Are you doing?
Could for the first meeting?
Yeah, for the first meeting I was in.
Of this discussion.
No know.
It snuck up on me because we made a mistake.
We should have that night just so we don't.
So now I feel like we've created this.
And that was not.
On his slide.
Table well, now we can have some lively.
We had anything, really?
That was the last.
Dealer oh, Yeah.
Yeah that was pretty lively.
That was the most lively when I. So far I've been to.
You there was one.
There was an email just like, what, 24?
Do you still want to be, chair?
Because apparently.
Yeah Yeah.
I don't have a good.
I think we can kick off.
So we can nominate you and you'll just keep doing it.
Give me a 50% increase.
I'm like, I don't know.
Yeah increase 50% on zero.
We can do that.
Zero we can do that.
Get to.
Yeah anybody?
Yeah Christian and.
Then? victoria?
I'm not sure.
Are we good, kurt?
No one online.
OK well, let's get underway.
Hey, welcome to the March planning commission meeting.
Thank you.
Get oriented here in front of microphone.
I've got a brief statement to read
and then we'll get underway with our items on the agenda today
is the 20th of march, 5:02 PM and at least we do have
a few commissioners missing.
Christian Larson, I think you saw his email and Ian Wright.
And then maybe Vicki Reed will show up.
Or Duane.
Oh, Vance said he'll be on line.
But, Kurt, nobody on line yet.
Nobody on line yet.
OK, I'll let if they show up.
Yeah, we have a quorum.
We've got five.
So we're good.
The planning commission is a voluntary citizen.
Board commissions.
Agenda items fall within two main categories
administrative and legislative.
And we do have a legislative item on our agenda tonight.
The sign ordinance.
Examples of administrative items are I'm going to skip that.
Those are the conditional use and subdivision applications.
That doesn't apply this evening because we're not
going to hear any of those examples of legislative items
or rezoning applications and changes
to the zoning ordinances.
The planning commission will provide a recommendation
to city council and we have more discretion in the suggestions
we provide to them.
Our decisions are based upon planning staff, recommendations
from planning staff and other agencies,
Community Council recommendations, field
observations and information presented
at the public hearing, including a presentation
by the applicant, which in this case is going to be the city
and then testimony from the public.
So if you're.
Oh, and we do have another commissioner.
Victoria Reid.
So I think there's going to be a slight change on the agenda,
because we have the election of vice chair and chair for 2024,
and we probably should do that before we
get underway with the.
With our actual items.
So chair and vice chair can be official.
Right now, the chair is me, Shawn
Lamar, and our vice chair is.
Victoria, read the commissioners.
We have to get a nomination from you folks.
I don't have a campaign speech.
I'm happy to continue on being a chair.
And Victoria, I don't know your feelings
or if you're content, but if someone else wants to do it,
it's fine.
Think in the same.
OK now if you can do it together.
Uh, I move that we keep the same commissioner
and vice commissioner or vice chair and vice chair for 2024.
Second OK.
Motion by Nielsen.
Second by Diane.
For the discussion.
Do you have a speech?
No you are fabulous.
Oh, OK.
Well, Thank you.
Let's go ahead and do a voice vote.
All in favor say Aye or yes?
A Yes.
Anybody opposed?
OK, we're on for another term.
Thank you.
Yeah so you don't want a speech?
You'll probably hear enough from me later on this evening.
So now we'll move to our first item on the agenda,
a real first time 23 016.
And this is continuing business, looking
at amendments to our sign code.
And Francis, you'll be.
Presenting this.
Yes to us.
OK all right.
So let me just do this.
Can everybody see?
OK, so I'm just going to get right into the meat
of the meat of the matter.
Um, so the first, the first part of this presentation is,
is a response to changes that were discussed
or potential changes that were discussed by this body
at the last meeting.
So I sent you a staff report last week.
Hopefully that made sense to you,
but I just kind of wanted to go through each of these in order
in how they appear in the code.
So in section 1860 820, we had language
that said that sign alterations that are in excess
of 25% of the total sign, sign, face
square footage shall require conformance to this title.
What that meant was that a nonconforming sign could expand
up to 25% of its square footage without having
to come into compliance based on comments
from the planning commission.
I we struck that out and simply said that sign alterations
that increase signs face square footage shall require
conformance to this title.
Um, the next question pertained to window signs
and there was quite a bit of conversation on window signs
and what counted as a window sign.
The language that we're proposing here
and we put this in three different places,
one in applicability, one in the definitions
and one in the window sign language
itself is that any sign that is hung within three
feet of a window, any interior sign that
is hung within three feet of a window
is considered a window sign.
OK this was brought up because a planning commissioner raised
the example of a bank in Heber city
that hung a digital display right against the window.
And Heber city had strong feelings about digital signage
in general.
And so, you know, that was brought
up as a potential loophole.
And in fact, there's an example of this right here in Millcreek
the emissions plus folks have hung a digital display
inside their window.
Currently, we really can't regulate that because
technically it's a window sign.
But in the future, we would be able to
with this 3 foot minimum.
I didn't find very many cities that had language like this,
so I just made what I thought was a Prudential judgment
on that question.
With respect to pole covers, that's in 1960, 1868,
100 sub B were suggesting that pole covers and sign
bases shall be constructed of brick, stone
or architectural metal panels that extend at least
three inches beyond the pole, and that
fully conceals the entirety of the sign pole structure.
One one commissioner brought up, you
know, ambiguity in the code about what a sign
pole cover meant and whatnot.
We thought that might be a reasonable approach.
Here's an example of an effective sign.
Pole cover, of course.
Right the brick yard sign itself wall signs.
So a question was raised about the,
you know, the appropriateness of our 15% or 20%
of the wall area requirement for wall signs.
Um, commissioners brought up rightly that there
ought to be a maximum.
I looked at our peer cities, mostly Sandy Murray, Cottonwood
heights, Salt Lake City and in fact, in all cases
and even in West valley, there is a maximum.
It's something similar to this.
And many cities kind base it on the zone.
So we're proposing that there's that keep that 20% of the wall
area up to a maximum of 200ft in a residential zone,
300ft in a commercial c, one zone and 600ft
in a CMD md3 and f zone.
And that's where you have the greatest
kind of opportunity for a large building such as this.
And this is the fat cats and bluffdale, right?
And so that, that speaks to the idea
that there ought to be kind of a maximum square footage
threshold.
And these thresholds aren't out of line with what
other cities have done.
In fact, I think that 600ft is identical to what Sandy Sandy
recently adopted in their code.
Um, you know, upon the, you know, at the suggestion
of the international sign Association's Utah chapter
and and at the suggestion of some planning commissioners,
we adjusted the light temperature maximum.
And then, you know, we, we talked this wasn't necessarily
a planning commission recommendation per se,
but this is something that I'd been
thinking about for some time.
And the idea of, you know, incentivizing
the creation or the incentivizing
of more attractive signs.
One thing that occurred to me is the draft that you received
did allow electronic message centers on pole
signs in the commercial zone.
What if we just prohibited them on pole signs
in the commercial zones, such that if anybody wanted
to do an electronic message center,
they would have to replace their sign with a monument sign.
It is a form of an incentive, potentially a
challenging one for some folks.
Right but it would force them to choose between keeping
their pole sign or maybe coming up with a lower profile sign
to enjoy the benefit of an electronic Message Center.
I don't know how the planning commission feels about that.
I welcome your suggestion, but as I
was kind of going through your notes,
that thought came to me in the last week or so.
And then let's see, clarified proposed
standards for window signs.
So here's what we wrote, and this is language
very similar to what Sandy did.
So window signs shall not cover more than 50%
of any single window, no more than 33%
of an entire surface area of a group of Windows
on each building face.
And they we have a definition of what we mean by a single window
and also a picture that I borrowed from Sandy
that I'll have our code consultant adapt,
if you like this approach.
Essentially it says 50% of a single window
or 33% of a group of Windows.
And you know, acknowledging that the door is always separate.
And then we put that language that
said that any interior sign placed
within three feet of a window is considered a window sign.
Then I have I have Commissioner Lamar to Thank
for this beautiful picture of the beautiful trailer sign we
added to the mobile TC sign definition
to address signs on vehicles and specifically the language
that we added was this.
A mobile TC sign means a sign mounted on a trailer frame
lighted or unlighted, which is not permanently
attached to a structure of the ground or a sign
that is greater than 16ft in area
and that is mounted on a vehicle.
And that's language that chair, commissioner Lamar suggested.
And we thought that might be reasonable.
So those are in essence, those are, in essence,
my changes to the sign code.
I know this is a matter of continuing business,
but but I also know that there are folks here who were not
here at the last meeting is, of course, up
to the discretion of the chair.
But it might be good to hear from the public
on these questions as well, if you're so inclined.
Chair but before we move on to sign discussion,
do you have any questions or thoughts
respecting the changes that we proposed
for you for the sign code?
Commissioners questions for Francis.
Francis on item number five.
You talked about a maximum temperature.
What is that?
Maximum temperature?
The it is 4,000 degrees Kelvin.
OK it's a light color.
Right?
color.
Temperature that's good.
Thank you.
Um, Francis, could you refresh my memory
about what the current limits are on the M6 in terms of size?
Um, I believe it's in the commercial zone.
Yes can you give me just one minute?
I can pull it up.
So you see this as being more restrictive?
Correct well.
Yes, let me look.
So what I can do is.
I can pull up the staff report and then we can.
Then I can tell you what.
What it is in the current version of our code here.
Excuse me.
Oops OK.
So bear in mind, this is a previous draft,
but the EMC dimensions weren't changing.
Just one second and excuse me for the time here.
OK so.
These numbers are the same.
These percentages are the same as what is allowed
in the current CNM zones.
So the percentages themselves have not changed.
What has changed is the minimum separation.
So we now say may not be located within 150
of a residential zone.
And in the draft that you received on Friday,
I'm suggesting that maybe we only make
monument signs in the C zone eligible
for electronic message centers.
But the percentages themselves have not changed.
From from the existing code.
Does that answer your question?
Yeah Thank you.
OK um, just a question on the windows sign.
Yes, doors are separate, but can doors have signs?
Yes if it has a window in it, yes, it can.
Then why is it separate?
It's just counted as a separate.
It's just counted as.
It's just counted as a separate window.
OK and Francis.
I also have a.
Clarifying question two regarding window assigns,
I was looking at the table, the 1868 113 table.
And it has.
Window size 12ft per use.
And I was wondering that illustration
that you had borrowed from Sandy with the 50% windows.
Is that does that go along with the 12ft?
So they have a 12ft per the front of their building
or per window, it's 50% and then limited to that
or that's a good point.
What I'll do is I'll make the I'll make this table.
And I'm sorry I missed that, but I'll make this table align
with the standards in this.
This is the table in question that you're referring to.
Right?
and I'll make this table align with the standards stated here.
We can do.
A maximum of 12ft if you want, if that concerned about it.
Or we can just do the 33% that Sandy does.
Yeah I mean, when my thoughts were,
I can bring my thoughts when we come back to our discussion.
OK well, I mean, the other thing that I would recommend that we
add is that this allowance only be for Windows
on the ground floor.
OK right.
And so what about above?
There would be no window signs allowed
on upper story of a building.
OK also with the.
With the three foot buffer.
So if you put a TV.
A TV would be considered within three feet, would be considered
a window sign.
Does a window signs have a prohibition
on being electronic?
So let's say you put a TV.
One foot away from your window.
That's now considered a window sign.
But can window signs be electronic?
Well, technically, yes, because if you read this,
I mean, the way our ordinance is structured, if you let me see
if I can find it here, our table regarding electronic message
centers tells you what sign type and electronic Message Center
is allowed in.
And in none of these cases is window sign
ineligible eligible for some sort of EMD
under the current code.
Right we don't regulate signs on the inside
whether they're moving images or not.
But under this new code we would write,
if it's within three feet of a window and it's an electronic,
then that would be an electronic message center,
which is not in this table.
Right so that basically says window
signs cannot be electronic.
Now, I mean, what's going to happen,
right, is some code enforcement is going to go out to someone
and say, well, I mean, you can't have that within three feet
of the window and then they're going
to move it 3 feet in an inch.
Right so, I mean, no matter what we do,
right, someone's going to figure out some way.
Yeah, Yeah.
And we can probably talk about that more in our discussion.
Because I'm just thinking of maybe
there are some electronic like the small open signs
that are blue and red.
Maybe those are maybe we feel like those are OK, but large 72
inch screen TVs are not.
But yeah, so that's not an electronic Message Center.
That's just a lighted sign.
That's just lighted sign.
OK electronic Message Center has changeable message type.
It scrolls, it does all these things.
Right? so that wouldn't prohibit if you
have your little open sign.
OK the.
verify led.
The other comment and we don't have to talk a lot about this,
but I didn't see any change to the temporary sign language.
And I just.
I think if that language was rewritten
to make it a little more clear.
That was on page 19 of this report.
And it talks about, you know, you
get six month temporary sign plus three additional
if it's a grand opening, all of their temporary signs
are get six weeks.
It felt kind of clunky trying to understand
what the meaning was by looking at just that paragraph.
I got a little confused.
OK I remember that discussion.
Remind me what code section this was.
The page 19.
So this is.
A Scott 68.140 temporary signs and it was.
I understand.
OK Yeah.
Um, we could do this as a bulleted list.
I have a question on that temporary sign issue,
too, because I've never paid attention to signs like you
did in the last two weeks.
What do we have?
Something about temporary signs on roofs, because I was driving
down 900, I don't know if it was holiday or mill creek,
but there's an apartment complex that
put this big, huge sign on their roof that says now renting.
Which I take it as a temporary sign,
but it could probably live there for a very long time.
Yeah um, and then the other one I noticed
is same type of thing on balconies,
like on the corner of an apartment complex.
Does that fall into these other rigs
where we talk about the clearance?
From the street or the corner.
Well so a temporary sign that's hung
from the face of the building would, you know,
should automatically meet all the clear view considerations.
Right because the sign wouldn't sign itself,
wouldn't change the clear view it's affixed to a building.
You know, technically in this code,
there's probably nothing stopping someone from putting
a temporary sign on a roof.
However, we could make that Amendment right.
You know, if you want.
It's true.
It's a really big sign.
Well, Yeah.
And once you.
Once you spend your world thinking about science,
you do see them everywhere.
Right and it's annoying.
I get it.
That's all the clarification questions I have.
Francis chair Lamar, just so you're aware,
we're having issues with issues with the GoToMeeting.
So commissioner Vance is on the call
and watching the live stream.
So our audio is on your phone.
Correct?
you can see us.
Going to wave to them wherever the cameras
don't know where it is.
That's why I came here, because I couldn't get it to go.
OK do you want to see if he has any questions for francis?
I doubt that he has seen anything at this point.
He just joined.
Right OK.
OK Thank you.
You any questions for.
Francis when you say three feet with it.
With it from a window.
You know you still put.
You know, large 72 inch, 85 inch screen, three feet.
Straight back from the window.
That's still a sign in the window or even
if it's on the wall back behind it.
I guess that 3 feet means within, not in the.
Anyway, you can't do much different.
I'm not.
I don't have any questions.
Right Dave, any questions from you?
I just want to say I looked at that language.
And I think it's not here in.
Table, but in the actual language in the law,
I think I think Francis had put the sentence before, as I
recall, was something like.
If it's facing outward or something.
And then the next sentence that you put in here in the table
was about the three feet.
Is that not correct?
That Yes.
So it's covered that is correct.
Right it still has to face outward.
So anyone anything that was facing
outward, would you please use your mic so he can hear us?
So anything that was facing outward out the window
would be a problem, correct.
As you've written it, because there's another sentence
in the actual right.
And if it's within three feet, we could pick a number,
it could be four, it could be five.
Right like I think we just pick a reasonable number that that,
you know, notwithstanding whatever you do on the inside.
Right it counts as a it counts as a window sign.
Now, I mean, there are things that I
don't necessarily think it's appropriate for us to regulate.
For example, you know, there's an ice cream shop downtown
that has this really pretty kind of Neon Art piece
on the back wall.
You can see it through the window, right?
But it's on the back wall.
A lot of restaurants do that.
I don't necessarily want to regulate that.
There's another business downtown.
Well, it's actually a really beautiful building
with a really beautiful digital display inside of it
on the corner of First South and State Street.
And it's in the lobby of the building.
And that's and it rotates kind of images
of national parks and whatnot.
It's quite stunning.
And and I don't know that it's appropriate for us
to regulate that sort of thing either.
So the question is the question is, where do you draw the line
up adjacent to the window knowing that someone's going
to walk right up to that line and put something there
and we're not going to regulate it?
