[0:00] 
[0:49] Are you doing?
[0:50] 
[0:52] Could for the first meeting?
[1:01] Yeah, for the first
meeting I was in.
[1:03] 
[1:08] Of this discussion.
[1:11] No know.
[1:12] It snuck up on me because
we made a mistake.
[1:15] We should have that
night just so we don't.
[1:19] So now I feel like
we've created this.
[1:23] And that was not.
[1:24] On his slide.
[1:26] Table well, now we
can have some lively.
[1:34] 
[1:37] We had anything, really?
[1:39] That was the last.
[1:42] Dealer oh, Yeah.
[1:44] Yeah that was pretty lively.
[1:46] That was the most lively
when I. So far I've been to.
[1:52] You there was one.
[1:53] There was an email
just like, what, 24?
[1:55] 
[2:00] Do you still want to be, chair?
[2:01] Because apparently.
[2:03] Yeah Yeah.
[2:04] I don't have a good.
[2:06] I think we can kick off.
[2:08] So we can nominate you and
you'll just keep doing it.
[2:13] Give me a 50% increase.
[2:15] I'm like, I don't know.
[2:17] Yeah increase 50% on zero.
[2:20] We can do that.
[2:20] Zero we can do that.
[2:23] Get to.
[2:24] 
[2:27] Yeah anybody?
[2:34] Yeah Christian and.
[2:36] 
[2:39] Then? victoria?
[2:39] I'm not sure.
[2:41] Are we good, kurt?
[2:43] No one online.
[2:44] OK well, let's get underway.
[2:46] 
[2:50] Hey, welcome to the March
planning commission meeting.
[2:53] Thank you.
[2:55] Get oriented here in
front of microphone.
[2:57] I've got a brief
statement to read
[2:59] and then we'll get underway with
our items on the agenda today
[3:06] is the 20th of march, 5:02
PM and at least we do have
[3:11] a few commissioners missing.
[3:14] Christian Larson, I think you
saw his email and Ian Wright.
[3:19] And then maybe Vicki
Reed will show up.
[3:24] Or Duane.
[3:26] Oh, Vance said he'll be on line.
[3:28] But, Kurt, nobody on line yet.
[3:30] Nobody on line yet.
[3:31] OK, I'll let if they show up.
[3:35] Yeah, we have a quorum.
[3:36] We've got five.
[3:37] So we're good.
[3:40] The planning commission
is a voluntary citizen.
[3:42] Board commissions.
[3:43] Agenda items fall within
two main categories
[3:45] administrative and legislative.
[3:47] And we do have a legislative
item on our agenda tonight.
[3:51] The sign ordinance.
[3:53] Examples of administrative items
are I'm going to skip that.
[3:57] Those are the conditional use
and subdivision applications.
[3:59] That doesn't apply this
evening because we're not
[4:00] going to hear any of those
examples of legislative items
[4:03] or rezoning
applications and changes
[4:05] to the zoning ordinances.
[4:07] The planning commission will
provide a recommendation
[4:09] to city council and we have more
discretion in the suggestions
[4:12] we provide to them.
[4:14] Our decisions are based upon
planning staff, recommendations
[4:18] from planning staff
and other agencies,
[4:20] Community Council
recommendations, field
[4:22] observations and
information presented
[4:24] at the public hearing,
including a presentation
[4:27] by the applicant, which in this
case is going to be the city
[4:30] and then testimony
from the public.
[4:32] So if you're.
[4:34] Oh, and we do have
another commissioner.
[4:37] Victoria Reid.
[4:38] 
[4:44] So I think there's going to be
a slight change on the agenda,
[4:47] because we have the election of
vice chair and chair for 2024,
[4:52] and we probably should
do that before we
[4:53] get underway with the.
[4:54] 
[4:57] With our actual items.
[4:59] So chair and vice
chair can be official.
[5:02] Right now, the
chair is me, Shawn
[5:04] Lamar, and our vice chair is.
[5:07] Victoria, read
the commissioners.
[5:10] We have to get a
nomination from you folks.
[5:14] I don't have a campaign speech.
[5:15] I'm happy to continue
on being a chair.
[5:19] And Victoria, I don't
know your feelings
[5:22] or if you're content, but if
someone else wants to do it,
[5:24] it's fine.
[5:25] 
[5:30] Think in the same.
[5:34] OK now if you can
do it together.
[5:37] 
[5:40] Uh, I move that we keep
the same commissioner
[5:43] and vice commissioner or vice
chair and vice chair for 2024.
[5:49] Second OK.
[5:51] Motion by Nielsen.
[5:53] Second by Diane.
[5:57] For the discussion.
[5:58] Do you have a speech?
[5:59] No you are fabulous.
[6:01] Oh, OK.
[6:02] Well, Thank you.
