] I think they have to be substantial, meaningful signs.

[2:35:11] So can we make recommendations on top of maybe doing a motion

[2:35:17] that we approve, but can we just give them

[2:35:19] a list of these are the things we recommend

[2:35:21] before we do anything else.

[2:35:24] Yeah you can advise the council on, on, on those.

[2:35:27] And that's one of the reasons why I

[2:35:28] created this list here, right?

[2:35:31] You know, disregard, disregard the language in the option.

[2:35:34] Just look at these.

[2:35:36] Yeah Uh, oops.

[2:35:37] Let me get.

[2:35:38] Sorry, commissioner Vance, I'm going

[2:35:39] to push you out of the way, um, so that everybody can see,

[2:35:43] including you.

[2:35:45] But I mean, those were kind of.

[2:35:51] In listening to you write, those are maybe

[2:35:54] my proposed parameters, like not knowing what the value

[2:35:57] of some of these signs are.

[2:35:58] Right? here's a basis for us to say like pick from these signs,

[2:36:02] right?

[2:36:02] If they move forward with deciding

[2:36:04] we do want to do an exchange, this

[2:36:05] could be a recommendation of and I personally, I like this.

[2:36:10] These because that makes sure that we're

[2:36:12] getting more meaningful signs removed, not just

[2:36:16] the ones that are against a building

[2:36:17] that nobody really notices anyway.

[2:36:20]

[2:36:22] I think I've heard all the commissioners like.

[2:36:26] Well, most of us, I think, are OK if we

[2:36:28] do another one on 1,300.

[2:36:31] But I think most people are like one way, not

[2:36:35] really one way or the other on the putting one

[2:36:37] on the other side.

[2:36:38] So, I mean, can we recommend that we only they could put two

[2:36:42] up, but we recommend that they only put the one on 1,300 up

[2:36:48] and the other sign just be a regular like welcome to Mill

[2:36:52] Creek sign.

[2:36:54] That is an option too right Yeah.

[2:36:56] And then make other recommendations of you

[2:36:59] know, we things that we think they should do like if we think

[2:37:04] that it shouldn't be for advertising,

[2:37:06] it should be owned by the city.

[2:37:10] Or, you know, just for city information.

[2:37:13] I mean.

[2:37:14]

[2:37:17] Well, commissioners, does this give us

[2:37:19] enough information for anybody that would

[2:37:20] be willing to make a motion?

[2:37:24] Are we permitted to separate the two?

[2:37:27] Yes portions of this?

[2:37:29] I think so.

[2:37:29] So so why don't we go ahead and I'm going to recommend

[2:37:36] that we recommend approval of the sign

[2:37:44] ordinance portion of t 23016.

[2:37:48] And I think there's.

[2:37:49] Yeah you've got the notes with this.

[2:37:52] With the.

[2:37:55] Items that we considered today.

[2:37:59]

[2:38:02] Can I make.

[2:38:03] Can I. Can I suggest something?

[2:38:04] Yeah, because I'm not sure about one of those as I'm reading it.

[2:38:09] Are you comfortable, Francis, on the brightness

[2:38:11] and light temperature?

[2:38:12] Because I heard a statement of I like bright light and that's

[2:38:14] not my statement about my life.

[2:38:17] Yeah so, I mean, I guess that's a point of debate.

[2:38:19] I heard a couple people on the council

[2:38:21] saying, well, let's consider, let's at least

[2:38:23] consider the sign industry best practice.

[2:38:25] But I know that that, that Commissioner Reed used you.

[2:38:30] I like what you have.

[2:38:32] OK so I don't know.

[2:38:34] Does anyone I'm going to say to cut that part out.

[2:38:37] But you can give a friendly Amendment not friendly.

[2:38:40] You can amend it and see if the votes are to keep that in.

[2:38:45] Is that right?

[2:38:46] I propose it without the considering adjustments

[2:38:51] to the brightness and light temperature and then we can

[2:38:53] someone else can change that.

[2:38:55]

[2:38:58] And the rest, I think is OK.

[2:39:01] Um, and so and this is without the digital,

[2:39:04] the district sign portion of this proposed ordinance.

[2:39:11] So do I have a second on that?

[2:39:12] Are you clear on what I'm saying?

[2:39:15] I'll second it.

[2:39:16] OK I move that we recommend approval to the city council

[2:39:23] of the sign ordinance portion of zt 23 016, which

[2:39:28] amends the existing sign code.

[2:39:30] Chapter 19.82 with the additions that we have discussed that

[2:39:36] are listed here in the notes section,

[2:39:38] excluding the brightness and light temperature.

[2:39:42]

[2:39:45] recommendations.

[2:39:47] A motion by Reed.

[2:39:48] Is there a second?

[2:39:49]

[2:39:51] I'll second with the clarification

[2:39:53] that this is expressly excluding signs, which I don't

[2:39:57] think we heard in the oral motion,

[2:39:58] but is in the written motion.

[2:40:00] Yeah, it's a part of that bullet point one,

[2:40:03] not including the provision regarding

[2:40:05] digital district signs.

[2:40:08] So if people don't agree with me,

[2:40:11] I'm undercutting myself right on the spot.

[2:40:15] If you don't agree with me, then I'm

[2:40:17] going to propose an Amendment to mine

[2:40:20] and we can take a separate vote on it.

[2:40:22] Or if you're all good with it, we'll just go ahead and vote.

[2:40:24] Yeah, just got a motion by Reed and a second by Vans.

[2:40:31] So we can open it for discussion.

[2:40:33] I just have a favor of what you've

[2:40:35] presented with a strikethrough for bullet point for.

[2:40:39] Yeah, but I do have a concern when it comes to

[2:40:42] on the brightness and temperature

[2:40:43] and the I don't have a problem with the best industry

[2:40:47] practices or something.