That's that's the issue that we.
That we have.
I appreciate that, too.
And I also want to make sure that we're not.
We didn't go so restrictive.
Or if you have a restaurant or bar.
And you have a.
TV that's kind of facing the people that might be sitting
at the window, that it doesn't become
non-compliant because they want to watch sports.
Let's move to.
I want to just cover the updated Community Council.
Um, recommendation.
But Francis, I think that was pertaining to district signs.
Yes, it was.
Do these in too.
Yeah, and I'll cover that in my presentation as well.
OK Do you want to continue on with the rest
of the second part and then we'll move to community
council, then up to you.
However you want to do it all together.
OK OK.
So with respect to sign and the Billboard exchange agreement.
So subsequent to our last meeting,
I visited with many of you individually and, and just kind
of got, you know, Herd Herd, whatever,
whatever concerns or things you like, things you
dislike about the proposal and.
I have I have crafted four options
that hopefully encapsulates all of your concerns.
And and the truth is, from a land use perspective,
I think any of these options are defensible.
And again, this is just to reiterate,
this is a difficult issue.
A lot of heartfelt feelings about this.
And and just a reminder, although there
are monsters on the screen, there
are no monsters in this room.
And that, you know, we're all, I think, trying to do the best we
can to make Mill Creek a better place
and that the issues at the fore here really are, you know,
aesthetic and deeply held.
And I just again, want to just affirm that whatever happens
tonight and you know, I have great respect and consideration
for, you know, everybody's deeply
held beliefs on this matter because, you know,
it is what it is.
So there were other cities that have done Billboard exchanges,
not many, but the Kansas City Metropolitan area has
experimented with this concept.
It's different than mill Creek's concept.
But I just kind of wanted to walk through both of these.
One is Lee's Summit and Lee's Summit
is a city of about 100,000 people in the Southeast.
Side of the Kansas City Metropolitan area.
And in about 2004, they enacted an ordinance
that allowed any nonconforming Billboard
to be converted into a digital Billboard on a face
to face basis.
So two faces to one face, 2 to 1, basically.
But they also said that digital signs
could be larger, could be 10% larger than the faces replaced.
In the case of Lee's summit, they
had in essence, a holding zone or a receiving
zone for these new signs.
And those were along certain highways.
So they were taking nonconforming
billboards in their city core and putting
them along certain highways.
They limited their exchange to nonconforming signs.
So, in other words.
Not any Billboard could just be eligible for some sort
of exchange.
It had to be non-conforming in some way.
They didn't necessarily say which way it
was non-conforming, but they said
they made an important kind of policy decision about that.
And the reason why I bring this up is, you know,
a number of you have brought up the question about what
billboards should we consider in some sort of or should
the city council consider in some sort of sign exchange?
And for what it's worth, both Lee's Summit and Kansas City
came up with this concept that really,
if we're going to bear the burden of digital signage,
you know, the signs that are nonconforming
or the signs that are larger ought to be the ones
that are thrown into the mix.
Lee's Summit reduced their number of billboards
from 12 to 6 using this method, and they moved the billboards
away from areas that they found more offensive to areas
that they found less so.
And they did this over about 15 years
in the case of Kansas city, the conversion rate
depends upon sign size.
So bigger signs have a lower conversion ratio
and that's described below.
So there's what they call a junior poster, which
is those 72 square foot signs.
That's the so-called fan sign up on 23rd East that
converted it a 7 to 1 ratio.
A poster, which is an example mean.
This the.
The ambulance chaser sign over just East of the East
of the Walgreens is a poster.
The bulletin board sign is the large one.
An example of the bulletin board sign
is the large one next to Burger King.
That I think currently advertises a plumbing business.
So the posters in the junior posters, Kansas City
decided to exchange at a ratio of 7 to 1.
But the bulletin boards, all things being equal,
they felt that the larger signs had more value.
Even on a per square footage basis.
They recommended a 3 to 1.
And here again, just like in Lee's summit, they, you know,
created kind of holding zones for or receiving
zones for these digital signs.
So it's important to note here and I asked
and this is another question that was brought up
how do we come up with a rational basis
for deciding what signs are removed and what ratio?
This is a particularly tricky question.
And and I brought this up to both the planning
director of Kansas City and the planning director of Lee's
Summit.
And they gave me an answer that was
both very obvious and in a way, very unsatisfying.
And that answer it was a negotiated process
with the sign companies because they felt that there was
no point in having an exchange ordinance
that no one would participate in.
If you set the price too high at an arm's length transaction,
no one's going to buy what you're selling
or no one's going to, you know.
And so in a sense, it's much like, you know,
anything that we do at an arm's length transaction
where neither party is under duress, you know,
you have to find an exchange that's that both parties are
willing to do.
And it was through a negotiated process
that the sign companies and Lee's Summit in Kansas city,
respectively, came up with the numbers that they came up with.
I know that's not like thrilling to hear, but it is informative.
Right and I've asked, you know, Kansas City is a big city
and I've asked their planning director.
Right like what?
How did you do this?
And that was the answer they gave me.
It's important to note that Billboard companies
in the Kansas City and Lee's Summit situation
were not compelled toward an exchange.
There was no property exigency, there
was nothing kind of forcing this, no threat
of condemnation, nothing.
It was truly arm's length.
Kansas City and Lee's Summit also
did not select the billboards eligible for exchange.
But what they did do is they created
categories of signs that were eligible for exchange.
In other words, the signs that were non-conforming.
In addition, I believe.
I believe Lee's Summit actually added language that
said that any sign that was within 500 feet
of their municipal boundary.
Right could be eligible for an exchange.
Because I think in that case, they were saying, well,
we're moving the sign.
We're moving this old sign away from,
you know, an arterial road on our municipal boundary
toward a highway.
And that was a policy decision that they made.
so there are some differences between Missouri and Mill
Creek.
unlike the Missouri examples, Mill Creek
would own the resulting sign and we
would limit the advertising sign advertising time on the sign.
And I think that means something with respect to the ratio.
And it also means something with respect
to how that sign is controlled and managed.
The Missouri examples created a permanent vesting
for the resulting signs and Mill creeks proposal.
At least the previous proposal was for a 40 year lease.
I don't know.
40 years is a long time.
But you know, in terms of rights and vested rights, right.
40 years is a lot less than forever.
And that's the situation that we deal with existing billboards.
Mill creeks are digital district sign out here
is smaller and shorter than the Missouri
digital billboards, right.
Mill Creek also has more control theoretically,
over the design and operation of the sign due to ownership.
So that is to say that that's the council
could negotiate that, right?
We could negotiate time.
We could negotiate when the sign is on or when the sign is off.
We could negotiate the range of the aspect,
the view of that sign are the louvers set at 38 degrees
or 35 or 32 or whatever.
We we could negotiate the illuminance again, you know,
in I ownership of the sign really
helps the city control how that sign is used in the long term.
Also, I noted that I've done a lot of reading on state law
and state statute right now makes
for makes a Missouri style conversion
scheme kind of unworkable.
And here's why.
For for cities that have a lot of billboards,
it's important to note two things.
One, a Billboard company can relocate that Billboard
within a mile of the existing sign in any
commercial or industrial zone.
Up to a certain height.
And if we were to.
Deny them that permit.
We would trigger an eminent domain process.
OK so if a Billboard and this happened in South Salt Lake.
Right if and South Salt Lake has had a digital sign
prohibition at the time.
So what happened was a Billboard a Billboard company said,
I'm going to move this Billboard from this location
to the highway.
And then they came in later for a service upgrade
to put a digital sign on that Billboard.
And they did This following two provisions in state law.
One is in the land use development management act,
but the other is in the Utah outdoor advertising act, which
says that, you know, notwithstanding any city
ordinances, signs that face highways
can have a changeable message face
with a minimum of 8 seconds.
So is our GoToMeeting back on OK.
Commissioner Vance, if you could hear our GoToMeeting
is back on.
Um, so that is to say that, you know,
basically Billboard companies, if they
have a Billboard within a mile of a highway, right?
And there's the zoning in most of these cities,
it can move a sign to that corridor
and then digitize it subject to state, state rule.
So we don't.
Mill Creek lacks the ability to create a highway based holding,
receiving zone like Missouri allowed their cities to do
right through their state law.
So that leaves us with some other exchange agreement
if the city council wants to do it.
So when we talk about assessing the value of a Billboard
in an exchange agreement, it's important to understand
how condemnation works for billboards.
And this was a question that was brought up by Commissioner
Vance in the last meeting.
In the last meeting.
What is the value of a Billboard in terms of condemnation?
It's expensive and it depends because very rarely
when you condemn a billboard, you're not just
condemning a billboard, you're condemning
all associated rights.
That's in state statute, too.
So if they have a view shed or a right
of first refusal or whatever, right on that sign,
you're condemning that.
You're condemning the value of a lease, whatever's remaining
on that lease, you're condemning the cost of the business
opportunity of that sign and its contribution
in a rotary market area, what they call it.
And so I've seen examples ranging from 150,000
to more than approximately $500,000,
depending upon what precisely is being condemned
and for what purpose.
The other thing is, you know, we can only condemn when we are
planning a public improvement like a road or a park
or whatnot or in a case where a Billboard company says that we
are removing a Billboard or removing
a Billboard pursuant to state law, and the city says,
no, right, we can do that.
Right? but we would have to pay for it.
So our opportunities to remove billboards through condemnation
are pretty limited.
They're limited to really when a Billboard moves a sign
and we choose to say no or we're building something that
is in the way of a Billboard.
So neither Lee's Summit nor also important to note, right?
Neither Lee's Summit nor Kansas City used a market
analysis to establish ratio.
Right they looked for an optimal ratio
that was amenable to both the city and the sign companies.
Now, we don't know the value of each sign.
I just don't.
And and there's nothing I can do to tell you.
And we can make we can make assumptions, but we don't know.
But we can rely on visual impact.
We can rely on height and sign area.
We can rely on the nonconforming status of billboards
to prioritize the removal first.
That is to say, you know, if the city council,
if the planning commission and the city council
ultimately are amenable to a deal,
we can kind of frame it in a way that maximizes
the public benefit of this.
And the public benefit not only includes the opportunity
to promote messages of the city on this sign,
but also the opportunity of removing billboards
elsewhere in Mill Creek.
And there is value in that, right,
whether the trade is worth it or not
is another question to have.
But you know, there is value in at least considering it.
The role of the planning commission
and the city council.
Is this.
So really an allowance for additional digital district
signs in our code?
Right gives the city council the option to consider
an exchange agreement.
It creates, in essence, a receiving
zone for Billboard rights.
Right it's important to note that the city
council has the authority to negotiate
an exchange agreement.
It's just like a development agreement.
We can kind of say we would like the city council to consider
a development agreement that includes x or trees here
or whatnot.
But note that the city council is
the one that actually negotiates that development agreement.
But we, the planning commission and staff
should consider what are the impacts
of additional district signs in their appropriate locations.
And that question was brought up by a number of planning
commissioners in the form of, you know,
does a sign make does a sign make more sense on 1,300
East than on Highland drive?
Given proximity to given proximity to residential,
we should also consider the opportunity
to reduce the number in square footage
of billboards in Millcreek.
We could consider we could.
We could consider safety.
You know, we could consider the aesthetic impacts, right?
We can also consider I think the city council would welcome
hearing from you on what should an agreement look
like in broad kind of categories.
Right should we limit it to nonconforming billboards
or does it make more sense to remove billboards immediately
adjacent to the city center to maximize the visual benefit
near the city center?
I don't know.
I don't know the answers to these questions.
But the point is, there is precedent to consider
these in the Kansas City area.
And it's and it's worth asking.
So based on the planning commissioners concerns,
I crafted four possible options.
Right?
option one is to amend the site ordinance
to allow for up to two digital district signs.
And that's what was written here, subject to an exchange
agreement that removes billboards
in the Mill Creek city center.
So this option could allow for the council
to consider the construction of up to two
digital district signs.
They could do one.
They could do none.
One at either end of chambers avenue, subject
to an exchange agreement.
Billboards to be removed would be in the city center
and have a model motion here.
Option two would be to allow for up to two additional district
signs subject to an exchange agreement that removes
any nonconforming Billboard in Mill Creek
or a Billboard that is located near a gateway.
And I suggest some additional criteria.
So any Billboard that's taller than 32
in height, any Billboard that's larger than square feet
and signs on any two decked Billboard
or any Billboard that is within 500 feet of municipal boundary.
So four of those five things are actually listed in our code
as types of billboards that we don't want any more.
Right?
and so, you know, this body could advise the city council.
Look, you know, it's not it's not worth it's not worth
the effort to remove a small short sign when really our goal
ought to be right to remove the signs
that have the greatest impact.
And one way to do that and maybe the best
kind of rational policy basis to do that
is to say, look at the signs that wouldn't be allowed today
and remove those and find the signs
that are most in non-compliance in some way or the other.
What are the tallest signs?
What are the biggest signs?
You pick?
I think that's entirely reasonable.
That's option two.
Option 3 is essentially an amalgamation of this option,
but it would only allow for one additional district sign.
So again, you know, I heard from planning commissioners that
really like what's causing some heartburn is
the idea of a digital district sign on Highland drive.
Well, maybe the city council would
be well advised to do one just on 1,300
East and chambers Avenue.
And that could also be approached with the idea of,
well, do we want to move?
do we want to move just the most nonconforming
signs in the city for that one?
Or do we want to focus the sign removal in for signs
in the city center?
And I've got I've got two model motions for that.
And option four is, is no changes.
Right if the planning commission has really strong feelings
that the trade off of a digital of a digital signage
is just not worth an exchange agreement at any price.
Right then the city council should hear that too.
And in that case, you would be making a motion.
To change table 1861 13 the draft ordinance to state
that only one digital district sign is allowed.
And that's that one.
So again, kind of my last couple slides here,
and this is a repeat from the last presentation.
But to my knowledge and I've looked all over the country,
right, this is the only voluntary exchange
concept where the square footage of billboards gets reduced.
And I know that this is a policy of the city.
I the digital signs have an impact, right?
But I also know that this digital sign is not nearly as
bad as some of the digital signs that we've approved
even a few years ago, because we've controlled better
for brightness, we've controlled better for, you know,
where that sign, how the images of that sign is directed.
We limit it to a certain degree of aspect from the sign.
It is it is better designed in the sense that it has a base.
It has, you know, materials that associate it with Mill Creek
common.
It also has controls in the form of public messaging
that, you know, that allows us to communicate on the sign.
And that has value, too.
Right now, again, this is just a preference, right?
I know this is not everybody's preference, but.
I priced digital signage differently
than I think some people do.
People younger than me.
Price sometimes digital signage differently than others do.
But when I see a big tall billboard, right.
I personally would prefer a smaller
sign if it were digital.
I understand that some people may not feel that way, right?
Because I acknowledged that a set of considerations
also kind of prompt these divergent and deeply
held attitudes that we really can't square
right at the end of the day.
You know, I can come up with four options for you
to consider or to base your motion
or to base your recommendation on.
But what I can't do is, is change
anybody's mind in this room about aesthetic issues.
Right we like some things.
We dislike some things.
And that's and that's hard to square.
The other thing is and I know this issue,
this issue comes up in the traffic in the traffic safety
memorandum I, I put together.
And it's important to note what I didn't say
and what I didn't say was that there
was not an impact on digital signage,
that digital signage is.
I did not say that digital signage is not distracting.
What I did simply do was look at traffic accidents
that happened.
And I looked for a simple correlation,
you know, in the sense that you can tell when the pandemic
hit by looking at traffic data.
Right you can make a really easy kind of assessment about that.
And I couldn't identify a correlation
between the presence of a digital Billboard
and an increase in accidents.
Now, admittedly, we have limited data for this sign.
I did find or I did get from the traffic
from unified police, an indication of the traffic
accidents at 2,300 East.
There really isn't much discussion
on the nature of that accident, whether it's
caused by distraction or speed or drunk driving or whatever.
But that number 31 is in line statistically with the trend
that we've seen for years on this road.
And so really the question is, you know,
the fact is we tolerate all sorts
of distractions when we drive.
Right you know, some people some people are, you know,
changing dials or some people are swiping right when
they should be turning left.
Some people are doing all sorts of things
that cause distraction.
And the real question is, you know, in the midst of all that.
Right does a digital Billboard create
an intolerable distraction?
And would we be talking about distraction
if the city owned and operated all the time on that sign?
It?
I don't know.
I really don't know.
This question tends not to come up in the context of smaller,
slightly smaller signs.
It does come up in the context of this sign.
And I don't know how much of that
has to do with the nature of the exchange agreement
the last time or the sign itself.