[6:03] Let's go ahead and
do a voice vote.
[6:05] All in favor say Aye or yes?
[6:07] A Yes.
[6:08] Anybody opposed?
[6:10] OK, we're on for another term.
[6:15] Thank you.
[6:18] Yeah so you don't want a speech?
[6:21] You'll probably hear enough
from me later on this evening.
[6:24] So now we'll move to our
first item on the agenda,
[6:28] a real first time 23 016.
[6:30] And this is continuing
business, looking
[6:33] at amendments to our sign code.
[6:38] And Francis, you'll be.
[6:41] Presenting this.
[6:42] Yes to us.
[6:43] OK all right.
[6:44] So let me just do this.
[6:48] Can everybody see?
[6:50] OK, so I'm just going to
get right into the meat
[6:52] of the meat of the matter.
[6:54] Um, so the first, the first
part of this presentation is,
[6:58] is a response to changes
that were discussed
[7:04] or potential changes that
were discussed by this body
[7:06] at the last meeting.
[7:07] So I sent you a staff
report last week.
[7:11] Hopefully that
made sense to you,
[7:12] but I just kind of wanted to go
through each of these in order
[7:18] in how they appear in the code.
[7:19] So in section 1860
820, we had language
[7:27] that said that sign
alterations that are in excess
[7:30] of 25% of the total
sign, sign, face
[7:32] square footage shall require
conformance to this title.
[7:37] What that meant was that a
nonconforming sign could expand
[7:40] up to 25% of its square
footage without having
[7:43] to come into compliance
based on comments
[7:47] from the planning commission.
[7:48] I we struck that out and simply
said that sign alterations
[7:52] that increase signs face
square footage shall require
[7:55] conformance to this title.
[7:58] Um, the next question
pertained to window signs
[8:02] and there was quite a bit of
conversation on window signs
[8:07] and what counted
as a window sign.
[8:09] The language that
we're proposing here
[8:11] and we put this in
three different places,
[8:13] one in applicability,
one in the definitions
[8:15] and one in the
window sign language
[8:16] itself is that any sign
that is hung within three
[8:20] feet of a window, any
interior sign that
[8:23] is hung within three
feet of a window
[8:25] is considered a window sign.
[8:27] OK this was brought up because
a planning commissioner raised
[8:32] the example of a
bank in Heber city
[8:35] that hung a digital display
right against the window.
[8:40] And Heber city had strong
feelings about digital signage
[8:43] in general.
[8:44] And so, you know,
that was brought
[8:48] up as a potential loophole.
[8:49] And in fact, there's an example
of this right here in Millcreek
[8:52] the emissions plus folks
have hung a digital display
[8:57] inside their window.
[8:58] Currently, we really can't
regulate that because
[9:00] technically it's a window sign.
[9:02] But in the future,
we would be able to
[9:04] with this 3 foot minimum.
[9:07] I didn't find very many cities
that had language like this,
[9:10] so I just made what I thought
was a Prudential judgment
[9:14] on that question.
[9:16] With respect to pole covers,
that's in 1960, 1868,
[9:20] 100 sub B were suggesting
that pole covers and sign
[9:28] bases shall be constructed
of brick, stone
[9:30] or architectural metal
panels that extend at least
[9:32] three inches beyond
the pole, and that
[9:34] fully conceals the entirety
of the sign pole structure.
[9:38] One one commissioner
brought up, you
[9:40] know, ambiguity in the
code about what a sign
[9:43] pole cover meant and whatnot.
[9:46] We thought that might be
a reasonable approach.
[9:49] Here's an example of
an effective sign.
[9:51] Pole cover, of course.
[9:52] Right the brick yard
sign itself wall signs.
[9:58] So a question was
raised about the,
[10:03] you know, the appropriateness
of our 15% or 20%
[10:08] of the wall area
requirement for wall signs.
[10:11] Um, commissioners brought
up rightly that there
[10:14] ought to be a maximum.
[10:16] I looked at our peer cities,
mostly Sandy Murray, Cottonwood
[10:19] heights, Salt Lake City
and in fact, in all cases
[10:21] and even in West valley,
there is a maximum.
[10:24] It's something similar to this.
[10:25] And many cities kind
base it on the zone.
[10:27] So we're proposing that there's
that keep that 20% of the wall
[10:32] area up to a maximum of
200ft in a residential zone,
[10:36] 300ft in a commercial
c, one zone and 600ft
[10:39] in a CMD md3 and f zone.
[10:42] And that's where you
have the greatest
[10:44] kind of opportunity for a
large building such as this.
[10:47] And this is the fat cats
and bluffdale, right?
[10:50] And so that, that
speaks to the idea
[10:53] that there ought to be kind
of a maximum square footage
[10:56] threshold.