[2:40:48] You have to can't just if the color or the brightness

[2:40:54] is such that it makes a digital sign

[2:40:56] impossible to read and look at.

[2:40:59] I mean, you just can't do that.

[2:41:01] You've got to have something that.

[2:41:04] That the industry can put up and was willing to put up.

[2:41:07] And there has to be at least a discussion

[2:41:10] between the industry and.

[2:41:14] And the ordinance has to make sense for the brightness.

[2:41:18] My understanding.

[2:41:18] Maybe I'm wrong is that the standards that are specified

[2:41:23] in this draft ordinance are the ones

[2:41:25] that are the same as what is in the existing district sign.

[2:41:29] Is that correct?

[2:41:30] Are you talking are you talking about the brightness

[2:41:32] of the brightness of electronic message centers?

[2:41:35] No so so the brightness for, you know, just standard signs.

[2:41:40] That's that's new language.

[2:41:42] And it was attempted it was an attempt to balance, you know,

[2:41:46] the rights of sign companies.

[2:41:49] But the but the city's interest broadly to gradually move

[2:41:53] toward a dark sky compliant city knowing

[2:41:56] that we'll never get there.

[2:41:57] Right we'll never achieve a state of grace,

[2:41:59] but we can always try.

[2:42:01] Um, and that was the intent.

[2:42:04] And the code consultant kind of borrowed codes

[2:42:07] from cities in Colorado and Arizona

[2:42:09] to move us in that direction.

[2:42:11] And that's where they came up with the 100 nit requirement.

[2:42:15] OK Yeah.

[2:42:16] So maybe that's fine.

[2:42:18] I mean, I think there should be a balance there,

[2:42:21] but I think there should be discussion.

[2:42:23] It sounds like you've had discussion

[2:42:25] with people in the industry, but you know, we're not Torrey,

[2:42:30] Utah either.

[2:42:31] We're we're Creek city and Salt Lake City.

[2:42:34] So there.

[2:42:35]

[2:42:38] It can be a dark sky anyway, but so maybe it's just what you

[2:42:43] have in there is just perfect.

[2:42:45] That's that's what the motion is saying is.

[2:42:47] Yeah all right.

[2:42:48] OK and I like it that way too.

[2:42:51] I is perfect for.

[2:42:53] I mean, I want to be.

[2:42:56] Well, I think since it's our city where the residents that

[2:43:00] live here, that we don't need to just rely on the best

[2:43:03] practices of the industry, I think we should rely

[2:43:05] on what makes sense to us and then have the industry

[2:43:09] adapt to it.

[2:43:11] And, you know, and since other cities have done it,

[2:43:14] it's not just a number that staff pulled out of a hat.

[2:43:17] I think there's some basis for it.

[2:43:20] It probably will require some change.

[2:43:22] Some signs won't be as bright.

[2:43:23] But just because some other city does,

[2:43:25] it doesn't mean we should do it either.

[2:43:26] We should do it what's best for us.

[2:43:27] That's right.

[2:43:28] And I feel like it is best.

[2:43:30] My recommendation is like, yeah, leave it out like.

[2:43:33] So there are some extreme cities on that.

[2:43:36] Yeah Yeah.

[2:43:37] I don't want to be extreme.

[2:43:39] Well, we have a motion and a second

[2:43:43] and any more discussion on this or I'm

[2:43:46] ready to call for a vote.

[2:43:49] So, Dwayne, since you're remote, we're going to start with you,

[2:43:52] and then we'll do a vote here on site.

[2:43:56] I vote Yes.

[2:43:58] Votes Yes.

[2:44:00] Holtzberg Yes.

[2:44:02] Lofgren no.

[2:44:03] Soul Yes.

[2:44:05] Lamars Yes.

[2:44:06] Reed Yes.

[2:44:08] And Anderson.

[2:44:09]

[2:44:16] I vote no.

[2:44:17] OK and Anderson is no.

[2:44:19] So the first part of this ordinance.

[2:44:22] Passes for two to.

[2:44:26] As a recommendation.

[2:44:27] The city council.

[2:44:28] Is that right?

[2:44:28] For one, two, three, five, five, two.

[2:44:31] Thank you.

[2:44:35] The people who object are supposed to state why?

[2:44:38] Correct?

[2:44:39] they have the opportunity to statewide, if you'd

[2:44:41] like to give some clarity.

[2:44:45] Just the light discussion we had.

[2:44:47] I think we should match industry standard

[2:44:49] makes more sense for given being Mill Creek.

[2:44:51] We're not.

[2:44:53] The only community I can think of

[2:44:54] is kayenta down in St George.

[2:44:56] That's a dark place.

[2:44:58] And I don't think we are that so.

[2:45:00] Thank you.

[2:45:02] Uh, I agree.

[2:45:04] And I also think, you know, even though we've.

[2:45:07] I mean this is a good motion.

[2:45:10] But I think we.

[2:45:12] Need to have.

[2:45:13] I'm not so sure we're there on exactly what

[2:45:15] we need in the sign ordinance.

[2:45:18] I'd like to hear more of what, like, yesco has to say and.

[2:45:22] And others.

[2:45:23] OK Thank you.

[2:45:25] Even on this.

[2:45:25] Well, we don't have any safety stuff.

[2:45:28] Well, basically, all of these are

[2:45:30] going to become nonconforming signs if they

[2:45:32] don't meet the standards.

[2:45:35] Yeah, I mean, that's the thing Utah Science Association said

[2:45:38] is these are so far are what we have is

[2:45:42] far below what the standard is.

[2:45:45] So these a lot of these will come to us as non conforming.

[2:45:49] So when that happens, I guess after we get a half a dozen,

[2:45:52] we'll probably change our minds.