I just don't know.
But there are a lot of these signs out there.
They're on our highways.
And it would stand to reason that if they were deadly.
Right we would know about it.
We would.
We would see we would kind of we would.
We would be able to see that in the data.
I can't I can't distinguish that from the noise in the data.
So my professional recommendation
can't speak to political or financial considerations.
I think that if the city council pursues this exchange, that it
should pursue an advantage as advantageous
agreement as possible.
We should ask for the most billboards as possible.
Ownership and control matters.
And that's why I like Mill Creek's kind
of approach to this better than Kansas City's.
So in exchange, where a sign company maintains
private ownership of the resulting digital sign,
I think which should be much higher than 3.1.
I mean, it's interesting to think that that's where, you
know, that's roughly where Lee's city and Kansas City
landed on signs that are permanently vested.
And again, there's no real perfect solution
to reducing the number of square footage
of billboards in Mill Creek.
But based on my negotiating with Billboard companies,
working with them, working against them
in some cases over 2 decades.
Right I think my recommendation is when we have an opportunity
to be proactive with Billboard companies,
we should at least try.
Right and this is a method to actually permanently remove
billboards which are among the most difficult vested land use
rights that we have in the state next to railroads,
mines and water to manage and.
You know, some sort of exchange of owned billboards
to lease time on a city owned sign
is the most effective method I can think
of to achieving a policy goal.
So just to recap our Community Council recommendations.
You know where they are.
I'll just read you the Mount Olympus community councils.
That's that's the additional one.
They met in March and they made a unanimous recommendation
to deny among the members of attendance.
The motion was based on concerns about traffic safety
and the aesthetics of digital signs.
And the verbatim summary of the recommendation
is included in the staff report, which is
available on the Creek website.
That's that's my presentation tonight.
I don't know if you have any questions.
There are a number of people in the audience that may
want to speak to this as well.
Of course I welcome that.
That's at your discretion as a chair,
but let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you, Francis.
Questions right now for Francis on the digital signs.
I just have this is just more of my curiosity to understand
the whole sign business.
To what extent may a property owner
raise a Billboard rental rate when the lease expires?
Can they potentially just raise it to an absurd amount?
And that would be a way to get rid of a Billboard.
I don't know.
I've only seen I've only seen one Billboard lease.
And it's pretty difficult to do.
I think it can be done and I think it has been done.
And that's probably why the state
why there's that provision.
That's one of the reasons why there's
that provision in state law that allows
these billboards to move.
But I mean, I could tell you the Billboard list that I
have seen is pretty punishing.
It's difficult to get out of.
Yeah, I mean, because we keep wondering, like our billboards
really going to always be the way to advertise.
But I mean, that's not a decision for us to make.
But I'm just saying, I mean, I saw one
the other day that's, you know, advertising to advertise there,
right?
Yeah OK.
The other question I think I can't remember,
I didn't write it down.
I think it was the Kansas City.
One of them required that the billboards, the digital
billboards be within two could not be within 250 feet
of a residential correct zone.
That would not be true for the ones
that we are proposing for the comments.
Correct so this sign, if one were to go on Highland drive,
it would be 300 and something feet to the nearest
residence, which is that duplex that's being built on woodland.
OK then how about on the other side, on highland?
Not close.
I mean, this isn't a mixed use zone, right?
So, I mean, there will be residences.
Right right.
All all around us.
But but it's mixed use.
It's not but it's mixed use and it's not residential.
Other questions for Francis.
Yeah, I have a general question on this.
So I understand that the city is the applicant here.
What's initiating the change?
Like what's the motivation behind it?
Is it income for the city?
Is it the idea to reduce to try to reduce billboards
within the city limits?
And this is a method in order to do that.
And I'm just curious on why this is coming to.
Yeah so this is initiated by the city.
And it's initiated for two reasons.
I have I have a city manager and a marketing department
and a community life team that has
worked very hard on promoting events on Creek common.
And they see and they hear the value.
From people who live nearby in understanding
what's happening on Mill Creek common.
In other words, they like it as an effective communications
tool and they consider it an effective communications tool.
The city does not make any revenue off of this sign.
But what we do get I mean, in fact, in fact, the Billboard
company, the billboard, the Reagan,
which participated in this digital district
sign, paid for it.
All right.
We pay for the electricity, but that's it.
They pay to they pay to erect the sign.
They pay to manage it on our behalf.
We control the messaging on 40% of the time on the sign.
That's what the city gets, right?
We don't get any residual from the advertising revenue
that Reagan puts on the sign.
We do we do have a 10% discount for Creek owned businesses.
And that's why you do see some local businesses
advertising on the sign.
And we hear from Creek owned businesses that they
like having that opportunity.
So those are the city's reasons.
Now, from my perspective as a planner,
like I don't necessarily care about the marketing, right?
As a planner, I'm more interested in that's
1 hat that I wear, right?
I'm more interested in its impact visually
and aesthetically.
And and so that's why I've always recommended that.
And I've always thought that a sign like this
doesn't make sense absent some sort of exchange agreement.
Right? because if we just put a sign up that's that big,
I think we're just adding to the visual clutter,
not taking it away.
However, if we can come up with some sort of exchange agreement
whereby a sign company agrees to take down signs that we find
annoying, then maybe that sign has
a little bit more value to me.
Does that answer your question?
It does.
Yeah I appreciate that.
And I. Yeah I think I'll for our discussion point,
I'll have some follow UPS to that.
But that at least just the data on why that is.
That's that's great.
Thank you.
I just have a clarification question as well.
Francis so we as you know, because you've sent them to us,
received.
You know, stuff from the community and stuff
from the sign companies.
And in some I don't know how much time you've
had to look at them because you know, some we got like today
but have you looked at there are some comments in these that
say this is against your code and are we
matching those up in our code?
Like if it is going to be are we overriding your code
or do we have to look at these few comments
and make sure we're meeting you?
I didn't I didn't receive that comment.
I mean, what I can say is if you go to the state
statute on Billboard relocation and and city's relationship
with billboards, it it does.
It does speak to the ways in which a city and a sign company
can remove a Billboard.
One of them is an exchange agreement,
and that's way up at the top right?
Deed gift exchange, condemnation.
And that exchange agreement.
We've done one already seems to be
a plenary power of the city council
to consider within the context of the zone.
Right and that's why we're proposing a zone change
to create this kind of receiving area
for some of those sign rights.
33rd South is a road, right?
But it is not a highway.
It is not a grade separated interchange.
And so those provisions of the Utah outdoor advertising act
that apply to grade separated highways
don't apply to 33rd South.
It's regulated as though it were a city street
as far as UDOT is concerned.
Thanks, Diane.
Hey, Dwayne.
Do you have any questions for Francis at this point?
OK all right.
We see you saying shaking your head no.
And you can hear us OK.
Dwayne, can you hear us?
OK all right.
Thank you.
Well, Thank you, Francis, for covering the DEIB Community
Council recommendation, because there
are some changes to the ordinance
when we reviewed it last month.
I would like to hear additional comments from.
The public so we can gather all the information we need.
And then we can have our discussion.
So those of you that are here, I'll
ask you to come up in no particular order.
Give us your name and if you'd like your address
and your comments about three minutes is amount of time
because I do have quite a few to read.
And then we can intersperse and I'll read some, hopefully.
Victoria you can read some so people don't
have to hear from me too long.
But go.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
I'm Angel vice 3610, Carolyn street and.
I'm not going to repeat what I said last time
because you heard that.
So there's a couple other things that came up.
One, I would assert that billboards are a dying breed.
You do see this Billboard available signs all the time.
And by converting them to digital billboards,
we are giving Billboard companies a lifeline.
We are helping them to make it into the next century.
I hope we don't do that.
Francis said that it is a benefit to the city center
to have digital billboards.
I disagree, and I think that's an assumption, not a fact.
And when he talks about helping venture out,
venture out doesn't make money for the city,
it costs money for the city.
So really, is that something we should sacrifice
our aesthetics for to help that people
want to come ice skate great.
If they don't hear about it, it's not the end of the world.
We're not making money off of that exchange.
There is a fifth option.
I would assert that wasn't in the five options of what
you could propose tonight.
The fifth option would be you've already
polluted my neighborhood here.
How about Olympus cove?
Get the next digital one.
If we have to exchange static billboards for a digital,
why not up by Dan's or up by smith's?
Spread the love.
And then finally, I would remind you
that in 2021 and now members of the community have come out,
have emailed, have texted not as many tonight
as there were three years ago.
A lot of people are burned out, but people
have made it known aesthetically,
it's not what we want.
I would rather stay with the status quo,
and I've heard that over and over again.
So I hope that y'all would consider aesthetics is,
like Francis said, an important thing.
And the community keeps saying it's not the aesthetic we want.
Thank you.
My name is Marv Paulsen.
I live at 3631 South Caroline.
And three years ago.
No, I'm not complaining at you guys.
OK this goes back to what I thought was a.
Binding compromise three years ago,
and I feel personally betrayed now that is brought back up
and I feel that the community is being betrayed
by bringing this back up.
And I guess I could say that option 4 was the choice.
But I have to emphasize my feeling of major betrayal
by the council.
And I hope you'll carry that message to them.
Uh, just to comment on this little thing
that was put out here on 33rd south,
this electronic Billboard.
I don't know who's running that thing, but in a previous life.
I was in advertising and who's ever doing
the graphics on that thing.
I got to tell you, it's.
It's uncommunicative.
Thanks, guys.
Thank you, Mr Paulsen.
Congratulations on your re-election.
I can tell you're thrilled.
Thank you.
Yes so just before I comment, because I've got it in writing,
can I just submit for the record what I've
got here after I've read it?
Is that OK or is that against the rules or.
No save somebody the summarizing effort.
You could do that.
I think I have it here if it's the one you emailed.
No, I haven't emailed anything.
So this is just.
You can give it to us.
You can shoot me an email and I'll make sure
that it gets into the record or just I'm willing to just
hand it over to.
That works too.
OK, perfect.
All right.
So why isn't the one sign we have already enough?
In the staff report submitted for this meeting in the section
titled options for an exchange agreement.
Is this opening phrase after hearing from city staff
and community partners about the effectiveness of city messaging
on the Mill Creek common digital district sign,
I want to repeat that the effectiveness of the Mill Creek
common digital district sign, as in singular, as in one
Billboard.
So staff and others are saying the one Billboard already
installed managed to draw in enough people
to make all the Mill Creek common events for the last two
years super successful.
One is clearly enough.
We don't need two more to do the job when one can do it.
Signage saturation in the current
sign code 19.80 2.1 85 called off
premises signs and billboards.
Section h describes a minimum 500 lineal feet
separation requirement for billboards
on the same side of the street.
The trace ombres Billboard is only 314ft away
from and on the same side as the proposed
location on Highland drive.
That violates the separation requirement.
That spot is also only 69ft from a self storage ground
sign directly across the street.
That violates the minimum 100 foot separation requirement
between a Billboard and a ground sign as described in section I.
So why can this proposal go forward without conforming
to those requirements?
It's because it's being called a digital district
sign rather than a Billboard.
So poof.
Separation requirement doesn't apply anymore.
My guess is that we have these separation requirements
because we don't want to saturate an area with too
much Billboard signage.
Three digital billboards all on a single city block
is ridiculous, in my opinion.
And exactly the density the Billboard
code is designed to prevent.
Except when we weirdly pretend that
it doesn't apply because we're not calling it a Billboard.
Calling them district signs rather than billboards
is a distinction, in my opinion, without
a functional difference.
So what will you be doing in 40 years?
Some people are claiming that the Billboard exchange is
a good deal because the digital billboards will be temporary
as then they would tolerate the visual blight
because the digital billboards would come down after 40 years.
That's misleading, and it's not based in fact.
40 years isn't temporary.
It's the rest of my life.
God willing, I'll maybe be dead by then.
So it's know, if you think about it,
if you have a five-year-old kid or a grandkid,
they'll be married and they'll have their own college
age kids in 40 years.
So it's not a temporary thing.
And secondly, I've never heard staff or the city council
ever make a serious statement or commitment
that the digital Billboard would be
entirely removed while the board and the framework.
At the end of the lease.
So any consideration should presume
that these digital billboards will be a permanently
installed Visual blight.
So lastly, I don't want to ever complain.
I want to bring a solution as well what my thoughts were.
So what would Kathy do?
Obviously, I don't want any more digital billboards,
but if I were forced to make a decision right now,
if you were nailing my foot to the floor,
I would pick option three.
Just one digital Billboard down on 13th.
Opposite harmons and would expand
the exchange options to include nonconforming billboards.
That aren't necessarily next to the city center.
I'd be very aggressive about getting a better
exchange ratio, whether that's.
Square footage or the entire Billboard
face like was mentioned in one of the other cities.
I would make sure that the updated language is very clear.
No more digital billboards in the city
center so that we don't have to go through this again.
Thank you.
Didn't catch your name.
Thank you.
Greetings My name is Jeff young.
2401 South Foothill today happens to be our sign
company's 104th birthday.
Can you believe that?
104 years.
So my grandfather emigrated from England in 1910,
started the company in Ogden, Utah.
Thank you for the partnership we've
enjoyed with Creek for more than a century
and the Bill of theater adebise is
one of our projects among many.
I want to address a couple of things on premise code.
First, we don't get many requests for TVs in Windows.
The glare, they're not bright enough
and the glare is horrible.
So if you're setting a TV back three feet inside,
you might be able to see a little bit at night.
You can't see it during the day and it's not really practical.
So I would perhaps suggest you remove that
from your list of anxieties.
We just don't see that working very well.
We love pole covers.
Great move.
A lot of cities that we work with include this in their code
and it makes a big difference as far as sign
companies are concerned.
When you ask for pole covers, we know exactly what you mean.
If you're asking if you want to specify
masonry or some other element, we're happy to do that too.
And it makes a big difference.
We're actually fine with the square footage.
We appreciate you being so thoughtful and considerate
of these businesses who are advertising what they do.
I want to address the light temperature that Kelvin, Thanks
for the adjustment to 4,000.
There's a reason why these lights are 6,500 Kelvin.
It's because you can see the blue on the flag.
You can see the Mill Creek logo, you can see your sweater.
When you go to 4000, you wash everything from yellow to blue
goes away.
It turns autopsy gray.
It's horrible.
And so in terms of color rendition,
the Kelvin temperature is not something we recommend at all.
I'm not sure where that came from.
We're big advocates of brightness and hundreds
nits is I'm sorry to say, it's a little crazy
because on page 10 on e, it says illuminance level.
I know you don't have that read.
So it is draft.
I don't know if that's new or old,
but the following page on page 11,
you have 0.2 candles above ambient lighting.
That is what hundreds and hundreds of cities
have adopted successfully.
And just 0.2 candles above ambient light
is hardly brighter than what you see around it.
And those light levels are very, very conservative.
To give you a sense, going back to 100
and it's not many people have a nit gun.
We own one.
We never use it.
It sits in a cabinet.
I don't know if you've got one.
Francis, do you have a net gun?
No, but I have a consultant.
Yeah OK.
Well, someone's got one somewhere.
That's the problem.
The photo meter that you use is really cheap.
And it's easy to use.
I pointed my nit gun at my lights on my car,
and it hit 10,000 and then it went off to error.
Then I turned at high beams.
And I couldn't even get it to register.
To give you a sense how bright headlights are on cars,
it's the NIT gun doesn't even work.
So 100 nits is hardly bright at all.
And I recommend that the city consider
just deleting E and keeping f the 0.2 foot candles.
So I'd mention that for you to consider in terms
of electronics on pole signs, let me just mention there's
a series we're advocates of having electronics on poles
for a series of reasons.
First off, customers want the visibility
of their advertising.
We understand that.
When the sign goes on the ground.
Vandalism sprinklers.
Radiant heat from the ground.
Snow from snow plows.
It's the signs.
Ends up looking horrible in a short amount of time.
They're very hard to maintain and it just
puts all sorts of complications in the way of us keeping
the signs, looking well and looking good over a long period
of time.
So you might guess that I would say
that we would love to continue to put
electronics on pole signs.
If I may switch over to the off premise side for a minute.
And Nathan is here.
Nathan is my nephew.
He's fourth generation with the company.
I'm third.
Mr young, will you be able to summarize in about a minute?
We're coming.
I know I've taken way too much time and I'll stop on page 16.
You have one change to the copy face in a 24 hour
period on digital billboards.
If I'm reading that correctly.
Is that what you intend to do?
Francis that's the existing.
So it is existing.
That's in the existing requirement.
We're not making any changes to the off premise or off premise
section because we have to notice that separately would
have received a separate notice if we were
making any substantive changes.