[10:56] And these thresholds aren't
out of line with what
[10:59] other cities have done.
[11:01] In fact, I think that 600ft is
identical to what Sandy Sandy
[11:06] recently adopted in their code.
[11:10] Um, you know, upon the,
you know, at the suggestion
[11:14] of the international sign
Association's Utah chapter
[11:19] and and at the suggestion of
some planning commissioners,
[11:21] we adjusted the light
temperature maximum.
[11:25] And then, you know, we, we
talked this wasn't necessarily
[11:28] a planning commission
recommendation per se,
[11:30] but this is something
that I'd been
[11:31] thinking about for some time.
[11:33] And the idea of, you
know, incentivizing
[11:37] the creation or
the incentivizing
[11:39] of more attractive signs.
[11:41] One thing that occurred to me
is the draft that you received
[11:46] did allow electronic
message centers on pole
[11:48] signs in the commercial zone.
[11:50] What if we just prohibited
them on pole signs
[11:52] in the commercial zones,
such that if anybody wanted
[11:54] to do an electronic
message center,
[11:56] they would have to replace
their sign with a monument sign.
[11:59] It is a form of an
incentive, potentially a
[12:02] challenging one for some folks.
[12:03] Right but it would force them
to choose between keeping
[12:07] their pole sign or maybe coming
up with a lower profile sign
[12:10] to enjoy the benefit of an
electronic Message Center.
[12:13] I don't know how the planning
commission feels about that.
[12:16] I welcome your
suggestion, but as I
[12:18] was kind of going
through your notes,
[12:20] that thought came to me
in the last week or so.
[12:25] And then let's see,
clarified proposed
[12:28] standards for window signs.
[12:29] So here's what we wrote,
and this is language
[12:32] very similar to what Sandy did.
[12:33] So window signs shall
not cover more than 50%
[12:36] of any single window,
no more than 33%
[12:39] of an entire surface area
of a group of Windows
[12:41] on each building face.
[12:42] And they we have a definition of
what we mean by a single window
[12:47] and also a picture that
I borrowed from Sandy
[12:50] that I'll have our
code consultant adapt,
[12:52] if you like this approach.
[12:54] Essentially it says
50% of a single window
[12:56] or 33% of a group of Windows.
[12:57] And you know, acknowledging that
the door is always separate.
[13:01] And then we put
that language that
[13:03] said that any
interior sign placed
[13:05] within three feet of a window
is considered a window sign.
[13:09] Then I have I have
Commissioner Lamar to Thank
[13:15] for this beautiful picture of
the beautiful trailer sign we
[13:21] added to the mobile
TC sign definition
[13:22] to address signs on vehicles
and specifically the language
[13:26] that we added was this.
[13:30] A mobile TC sign means a sign
mounted on a trailer frame
[13:33] lighted or unlighted,
which is not permanently
[13:34] attached to a structure
of the ground or a sign
[13:37] that is greater
than 16ft in area
[13:39] and that is mounted
on a vehicle.
[13:40] And that's language that chair,
commissioner Lamar suggested.
[13:45] And we thought that
might be reasonable.
[13:47] So those are in essence,
those are, in essence,
[13:50] my changes to the sign code.
[13:52] I know this is a matter
of continuing business,
[13:54] but but I also know that there
are folks here who were not
[13:56] here at the last meeting
is, of course, up
[13:59] to the discretion of the chair.
[14:00] But it might be good
to hear from the public
[14:02] on these questions as well,
if you're so inclined.
[14:06] Chair but before we move
on to sign discussion,
[14:10] do you have any
questions or thoughts
[14:12] respecting the changes
that we proposed
[14:14] for you for the sign code?
[14:16] Commissioners
questions for Francis.
[14:20] Francis on item number five.
[14:21] You talked about a
maximum temperature.
[14:23] What is that?
[14:24] Maximum temperature?
[14:25] The it is 4,000 degrees Kelvin.
[14:29] OK it's a light color.
[14:32] Right?
[14:33] color.
[14:34] Temperature that's good.
[14:35] Thank you.
[14:35] 
[14:39] Um, Francis, could
you refresh my memory
[14:41] about what the current limits
are on the M6 in terms of size?
[14:47] Um, I believe it's in
the commercial zone.
[14:49] Yes can you give
me just one minute?
[14:52] I can pull it up.
[14:53] 
[14:56] So you see this as
being more restrictive?
[14:58] Correct well.
[15:01] Yes, let me look.
[15:04] 
[15:20] So what I can do is.
[15:22] 
[15:25] I can pull up the staff
report and then we can.
[15:28] Then I can tell you what.
[15:31] What it is in the current
version of our code here.
[15:34] 
[15:39] Excuse me.
[15:40] 
[15:48] Oops OK.
[16:03] So bear in mind, this
is a previous draft,
[16:05] but the EMC dimensions
weren't changing.