[2:45:53]

[2:45:56] Francis, any existing sign would still be able to continue

[2:45:59] as they are or would.

[2:46:00] Yeah, it can be.

[2:46:01] It could be it could be maintained as long as the sign

[2:46:03] doesn't change in size, right?

[2:46:05] So the moment it gets the moment gets taller or bigger.

[2:46:08] Right it has to come into compliance.

[2:46:10] But, you know, any existing sign can stay there forever.

[2:46:14] It's legal nonconforming.

[2:46:15] Yeah Yeah.

[2:46:16] Legal nonconforming.

[2:46:18] OK Thank you.

[2:46:20] Those recommendations and even for Nils and Steve,

[2:46:25] that does help city council get a gauge

[2:46:28] on where our collective thoughts were on this motion.

[2:46:34] So thank you.

[2:46:36] Now district the district signed portion.

[2:46:39] And Francis, if you could scroll to that.

[2:46:42] OK model motion that you had.

[2:46:45] So I did AI wrote up a model motion,

[2:46:48] you know, just kind of based on discussion.

[2:46:52] This is something I just came up with.

[2:46:54] But that's no changes.

[2:46:58] Plus a monument sign.

[2:46:59] Option number 4 is.

[2:47:02]

[2:47:06] Number four is, is no changes, which essentially means that.

[2:47:13] Here I'm going to do this state that no additional.

[2:47:15]

[2:47:23] This would, you know, essentially

[2:47:26] say one is enough, right?

[2:47:27] That's the one.

[2:47:28] And that's the one enough option.

[2:47:31] Option three.

[2:47:32]

[2:47:35] Option three says essentially one digital district sign.

[2:47:39] And you can look at either nonconforming signs anywhere

[2:47:42] in Mill Creek or signs near the city center,

[2:47:44] as in your model motion.

[2:47:47] Option two is the two digital district

[2:47:51] signs with the nonconforming sign list.

[2:47:54] Right and paraphrasing an option one

[2:47:56] is the two additional district signs

[2:47:59] emphasizing signs in the city center to be removed

[2:48:02] and back to four.

[2:48:04] That's just saying.

[2:48:06] With no additional district digital district signs.

[2:48:09] But it's not.

[2:48:11] It's not illuminating.

[2:48:13] Just a static district sign.

[2:48:16] No, it would not.

[2:48:17] It would not eliminate a static.

[2:48:18] I mean, the truth is that's already allowed.

[2:48:20] Right that's the code already allows

[2:48:22] that we can do that tomorrow.

[2:48:23] OK well, I like the my thoughts are I do like the 5

[2:48:33] because I'm not.

[2:48:35] Opposed to a digital just but for just the city.

[2:48:40] That's kind of where I land.

[2:48:42] I'm OK.

[2:48:43] I'm OK.

[2:48:44] Giving some leeway on the digital portion there.

[2:48:46]

[2:48:49] So I would like to make a motion on option 4 here.

[2:48:54] OK, go ahead.

[2:48:55] So I recommend that the city council approve z 24

[2:49:01] with the following modification.

[2:49:03] With respect to signs in the city center table 18.16 point

[2:49:09] 113in the draft ordinance should be amended to state

[2:49:12] that no additional district signs are allowed in the city

[2:49:16] center overlay zone.

[2:49:18] Motion by Holzberger.

[2:49:21] I'll second, second.

[2:49:24] Victoria Reid beat you, but that letter beat me.

[2:49:27] I'm fine.

[2:49:27]

[2:49:30] Any additional discussion or changes to that motion?

[2:49:36] OK, Dwayne, I'll start voting again with you online.

[2:49:40] Dwayne Vance.

[2:49:42] Yes David Holzberger.

[2:49:44] Yes Nils Lofgren.

[2:49:46] No Ansel.

[2:49:47]

[2:49:54] Let me come back to you.

[2:49:56] Steve Anderson.

[2:49:57]

[2:50:06] I vote Yes, Peloton this one?

[2:50:08] Victoria Reid.

[2:50:09] Yes Lamar.

[2:50:11] Yes Diane Sewell.

[2:50:14]

[2:50:17] Yes and the answer is Yes.

[2:50:21] And commissioners?

[2:50:22] I would.

[2:50:24] Maybe this should.

[2:50:26] Can we still then clarify outside

[2:50:28] of emotion of additional recommendation,

[2:50:30] like if they did go with the digital sign?

[2:50:33] Yeah, that I think that you understand the sentiment

[2:50:36] that we would if they did pursue an exchange that

[2:50:39] would be robust.

[2:50:40] And I don't speak for other commissioners

[2:50:42] but that the bullet points in number two

[2:50:45] of like what signs they should consider.

[2:50:47] I think we're in agreement with that those 5 above 32

[2:50:53] and double Decker.

[2:50:54] And all of that.

[2:50:54] Does that sound like what we well would want?

[2:50:57] I think option 5 is something.

[2:51:02] We should make them consider like that we want.

[2:51:05] If they're going to do something,

[2:51:06] they need to bring it back to us with another of their options

[2:51:10] of we want a smaller sign.

[2:51:12] We want to recommend that it's owned by the city.

[2:51:15] We want to recommend that, you know,

[2:51:17] they look at other options, like if you're

[2:51:20] going to put digital signs and put them in other places

[2:51:22] than just in the city center.

[2:51:24] Yeah, I mean, to me, those are kind of the things

[2:51:27] that I think we should not tell them.

[2:51:30] Absolutely not ever, but that we want

[2:51:34] them to consider other things.

[2:51:36] Yeah, the city council does have the option to remand something

[2:51:39] back to the planning commission.

[2:51:40] Yeah, but they don't have to.

[2:51:42] Yeah so it would be at their discretion.

[2:51:43] Totally at their discretion.

[2:51:45] Yeah but France, if you could relay that one to them.