Yeah, I have not seen 24 hour holds
in all the meetings I've gone to in the decades and decades.
So I wave a little red flag on K on the 24 hour period,
Virginia Tech transportation established
the safety threshold on distraction
and drivers texting is 4.6 seconds.
Looking away from the road, Virginia Tech says two seconds
is the safety threshold.
The federal study commissioned to investigate.
I glances at signs say number one,
eye glances at digital signs happened twice as often.
People look at electronic signs twice as often
and they glance no more than 1.3 seconds.
Most of them were less than 1 second.
So, yes, your attention is drawn.
I know.
I'm done.
Yeah, we let me have if you want to have
Nathan carry on from the comments and I'll finish up.
Signs are not.
Unsafe signs are.
They're not causing traffic accidents.
Thank you.
Yeah good evening.
Thanks for the opportunity, Francis.
Very well done.
Really appreciate the energy, effort
you put into all of this.
First and foremost, I would just say engage us, please,
as a member of the community, I'm the demographic
that you want in your city.
Engage us.
We know billboards.
So please, as you go through these renditions,
reach out to us.
Reach out to Reagan.
We're here.
We're here to help.
I drafted a letter today with 11 points talking predominantly
about the sign code on the off premise side, the touch
on four of them quickly.
The first one is related to the exchange program.
I look at your economics on that and understand which companies
have the most to do any exchanges in your city
because that's going to create a monopoly pretty quickly.
And from the industry's perspective,
that's not favorable.
We want healthy competition because it then
starts changing rates and prices,
which then business owners, communities
start to feel the impact of it.
So that's something to consider.
Jeff mentioned the other one on the sign change.
I've never seen that before.
I'm new to that one, so.
Our we run eight slots and they change every eight seconds.
That's industry standard for us.
The next one is there was a provision
in there that was related to.
On 0 2 about providing a demo permit in order
to get a new permit, and we had to provide our lease agreement.
No, please, please, please, no.
Because as soon as we hand over our lease
agreement to the city, it becomes
potentially public document.
And that's our proprietary information.
And we're healthy competitors in this space.
And by doing that, it's harmful to our business.
Other cities and municipalities.
Udot does it great.
There's a form that we fill out with the landowner.
It gets notarized, says, hey, this is a real deal lease.
And then the next was the lighting.
There was a request in there for the lighting to be
downward instead of upward.
I think we need to talk about technology
and what LEDs have done to the industry,
both from the sign perspective and the Billboard side.
So in summary, I would love to sit down and have more
conversation to help answer any questions
you would have from billboards.
Valuations we are a unified industry
and we love what we do because it promotes small business
and that's at the core of what makes communities like Creek
great.
And so Thank you for your time.
If you have questions, you should
have my information there.
Look forward to working with you.
I didn't catch your name.
My name is Nathan young.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr young.
Let's take a little break and I've
got some comments to read here that have
come through on email.
Some of these are lengthy.
And I do want to have the comments comply
with our rough three minutes.
So I'm condensing.
Some of what the comments are.
But at least you I think you have
the same emails that I have.
So you'll have the full comment for the record.
I just finished the proposals at 23 016.
I have to say, and this is also from Jake Hathaway in the Mount
Airy neighborhood, I have to say I'm
disappointed that we will still that we are
still discussing this topic.
Let me start with this calling them
district Stines is disgraceful.
Changing the words we use for electronic or electric
seems like a deliberate way to deceive the public.
Let's be honest with the citizens of Mill Creek.
These are digital billboards.
Well, you've proposed some innocuous changes
to the sign ordinance.
It is clear that the primary objective of these changes
is to allow more digital signs.
I don't know why we must keep telling you
that the citizens of Mill Creek don't
want additional billboards.
We don't want the first one.
We certainly don't want more.
The planning commission should be helping solve real problems.
The city has not trying to facilitate a wealthy sign
company to have more rights against the expressed desires
of its citizens.
The planning commission has outlined four options.
Not surprisingly, three of them increase the number
of digital signs in the city.
Those are wrong choices.
The citizens of Creek have spoken up about this.
There's got to be other options.
I would rather live in, with what we have
than add more digital signs.
I'm guessing the city council and others
are getting a lot of pressure from the sign company on this.
My suggestion is rather than change our code
to help the sign company, we change our codes to protect
the citizens of the city.
After all, this is our city, not theirs.
They already have a history of legal action
against cities and towns.
We should protect our city from that in our own codes
and ordinances and restrict digital billboards to just
the one we already have.
These comments are from Tom Stevens.
The city's plan for two more digital billboards
in the city center is troubling for a number of reasons.
One, the city continues to advance a false equivalency
narrative that digital and static billboards are
more similar than they are different in terms
of safety, risk, blight and economic value
to Billboard owners.
In fact, each digital Billboard has
a safety risk, as evidenced by credible studies
far more lucrative.
Two Billboard the Billboard owner,
as evidenced by the Billboard industry's own claims
and represent far more blight.
And due to their design, color, images, brightness
and pulsating screen changes changes every 8
seconds to the city appears.
I'm willing to accept the evidence
that digital billboards represent
an unacceptable safety hazard, as evidenced by its continuing
effort to gain a positive recommendation
for its digital Billboard plan.
This action exposures the city to future litigation arising
from accidents in the immediate vicinity
of its digital billboards.
Three, the city asserts that exchanging static billboards
for digital billboards will reduce the number
of billboards in Mill Creek.
This is correct, but only on the margin
and at the and at a very high price.
The city is proposing that for each digital Billboard
face installed, three static Billboard
faces will be removed.
For the sake of discussion, let's say each of the existing
51 billboards in Mill Creek represent 600ft of sign face
double sided, which adds up to 30,600in
aggregate square footage for the entire inventory of billboards.
Getting rid of three static billboards,
1,800 square feet, adding one digital billboard,
600ft for a net reduction of 1,200 square feet being
on average, two of the existing 51
static billboards, a 4% reduction
in the current aggregate of 30,600 square foot.
As at the proposed sign phase trade ratio,
Creek will end up with 25 digital Billboard faces, which,
as bad as that is, is an unlikely outcome
as the Billboard owners will probably
be interested in trading out a minority
of their static billboards, keeping the balance
and leaving Creek worse off.
For the reasons above and the others, and that
others will express a negative.
Recommendation to the city council
is the best course of action.
And this is from Janine Terrill.
Oh, no.
This is from Dr. Jan Schwartz.
I'll do that one first.
I am a 30 plus year resident of the Salt Lake valley,
and like many of you, I have lived
in various parts of the Valley throughout those years.
A typical week I spend time in South salt lake,
Murray millcreek, Murray Murray again, guess Riverton and West
Jordan as I go about accessing doctor's appointments,
my home, my office, shopping and more.
In fact, I drive-through Creek to get
from home to work each day.
I'm strongly opposed to the addition
of electronic billboards in Millcreek that
is being discussed tonight.
Studies have shown that electronic billboards are
more distracting to drivers.
I've listed one such study below and tagged the source
and Creek is already experiencing
increased traffic and the hazards that come with it.
While there may be a financial benefit to the city,
the potential cost of injury to people and property
cannot be overlooked.
I hope that the council will reconsider the idea of adding
more digital billboards.
Maintaining the safety of residents
should be the priority.
Dr. Jean Schwartz.
Then there's a couple others on this page.
I understand it.
This is from Brian workman.
As a resident of Mill Creek for over 20 years,
I oppose the addition of more digital billboards.
That's one of the things that I love
about the area of Mill Creek.
It's quiet and there's less obnoxious advertising.
There's a vote to be taken.
I vote against additional billboards.
Please take this into account for the record.
Sincerely, Ryan workman.
The last one is from Janine Terrill.
I ran opposed to these in 2021.
I know they installed one and are now trying to install more.
I'm just trying to keep it to the one.
I feel like these are a real nuisance.
These electronic billboards.
Billboard jail.
I'm not sure I can make it to the city council meeting,
but I would very much like to be included in the narrative.
I have a daughter that's on the spectrum.
And these kind of billboards make her seizure.
Thank you, Victoria.
Yeah, just check that off.
Um, this comment is from Gary Blake, 1189 East iris lane.
A comment on billboards.
The negative effect upon traffic safety of any type of Billboard
is so obvious.
Any Billboard company obviously believes
and intends that drivers will look at their Billboard.
Otherwise the Billboard company would have nothing
to sell to its customers.
The Billboard company obviously knows
this implicitly and will therefore
make its displays attractive.
Therefore, a degree of driver distraction
is a natural result. Furthermore,
the rapid recycling of bright colored
digital Billboard messages results in even
more driver distraction.
Obviously we should not want to make traffic on our city roads
more unsafe by increasing the distraction distraction
of our drivers.
Therefore, instead of wanting more billboards, especially
digital ones, we obviously should
want fewer rather than more.
This is a.
Comment from Brent crane.
Ukraine apologies.
I'm with border.
Yeah, you did that one.
It seemed like his first.
No BLEEP.
Here we go.
Of he's opposed to.
The billboards said they.
Their blight to one census.
And there he's being constantly barraged by.
Advertising I don't want to see the boards that are hawked.
Beauty makeovers and erectile dysfunction
are especially offensive.
One of the reasons I love traveling, especially
to other countries, is their lack
of billboards and other advertisements
that are unwanted by the population.
I see the landscape and enjoy people and sights and
the natural beauty of the area.
This is particularly true for the Salt Lake
Valley and suburbs nestled beneath the grandeur
of the Wasatch Front.
I realized that the ship sailed long ago,
but we must learn to live with the visual and cultural damage.
However, I believe it's not too late to stop
spoiling the beautiful city of Mill Creek.
When I saw the current digital sign at City center,
my first thought was of Las Vegas, downtown Los Angeles
or times square, new York, with their garish digital signs
and light shows.
Please may the council be better than that.
Let us turn Mill Creek into a kinder and gentler
city as boulder, Colorado.
Stowe, Vermont.
Carmel, California.
Please strive to be a city that values
peace and tranquility over blatant light show advertising.
At the very least, please press the pause button
for a couple of years and then reevaluate the need
for effects of digital signs.
Once they are up, they will never come down and more
will be added.
I understand that digital signs are also a driver safety issue,
but I'll leave that to issues, that issue
to others that are more knowledgeable.
And that's from Brent crane.
I'll summarize because it was a long letter.
This is from the president of scenic America, mark Falzone.
We understand that the town of Mill Creek
is currently considering a proposal that will bring added
visual pollution in the form of digital billboards
three within a single city block to the community.
We have read through the details of the proposal,
including the history that is setting the stage
for this potential project.
We would like to offer the Mill Creek planning
commission the following scientific facts
about outdoor advertising.
The first point is about driver pedestrian safety,
and it does go into some quite a bit of studies.
But summarize.
27 studies found that average outdoor advertisings were
designed specifically to grab drivers attention away
from the roadway.
Talks about when there's inclement weather, higher
speeds, traffic changes that they
are distractions and not safe.
The second is environmental degradation.
Billboards require large consumption
materials as well as the removal of trees and vegetation.
Talks about.
The illuminated Billboard says it can consume over 7,000
kilowatt hours annually in a single board,
can consume nearly 163,000 kilowatt hours annually.
For comparison, an average home in the US
is 11,000 kilowatt hours.
Led signs also contribute to high levels of light pollution.
Fewer billboards leads to a reduction
in resource consumption, waste, pollution and the energy
for maintenance.
The last is.
Guess he's got for social economic implications.
Talks about the contribute to maintenance
costs, decrease property values, loss of tourism revenue.
Cities may also incur costs associated
with regulating the placement and maintenance of billboards.
It goes on to some stuff about zoning and signing ordinances,
which I don't think really speaks to what
this application is about.
I'll skip that part.
And then.
Athletics and community character.
One of the most important apparent impacts
that billboards have on communities
is the immediate decline of the visual appeal of billboards.
Often large and imposing can dominate the landscape
and distract from the natural beauty of the surroundings.
So he.
The one.
This is a different point we haven't heard.
But furthermore, scenic America is strongly
concerned about the ways in which the town
leadership allowed for the installation of billboards
in the first place.
The rewriting of the sign code to remove off premise signs
and to allow for district signs.
And the concerning relationship between the mayor
and his wife to Reagan outdoors do not reflect
well on the town leadership.
These are tactics that raise red flags
and are more likely to be seen in communities where corruption
is rampant and certainly not to be expected in a state
as highly regulated as Utah.
It is for these reasons that we implore the planning commission
to carefully consider the implications that
added outdoor advertising will have
on your beautiful community.
We go back to.
Audience you're the last one if you'd want to.
Oh oh, Yeah.
I didn't know I have one from Susan that just came through.
I'm sorry.
I'm glad you're here, too.
Oh, it's OK.
Yeah my name is Mitchell Weiss.
I live at 3610 South Caroline Street.
And I'll just read this email.
As a professional advertiser and marketing director of over 30
years, I can attest to the inefficacy of Billboard
advertising, their limited audience targeting,
lack of interaction and attribution,
short exposure time are just a few
of the parallel perils that have all but
decimated the outdoor advertising industry.
This is why the outdoor advertising industry cannot
sustain itself without government partnerships
and lobbying that produce ironclad 100 plus year leases,
provisions and other guarantees through state legislation.
Fans of the free market would certainly exclaim, let
the market decide their fate.
The outdoor advertising industry is
desperately trying to stay relevant by moving
to more digital formats.
But I would assert that this strategy is merely a better
profit model for them, selling multiple advertisements
on a single Billboard as it does not
solve the above mentioned perils of their advertising services.
I have a hard time believing that any corporation
would trade down assets without guaranteeing itself a windfall.
Our city's motto, connected by nature, is in direct opposition
to our city administration's penchant for digital billboards
these past few years.
When I consult organizations regarding their brand stories,
I cannot stress enough that each employee of that organization
has the opportunity to be a brand
ambassador by exuding their brand message and essence.
Doing so can create a lifestyle and an ecosystem that attracts
their targeted audience, bringing them
into their organization's story, creating
fervent and devoted buy in.
I have heard of no such buy in favor of digital billboards.
Now the boring stuff safety.
There are many studies showing the potential hazards
of digital roadside billboards.
Here's one from the National Center of transportation
systems, productivity and management in 2015,
showing that 23% of crashes and near crashes that occur
in Metropolitan environments are attributable to eyes
off the forward roadway greater than 2 seconds.
Nearly 80% of the crashes and 65% of the near crashes
were caused by distractions that made the driver look
away for up to three seconds.
Of course, there are contradictory studies.
We just mentioned one by the Virginia
Tech transportation institute, which was made in 2004.
They found that digital billboards.
Our safety neutral because they found that the typical glance
in the direction of a digital Billboard
was less than 1 second.
If this is the case, we have come
full circle to the inefficacy of outdoor digital advertising.
My proposal is sorry.
My proposal is that we let the static billboards stand where
they are, where they have become ubiquitous,
irrelevant, and invisible.
Maybe this could give outdoor advertising
the incentive to become connected
by nature to Creek city.
Thank you.
This year.
I've got two more.
This is from MJ Merkley.
Mark Lee.
I implore you to seriously reconsider the decision.
Due to significant safety hazards,
these billboards pose digital billboards
while visually intrusive and unsightly present far more
pressing concern in terms of public safety.
The bright flashing lights and constantly changing messages
serve as an unnecessary distraction distraction
to drivers potentially leading to accidents
and endangering lives on our roads.
Studies have consistently shown that such distractions
contribute to driver fatigue, decreased
reaction times and an increased likelihood of accidents.
Mill Creek prides itself on being
safe and a welcoming community for all residents and visitors.
Introducing more digital billboards
contradicts this commitment and puts our citizens
at unnecessary risk.
Moreover, these billboards detract
from the aesthetic appeal of our neighborhoods
and commercial areas, diminishing
the overall quality of life for those who call Mill Creek home.
As our elected representative on the planning commission,
I urge you to take Swift and decisive action
to prevent the installation or expansion of digital billboards
in our city.
It is imperative that we prioritize
the safety and well-being of our community above all else.
I implore you to consider the long term ramifications
of allowing such structures to proliferate, proliferate
in Mill Creek and act in the best
interests of those you serve.
The safety of our community depends on.
Your on our collective action and responsibility.
Hits this one here from Chris Kaiser.
OK the last one is from Chris Keyser.
KSR as a Mill Creek resident and taxpayer, I am frustrated.
The planning commission is yet again
trying to put more digital billboards in the city center.
Don't sell our city center to the sign companies
on my daily commute when I stop by the red light at 33rd
and see that billboard, it disappoints me
in my elected officials every time,
especially when there is a huge picture of the mayor's face.