[16:10] 
[16:17] Just one second and excuse
me for the time here.
[16:19] 
[16:23] OK so.
[16:29] 
[16:35] These numbers are the same.
[16:38] These percentages are the
same as what is allowed
[16:41] in the current CNM zones.
[16:44] So the percentages
themselves have not changed.
[16:46] What has changed is
the minimum separation.
[16:49] So we now say may not
be located within 150
[16:52] of a residential zone.
[16:53] And in the draft that
you received on Friday,
[16:57] I'm suggesting that
maybe we only make
[17:00] monument signs in
the C zone eligible
[17:02] for electronic message centers.
[17:06] But the percentages
themselves have not changed.
[17:09] From from the existing code.
[17:12] Does that answer your question?
[17:13] Yeah Thank you.
[17:14] OK um, just a question
on the windows sign.
[17:23] Yes, doors are separate,
but can doors have signs?
[17:27] Yes if it has a window
in it, yes, it can.
[17:30] Then why is it separate?
[17:31] It's just counted as a separate.
[17:33] It's just counted as.
[17:34] It's just counted as
a separate window.
[17:36] OK and Francis.
[17:41] I also have a.
[17:42] Clarifying question two
regarding window assigns,
[17:44] I was looking at the
table, the 1868 113 table.
[17:53] And it has.
[17:55] Window size 12ft per use.
[17:58] And I was wondering
that illustration
[18:00] that you had borrowed from
Sandy with the 50% windows.
[18:03] Is that does that go
along with the 12ft?
[18:07] So they have a 12ft per
the front of their building
[18:10] or per window, it's 50%
and then limited to that
[18:14] or that's a good point.
[18:15] What I'll do is I'll make
the I'll make this table.
[18:19] And I'm sorry I missed that,
but I'll make this table align
[18:23] with the standards in this.
[18:27] This is the table in question
that you're referring to.
[18:29] Right?
[18:31] and I'll make this table align
with the standards stated here.
[18:36] We can do.
[18:39] A maximum of 12ft if you want,
if that concerned about it.
[18:46] Or we can just do the
33% that Sandy does.
[18:49] 
[18:54] Yeah I mean, when
my thoughts were,
[18:57] I can bring my thoughts when
we come back to our discussion.
[19:00] OK well, I mean, the other thing
that I would recommend that we
[19:03] add is that this allowance
only be for Windows
[19:07] on the ground floor.
[19:08] OK right.
[19:09] And so what about above?
[19:10] There would be no
window signs allowed
[19:12] on upper story of a building.
[19:14] OK also with the.
[19:20] With the three foot buffer.
[19:21] So if you put a TV.
[19:23] 
[19:26] A TV would be considered within
three feet, would be considered
[19:29] a window sign.
[19:30] Does a window signs
have a prohibition
[19:33] on being electronic?
[19:35] So let's say you put a TV.
[19:37] One foot away from your window.
[19:39] That's now considered
a window sign.
[19:41] But can window
signs be electronic?
[19:43] Well, technically, yes,
because if you read this,
[19:47] I mean, the way our ordinance
is structured, if you let me see
[19:52] if I can find it here, our table
regarding electronic message
[19:57] centers tells you what sign type
and electronic Message Center
[20:00] is allowed in.
[20:02] And in none of these
cases is window sign
[20:05] ineligible eligible
for some sort of EMD
[20:09] under the current code.
[20:10] Right we don't regulate
signs on the inside
[20:14] whether they're
moving images or not.
[20:16] But under this new
code we would write,
[20:18] if it's within three feet of a
window and it's an electronic,
[20:21] then that would be an
electronic message center,
[20:23] which is not in this table.
[20:24] Right so that
basically says window
[20:26] signs cannot be electronic.
[20:29] Now, I mean, what's
going to happen,
[20:30] right, is some code enforcement
is going to go out to someone
[20:34] and say, well, I mean, you can't
have that within three feet
[20:37] of the window and
then they're going
[20:38] to move it 3 feet in an inch.
[20:40] Right so, I mean, no
matter what we do,
[20:43] right, someone's going
to figure out some way.
[20:46] Yeah, Yeah.
[20:47] And we can probably talk about
that more in our discussion.
[20:49] Because I'm just
thinking of maybe
[20:50] there are some electronic
like the small open signs
[20:53] that are blue and red.
[20:54] Maybe those are maybe we feel
like those are OK, but large 72
[20:59] inch screen TVs are not.
[21:01] But yeah, so that's not an
electronic Message Center.
[21:03] That's just a lighted sign.
[21:04] That's just lighted sign.
[21:05] OK electronic Message Center
has changeable message type.
[21:08] It scrolls, it does
all these things.
[21:09] Right? so that wouldn't
prohibit if you
[21:11] have your little open sign.