[2:51:49] I think that's OK.

[2:51:50] I think you understand the.

[2:51:51] Yes our thoughts just add one thing

[2:51:54] like Thank you in the option we had is

[2:51:56] that it would be a meaningful reduction.

[2:51:58] And I feel like that language is so squishy of what does

[2:52:02] a meaningful reduction mean?

[2:52:04] And so to me, it needs to be far stronger, like more robust,

[2:52:07] like 5 to 1 or something like that.

[2:52:09] I'm making something up.

[2:52:10] But, but heck, that's as good as a meaningful reduction.

[2:52:16] OK Thank you.

[2:52:17]

[2:52:21] OK Thank you.

[2:52:23] We got through that.

[2:52:23] Thank you both, Mr Young's and Kathy

[2:52:29] Blake for joining us live at the meeting tonight for this board.

[2:52:34] And also, if anybody wants.

[2:52:36] Sorry to interrupt, if anybody would like a free coupon

[2:52:40] to either noodle head downstairs, $5 or Mill Creek

[2:52:44] pizza house or one of each, they're

[2:52:47] actually on the table outside.

[2:52:48] Just grab one on your way out.

[2:52:49]

[2:52:53] Thank you.

[2:52:55] Commissioners a break.

[2:52:57] We do need to go through some training with John.

[2:53:02] I would propose that we do a five, eight minute break.

[2:53:06] There's lukewarm pizza in the EOC.

[2:53:10] It's really good.

[2:53:11] Dwayne, we'll meet you back for training about 8:00.

[2:53:15] It did?

[2:53:16] Yeah and they're much better.

[2:53:18] They're they're actually happy to have you there.

[2:53:20]

[3:06:35] I have a little clicker for you.

[3:06:37] I got to get this other free freezers taking

[3:06:39] up too much space eating.

[3:06:42] Which button is it, man?

[3:06:44]

[3:07:06] let me start, because everybody here.

[3:07:08] Yes how much fun signs and open meeting

[3:07:16] training in the same meeting to approve the minutes to.

[3:07:20] Oh Wow.

[3:07:21] Open OK.

[3:07:29] OK are you ready?

[3:07:31] OK Utah law requires the chair to ensure that the public body

[3:07:38] has annual training.

[3:07:39] So this is Sean's insurance.

[3:07:42]

[3:07:44] Provided by lease that you're trained.

[3:07:48] Thank you for helping out.

[3:07:49] And when you're done with this, you will be officially trained.

[3:07:55] The act provides that all meetings

[3:07:56] are open unless they're closed for a specific reason

[3:08:00] or statutory or case law.

[3:08:03] And we'll go through that in a minute.

[3:08:05] Meeting is defined as a quorum in this case.

[3:08:08] That before.

[3:08:11] Five oh, OK.

[3:08:15] You're right to discuss or act upon a matter

[3:08:19] over which the public body has jurisdiction.

[3:08:22] A meeting does not include a chance or a social meeting.

[3:08:27]

[3:08:29] Then this planning commission has special rules.

[3:08:34] That no member of the and this is

[3:08:36] outside the parameters of open meetings,

[3:08:38] but it relates back and forth.

[3:08:40] And I'm sure I'm going to get a question on it.

[3:08:42] So I thought I'd just bring it up anyway.

[3:08:44] That no member of the commission shall

[3:08:46] have ex-parte communication regarding

[3:08:50] an administrative or rezoning matter or applications

[3:08:54] before the council.

[3:08:55] And what's an ex-parte?

[3:08:57] Communication means a communication.

[3:09:00] Electronic social.

[3:09:03] Media regarding any of those and we'll get to it.

[3:09:07] A couple of examples that help explain that.

[3:09:09]

[3:09:12] Now, this is not intuitive.

[3:09:15] This is anti intuitive.

[3:09:17] This this section.

[3:09:19] That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict

[3:09:23] a member of a public body from transmitting

[3:09:26] an electronic message to other members of the public body

[3:09:29] at any time when the public body is not

[3:09:32] convened in an open meeting.

[3:09:34] Well, if you can't get together and talk,

[3:09:37] but you can get together electronically and talk.

[3:09:40] It just anti-intuitive.

[3:09:41] But that's the statute and that's what's allowed.

[3:09:44] But not during counsel.

[3:09:45] When you can't say, hey, how are you voting?

[3:09:47] Oh, you know.

[3:09:49] And John, does that have to be through our Mill Creek email?

[3:09:53] Nope it doesn't identify just electronic message.

[3:09:57]

[3:10:03] Somebody goes after you.

[3:10:04]

[3:10:07] Grandma, then they could open them up and clean up my inbox.

[3:10:10]

[3:10:12] Unfortunately, you get to clean it

[3:10:14] out and then give it to Elise.

[3:10:16] And then she gives it out.

[3:10:18] Yeah the statute requires a 24 hour advance notice

[3:10:24] at least takes care of that.

[3:10:26] And notice also required a yearly notice at least.

[3:10:30] Also takes care of that.

[3:10:32]

[3:10:35] The notice that goes out should be specific enough

[3:10:38] to give a reasonable person notification

[3:10:40] of what's the matter, what's on the agenda?

[3:10:43] Now the chair in their discretion.

[3:10:47] May listen or may allow topics raised

[3:10:51] by the public that are not on the agenda,

[3:10:54] but you can't make a decision.

[3:10:58] Yes Yeah.

[3:11:00] Council chair.

[3:11:01] Commission chair.

[3:11:01]

[3:11:05] Because the rules are a little different.

[3:11:07] Well, I'm not for open Meetings Law.

[3:11:11] Written minutes, which you prove here.

[3:11:15] There's two types written and recorded.

[3:11:18] There's the recording over there on top

[3:11:20] of the little shelf by Elise and the written minutes.