What a conflict of interest.
I don't think I personally drive by it all the time
and I've never seen his face, but.
OK Thank you there.
Thanks, Elise.
One just came through from.
I got one from scenic America.
Scenic Yeah.
I saw the one from scenic America.
This is scenic to Utah.
This is from Kate.
it's scenic Utah.
Yes and then the one I heard read was from the I
think from the National with scenic America.
Before I jump to that one, there was I
want to make sure I get Susan b, Susan.
Bolden.
Bowe N I live in your neighbor, neighboring
city of South Salt Lake.
I'm writing to ask you to please vote
no on those horribly distracting signs.
I do a lot of my shopping near your city center,
and we have a few retail spaces in my area.
I am frequently at harmons, La Frontera
and the brickyard shops, but I reroute or go to other places
when those large too bright ever changing and therefore
ever distracting signs are there blocking
my view of the mountains and distracting me.
If you allow these signs, I will shop elsewhere.
Francis, if you've got that one from the public comment.
You want to do that one?
Sure if it's long, you can summarize.
I'm just scrolling through it now.
It looks.
Yeah so scenic Utah.
This is.
This is from Kate kopischke from scenic Utah.
scenic Utah has been following mill Creek's most
recent static digital Billboard exchange proposal
and responding to requests for information
from residents concerned about the impacts of more digital
signage in the new city center.
We provided comments about the same issue in 2021,
when the city first disclosed its negotiations with Reagan
outdoor advertising to remove static billboards that
were preventing completion of the Mill
Creek common redevelopment.
We opposed then and opposed now digitizing
this attractive and pedestrian friendly new space, which
the city promotes as a place where Mill Creek makes memories
and where its showpiece event space boasts spectacular views.
There's nothing memorable, visually spectacular,
or even aesthetically pleasing about
digital outdoor advertising.
We understand the challenges cities across Utah and America
face in moving long standing static billboards,
Thanks to state law that gives billboards
the right to maintain and remain in perpetuity.
Sign owners can refuse to remove the billboards unless cities
agree to spend huge sums of public money buying them out,
or they agree to the kind of digital trade deals
Mill Creek is now cutting with the industry.
The benefits to Billboard companies of these exchanges
far outweighs the benefits to cities and residents.
By industry's own estimates, digital billboards
allow for replacement of 12 to 16 ads on one structure,
especially if they're double sided.
This means reaping profits from multiple advertisers
at the same time generating the same amount of revenue
as at least six to eight static billboards.
Industry also profits by eliminating
the material costs of static, static billboards,
vinyl, steel, labor.
Et cetera.
The revenue of these deals generate
for cities pales in comparison to the money
Billboard companies earn.
But even in light of the extra income from Mill Creek
treasury, this plan does not align from the city's stated
goals to improve the safety and visual image of the community
by enhancing the look and feel of major corridors
and protecting our scenic viewsheds.
Instead, it saddles residents and visitors
with a range of negative impacts,
including safety hazards.
There is no opting out.
One reason so many people object to billboards
and what makes them such an effective medium
is that you can't not look at them.
Unlike smartphones, televisions or printed material,
outdoor advertising is in our public realm.
It's forced on views with no way to opt out.
The city provided a lengthy overview of studies related
to safety risks in digital billboards,
a key concern of residents opposition
to the digital design proposal.
It concluded there is no evidence in any of these data
sets to suggest a correlation between the digitization
of billboards at Mill Creek's intersections
or an increased number of distracted driving
accidents or even accidents.
Overall, however, scenic Utah researchers
who have been investigating this issue for the past three years
reached a different conclusion.
Excuse me.
For example, this map and data set crashes in proximity
to digital billboards produced by scenic Utah's data manager
offers as evidence correlating billboards and safety risks,
digital billboards are increasingly incorporating
facial recognition enabled another technology
to target customers based on their location, age,
gender and online interests.
Raising privacy concerns.
The data are captured anonymously
without consumers consent and without a means of opting out
of the surreptitious targeting.
These and other considerations about the impacts and public
sentiment regarding digital billboards in Mill Creek
should give pause to the city leaders
before moving forward to approve this exchange mechanism
rather than acquiescing to industry's
onerous and community unfriendly demands.
We urge the city to consider other mechanisms
for removing unwanted billboards,
or at the least requiring more stringent conditions in terms
for how future digital signage will be sited regulated
and managed to meet the city's character and protection goals.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective
on this difficult decision and would welcome
an opportunity to meet with city leaders
to offer additional input.
Sincerely, Kate kopischke, scenic Utah.
Thank you, Francis.
I haven't done that since I was debating in high school.
And I think that's all the public comments.
Unless I'll just check with Elise quickly
to see if anything has come through in the last couple
of minutes.
OK, so I'll close the public comment portion
for this application and bring it back to commission
for discussion and.
Emotion and we can think our emotions are
we can do a recommendation in favor,
in favor of changes, denial or even possibly continuance
if we have a need to do that.
Francis, do you have a slide that shows all four proposed
options on the same slide?
No I don't.
I wish I did.
I can kind of cycle through them.
Right if you want.
Real quick.
So option one is to allow for up to two digital district signs
that would emphasize removing of digital removing of existing
billboards in the city center.
Option two would be to digital district signs
subject to an exchange agreement that removes
nonconforming billboards anywhere in Mill Creek
subject to these standards.
These five.
Option 3 is 1 sign.
OK and we can treat that as either
removing billboards in the city center
or these nonconforming signs.
And option 4 is the null option.
Don't do anything.
Leave it alone.
That's the option.
And I took some notes related to the notes
that you had on the sign code that I
put up here, too, because we'll need
to talk about that as well.
We can handle this however you want.
And I think these are good options.
We can use this as a jumping off point,
but we could also look at a combination of these
or a different option, too.
But this I think from last week.
I don't want to speak for you, Francis,
but you're presenting this from direction
from the city to look at ways to reduce digital billboards,
since that was part of a policy in our general plan, right?
So I think that's why these are one,
two, three are looking at exchanges to reduce billboards.
And Mr chair, I have one suggestion.
If you put the exchange agreements out
to a bid or proposals from various sign companies,
if you pick one of the options that contemplate an exchange.
Thank you.
And before we got into the discussion,
I just wanted to do just a brief,
clarifying, clarifying response.
Nathan and I do I read your letter and Thank you.
Since we were looking at the sign
regarding the outdoor advertising, the billboards.
Since this sign change, the part that covers billboards
is just for these district signs.
The points you referenced aren't things we're
looking at changing right?
Right now.
So Yeah.
Yeah and I think, I think it was something
I was talking with Jeff about is we stumbled upon all this
through an employee getting on the site to apply for a permit.
And so all of this is completely for us.
Brand new.
And so were a little bit surprised to just
be finding out about this now, considering.
Yeah, what we do.
And so I think for that reason, if we can help on the Billboard
side, on the sign side.
We're all ears.
We live and interact in these communities.
Yeah so whatever questions you have, we're here.
Yeah and I appreciate you putting that later
because I just want to clarify.
So we weren't ignoring the points you brought up.
They're just not germane to the part of the ordinance
that we're looking at.
Yeah, well, because we have the digital Billboard out
on the 15, if that one piece of code is,
it can only change once every 24 hours.
Doesn't happen.
So sorry.
Yeah, that's.
Yeah, that's existing code.
But I suggest you call me and then we can talk
about your particular issue.
Commissioners thoughts.
And Dwayne.
I don't want to ignore you.
We see you on the screen so you can jump in.
You're still part of this discussion.
And what do we vote for?
And with this, the major issues on this safety aesthetics
and to me, value is what it really boils down to.
Um, safety.
There's, you know, arguments on both sides of this.
I think that's kind of a push.
Aesthetics of value to me are the two big issues.
Um, aesthetically, I'm not a fan of digital billboards.
I really, really don't like the existing district sign
for a number of reasons, primarily because this
is the entryway into the Commons and I don't think
it's welcoming to the Commons.
I don't think it's consistent with,
you know, people arriving at a city center.
It's so digital and lacking in real design and components
there that, you know, branded as you know, hey,
you've just arrived at the city center and this,
this is Mill Creek.
Um, if there's going to be another district sign,
I would want a completely different design
than what is there so that there's more than just a
hanging digital signage there.
Um, but for me on this, the value on this,
is it worth the trade offs?
Is it worth dealing with the digital signs
in order to get rid of some of these existing billboards?
Um, personally, I don't think that the trade
off is worth it at this point.
If I'm going to make a change to the status quo,
I want to be persuaded that I'm moving in a better direction.
And quite frankly, I'm not persuaded that this is
moving in a better direction.
I really don't like static billboards
or digital billboards, but unfortunately, you know,
we're faced with an either/or situation
rather than neither of them.
And so if it's an either/or situation,
I'll take the devil I know.
And I would say, you know, let's just, um, keep the existing
billboards until we come up with what I would believe
would be a better solution for getting rid of billboards
rather than charging into these digital billboards
coming into the Commons.
Um, if inevitably there's going to be digital billboards,
I would only do the one on 13 piece
and get the one off Highland drive.
And when it comes time to make a motion and vote,
my recommendation would be because there's so much tied up
with the district digital signs compared
to the rest of the sign code.
In general, my preference would be to
for two separate recommendations to the city council.
One regarding the sign code overall exclusive
of signs, and then a separate recommendation
regarding signs aspect of it.
Thank you, Dwayne.
That got loud.
Other thoughts.
Diane? go ahead.
Diane so I would totally agree with Duane.
I think about the same thing back and forth.
For me personally, on the changes to the basic code,
I think we can make some of those that needed
to be changed or adjusted.
I think that from the ASCO letter
we should look to make sure that what we're doing in code
doesn't really go against every piece of technology
that's already out there.
So those are like I think he talked about lighting
and this the safety issues.
So safety for me, big issue.
I don't feel like I have enough data.
We have had like two people send us tiny little studies
and I'm a data queen, so I don't feel like from a safety
perspective, I can say whether they're
good or bad, digital or static because we
don't really have data.
So my vote would be to do nothing from the standpoint
of I don't have enough data to make
a solid decision either way.
I think the other piece for me is.
This exchange conversation.
And I and I did tell Francis, if we had to have one
here in the city center, a digital billboard,
I would only put one more and put it on the 1,300 side
because there's no housing and it's all commercial.
And frankly, it's facing Salt Lake City.
So, you know, it's not Mill Creek
that would be so obnoxious for.
Not yet.
I we might want it someday, huh?
The other portion for me, though, is in the discussion
of the exchanges.
Again, I don't feel like I have enough information.
And frankly, what I do know, based on calculations
and I don't know which gentleman it was who sent the email where
he actually went through the square footage
of the signs that existed in Mill creek,
and he added them all up.
To me, there needs to be a formula for exchange.
A very mathematical formula that if we're going to give you
a billboard, you have to give us some relatively equal
amount of the old static ones.
But again, I feel like I don't have
enough information to make a logical motion
to say we should do anything.
And then on the final part of it, I'm kind of with everybody
we've heard from and I guess this
was the same result three years ago is people don't like them.
And I know you guys run the business, so I'm really sorry,
but people don't like them.
And so the reality is, if we want a community, which
our general plan says, mountain views, mountain views don't
take away views, we've already made adjustments by taking away
views for people with housing.
And I think if we can get rid of signage.
To keep or get views.
I would always vote for views.
And I know there's a lot of people who don't really
make that into a thing because they've lived here
their whole lives and make assumptions about how
cool the mountains are.
But I haven't.
And I want mountain views all day long.
So to me, we should just go take them all down.
So sorry.
I know you guys probably run a great business, but so again,
I don't have I don't feel like I have
enough information to make.
I can make minor code.
But option wise, I would be at 3:00 or four.
Thanks, Diane.
I think on the just with the several issues that have been
pointed out here on the safety item, again,
I think I know a lot of these studies
can go you can read it either way, but just
from personal experience and living in this neighborhood,
when I drive in the day and even at night,
it's not that much of a problem when you're driving
past this sign, but as soon as the snow or the rain falls,
it can't see anything.
It just erases the lines all through this.
And I hate it because that happens on I-15, too.
And that's really my big opposition and where
the safety concern comes in.
And usually the studies, at least
the ones that I've reviewed, have,
don't really address that.
So that's as far as the safety that I'd like to make note of.
So and just again, to my understanding is because this
is a legislative item, we are just making a recommendation
to the city that.
Correct and so if we're making a recommendation,
I would vote for four that we keep it the way it is.
However, if the city is going to move, since they're
the applicant, if they're going to city council is going to go
and do what they want to do, I I'm
with you where I want a very clear understanding
of what this exchange is.
And we talked about value also where
there are certain signs that have a greater value
for being removed than others.
Right and and also, there has to be an equitable approach
because if we provide one digital sign that's
an advantageous to one company, however,
the signs that we want to remove might
be from different companies.
So that's how that balance works.
It sounds like a nightmare of a formula,
but I think that's something that I would like to have
a very hopefully that city council has a very
clear understanding of what it is
that they would be accepting if they
decided to go that direction.
That would be my recommendation.
Thanks, David.
Yeah, I. I definitely prefer option four.
I don't see a pressing need to do
the sign right now I feel like.
Like Diane.
I feel like data has not presented.
And I'm thinking a little bit different data
and that's I just heard anecdotal data about the need
for this, for the sign that it was helpful for the city
and publicizing its events and also
that it was been effective.
So far.
But the reality is that's not the only way
the city publicizes its events.
So I feel like that's sort of an assumption
that the sign is another sign is going to make this huge,
this huge difference.
I, I also think that I mean, I think competition is good.
I thought that was interesting what
you was saying about having competition
if we were going to.
Build a district sign.
But I think it's sort of interesting because it's also
saying that they see value in terms
of from a financial point of view
and want to level the playing field.
So that's telling me that they see potential.
Financial remuneration that I'm not I
guess I'm not really thinking the city is trying to.
Um, build the coffers of.
Billboard companies.
I'm obviously because I've been on the planning commission
for a while, I'm very much concerned
about viewsheds and about protecting
our views of the mountain.
I also just want to make one more comment.
I do feel like I like the conservative lighting standards
that we have in the current code.
I think that they were put together with thought and care
and I see no reason to change those.
And I also see that I would like to agree with separating
the two sections of the sign ordinance that we're looking
at, the digital I mean, just the regular Billboard
ordinance or the sign ordinance and then
the district sign ordinance and let's see, I think lasting.
And I actually I'm the person that suggested the
if we had to have a district sign,
I was the one who suggested the one on Highland.
Last time.
I consider it an inferior solution, but, you know.
If we can't if we can't ban it altogether.
And I do think, as I agreeing with my fellow commissioners,
that we need to have much clearer, stronger language
of what kind of a ratio or how we would not just like,
we'll make a good deal.
Not very compelling to me.
Thank you.
Thanks, Victoria.
Steve or Nils.
Thanks I feel like I'm clearly in the minority
here that I actually think the sign looks pretty good.
If I could have two more of those
versus a bunch of billboards, I'd
rather have two more of those.
Just from the aesthetics of the structure itself, I'm speaking.
So that said, I think the caveat to that I'd probably prefer
option two with the caveat that, you know,
the exchange agreement would need
to be quite aggressive to make it worth
it to justify putting those in.
I'd like it in the sense that it could take down
some unattractive billboards and also in the vein
that we've talked about, you know,
sightlines and mountain views, these are much smaller.
They're much shorter.
I think it does a better job of protecting those views.
But clearly, I'm in the minority here, so it's OK.
Um, I don't know if you're totally in the minority males,
but.
You know, I mean, I wish we could get rid of all the
off premise signs, actually, and replace them
with if I knew all the square footage of off premise signs
on 3,300 South all the way from through the city.
I wish we could take that square footage
and put them to every 8 seconds on a few billboards,
have just three or four billboards
in that whole entire area of 33 instead of the 100 or so.
I don't know how many off premise
signs should say we have.
54, 50, 51, 51.
I'd like to take get rid of 51 off premise.
Oh, in the city or on that corridor?
Oh, in the city.
In the city.
I'd like to get rid of 51 off premise billboards
and put it down to five or six digital billboards
for throughout the entire city in strategic places.
Yeah, I don't think that's an issue with one on.
On 13th east, the Highland drive one.
I mean, there will be a new building right there
that blocks that whole neighborhood from even
seeing that digital sign.
But but maybe three digital signs isn't really needed.
And right in this vicinity, we need these more
spread out throughout the city.
And look at that exchange agreement a lot
closer and more have a better exchange on it.
But it's.
I don't know.
It's hard to.
Um, it's a.
You know, signage is needed.
It's a legitimate business, too.