[21:12] OK the.
[21:15] 
[21:23] verify led.
[21:24] 
[21:29] The other comment and we don't
have to talk a lot about this,
[21:32] but I didn't see any change to
the temporary sign language.
[21:36] And I just.
[21:38] I think if that
language was rewritten
[21:41] to make it a little more clear.
[21:44] That was on page
19 of this report.
[21:48] And it talks about,
you know, you
[21:49] get six month temporary
sign plus three additional
[21:51] if it's a grand opening,
all of their temporary signs
[21:56] are get six weeks.
[21:59] It felt kind of clunky
trying to understand
[22:02] what the meaning was by
looking at just that paragraph.
[22:06] I got a little confused.
[22:08] OK I remember that discussion.
[22:12] Remind me what code
section this was.
[22:14] The page 19.
[22:16] So this is.
[22:16] 
[22:21] A Scott 68.140 temporary
signs and it was.
[22:26] 
[22:31] I understand.
[22:33] OK Yeah.
[22:34] Um, we could do this
as a bulleted list.
[22:38] I have a question on that
temporary sign issue,
[22:41] too, because I've never paid
attention to signs like you
[22:44] did in the last two weeks.
[22:47] What do we have?
[22:48] Something about temporary signs
on roofs, because I was driving
[22:52] down 900, I don't know if it
was holiday or mill creek,
[22:55] but there's an
apartment complex that
[22:57] put this big, huge sign on their
roof that says now renting.
[23:02] Which I take it as
a temporary sign,
[23:05] but it could probably live
there for a very long time.
[23:08] Yeah um, and then the
other one I noticed
[23:12] is same type of
thing on balconies,
[23:17] like on the corner of
an apartment complex.
[23:21] Does that fall into
these other rigs
[23:23] where we talk about
the clearance?
[23:27] From the street or the corner.
[23:28] 
[23:31] Well so a temporary
sign that's hung
[23:33] from the face of the
building would, you know,
[23:35] should automatically meet all
the clear view considerations.
[23:39] Right because the sign
wouldn't sign itself,
[23:41] wouldn't change the clear view
it's affixed to a building.
[23:46] You know, technically
in this code,
[23:47] there's probably nothing
stopping someone from putting
[23:49] a temporary sign on a roof.
[23:52] However, we could make
that Amendment right.
[23:56] You know, if you want.
[23:59] It's true.
[24:00] It's a really big sign.
[24:02] Well, Yeah.
[24:02] And once you.
[24:03] Once you spend your world
thinking about science,
[24:05] you do see them everywhere.
[24:06] Right and it's annoying.
[24:07] I get it.
[24:08] 
[24:11] That's all the clarification
questions I have.
[24:13] Francis chair Lamar,
just so you're aware,
[24:18] we're having issues with
issues with the GoToMeeting.
[24:21] So commissioner
Vance is on the call
[24:24] and watching the live stream.
[24:26] So our audio is on your phone.
[24:28] Correct?
[24:29] you can see us.
[24:31] Going to wave to them
wherever the cameras
[24:32] don't know where it is.
[24:34] That's why I came here, because
I couldn't get it to go.
[24:36] OK do you want to see if he
has any questions for francis?
[24:41] I doubt that he has seen
anything at this point.
[24:44] He just joined.
[24:45] Right OK.
[24:46] OK Thank you.
[24:47] You any questions for.
[24:50] Francis when you say
three feet with it.
[24:57] With it from a window.
[24:58] 
[25:02] You know you still put.
[25:04] You know, large 72 inch,
85 inch screen, three feet.
[25:08] Straight back from the window.
[25:10] 
[25:13] That's still a sign
in the window or even
[25:17] if it's on the wall
back behind it.
[25:18] I guess that 3 feet
means within, not in the.
[25:22] 
[25:25] Anyway, you can't
do much different.
[25:27] I'm not.
[25:27] I don't have any questions.
[25:29] 
[25:32] Right Dave, any
questions from you?
[25:36] I just want to say I
looked at that language.
[25:38] And I think it's not here in.
[25:41] Table, but in the actual
language in the law,
[25:45] I think I think Francis had
put the sentence before, as I
[25:48] recall, was something like.
[25:50] If it's facing
outward or something.
[25:52] And then the next sentence that
you put in here in the table
[25:55] was about the three feet.
[25:56] Is that not correct?
[25:58] That Yes.
[25:59] So it's covered that is correct.
[26:01] Right it still has
to face outward.
[26:04] So anyone anything
that was facing
[26:05] outward, would you please use
your mic so he can hear us?
[26:08] So anything that was facing
outward out the window
[26:12] would be a problem, correct.
[26:13] As you've written it, because
there's another sentence
[26:16] in the actual right.