[3:11:25] Elise is working on right now.

[3:11:27] And those are the ones you'll approve.

[3:11:28] The written minutes become the official record

[3:11:31] of the action taken.

[3:11:34] I haven't ever had this case.

[3:11:35] But if somebody listens to the recording

[3:11:38] and it says AAA and the written minutes, say B. The way

[3:11:43] the statute says is B wins, even though.

[3:11:47] May actually be different.

[3:11:50] What's that?

[3:11:50]

[3:11:54] She can if you approve the minutes.

[3:11:57] Those are the official minutes.

[3:11:58] Now, I haven't had that case.

[3:12:00] A judge may do something different,

[3:12:02] but anyway, that's what the statute says.

[3:12:06] Then you can only hold a closed meeting for specific purposes.

[3:12:11] First, one character and competency of an individual.

[3:12:17] Or to discuss reasonably imminent litigation,

[3:12:22] you would have no reason to go into a closed meeting for that

[3:12:25] because that's not within your purview.

[3:12:29] Discuss purchase or exchange or lease of real property.

[3:12:33] Again, not within your purview, but this

[3:12:35] is open meetings, training.

[3:12:36] So you're getting all of it.

[3:12:38] Discuss the sale of real property.

[3:12:41] And this one might be when the commission

[3:12:44] is acting in a judicial or quasi judicial status.

[3:12:50] So this is if an appeal comes to you, for example,

[3:12:53] you can get together and discuss how to decide the case.

[3:12:58] In in a closed meeting.

[3:13:01] What about if there was like Mike Winder said, hey,

[3:13:05] we have this idea, I'm floating around

[3:13:06] for this particular merchant.

[3:13:09] In and wanted to talk to us about that.

[3:13:11] That would be a closed meeting.

[3:13:13] Because not with the planning commission.

[3:13:15] He's going to have to divide you up in pieces and parts.

[3:13:19] So there's not a quorum.

[3:13:20] And if he asks me, that's what I'd tell him.

[3:13:23] You can do that.

[3:13:26] Yeah OK.

[3:13:27] As long as there's not a quorum.

[3:13:30] You just got to remember what he told one group.

[3:13:31] He tells the same to the other group.

[3:13:33] And we've done meetings like that with you before.

[3:13:36]

[3:13:41] Minutes of a closed meeting are protected record.

[3:13:44] Records under grandma.

[3:13:47] So it can't be disclosed.

[3:13:49]

[3:13:53] OK case study number one.

[3:13:56] You've seen this one before.

[3:13:58] Let's say it's five planning commissioners,

[3:14:00] because I can't count.

[3:14:03] Five planning commissioners have been properly

[3:14:06] taught to shop local and they run into each other

[3:14:09] at the local Smith store.

[3:14:12] And one of the commissioners starts

[3:14:13] discussing a request for a conditional use

[3:14:16] that's on council agenda.

[3:14:18]

[3:14:21] One of you have to leave.

[3:14:23] This is the recommendation that you say that it's not

[3:14:27] an appropriate forum to discuss the matter

[3:14:29] and change the subject.

[3:14:31] Continue shopping or walk away.

[3:14:34] You may not discuss the matter and indicate how you will vote.

[3:14:38] And wouldn't that apply, though, even, let's say,

[3:14:40] me in Victoria.

[3:14:42] We shouldn't be talking.

[3:14:43] We will get to that.

[3:14:44] I got a specific example to that coming right up.

[3:14:47] Well, it's like number five or 6, but.

[3:14:52] OK number two, you're in church and the constituent

[3:14:56] comes up to you and wants to talk about a new daycare

[3:15:00] in the neighborhood.

[3:15:02] That's a conditional use.

[3:15:05] What can you do?

[3:15:06] What can't you do?

[3:15:08] Well, you can discuss the matter because you're not a quorum.

[3:15:10]

[3:15:14] But the PC rules are planning commission

[3:15:16] rules recommends or says you can't

[3:15:19] have ex parte communication.

[3:15:21] Now the question is, is that ex parte communication?

[3:15:24] What I would recommend is you.

[3:15:26] It's not appropriate to discuss that in this forum.

[3:15:30] And you continue your worship or walk away.

[3:15:33]

[3:15:37] We'll get to your question later.

[3:15:40] Facebook Dilemma.

[3:15:42] While perusing the Facebook, you encounter

[3:15:45] a post about a daycare that has a pending conditional use

[3:15:50] application.

[3:15:51] The post contains some obvious misinformation.

[3:15:56] Can't believe that happens, but that you consider outrageous

[3:16:01] and an intentional misrepresentation and you want

[3:16:04] to set the record straight.

[3:16:05]

[3:16:08] Open meeting says you can do what you want.

[3:16:12] Pc rule suggests that you close the post and say nothing.

[3:16:15]

[3:16:26] What do you mean for instead of them

[3:16:28] the planning, the city council.

[3:16:30] These rules were proposed by the planning commission

[3:16:33] and adopted.

[3:16:35] How long ago is that?

[3:16:37] Probably about 20 minutes after the city was incorporated.

[3:16:41] OK a couple of hours.

[3:16:43] I mean, if you want to look at them,

[3:16:44] we can look at them again.

[3:16:45]

[3:16:48] A question on that one.

[3:16:51] Because occasionally I will see I

[3:16:53] don't get involved in all the.

[3:16:55] Clamour that's going on.

[3:16:57] Well, I'll say here's a link to that has the packet.

[3:17:01]

[3:17:04] You know, I'll put here's a link where you can

[3:17:07] find more information about it.

[3:17:09] And I just put that in there.

[3:17:10] But I'm not saying anything about it.

[3:17:12] To me, that feels like that should be appropriate.

[3:17:14] It's just information that's public information

[3:17:16] and it's just linking them to the.