But on premise signs, too, is extremely important.
And I like what we've done on premise stuff
that we've changed in that.
But anyway.
And so I guess I'm not helping any.
No, you kind of recommendation.
That's helping.
I kind of like to ask a question of the Glasgow guys.
So do you know how many billboards
you have in Mill creek?
It's five.
Yeah come on up.
Just curious.
I'm going to ask several questions.
Yes, we have five structures totaling nine faces.
OK so from an educational standpoint,
for those of us who, you know, want to get rid of billboards,
and I agree with you, I actually like the Mill Creek sign.
What I want to be educated on is what
is happening in your industry.
The people are going electronic, right?
I mean, there's Francis and I had this conversation.
It's unavoidable.
It's going there now, whether it's Billboard signs
or whatever.
You know, I brought up the fact that I don't know if anybody's
paid attention that there is one now below the Golden arches
at the McDonald's on 33rd.
And it's not a huge one, but it's digital.
And as businesses come down or up
33rd, are they going to be coming for permits
and they will meet code and they're
going to get digital signs.
So from a Billboard perspective, as we've
been talking, because I know you said
you're new to what's going on.
If if we said to you, we want you to take all five of those
down and have one electronic sign, what would you say to me?
It's a very good question.
I think I think first you need to segment it out on premise
and off premise are two very, very different worlds.
So off premise, if you came to me and said, give me five.
And I'll give you that one right there, it
all depends on the terms.
And the reality is Yes goes view.
We haven't been here for 140 years
just because we're never going away.
We are long term committed company.
And so when it comes to working with landowners
and getting ground leases, we're not trying to make
a quick escape on this thing.
We we derive relationships and our landowners
derive value out of our structures being there.
They get money.
And so by saying, yeah, let's take five away,
you're ruining income of five potential landowners in
your community and its income.
And so it's a balance between what
does the company need versus what
do we do with the landowners?
In in a market like this where we
can't go to a commercial zone and just say, yep, got it.
Got to deal with the landowner.
We're going to put a new Billboard in the ground
because you don't allow new billboards.
It's tricky because there's the supply that's here is locked.
You can't do anything.
You can't add, you can't take away.
So you're asking us to take away in exchange for a digital.
In some respects.
Yeah, it could make sense.
But in our case, we've got five structures.
Probably not because we've got five structures
that are performing well.
We've got great landowners, great agreements.
It doesn't make sense.
But if I had 200 structures.
And I had of the 230 of them that were just kind of snoozers
and I didn't really like them or the leases weren't that great
or the structure was being obstructed by an apartment
building road expansion, you know, all the other factors
say, OK, yeah, I think I could negotiate with the city
and say, OK.
Give you these for this sure makes sense.
And so I think to answer your question of would you.
There are so many factors to it, because what's
valuable to us on the side is the relationship
and a location that is aesthetically pleasing,
that has the eyes.
And you know, that's how we grow our business.
So at the moment.
And I think that would be Yeah.
One thought I'd add is looking at the total numbers
of billboards you have in your city that's going to give you
a perspective of who you'll be negotiating
with because we've got five.
There's two other there's two other larger groups than us,
right?
And so exchanging 5 to 1, getting rid of all of ours
versus someone that's got 100.
Well, then I understand that issue
with competition kind of thing.
Did you want?
Need more information?
Are we out of time?
No, go ahead.
Yeah, it's property rights.
Straight property rights.
And if we were talking about we hate walgreens,
what would Walgreens be saying?
You know, we hate tattoo parlors.
Get rid of them.
OK, well, we have land.
We have invested.
We have a business, and the cash flows are compelling.
What's happened as print media, television, media.
Is all being squeezed.
Right?
so it's all gone online.
That's where all the money's gone.
Our little teeny sliver of the advertising
spend, which is barely see it in the great grand scheme.
We're getting tons of pressure because people are
looking for ways to advertise.
The industry now has big data.
So your cell phone information, we
don't have facial recognition.
I don't know where that came from.
I've never talked to anybody identifying people that way.
That's in a movie somewhere, probably, but.
We know who's passing by.
The signs and advertisers pay per 1,000.
And billboards are compelling because it's
$14 per thousand, 15, 16, 17 per thousand, not 35 on TV.
And so if I'm a business trying to make my way and 2% more
revenue makes a difference for me,
I'm definitely going to do everything I can to advertise.
So I say harmons foods.
OK, how do we feel about harmons?
You know, when you're talking about,
hey, billboards, you're talking about hey and harmons
too, because they advertise extensively
and I imagine them trying to compete
against Walmart and Fred Meyer and everybody else.
Hard business, right?
My grandfather on my mom's side was a grocer on the avenues,
a little teeny store his whole life.
That's all he did.
Think about Harmon's plight.
How do we feel about harmon's?
They are paying immense amounts of money
to advertise digitally, mostly because it makes sense
and there's value there.
Ken foster, University of Utah professor, communications
department, did a survey.
We get in our circles and I heard all this,
you know, we've heard it before, too.
And I don't dismiss any of your feelings about science.
I got it.
I understand it.
People hate Barnes.
People hate power poles.
We all have my neighbor painted his house green.
I don't like green homes.
And then he made his roof green.
Ken foster did this study.
It's been about 10 years ago.
12 years ago.
What do you think about science?
And it was about ten, 12% hated him.
So from that study, the University of Utah,
we know there's a segment of the population that
just hates signs vehemently.
And you've heard it tonight.
The rest of the people are actually
rather interested in them and they're
actually curious about them and they like looking at them.
And even though the glance is one second,
the branding makes a big difference on someone's
decisions, amazingly so advertising does work,
and we're grateful for the free enterprise system.
We're grateful for property rights,
we're grateful to be in business.
And we know because I don't have a Billboard in my backyard
either.
There's residential zones and there's commercial zones.
Commercial zones are there for a purpose, right?
Let's let commercial zones be commercial zones.
Let's let residential zones be residential zones.
Thank you.
That was helpful.
So I think the only other discussion comment I have is
I kind of do agree and I actually talked, I think
with Francis about this, that.
Do we really need them all in if we're
going to do district signs?
I mean, I would like to have a proposal to put a district
sign in every district and not just in the city center
and let the small businesses, because it's
my understanding that electronic signs
actually help small businesses.
Correct because it's less expensive than doing
the big Billboard.
So is there.
If we're going to do it, do we do some kind of spread out?
And I, I live up near Mount Olympus, too.
But I mean, fair is fair.
You know, if we're going to put them up,
do we spread them out across the whole city?
I think that could be something that.
You know it's outside of the scope for this.
But it's a valid point for down the road
if we want to reduce signs, maybe
there is an appetite for that.
I've got a few thoughts and I splitting in two parts.
I really do like all the changes.
And Thank you Francis.
On the excluding the district signs
all the different changes.
I mean.
Everything got.
That clarified.
In in your changes I think I had.
The one thing that I was looking at, though, and this I think,
was from the USCIS letter.
Where I thought in the last meeting
we talked about that pure white would
be able to be used for logos.
Was that accurate or was I misremembering?
That's not really a word, but my.
Give me a minute.
I see.
We would love to redraft that.
What's we would love.
I'll talk.
I'll talk with you off the line.
Yeah OK.
So under on page 1868 120d no, cc3b, I think.
C3b Yeah.
Internally illuminated signs show you semi-opaque materials
for signed copies such that light
emanating emanating from the sign
is diffuse, transparent or clear.
Materials are not allowed for signed copy.
Pure white material pure white materials
are prohibited for non copy.
Or let's see.
Pure white materials are prohibited for non copier logo
portions of the sign e.g. backgrounds of graphics
and sign backgrounds should be made
of completely opaque materials.
I think there's a problem with the sentence.
The intention is the opposite that you can use.
Yeah that you can use pure white materials for the wording
and logo a sign.
OK and that's what I just wanted to clarify because I saw
that the prohibition, I was thinking that we were agreeable
for the logo to be able to be represented with,
with a pure white.
So I just wanted.
That's that's the intention.
So OK, I'm making a note of all of these.
So we can so that you can craft a motion when you're ready.
Yeah um, that's all I had for.
And then my other comment earlier about maybe
just looking at so here's, so here's
what I have by way of notes.
Clarify Yep.
Yep the duration of temporary signs and.
Yeah the parks commissioners about the district signed.
And I appreciate the four options, but I'm looking at.
Well, I'd mentioned last meeting was these are all
looking, you know, 1 to 3 are looking
at the exchange agreement.
But I think there's another option.
And that's just.
Have the have a smaller district sign that's 100% of 100%
of the turns are Mill Creek.
And I think if you had a smaller sign
and I use that example, last month about, you know,
the Middle East.
East high.
You know, there.
A sign like, you know, not to look just like this,
but it's a smaller sign face than 288ft
Or it could be like, you know, the Christian academy,
they've got their sign there.
And we've seen them around, you know,
credit unions and stuff happened.
So I'm not opposed to.
Digital for if it were smaller and just for Mill Creek and.
I feel like some of it is.
Perhaps the cost, because I know this agreement would be,
you know, advertiser, potentially
Reagan would pay for it, install it and all of that.
And while that may seem advantageous,
I look at the whole concept of building the city center.
We you know, we had district signs in there.
I think they were called Monument signs initially,
but from the beginning.
So we knew there was going to be signs there.
So I think that had to be considered
in the construction cost.
So I'm still looking at let's put signs on both sides,
but let's have them be smaller.
And let's have them be 100% for Mill Creek
and let's do option for not do but but let's
not do nothing at all.
And don't have any district signs
like no let's still have a district sign
and I'm not opposed.
If it were a small digital sign, I don't think the cost
would be extremely expensive.
I don't think East High's spending hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
Summit Christian Academy or the credit unions
are spending lots of money for this.
I don't think it's feasible.
But, you know, having 100% of the turns instead of only 40%
on a large sign, if you have 100% on the smaller sign,
you're still I think you're going to have a larger
impact for your community events because you have
100% of the rotations on there.
I also work in advertising, have done it.
Since the 90s.
And I look at this as you know, you could
have a large sign with a horrible graphic,
a horrible messaging.
It's not necessarily the size.
Size can matter to a point.
Like if you're on a freeway, having a 120 square foot
sign is not going to work because of the speeds
of the cars and the traffic.
So that's why they have the larger signs.
But I look, I make the comparison.
Let's say you're at the bar and you know,
you're watching the game on a 72 inch screen TV
versus a 48 inch screen TV because you're
sitting a little bit closer.
I don't think you're.
You know, your enjoyment of watching that game
isn't drastically reduced.
You're still getting the you're still seeing the action.
You're still getting what's going on.
Even though it's on a smaller screen.
And because the speeds are lower here,
I don't think we need this large sign.
So I'm in favor of recommending, recommending
to the city council, like we'll look at just doing our own.
Let's not.
You know, it could be an option to look at reducing
square footage of billboards in the city,
but I don't think there's a pressing need
to do that right now.
Let's go do the.
Let's go to our district signs.
Let's even have it be, you know, maybe 100 square
foot digital sign as well.
And later on, if we want to strike
a deal with an outdoor advertiser
to do like what you suggested, you know,
maybe we figure out which ones remove something else.
But I don't think this is our only opportunity to reduce
billboards through an exchange.
So just along those lines.
When I was looking at this and thinking about this,
I was thinking of big comparison between 33rd and 39th
and 39th doesn't have any public as far as I mean,
above, let's say 23rd any, you know, advertising billboards.
But they do have the banners for the high school
and that's local and it looks good
and no one complains about that.
And it's small and it's but it's very community.
I mean, that and it looks good.
Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too,
is even though there would be some signage,
I think some signage is appropriate for our city
center.
But I feel like it reduces the it's not it doesn't feel so
cheap like we as a city sold out to like,
well, we had to make this deal because we saved a couple
hundred thousand dollars on Reagan
putting them in because we wouldn't have to know,
I don't think I wouldn't want the city to erect a two 188
square foot sign in the messages.
You know, it would be the same as this one here.
I don't think that's necessary or appropriate.
So I'm looking at a smaller sign like we had originally thought
about when we looked at the city center plans,
you know, five, six years ago.
Um, so those are my thoughts on it.
Well, they probably.
I would look at it just for construction.
Yeah, I've looked at it as just the same.
As for building anything else, you know, like the sign
that we put on Mill Creek common,
you know, that went out to bid to somebody to put up there?
Maybe, but I don't know.
Yeah Yeah.
Yeah so I don't know how we I mean,
we can continue the conversation.
I, I don't know if I don't feel like we have
an appetite for a continuance.
I think we have enough information
to make a recommendation.
But it.
We and Dwayne.
I don't want to ignore you.
We've had a conversation now.
Do you have any other thoughts you
want to bring up since you went first
and you've heard a lot of information now?
And there should be I mean, that's what we're here for,
is to hear different viewpoints.
Yeah we had several commissioners looking at
just let's go with option four.
We have a prefer an option to.
Steve, I don't know if you had a specific number option
or if yours was kind of a hybrid.
And we can when we make the motion,
we can use the one, two, 3 as.
There's a place to start if we want,
and then modify it from there.
Or one, two.
One, two, four.
well, you makes some good points and.
And why do we need three large digital signs
around their mean that can still be like the one
if it was out there.
It still have.
Just like, I don't know.
Well, doesn't necessarily have to be a monument sign,
but it has to be a sign that would still scroll
or have some digital to it.
But it's just for Mill Creek city
and it's something smaller.
And we do it only for.
Advertising for.
I mean, I guess you could do it for any events or anything.
Throughout Mill Creek city two or.
Or just what happens to the commons?
Or would there be advertising for businesses
in the Commons area here on.
I don't know.
I guess my thought was just keep it within the city.
So I'm not a personally I'm not opposed
if we wanted to advertise the.
It almost seems like we need to make a recommendation
on what happens here.
And then another recommendation on what
happens as far as our whole entire sign ordinance and.
A whole entire sign ordinance, I think.
Gentleman from.
Maybe there's a few things we should look at there and.
You know, listen to their.
Ideas along with Reagan's ideas.
Maybe we've already had stuff from Reagan
or some of the other large I don't know who all does
signs here with Saunders or.
Here in the city, but.
to take some of their points and maybe look further at this.
The whole overall sign ordinance, but at least
make a recommendation on.
Think should happen here.
Yeah, that's what I think.
Yeah, because I know we're looking at,
you know, The changes proposed are
really with the district signs.
Um, you know, and should they.
What should we do about the.
What changes, if any, should we make for the sign ordinance?
Ordinance regarding the district signs?
And then the other part is, of course, the other weeks
we have to our sign ordinance.
I still think we should look.
Change somehow because and only I mean only the sign
companies are going to.
It's got to be something.
It's the benefits of them.
I mean.
I mean, that's what we're in the business
just like Walgreens is in the business to be.
They're in the same business.
So it has to be something that would still be
workable for any sign company.
So I'm just trying to think about how we move this forward.
And if we called Sean's proposal five.
It really?
It is.
helpful for us to pull.
Just choose a number right now and see where.
I mean, I think yours has.
Midst to it.
I don't know if we can say we have.
This choice, but our backup is this I don't know
what we can do to give more.
Or if it would be helpful if we each just said
what our first choice number is and then we're taking the we're
not taking the official vote, but just
to know where people are and.
How we can craft something.
I'm looking at the votes, and I'm.
Might be for.
And then that would then help craft
like where the motion goes.
You could do that.
Or if you want to make a motion, we can see where that goes.
But my feeling is if you want to do a straw poll.
Yeah, well, I'm right.
I'm for that.
I see merits in 3 and 5.
So what do I do with that?
Oh for five.
I think we've achieved five.
I think it's sitting right out here
and I think that adding additional one
doesn't accomplish anything.
I think I'm appreciate the amount of advertising,
the numbers that we got.
That 40% is the city advertising that happens here.
Fantastic but also it's there with the discount
of helping Creek businesses.
So I think five, in my opinion, is achieved.
So I'd go for on my Dave is for hills where do you are
you still like looking at two.
Yeah I mean, my preference overall would
be no signs like everyone else.
I mean, not everyone literally, but.
But if we're choosing sides and again,
it's hard because we don't know what
that exchange agreement is.
If I could take down 5 billboards on 33rd
for another one of those.
Yeah, do it.
But if it's one for one, probably not.
so in that sense, it's hard.
Like I said, I probably choose to with the caveat
that exchange agreement needs to be substantial.
I mean, it needs to have some meat to it.
So that would be my preference if I could take down AI mean,
if you drive up down 33rd, it's a lot of signs.
If you could take some down for a smaller,
more aesthetically pleasing sign, I'd love to do that.
Um, so it's hard without knowing the details
of exchange agreement, but that would be minus 2.