[26:17] And if it's within three
feet, we could pick a number,
[26:20] it could be four,
it could be five.
[26:21] Right like I think we just pick
a reasonable number that that,
[26:24] you know, notwithstanding
whatever you do on the inside.
[26:28] Right it counts as a it
counts as a window sign.
[26:31] Now, I mean, there
are things that I
[26:33] don't necessarily think it's
appropriate for us to regulate.
[26:37] For example, you know, there's
an ice cream shop downtown
[26:40] that has this really pretty
kind of Neon Art piece
[26:43] on the back wall.
[26:45] You can see it through
the window, right?
[26:46] But it's on the back wall.
[26:48] A lot of restaurants do that.
[26:49] I don't necessarily
want to regulate that.
[26:52] There's another
business downtown.
[26:54] Well, it's actually a
really beautiful building
[26:59] with a really beautiful
digital display inside of it
[27:02] on the corner of First
South and State Street.
[27:05] And it's in the lobby
of the building.
[27:07] And that's and it
rotates kind of images
[27:09] of national parks and whatnot.
[27:11] It's quite stunning.
[27:13] And and I don't know that
it's appropriate for us
[27:15] to regulate that
sort of thing either.
[27:17] So the question is the question
is, where do you draw the line
[27:22] up adjacent to the window
knowing that someone's going
[27:24] to walk right up to that
line and put something there
[27:26] and we're not going
to regulate it?
[27:28] That's that's the issue that we.
[27:30] That we have.
[27:32] I appreciate that, too.
[27:32] And I also want to make
sure that we're not.
[27:34] We didn't go so restrictive.
[27:36] Or if you have a
restaurant or bar.
[27:38] And you have a.
[27:40] TV that's kind of facing the
people that might be sitting
[27:43] at the window, that
it doesn't become
[27:44] non-compliant because
they want to watch sports.
[27:46] 
[27:49] Let's move to.
[27:52] I want to just cover the
updated Community Council.
[27:56] Um, recommendation.
[27:58] But Francis, I think that was
pertaining to district signs.
[28:01] Yes, it was.
[28:02] Do these in too.
[28:02] Yeah, and I'll cover that
in my presentation as well.
[28:05] OK Do you want to
continue on with the rest
[28:09] of the second part and then
we'll move to community
[28:12] council, then up to you.
[28:14] However you want to
do it all together.
[28:17] OK OK.
[28:22] So with respect to sign and the
Billboard exchange agreement.
[28:28] So subsequent to
our last meeting,
[28:30] I visited with many of you
individually and, and just kind
[28:34] of got, you know,
Herd Herd, whatever,
[28:38] whatever concerns or
things you like, things you
[28:40] dislike about the proposal and.
[28:43] 
[28:46] I have I have
crafted four options
[28:48] that hopefully encapsulates
all of your concerns.
[28:53] And and the truth is, from
a land use perspective,
[28:55] I think any of these
options are defensible.
[28:59] And again, this is
just to reiterate,
[29:01] this is a difficult issue.
[29:03] A lot of heartfelt
feelings about this.
[29:05] And and just a
reminder, although there
[29:07] are monsters on
the screen, there
[29:10] are no monsters in this room.
[29:11] And that, you know, we're all, I
think, trying to do the best we
[29:15] can to make Mill
Creek a better place
[29:18] and that the issues at the
fore here really are, you know,
[29:22] aesthetic and deeply held.
[29:24] And I just again, want to just
affirm that whatever happens
[29:28] tonight and you know, I have
great respect and consideration
[29:35] for, you know,
everybody's deeply
[29:38] held beliefs on this
matter because, you know,
[29:39] it is what it is.
[29:42] So there were other cities that
have done Billboard exchanges,
[29:47] not many, but the Kansas
City Metropolitan area has
[29:52] experimented with this concept.
[29:53] It's different than
mill Creek's concept.
[29:55] But I just kind of wanted to
walk through both of these.
[29:58] One is Lee's Summit
and Lee's Summit
[30:00] is a city of about 100,000
people in the Southeast.
[30:05] Side of the Kansas
City Metropolitan area.
[30:08] And in about 2004, they
enacted an ordinance
[30:12] that allowed any
nonconforming Billboard
[30:15] to be converted into a
digital Billboard on a face
[30:18] to face basis.
[30:19] So two faces to one
face, 2 to 1, basically.
[30:23] But they also said
that digital signs
[30:24] could be larger, could be 10%
larger than the faces replaced.
[30:29] In the case of
Lee's summit, they
[30:32] had in essence, a holding
zone or a receiving
[30:34] zone for these new signs.
[30:35] And those were along
certain highways.
[30:38] So they were taking
nonconforming
[30:40] billboards in their
city core and putting
[30:42] them along certain highways.
[30:44] They limited their exchange
to nonconforming signs.