[3:17:18] That's probably OK, but I would think

[3:17:21] it's in the city's interest.

[3:17:23] Yeah yeah, me too.

[3:17:26] Well probably is.

[3:17:29] But I don't know if it's your job to protect the city.

[3:17:33] Well, no, I was.

[3:17:34] It's even stuff about even.

[3:17:38] Stuff that is coming to us.

[3:17:39] Like, you know, people make comments all the time

[3:17:43] on like Facebook's old now.

[3:17:45] So it's the neighbors app like every single day.

[3:17:48] There's just weird stuff.

[3:17:50] And there are times too, I've sent a couple and I'm like.

[3:17:53] This is I'm not sure this is correct information.

[3:17:57] Here's a link to the city's website

[3:18:00] that has the factual data on it.

[3:18:02] I think you're OK with that if you do nothing more.

[3:18:05] Yeah, I think I don't get involved in the conversation,

[3:18:08] but I don't either.

[3:18:08] I think it was somebody with a Porsche dealership.

[3:18:10] Somebody was like, yeah, they're going to take up

[3:18:11] that whole parcel and they're going

[3:18:12] to build this huge building.

[3:18:14] And so I just like, oh, here's a link to the packet,

[3:18:17] has some pictures.

[3:18:18] It contains some obvious misinformation

[3:18:21] and is considered outrageous and an

[3:18:24] intentional misrepresentation happens all the time.

[3:18:29] And if you feel like you need to give a link,

[3:18:32] you're probably OK with that.

[3:18:34] I wouldn't say anything more.

[3:18:36] Yeah, I never would give an opinion.

[3:18:38] And I wouldn't even say that this is where the accurate

[3:18:40] information is, because what the people are saying

[3:18:43] is that's not accurate.

[3:18:45] Yeah because then you start expressing

[3:18:49] your opinion that isn't related to planning commission.

[3:18:52] So I'll give you an example.

[3:18:54] Somebody who was posting.

[3:18:55] It's been a month or so probably about something that

[3:18:59] was going on in Mill Creek.

[3:19:02] Like if it's not on the council agenda,

[3:19:05] if it's not on the commission agenda, it's not.

[3:19:07] Yeah Yes.

[3:19:11] After it's over.

[3:19:12] OK like you get a comment about signs tonight or something?

[3:19:17] Yeah, because it's over.

[3:19:20] Well, at least our part is right for the moment.

[3:19:26] OK inspecting property.

[3:19:28] You are a diligent member of the commission

[3:19:30] and you visit a property that has

[3:19:33] a pending conditional use application

[3:19:35] before the Commission.

[3:19:37] Is there a problem with that?

[3:19:41] No violation of the Open Meetings.

[3:19:43] No violation of the PC rules.

[3:19:46] Best practices is.

[3:19:48] You might want to explain what you observed to the planning

[3:19:52] commission at the open meeting.

[3:19:54] Give them.

[3:19:56] The benefit of your inspection.

[3:19:59] Best practice not required.

[3:20:02] And on that one I did.

[3:20:03] I've done that a few times.

[3:20:04] But I talked.

[3:20:05] I knocked on the door, told them who I was,

[3:20:07] and let them up front like I'm here.

[3:20:10] Just get some information from you, if that's OK.

[3:20:12] They were always great, but told them like because of, you know,

[3:20:15] it's pending.

[3:20:16] We can't talk about my opinion of it.

[3:20:20] And they appreciated that and they we didn't.

[3:20:23] Go down that path with the conversation.

[3:20:25] And then I did talk to the commission like, hey,

[3:20:27] so I visited this guy and I got some additional information.

[3:20:30] This is what it was.

[3:20:31] OK permitted to ask.

[3:20:35]

[3:20:38] If they're here?

[3:20:39] Yes oh, you know what?

[3:20:44] How about 4.5 right here?

[3:20:46] While inspecting the property and conditioning,

[3:20:50] the owner comes out, approaches, and wants

[3:20:53] to discuss the conditional use application.

[3:20:56] Is that a problem?

[3:20:59] It's not.

[3:21:00] Well, we're not in Minnesota and we're

[3:21:02] not in Kansas or Kansas City.

[3:21:05] I really have an objection to this.

[3:21:09] I have.

[3:21:12] I mean, I guess I can't change it,

[3:21:14] but I felt like it was really helpful.

[3:21:16] It's not like I'm going to be persuaded

[3:21:18] by them any more than I would be if they came here.

[3:21:22] I feel like it closes down information.

[3:21:24] OK, so let's see what my answer is.

[3:21:26] All right.

[3:21:27] It's not a violation of the Open Meetings Law.

[3:21:29] Right but it is a violation of the rules.

[3:21:32] Right which I disagree with them.

[3:21:35] So I think we should review our rules best practice recommend

[3:21:41] that it is not appropriate for them to discuss this matter

[3:21:43] and walk away.

[3:21:44] Tell them to come and make their case to the entire planning

[3:21:48] commission.

[3:21:49]

[3:21:52] Right I mean, you may have gotten I'm just telling you,

[3:21:54] you may have gotten some good information.

[3:21:56] But there's no question in my mind

[3:21:57] that that's an ex-parte communication.

[3:22:00] And you have information that the rest of the body

[3:22:02] doesn't have.

[3:22:03] And that's the rationale for.

[3:22:06] Not allowing you that part that we all have information

[3:22:10] in our heads that we use, and if we didn't, we wouldn't

[3:22:13] be on the planning commission.

[3:22:14] So, I mean.

[3:22:17] Well, that's true, but that's about everything.

[3:22:19] That's not about a pending application

[3:22:22] in front of the council.

[3:22:23] I lived in a different system and I don't agree with it.