With that caveat, the robust exchange and.
Feel like I'm.
I would do for from the standpoint of for right now,
I just feel like we still don't have enough to do or enough
to clarify.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that
is there an option 5 to say no on the district signs
as they've been brought to us?
But we recommend smaller signs.
And we can recommend, if everybody
agrees that they only be city owned and not advertisements.
Um, I kind of feel like we should do that as one thing
and decide, are we letting them do it or aren't we?
And then can we then make recommendations to the city
council or back to the city planners
to say, we want you to look at smaller signs,
we want you to look at an exchange,
but we just don't have enough data yet
to make any of those decisions.
We'd like to have a what would it be like to those four city
council people if we said, each of you get one, then
and they have to figure out what to do with it?
I mean, you know.
I don't know how they feel about that.
Because we don't have any representatives
from the city council.
I think we'd have to just craft that as a recommendation
because if we make a recommendation and then said,
but we want to see what the exchange agreement is then.
Wants to make a recommendation.
I think it would be we want a recommendation
of a really robust.
We have to suggest that.
And I'm with you, I'd go for the 7 to 1.
But if we can get rid of 7 and give them a one digital,
I might be all about that.
Uh, Victoria.
Well, for you.
Please use your microphone.
The light on.
Yes, I support forest, my first choice.
But yes, the details.
We got rid of all 3,300 signs and put one digital.
Yeah, I'm all in.
So what I see in what's being suggested right now
is not robust enough for me to want
to support one or two and even three
where it would have less visual impact on the city.
Again, you know, I'd be like five, 5 to 1.
And I'm going to also point out that those numbers in Kansas
City or Lee county, which one it was, but they were
talking about how they had had 13 billboards and they
went to six.
And I'm thinking, you know, as a percentage of their billboards
in the city.
And as I recall, you said that, Lee.
We've had only 100,000 people.
Well, that's the size that we have.
So they're talking about a city that has 13 billboards
and they're trying to reduce it.
I mean, they're getting rid of 50% That is so so that to me
that those exchange rates are not equivalent to what we're
talking about when we're talking starting at a smaller
city with 51 billboards.
So to make an impact, I feel like it
needs to be much more robust.
So given that what I'm seeing presented is not strong enough,
I would go with.
For Thank you.
Steve I will go along with four.
However So I just want to know the Billboard
that's out out here now.
Was there an exchange on that one at all?
Yes OK.
Because there was the removal of an existing sign
that was there.
Uh, plus.
Plus 924ft of vested rights of billboards that Reagan
had previously removed.
We have a Billboard bank concept.
One of those signs was actually over
here on the corner of by the check cashing business,
I believe.
And then there was another sign that was down the road,
and they were both kind of 30 sheet signs.
I don't remember.
It goes back a long time, but they had bank square footage
that we threw in.
They surrendered the rights to.
So that's why I wouldn't mind.
3 with the option that we try to get a better
deal for the one on 1,300 East.
Option three or 4, I think initially you said for.
I'm not sure which option it was, but we're.
Is one Billboard and 4.
Right so I'm saying 3 with the one Billboard on Richmond.
Yeah out on that's on 1,300 East right.
And that would be but to get a better exchange.
Then you got on the original.
At least tried to.
If not.
Don't do it.
A Dwayne.
If we change the sign code to give,
to allow two additional district signs,
and then it becomes a legislative matter for the city
council where they essentially have
a blank check to do whatever they
want on an exchange agreement.
With so many unknowns and variables still in play here.
I would opt for you know, I would vote
for option number four that we.
Advanced the sign code in general because there's no need
to hold up the remainder of the sign code
just over district signs.
Let's get the sign code updated and implemented.
But I I'm not persuaded that now is the right time to move on.
The digital district signs in the city center.
OK thanks, Duane.
Thanks and my thoughts are kind of that hybrid
that I suggested.
It's kind of like.
4 plus.
I think a district signs are fine.
They don't have to be digital.
They could just be a nice district sign.
Welcome to the city center chair, Lamar.
Yes, actually, maybe propose some language
here for you to look at.
I don't know whether that'll work, but.
OK let's see.
Oh, you know what?
Yeah, that's correct.
So that would have the effect of,
you know, so there's only one digital district sign.
But, you know, we could create a district monument sign.
Yeah, something along those lines.
I'm just kind of spitballing and.
And when you're saying the one digital district sign,
that's the one that already exists.
Yes this one out here.
So not additional, right?
Yeah and then this would be.
We could have a district monument sign feet.
Area of electronic message limited.
Yeah that.
So what's on the screen that captures kind of my feeling.
I feel that's what I was trying to articulate earlier.
But Francis did it a lot shorter.
So in this case, we're saying only one that exists,
only the one that exists.
So so no additional no.
No additional signs.
Well, there would be additional they would be limited.
But there's no exchange with Reagan
for taking down Billboard.
There's no exchange.
It's not it's not a large one.
It's a smaller one.
Yeah so that's kind of where my feeling is.
For me, this model motion would work.
I don't know about you.
May capture what we wanted with no additional sign.
And I think we could also say if the city council.
Had an appetite that they did want to do an exchange that we
highly recommend, that it's a very aggressive, robust,
you know, good exchange ratio of what they're going to.
Exchange how many what the ratio is.
And also which signs are removed.
So they're not removing signs that while it's
a billboard, signs that we don't really care about.
Like there's a few that I didn't even know existed until.
This, we started looking at billboards.
So to me, if they remove those, I don't
think anybody would even know.
I think they have to be substantial, meaningful signs.
So can we make recommendations on top of maybe doing a motion
that we approve, but can we just give them
a list of these are the things we recommend
before we do anything else.
Yeah you can advise the council on, on, on those.
And that's one of the reasons why I
created this list here, right?
You know, disregard, disregard the language in the option.
Just look at these.
Yeah Uh, oops.
Let me get.
Sorry, commissioner Vance, I'm going
to push you out of the way, um, so that everybody can see,
including you.
But I mean, those were kind of.
In listening to you write, those are maybe
my proposed parameters, like not knowing what the value
of some of these signs are.
Right? here's a basis for us to say like pick from these signs,
right?
If they move forward with deciding
we do want to do an exchange, this
could be a recommendation of and I personally, I like this.
These because that makes sure that we're
getting more meaningful signs removed, not just
the ones that are against a building
that nobody really notices anyway.
I think I've heard all the commissioners like.
Well, most of us, I think, are OK if we
do another one on 1,300.
But I think most people are like one way, not
really one way or the other on the putting one
on the other side.
So, I mean, can we recommend that we only they could put two
up, but we recommend that they only put the one on 1,300 up
and the other sign just be a regular like welcome to Mill
Creek sign.
That is an option too right Yeah.
And then make other recommendations of you
know, we things that we think they should do like if we think
that it shouldn't be for advertising,
it should be owned by the city.
Or, you know, just for city information.
I mean.
Well, commissioners, does this give us
enough information for anybody that would
be willing to make a motion?
Are we permitted to separate the two?
Yes portions of this?
I think so.
So so why don't we go ahead and I'm going to recommend
that we recommend approval of the sign
ordinance portion of t 23016.
And I think there's.
Yeah you've got the notes with this.
With the.
Items that we considered today.
Can I make.
Can I. Can I suggest something?
Yeah, because I'm not sure about one of those as I'm reading it.
Are you comfortable, Francis, on the brightness
and light temperature?
Because I heard a statement of I like bright light and that's
not my statement about my life.
Yeah so, I mean, I guess that's a point of debate.
I heard a couple people on the council
saying, well, let's consider, let's at least
consider the sign industry best practice.
But I know that that, that Commissioner Reed used you.
I like what you have.
OK so I don't know.
Does anyone I'm going to say to cut that part out.
But you can give a friendly Amendment not friendly.
You can amend it and see if the votes are to keep that in.
Is that right?
I propose it without the considering adjustments
to the brightness and light temperature and then we can
someone else can change that.
And the rest, I think is OK.
Um, and so and this is without the digital,
the district sign portion of this proposed ordinance.
So do I have a second on that?
Are you clear on what I'm saying?
I'll second it.
OK I move that we recommend approval to the city council
of the sign ordinance portion of zt 23 016, which
amends the existing sign code.
Chapter 19.82 with the additions that we have discussed that
are listed here in the notes section,
excluding the brightness and light temperature.
recommendations.
A motion by Reed.
Is there a second?
I'll second with the clarification
that this is expressly excluding signs, which I don't
think we heard in the oral motion,
but is in the written motion.
Yeah, it's a part of that bullet point one,
not including the provision regarding
digital district signs.
So if people don't agree with me,
I'm undercutting myself right on the spot.
If you don't agree with me, then I'm
going to propose an Amendment to mine
and we can take a separate vote on it.
Or if you're all good with it, we'll just go ahead and vote.
Yeah, just got a motion by Reed and a second by Vans.
So we can open it for discussion.
I just have a favor of what you've
presented with a strikethrough for bullet point for.
Yeah, but I do have a concern when it comes to
on the brightness and temperature
and the I don't have a problem with the best industry
practices or something.
You have to can't just if the color or the brightness
is such that it makes a digital sign
impossible to read and look at.
I mean, you just can't do that.
You've got to have something that.
That the industry can put up and was willing to put up.
And there has to be at least a discussion
between the industry and.
And the ordinance has to make sense for the brightness.
My understanding.
Maybe I'm wrong is that the standards that are specified
in this draft ordinance are the ones
that are the same as what is in the existing district sign.
Is that correct?
Are you talking are you talking about the brightness
of the brightness of electronic message centers?
No so so the brightness for, you know, just standard signs.
That's that's new language.
And it was attempted it was an attempt to balance, you know,
the rights of sign companies.
But the but the city's interest broadly to gradually move
toward a dark sky compliant city knowing
that we'll never get there.
Right we'll never achieve a state of grace,
but we can always try.
Um, and that was the intent.
And the code consultant kind of borrowed codes
from cities in Colorado and Arizona
to move us in that direction.
And that's where they came up with the 100 nit requirement.
OK Yeah.
So maybe that's fine.
I mean, I think there should be a balance there,
but I think there should be discussion.
It sounds like you've had discussion
with people in the industry, but you know, we're not Torrey,
Utah either.
We're we're Creek city and Salt Lake City.
So there.
It can be a dark sky anyway, but so maybe it's just what you
have in there is just perfect.
That's that's what the motion is saying is.
Yeah all right.
OK and I like it that way too.
I is perfect for.
I mean, I want to be.
Well, I think since it's our city where the residents that
live here, that we don't need to just rely on the best
practices of the industry, I think we should rely
on what makes sense to us and then have the industry
adapt to it.
And, you know, and since other cities have done it,
it's not just a number that staff pulled out of a hat.
I think there's some basis for it.
It probably will require some change.
Some signs won't be as bright.
But just because some other city does,
it doesn't mean we should do it either.
We should do it what's best for us.
That's right.
And I feel like it is best.
My recommendation is like, yeah, leave it out like.
So there are some extreme cities on that.
Yeah Yeah.
I don't want to be extreme.
Well, we have a motion and a second
and any more discussion on this or I'm
ready to call for a vote.
So, Dwayne, since you're remote, we're going to start with you,
and then we'll do a vote here on site.
I vote Yes.
Votes Yes.
Holtzberg Yes.
Lofgren no.
Soul Yes.
Lamars Yes.
Reed Yes.
And Anderson.
I vote no.
OK and Anderson is no.
So the first part of this ordinance.
Passes for two to.
As a recommendation.
The city council.
Is that right?
For one, two, three, five, five, two.
Thank you.
The people who object are supposed to state why?
Correct?
they have the opportunity to statewide, if you'd
like to give some clarity.
Just the light discussion we had.
I think we should match industry standard
makes more sense for given being Mill Creek.
We're not.
The only community I can think of
is kayenta down in St George.
That's a dark place.
And I don't think we are that so.
Thank you.
Uh, I agree.
And I also think, you know, even though we've.
I mean this is a good motion.
But I think we.
Need to have.
I'm not so sure we're there on exactly what
we need in the sign ordinance.
I'd like to hear more of what, like, yesco has to say and.
And others.
OK Thank you.
Even on this.
Well, we don't have any safety stuff.
Well, basically, all of these are
going to become nonconforming signs if they
don't meet the standards.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thing Utah Science Association said
is these are so far are what we have is
far below what the standard is.
So these a lot of these will come to us as non conforming.
So when that happens, I guess after we get a half a dozen,
we'll probably change our minds.
Francis, any existing sign would still be able to continue
as they are or would.
Yeah, it can be.
It could be it could be maintained as long as the sign
doesn't change in size, right?
So the moment it gets the moment gets taller or bigger.
Right it has to come into compliance.
But, you know, any existing sign can stay there forever.
It's legal nonconforming.
Yeah Yeah.
Legal nonconforming.
OK Thank you.
Those recommendations and even for Nils and Steve,
that does help city council get a gauge
on where our collective thoughts were on this motion.
So thank you.
Now district the district signed portion.
And Francis, if you could scroll to that.
OK model motion that you had.
So I did AI wrote up a model motion,
you know, just kind of based on discussion.
This is something I just came up with.
But that's no changes.
Plus a monument sign.
Option number 4 is.
Number four is, is no changes, which essentially means that.
Here I'm going to do this state that no additional.
This would, you know, essentially
say one is enough, right?
That's the one.
And that's the one enough option.
Option three.
Option three says essentially one digital district sign.
And you can look at either nonconforming signs anywhere
in Mill Creek or signs near the city center,
as in your model motion.
Option two is the two digital district
signs with the nonconforming sign list.
Right and paraphrasing an option one
is the two additional district signs
emphasizing signs in the city center to be removed
and back to four.
That's just saying.
With no additional district digital district signs.
But it's not.
It's not illuminating.
Just a static district sign.
No, it would not.
It would not eliminate a static.
I mean, the truth is that's already allowed.
Right that's the code already allows
that we can do that tomorrow.
OK well, I like the my thoughts are I do like the 5
because I'm not.
Opposed to a digital just but for just the city.
That's kind of where I land.
I'm OK.
Giving some leeway on the digital portion there.
So I would like to make a motion on option 4 here.
OK, go ahead.
So I recommend that the city council approve z 24
with the following modification.
With respect to signs in the city center table 18.16 point
113in the draft ordinance should be amended to state
that no additional district signs are allowed in the city
center overlay zone.
Motion by Holzberger.
I'll second, second.
Victoria Reid beat you, but that letter beat me.
I'm fine.
Any additional discussion or changes to that motion?
OK, Dwayne, I'll start voting again with you online.
Dwayne Vance.
Yes David Holzberger.
Yes Nils Lofgren.
No Ansel.
Let me come back to you.
Steve Anderson.
I vote Yes, Peloton this one?
Victoria Reid.
Yes Lamar.
Yes Diane Sewell.
Yes and the answer is Yes.
And commissioners?
I would.
Maybe this should.
Can we still then clarify outside
of emotion of additional recommendation,
like if they did go with the digital sign?
Yeah, that I think that you understand the sentiment
that we would if they did pursue an exchange that
would be robust.
And I don't speak for other commissioners
but that the bullet points in number two
of like what signs they should consider.
I think we're in agreement with that those 5 above 32
and double Decker.
And all of that.
Does that sound like what we well would want?
I think option 5 is something.
We should make them consider like that we want.
If they're going to do something,
they need to bring it back to us with another of their options
of we want a smaller sign.
We want to recommend that it's owned by the city.
We want to recommend that, you know,
they look at other options, like if you're
going to put digital signs and put them in other places
than just in the city center.
Yeah, I mean, to me, those are kind of the things
that I think we should not tell them.
Absolutely not ever, but that we want
them to consider other things.
Yeah, the city council does have the option to remand something
back to the planning commission.
Yeah, but they don't have to.
Yeah so it would be at their discretion.
Totally at their discretion.
Yeah but France, if you could relay that one to them.
I think that's OK.
I think you understand the.
Yes our thoughts just add one thing
like Thank you in the option we had is
that it would be a meaningful reduction.
And I feel like that language is so squishy of what does
a meaningful reduction mean?
And so to me, it needs to be far stronger, like more robust,
like 5 to 1 or something like that.
I'm making something up.
But, but heck, that's as good as a meaningful reduction.
OK Thank you.
We got through that.
Thank you both, Mr Young's and Kathy
Blake for joining us live at the meeting tonight for this board.
And also, if anybody wants.
Sorry to interrupt, if anybody would like a free coupon
to either noodle head downstairs, $5 or Mill Creek
pizza house or one of each, they're
actually on the table outside.
Just grab one on your way out.
Thank you.
Commissioners a break.