[30:47] So, in other words.
[30:49] Not any Billboard could just
be eligible for some sort
[30:51] of exchange.
[30:52] It had to be
non-conforming in some way.
[30:55] They didn't necessarily
say which way it
[30:57] was non-conforming,
but they said
[30:58] they made an important kind
of policy decision about that.
[31:02] And the reason why I bring
this up is, you know,
[31:05] a number of you have brought
up the question about what
[31:07] billboards should we consider
in some sort of or should
[31:09] the city council consider in
some sort of sign exchange?
[31:13] And for what it's worth, both
Lee's Summit and Kansas City
[31:16] came up with this
concept that really,
[31:18] if we're going to bear the
burden of digital signage,
[31:22] you know, the signs
that are nonconforming
[31:24] or the signs that are
larger ought to be the ones
[31:27] that are thrown into the mix.
[31:29] Lee's Summit reduced
their number of billboards
[31:31] from 12 to 6 using this method,
and they moved the billboards
[31:34] away from areas that they
found more offensive to areas
[31:37] that they found less so.
[31:39] And they did this
over about 15 years
[31:43] in the case of Kansas
city, the conversion rate
[31:46] depends upon sign size.
[31:47] So bigger signs have a
lower conversion ratio
[31:51] and that's described below.
[31:53] So there's what they call
a junior poster, which
[31:55] is those 72 square foot signs.
[31:57] That's the so-called fan
sign up on 23rd East that
[32:01] converted it a 7 to 1 ratio.
[32:04] A poster, which is
an example mean.
[32:08] This the.
[32:11] The ambulance chaser sign
over just East of the East
[32:17] of the Walgreens is a poster.
[32:19] The bulletin board
sign is the large one.
[32:22] An example of the
bulletin board sign
[32:24] is the large one
next to Burger King.
[32:27] That I think currently
advertises a plumbing business.
[32:30] So the posters in the
junior posters, Kansas City
[32:33] decided to exchange
at a ratio of 7 to 1.
[32:36] But the bulletin boards,
all things being equal,
[32:38] they felt that the larger
signs had more value.
[32:41] Even on a per square
footage basis.
[32:43] They recommended a 3 to 1.
[32:45] And here again, just like in
Lee's summit, they, you know,
[32:50] created kind of holding
zones for or receiving
[32:53] zones for these digital signs.
[32:57] So it's important to
note here and I asked
[32:59] and this is another
question that was brought up
[33:01] how do we come up
with a rational basis
[33:04] for deciding what signs
are removed and what ratio?
[33:09] This is a particularly
tricky question.
[33:11] And and I brought this
up to both the planning
[33:13] director of Kansas City and
the planning director of Lee's
[33:15] Summit.
[33:16] And they gave me
an answer that was
[33:18] both very obvious and in
a way, very unsatisfying.
[33:24] And that answer it was
a negotiated process
[33:28] with the sign companies because
they felt that there was
[33:31] no point in having
an exchange ordinance
[33:33] that no one would
participate in.
[33:35] If you set the price too high
at an arm's length transaction,
[33:38] no one's going to buy
what you're selling
[33:40] or no one's going to, you know.
[33:43] And so in a sense, it's
much like, you know,
[33:46] anything that we do at an
arm's length transaction
[33:49] where neither party is
under duress, you know,
[33:51] you have to find an exchange
that's that both parties are
[33:55] willing to do.
[33:56] And it was through
a negotiated process
[33:58] that the sign companies and
Lee's Summit in Kansas city,
[34:03] respectively, came up with the
numbers that they came up with.
[34:06] I know that's not like thrilling
to hear, but it is informative.
[34:12] Right and I've asked, you
know, Kansas City is a big city
[34:15] and I've asked their
planning director.
[34:17] Right like what?
[34:18] How did you do this?
[34:19] And that was the
answer they gave me.
[34:22] It's important to note
that Billboard companies
[34:23] in the Kansas City and
Lee's Summit situation
[34:26] were not compelled
toward an exchange.
[34:27] There was no property
exigency, there
[34:30] was nothing kind of
forcing this, no threat
[34:33] of condemnation, nothing.
[34:35] It was truly arm's length.
[34:38] Kansas City and
Lee's Summit also
[34:40] did not select the billboards
eligible for exchange.
[34:42] But what they did
do is they created
[34:43] categories of signs that
were eligible for exchange.
[34:46] In other words, the signs
that were non-conforming.
[34:48] In addition, I believe.
[34:51] I believe Lee's Summit
actually added language that
[34:54] said that any sign that
was within 500 feet
[34:56] of their municipal boundary.
[34:57] Right could be eligible
for an exchange.
[35:00] Because I think in that
case, they were saying, well,
[35:02] we're moving the sign.