[3:22:27] But what we have and I will follow what we're supposed

[3:22:29] to do before I remember going through some of this training

[3:22:31] and maybe a few years ago was OK for us

[3:22:36] not to give opinions on it.

[3:22:37] But then because I would come back and say,

[3:22:39] hey, I visited the guy and I said this where I found out

[3:22:42] I didn't talk about opinions of it,

[3:22:43] but I did gather additional information.

[3:22:45] I shared it and at least the rules at that point.

[3:22:47] So that wasn't an ex parte as long

[3:22:48] as the rest of the Commission has the same information

[3:22:51] that I got.

[3:22:51] Right I remember that.

[3:22:52] Well, that would be the best practice if you're involved

[3:22:56] in ex parte communication.

[3:22:58] One one thing that I think we could do

[3:23:01] is Commissioner Lamar, commissioner reed, John Brown

[3:23:07] and I Let's go to lunch and talk about amendments to the rules

[3:23:13] of procedure that are appropriate

[3:23:16] and see if we can kind address some of the concerns that way.

[3:23:20] Yeah, because I think we could iron out some of the details

[3:23:22] and make sure that we're still following the spirit,

[3:23:25] but also make sure the language.

[3:23:27] Yeah And we're not in violation of the language.

[3:23:30] There's a body of law around the rationale for the rule

[3:23:35] of no ex parte communication.

[3:23:37] So just because we want to do it doesn't mean we can or we

[3:23:41] should, because there's this body of law

[3:23:43] that we have to look at and see what we can do and not do.

[3:23:47] For the record on that part, I think we should not be talking

[3:23:50] to the applicants outside of this meeting

[3:23:53] because it just seems that it would appear

[3:23:56] to be favorable or favoritism and it just doesn't

[3:23:59] seem like we should be talking.

[3:24:01] We can visit the site, take pictures, do whatever we want,

[3:24:04] and share that back here.

[3:24:06] But I disagree that or I agree with the rule

[3:24:10] and disagree with the comments that we should be able to talk

[3:24:13] to the pending applicant.

[3:24:15] So could it be like, would you be agreeable if we show up

[3:24:18] as their private property, like, hey, I want to,

[3:24:19] you know, I'm on the commission, I want

[3:24:21] to look at a couple of things.

[3:24:23] Is it permissible for me to look at whatever it is.

[3:24:27] But then just not talk?

[3:24:29] To them about getting additional.

[3:24:31] I guess it's their option to allow you on the property,

[3:24:34] but it just seems like we shouldn't be talking to them

[3:24:35] prior to this public meeting.

[3:24:38] That's my opinion.

[3:24:41] If you want to enter the property,

[3:24:42] the planning commission has authority to enter property.

[3:24:46] Statutorily so it's probably not a trespass,

[3:24:49] but I wouldn't go on anybody's property

[3:24:51] without asking them regardless.

[3:24:53] Yeah probably get shot or get the dog after you.

[3:24:58] I mean, one of them was a while back.

[3:24:59] And they had a horse property there off 13th and little South

[3:25:02] of 45th.

[3:25:03] And I think he wanted to build a stable.

[3:25:06] But if you're talking to him, there's

[3:25:07] no question that's ex-parte.

[3:25:09] Right but I was just asking like,

[3:25:11] so where is this your property or is

[3:25:12] this the neighbor's fence?

[3:25:14] And then he was like, no, this is my fence and this

[3:25:16] and was that.

[3:25:16] And I did come back and disclose it because it helped to me.

[3:25:19] It helped the commission and me understand

[3:25:24] like, where is his pasture and where is that stream?

[3:25:27] Oh, that's his neighbor's stream.

[3:25:28] I cannot argue that it's helpful.

[3:25:31] But that's ex parte communication.

[3:25:34] So we'd have to if we wanted to do that, we

[3:25:37] would need to update our rules.

[3:25:39] But there's also this body of law around it

[3:25:42] that precludes it's well, it's state law.

[3:25:47] Some of judicially created.

[3:25:50] The city council can go and talk and they're not.

[3:25:52] But all the difference.

[3:25:54] Is there an elected official?

[3:25:56] And their decisions are legislative

[3:25:59] and they can make it upon save the well or whatever.

[3:26:03] But you can't.

[3:26:04] You have to have a rational basis for your decision.

[3:26:09] No, no.

[3:26:10] And I mean, I agree.

[3:26:11] I don't really want someone to lobby me,

[3:26:13] but I like to be able to talk.

[3:26:15] Questions like the kind of thing.

[3:26:16]

[3:26:19] I can tell you it's a problem, slippery slope.

[3:26:21] Because when you talk to the person.

[3:26:23] And the person that doesn't want it

[3:26:25] hears that you talk to the person who wants it,

[3:26:28] then you've got a problem.

[3:26:29] Then we got the city has a problem.

[3:26:31] And that's my that's my argument for it should happen here.

[3:26:35] So that all the people have an opinion gets at the same time

[3:26:38] because that's what I would hate it if someone said, well,

[3:26:42] why did you talk to them?

[3:26:43] But you didn't talk to me.

[3:26:43] I live right next door.

[3:26:44] I don't I don't want this retaining wall on

[3:26:46] this property, you know, like.

[3:26:47] And then the next door one and the next.

[3:26:50] It's a slippery slope never end.

[3:26:53] My recommendation is, is if they want to if they come

[3:26:56] out like this, hypothetical.

[3:26:59] Um, tell them to come to the planning commission

[3:27:03] and tell everybody.

[3:27:05] Bring the pitcher or whatever so you can explain

[3:27:09] where the fence line is.

[3:27:10]

[3:27:15] OK there's 4.5.

[3:27:19] OK, so what are your obligations?

[3:27:22] Discuss and disclose communication.

[3:27:24] That's what you did in that case.