We do need to go through some training with John.
I would propose that we do a five, eight minute break.
There's lukewarm pizza in the EOC.
It's really good.
Dwayne, we'll meet you back for training about 8:00.
It did?
Yeah and they're much better.
They're they're actually happy to have you there.
I have a little clicker for you.
I got to get this other free freezers taking
up too much space eating.
Which button is it, man?
let me start, because everybody here.
Yes how much fun signs and open meeting
training in the same meeting to approve the minutes to.
Oh Wow.
Open OK.
OK are you ready?
OK Utah law requires the chair to ensure that the public body
has annual training.
So this is Sean's insurance.
Provided by lease that you're trained.
Thank you for helping out.
And when you're done with this, you will be officially trained.
The act provides that all meetings
are open unless they're closed for a specific reason
or statutory or case law.
And we'll go through that in a minute.
Meeting is defined as a quorum in this case.
That before.
Five oh, OK.
You're right to discuss or act upon a matter
over which the public body has jurisdiction.
A meeting does not include a chance or a social meeting.
Then this planning commission has special rules.
That no member of the and this is
outside the parameters of open meetings,
but it relates back and forth.
And I'm sure I'm going to get a question on it.
So I thought I'd just bring it up anyway.
That no member of the commission shall
have ex-parte communication regarding
an administrative or rezoning matter or applications
before the council.
And what's an ex-parte?
Communication means a communication.
Electronic social.
Media regarding any of those and we'll get to it.
A couple of examples that help explain that.
Now, this is not intuitive.
This is anti intuitive.
This this section.
That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict
a member of a public body from transmitting
an electronic message to other members of the public body
at any time when the public body is not
convened in an open meeting.
Well, if you can't get together and talk,
but you can get together electronically and talk.
It just anti-intuitive.
But that's the statute and that's what's allowed.
But not during counsel.
When you can't say, hey, how are you voting?
Oh, you know.
And John, does that have to be through our Mill Creek email?
Nope it doesn't identify just electronic message.
Somebody goes after you.
Grandma, then they could open them up and clean up my inbox.
Unfortunately, you get to clean it
out and then give it to Elise.
And then she gives it out.
Yeah the statute requires a 24 hour advance notice
at least takes care of that.
And notice also required a yearly notice at least.
Also takes care of that.
The notice that goes out should be specific enough
to give a reasonable person notification
of what's the matter, what's on the agenda?
Now the chair in their discretion.
May listen or may allow topics raised
by the public that are not on the agenda,
but you can't make a decision.
Yes Yeah.
Council chair.
Commission chair.
Because the rules are a little different.
Well, I'm not for open Meetings Law.
Written minutes, which you prove here.
There's two types written and recorded.
There's the recording over there on top
of the little shelf by Elise and the written minutes.
Elise is working on right now.
And those are the ones you'll approve.
The written minutes become the official record
of the action taken.
I haven't ever had this case.
But if somebody listens to the recording
and it says AAA and the written minutes, say B. The way
the statute says is B wins, even though.
May actually be different.
What's that?
She can if you approve the minutes.
Those are the official minutes.
Now, I haven't had that case.
A judge may do something different,
but anyway, that's what the statute says.
Then you can only hold a closed meeting for specific purposes.
First, one character and competency of an individual.
Or to discuss reasonably imminent litigation,
you would have no reason to go into a closed meeting for that
because that's not within your purview.
Discuss purchase or exchange or lease of real property.
Again, not within your purview, but this
is open meetings, training.
So you're getting all of it.
Discuss the sale of real property.
And this one might be when the commission
is acting in a judicial or quasi judicial status.
So this is if an appeal comes to you, for example,
you can get together and discuss how to decide the case.
In in a closed meeting.
What about if there was like Mike Winder said, hey,
we have this idea, I'm floating around
for this particular merchant.
In and wanted to talk to us about that.
That would be a closed meeting.
Because not with the planning commission.
He's going to have to divide you up in pieces and parts.
So there's not a quorum.
And if he asks me, that's what I'd tell him.
You can do that.
Yeah OK.
As long as there's not a quorum.
You just got to remember what he told one group.
He tells the same to the other group.
And we've done meetings like that with you before.
Minutes of a closed meeting are protected record.
Records under grandma.
So it can't be disclosed.
OK case study number one.
You've seen this one before.
Let's say it's five planning commissioners,
because I can't count.
Five planning commissioners have been properly
taught to shop local and they run into each other
at the local Smith store.
And one of the commissioners starts
discussing a request for a conditional use
that's on council agenda.
One of you have to leave.
This is the recommendation that you say that it's not
an appropriate forum to discuss the matter
and change the subject.
Continue shopping or walk away.
You may not discuss the matter and indicate how you will vote.
And wouldn't that apply, though, even, let's say,
me in Victoria.
We shouldn't be talking.
We will get to that.
I got a specific example to that coming right up.
Well, it's like number five or 6, but.
OK number two, you're in church and the constituent
comes up to you and wants to talk about a new daycare
in the neighborhood.
That's a conditional use.
What can you do?
What can't you do?
Well, you can discuss the matter because you're not a quorum.
But the PC rules are planning commission
rules recommends or says you can't
have ex parte communication.
Now the question is, is that ex parte communication?
What I would recommend is you.
It's not appropriate to discuss that in this forum.
And you continue your worship or walk away.
We'll get to your question later.
Facebook Dilemma.
While perusing the Facebook, you encounter
a post about a daycare that has a pending conditional use
application.
The post contains some obvious misinformation.
Can't believe that happens, but that you consider outrageous
and an intentional misrepresentation and you want
to set the record straight.
Open meeting says you can do what you want.
Pc rule suggests that you close the post and say nothing.
What do you mean for instead of them
the planning, the city council.
These rules were proposed by the planning commission
and adopted.
How long ago is that?
Probably about 20 minutes after the city was incorporated.
OK a couple of hours.
I mean, if you want to look at them,
we can look at them again.
A question on that one.
Because occasionally I will see I
don't get involved in all the.
Clamour that's going on.
Well, I'll say here's a link to that has the packet.
You know, I'll put here's a link where you can
find more information about it.
And I just put that in there.
But I'm not saying anything about it.
To me, that feels like that should be appropriate.
It's just information that's public information
and it's just linking them to the.
That's probably OK, but I would think
it's in the city's interest.
Yeah yeah, me too.
Well probably is.
But I don't know if it's your job to protect the city.
Well, no, I was.
It's even stuff about even.
Stuff that is coming to us.
Like, you know, people make comments all the time
on like Facebook's old now.
So it's the neighbors app like every single day.
There's just weird stuff.
And there are times too, I've sent a couple and I'm like.
This is I'm not sure this is correct information.
Here's a link to the city's website
that has the factual data on it.
I think you're OK with that if you do nothing more.
Yeah, I think I don't get involved in the conversation,
but I don't either.
I think it was somebody with a Porsche dealership.
Somebody was like, yeah, they're going to take up
that whole parcel and they're going
to build this huge building.
And so I just like, oh, here's a link to the packet,
has some pictures.
It contains some obvious misinformation
and is considered outrageous and an
intentional misrepresentation happens all the time.
And if you feel like you need to give a link,
you're probably OK with that.
I wouldn't say anything more.
Yeah, I never would give an opinion.
And I wouldn't even say that this is where the accurate
information is, because what the people are saying
is that's not accurate.
Yeah because then you start expressing
your opinion that isn't related to planning commission.
So I'll give you an example.
Somebody who was posting.
It's been a month or so probably about something that
was going on in Mill Creek.
Like if it's not on the council agenda,
if it's not on the commission agenda, it's not.
Yeah Yes.
After it's over.
OK like you get a comment about signs tonight or something?
Yeah, because it's over.
Well, at least our part is right for the moment.
OK inspecting property.
You are a diligent member of the commission
and you visit a property that has
a pending conditional use application
before the Commission.
Is there a problem with that?
No violation of the Open Meetings.
No violation of the PC rules.
Best practices is.
You might want to explain what you observed to the planning
commission at the open meeting.
Give them.
The benefit of your inspection.
Best practice not required.
And on that one I did.
I've done that a few times.
But I talked.
I knocked on the door, told them who I was,
and let them up front like I'm here.
Just get some information from you, if that's OK.
They were always great, but told them like because of, you know,
it's pending.
We can't talk about my opinion of it.
And they appreciated that and they we didn't.
Go down that path with the conversation.
And then I did talk to the commission like, hey,
so I visited this guy and I got some additional information.
This is what it was.
OK permitted to ask.
If they're here?
Yes oh, you know what?
How about 4.5 right here?
While inspecting the property and conditioning,
the owner comes out, approaches, and wants
to discuss the conditional use application.
Is that a problem?
It's not.
Well, we're not in Minnesota and we're
not in Kansas or Kansas City.
I really have an objection to this.
I have.
I mean, I guess I can't change it,
but I felt like it was really helpful.
It's not like I'm going to be persuaded
by them any more than I would be if they came here.
I feel like it closes down information.
OK, so let's see what my answer is.
All right.
It's not a violation of the Open Meetings Law.
Right but it is a violation of the rules.
Right which I disagree with them.
So I think we should review our rules best practice recommend
that it is not appropriate for them to discuss this matter
and walk away.
Tell them to come and make their case to the entire planning
commission.
Right I mean, you may have gotten I'm just telling you,
you may have gotten some good information.
But there's no question in my mind
that that's an ex-parte communication.
And you have information that the rest of the body
doesn't have.
And that's the rationale for.
Not allowing you that part that we all have information
in our heads that we use, and if we didn't, we wouldn't
be on the planning commission.
So, I mean.
Well, that's true, but that's about everything.
That's not about a pending application
in front of the council.
I lived in a different system and I don't agree with it.
But what we have and I will follow what we're supposed
to do before I remember going through some of this training
and maybe a few years ago was OK for us
not to give opinions on it.
But then because I would come back and say,
hey, I visited the guy and I said this where I found out
I didn't talk about opinions of it,
but I did gather additional information.
I shared it and at least the rules at that point.
So that wasn't an ex parte as long
as the rest of the Commission has the same information
that I got.
Right I remember that.
Well, that would be the best practice if you're involved
in ex parte communication.
One one thing that I think we could do
is Commissioner Lamar, commissioner reed, John Brown
and I Let's go to lunch and talk about amendments to the rules
of procedure that are appropriate
and see if we can kind address some of the concerns that way.
Yeah, because I think we could iron out some of the details
and make sure that we're still following the spirit,
but also make sure the language.
Yeah And we're not in violation of the language.
There's a body of law around the rationale for the rule
of no ex parte communication.
So just because we want to do it doesn't mean we can or we
should, because there's this body of law
that we have to look at and see what we can do and not do.
For the record on that part, I think we should not be talking
to the applicants outside of this meeting
because it just seems that it would appear
to be favorable or favoritism and it just doesn't
seem like we should be talking.
We can visit the site, take pictures, do whatever we want,
and share that back here.
But I disagree that or I agree with the rule
and disagree with the comments that we should be able to talk
to the pending applicant.
So could it be like, would you be agreeable if we show up
as their private property, like, hey, I want to,
you know, I'm on the commission, I want
to look at a couple of things.
Is it permissible for me to look at whatever it is.
But then just not talk?
To them about getting additional.
I guess it's their option to allow you on the property,
but it just seems like we shouldn't be talking to them
prior to this public meeting.
That's my opinion.
If you want to enter the property,
the planning commission has authority to enter property.
Statutorily so it's probably not a trespass,
but I wouldn't go on anybody's property
without asking them regardless.
Yeah probably get shot or get the dog after you.
I mean, one of them was a while back.
And they had a horse property there off 13th and little South
of 45th.
And I think he wanted to build a stable.
But if you're talking to him, there's
no question that's ex-parte.
Right but I was just asking like,
so where is this your property or is
this the neighbor's fence?
And then he was like, no, this is my fence and this
and was that.
And I did come back and disclose it because it helped to me.
It helped the commission and me understand
like, where is his pasture and where is that stream?
Oh, that's his neighbor's stream.
I cannot argue that it's helpful.
But that's ex parte communication.
So we'd have to if we wanted to do that, we
would need to update our rules.
But there's also this body of law around it
that precludes it's well, it's state law.
Some of judicially created.
The city council can go and talk and they're not.
But all the difference.
Is there an elected official?
And their decisions are legislative
and they can make it upon save the well or whatever.
But you can't.
You have to have a rational basis for your decision.
No, no.
And I mean, I agree.
I don't really want someone to lobby me,
but I like to be able to talk.
Questions like the kind of thing.
I can tell you it's a problem, slippery slope.
Because when you talk to the person.
And the person that doesn't want it
hears that you talk to the person who wants it,
then you've got a problem.
Then we got the city has a problem.
And that's my that's my argument for it should happen here.
So that all the people have an opinion gets at the same time
because that's what I would hate it if someone said, well,
why did you talk to them?
But you didn't talk to me.
I live right next door.
I don't I don't want this retaining wall on
this property, you know, like.
And then the next door one and the next.
It's a slippery slope never end.
My recommendation is, is if they want to if they come
out like this, hypothetical.
Um, tell them to come to the planning commission
and tell everybody.
Bring the pitcher or whatever so you can explain
where the fence line is.
OK there's 4.5.
OK, so what are your obligations?
Discuss and disclose communication.
That's what you did in that case.
And depending upon what you heard
and when I talked to Francis about this,
this is a drastic result. Or you may want to recuse yourself
depending upon what you heard.
So this is not necessarily a conflict.
They didn't, you know, slip you $100 to vote for them.
You know, that would be a conflict of interest.
But because it's got to be 500 at least.
Yeah OK.
When you heard you were all driving them, aren't we?
Have you seen mine?
So if you are allowed to buy a Porsche ever in this room,
ever, ever.
So buy a Lamborghini for all I care.
Just never, ever buy a Porsche.
A Ferrari maybe.
So if you're involved in ex-party communication,
this is what your obligation is.
And this is exactly what Chairman Lamar did.
Discussed or disclose it to the council.
In the meeting you discussed and disclosed
the ex parte communication.
Number five.
You are approached by a fellow commission
member regarding a pending conditional use
application one on one.
Is it a problem or is it not?
Drum roll.
Open meetings, no violation, PC rule, no violation.
You can do it.
You can talk one on one among the planning commission
as long as it doesn't turn into a quorum.
So we can talk about our opinions
and the virtues you favor.
You can talk to.
Yeah oh, Wow.
Did Victoria as much as you want.
OK OK.
As long as it's one on one.
As long as it doesn't turn into more than five people.
But if it's electronic, you can do it.
Which is absurd, but that's what it is.
OK number six.
You are confused by a staff report
and you call staff for clarification.
Good job.
What?
give us a second here.
OK we were at number six, I think, right?
OK you call Francis.
Hey, what is you?
What are you talking about?
It is not a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
It's not a violation of the PC rules.
And it actually is probably best practice to clarify with staff.
If you have question and discuss it in the PC meeting.
Or I will.
Or we will.
Francis will.
Any questions?
You have been deemed trained.
Thank you.
Whipping us into shape.
There OK.
We need to do a motion.
I'll do that.
We have approval of the January meeting minutes.
Thank you, Elise.
I think you put those together.
Was that alex?
That was Alex.
Did a good job.
I didn't read every word for word, but.
You go browse through it.
Hopefully she didn't change him.
Because that's.
That's what makes it so she could.
That's the.
So I make a motion to approve the January 17
minutes as presented by staff.
Second and a second by Lofgren.
Nils Lamar made a motion and.
Lofgren the second.
All in favor say Yes or aye?
Aye anybody opposed?
Updates from the planning director.
No Thank you all for everything.
I appreciate your time, your willingness to.
Discuss with me privately.
And publicly issues great and small.
I just really enjoy working with you.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for helping craft motions on the fly.
Does that help?
Yeah, if I write them into the PowerPoint
presentation like that.
Yeah OK.
Because I don't want to, like, lead you on
and I don't want to lead you astray, but I want to of, like,
help you.
Yeah, so.
So I appreciate that.
Francis and then, you know, we've had some light agendas.
What what is spring summer look like?
Do you have any idea?
Are there a lot of developers gearing up or.
I think it's going to gear up again.
What what I think what we're experiencing
is kind of an echo of the high interest rates.
But now the interest rates are beginning to go down.
You know, the Fed has announced that they
plan on doing some cuts here in the next quarterly meeting.
You know, I expect there's going to be more interest.
Moving into summer.
So cool.
Yeah all righty.
We just need one more motion to adjourn.
I'll make a motion to adjourn our March meeting.
Second All in favor?
Aye any opposed?
Thank you for pizza as well.
Is this from the New.