[3:27:26] And depending upon what you heard

[3:27:29] and when I talked to Francis about this,

[3:27:31] this is a drastic result. Or you may want to recuse yourself

[3:27:37] depending upon what you heard.

[3:27:38]

[3:27:44] So this is not necessarily a conflict.

[3:27:47] They didn't, you know, slip you $100 to vote for them.

[3:27:50] You know, that would be a conflict of interest.

[3:27:52] But because it's got to be 500 at least.

[3:27:54] Yeah OK.

[3:27:55]

[3:27:58] When you heard you were all driving them, aren't we?

[3:28:02] Have you seen mine?

[3:28:05] So if you are allowed to buy a Porsche ever in this room,

[3:28:11] ever, ever.

[3:28:13]

[3:28:16] So buy a Lamborghini for all I care.

[3:28:18] Just never, ever buy a Porsche.

[3:28:21] A Ferrari maybe.

[3:28:22] So if you're involved in ex-party communication,

[3:28:25] this is what your obligation is.

[3:28:26] And this is exactly what Chairman Lamar did.

[3:28:29] Discussed or disclose it to the council.

[3:28:32] In the meeting you discussed and disclosed

[3:28:35] the ex parte communication.

[3:28:37] Number five.

[3:28:39] You are approached by a fellow commission

[3:28:42] member regarding a pending conditional use

[3:28:46] application one on one.

[3:28:49] Is it a problem or is it not?

[3:28:53] Drum roll.

[3:28:56] Open meetings, no violation, PC rule, no violation.

[3:29:01] You can do it.

[3:29:02] You can talk one on one among the planning commission

[3:29:06] as long as it doesn't turn into a quorum.

[3:29:10] So we can talk about our opinions

[3:29:11] and the virtues you favor.

[3:29:13] You can talk to.

[3:29:15] Yeah oh, Wow.

[3:29:16] Did Victoria as much as you want.

[3:29:19] OK OK.

[3:29:23] As long as it's one on one.

[3:29:24] As long as it doesn't turn into more than five people.

[3:29:26] But if it's electronic, you can do it.

[3:29:30] Which is absurd, but that's what it is.

[3:29:33]

[3:29:36] OK number six.

[3:29:39] You are confused by a staff report

[3:29:42] and you call staff for clarification.

[3:29:47] Good job.

[3:29:50] What?

[3:29:50]

[3:29:53] give us a second here.

[3:29:54]

[3:30:07] OK we were at number six, I think, right?

[3:30:12] OK you call Francis.

[3:30:14] Hey, what is you?

[3:30:15] What are you talking about?

[3:30:18] It is not a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

[3:30:21] It's not a violation of the PC rules.

[3:30:26] And it actually is probably best practice to clarify with staff.

[3:30:33] If you have question and discuss it in the PC meeting.

[3:30:38] Or I will.

[3:30:40] Or we will.

[3:30:41] Francis will.

[3:30:41]

[3:30:45] Any questions?

[3:30:47]

[3:30:49] You have been deemed trained.

[3:30:53] Thank you.

[3:30:55] Whipping us into shape.

[3:30:56] There OK.

[3:31:01] We need to do a motion.

[3:31:04] I'll do that.

[3:31:04] We have approval of the January meeting minutes.

[3:31:09] Thank you, Elise.

[3:31:10] I think you put those together.

[3:31:11] Was that alex?

[3:31:12] That was Alex.

[3:31:14] Did a good job.

[3:31:15] I didn't read every word for word, but.

[3:31:18] You go browse through it.

[3:31:20] Hopefully she didn't change him.

[3:31:23] Because that's.

[3:31:23] That's what makes it so she could.

[3:31:26] That's the.

[3:31:27] So I make a motion to approve the January 17

[3:31:30] minutes as presented by staff.

[3:31:34] Second and a second by Lofgren.

[3:31:39] Nils Lamar made a motion and.

[3:31:43] Lofgren the second.

[3:31:46] All in favor say Yes or aye?

[3:31:48] Aye anybody opposed?

[3:31:51] Updates from the planning director.

[3:31:56] No Thank you all for everything.

[3:32:03] I appreciate your time, your willingness to.

[3:32:08] Discuss with me privately.

[3:32:12] And publicly issues great and small.

[3:32:14] I just really enjoy working with you.

[3:32:16] So thank you.

[3:32:16] Thank you.

[3:32:17] Thanks for helping craft motions on the fly.

[3:32:20] Does that help?

[3:32:21] Yeah, if I write them into the PowerPoint

[3:32:23] presentation like that.

[3:32:24] Yeah OK.

[3:32:26] Because I don't want to, like, lead you on

[3:32:28] and I don't want to lead you astray, but I want to of, like,

[3:32:31] help you.

[3:32:32] Yeah, so.

[3:32:33] So I appreciate that.

[3:32:35] Francis and then, you know, we've had some light agendas.

[3:32:40] What what is spring summer look like?

[3:32:42] Do you have any idea?

[3:32:43] Are there a lot of developers gearing up or.

[3:32:46] I think it's going to gear up again.

[3:32:49] What what I think what we're experiencing

[3:32:52] is kind of an echo of the high interest rates.

[3:32:54] But now the interest rates are beginning to go down.

[3:32:57] You know, the Fed has announced that they

[3:32:59] plan on doing some cuts here in the next quarterly meeting.

[3:33:02] You know, I expect there's going to be more interest.

[3:33:07] Moving into summer.

[3:33:10] So cool.

[3:33:11] Yeah all righty.

[3:33:13] We just need one more motion to adjourn.

[3:33:16] I'll make a motion to adjourn our March meeting.

[3:33:19] Second All in favor?

[3:33:21] Aye any opposed?

[3:33:25] Thank you for pizza as well.

[3:33:27] Is this from the New.

[3:33:30]

Planning Commission

Transcript