[35:03] We're moving this
old sign away from,
[35:05] you know, an arterial road
on our municipal boundary
[35:08] toward a highway.
[35:09] And that was a policy
decision that they made.
[35:11] 
[35:14] so there are some differences
between Missouri and Mill
[35:16] Creek.
[35:19] unlike the Missouri
examples, Mill Creek
[35:20] would own the
resulting sign and we
[35:22] would limit the advertising sign
advertising time on the sign.
[35:24] And I think that means something
with respect to the ratio.
[35:27] And it also means
something with respect
[35:29] to how that sign is
controlled and managed.
[35:31] The Missouri examples
created a permanent vesting
[35:34] for the resulting signs
and Mill creeks proposal.
[35:37] At least the previous proposal
was for a 40 year lease.
[35:41] I don't know.
[35:41] 40 years is a long time.
[35:42] But you know, in terms of
rights and vested rights, right.
[35:46] 40 years is a lot
less than forever.
[35:49] And that's the situation that we
deal with existing billboards.
[35:54] Mill creeks are digital
district sign out here
[35:57] is smaller and shorter
than the Missouri
[35:59] digital billboards, right.
[36:01] Mill Creek also has more
control theoretically,
[36:03] over the design and operation
of the sign due to ownership.
[36:06] So that is to say that
that's the council
[36:08] could negotiate that, right?
[36:09] We could negotiate time.
[36:11] We could negotiate when the sign
is on or when the sign is off.
[36:14] We could negotiate the
range of the aspect,
[36:18] the view of that sign are
the louvers set at 38 degrees
[36:22] or 35 or 32 or whatever.
[36:25] We we could negotiate the
illuminance again, you know,
[36:28] in I ownership of
the sign really
[36:32] helps the city control how that
sign is used in the long term.
[36:37] Also, I noted that I've done
a lot of reading on state law
[36:41] and state statute
right now makes
[36:43] for makes a Missouri
style conversion
[36:45] scheme kind of unworkable.
[36:47] And here's why.
[36:49] For for cities that have
a lot of billboards,
[36:52] it's important to
note two things.
[36:54] One, a Billboard company
can relocate that Billboard
[36:58] within a mile of the
existing sign in any
[37:00] commercial or industrial zone.
[37:04] Up to a certain height.
[37:06] And if we were to.
[37:10] Deny them that permit.
[37:12] We would trigger an
eminent domain process.
[37:14] OK so if a Billboard and this
happened in South Salt Lake.
[37:20] Right if and South Salt
Lake has had a digital sign
[37:24] prohibition at the time.
[37:28] So what happened was a Billboard
a Billboard company said,
[37:30] I'm going to move this
Billboard from this location
[37:32] to the highway.
[37:34] And then they came in
later for a service upgrade
[37:37] to put a digital sign
on that Billboard.
[37:40] And they did This following
two provisions in state law.
[37:43] One is in the land use
development management act,
[37:45] but the other is in the Utah
outdoor advertising act, which
[37:48] says that, you know,
notwithstanding any city
[37:51] ordinances, signs
that face highways
[37:53] can have a changeable
message face
[37:57] with a minimum of 8 seconds.
[37:59] So is our GoToMeeting
back on OK.
[38:03] Commissioner Vance, if you
could hear our GoToMeeting
[38:05] is back on.
[38:07] Um, so that is to
say that, you know,
[38:11] basically Billboard
companies, if they
[38:12] have a Billboard within a
mile of a highway, right?
[38:15] And there's the zoning
in most of these cities,
[38:18] it can move a sign
to that corridor
[38:21] and then digitize it subject
to state, state rule.
[38:24] So we don't.
[38:25] Mill Creek lacks the ability to
create a highway based holding,
[38:30] receiving zone like Missouri
allowed their cities to do
[38:35] right through their state law.
[38:36] So that leaves us with some
other exchange agreement
[38:42] if the city council
wants to do it.
[38:45] So when we talk about assessing
the value of a Billboard
[38:48] in an exchange agreement,
it's important to understand
[38:51] how condemnation
works for billboards.
[38:53] And this was a question that
was brought up by Commissioner
[38:55] Vance in the last meeting.
[38:56] In the last meeting.
[38:57] What is the value of a Billboard
in terms of condemnation?
[39:00] It's expensive and it
depends because very rarely
[39:04] when you condemn a
billboard, you're not just
[39:06] condemning a billboard,
you're condemning
[39:07] all associated rights.
[39:08] That's in state statute, too.
[39:09] So if they have a
view shed or a right
[39:12] of first refusal or
whatever, right on that sign,
[39:15] you're condemning that.
[39:16] You're condemning the value of
a lease, whatever's remaining
[39:18] on that lease, you're condemning
the cost of the business
[39:22] opportunity of that sign
and its contribution
[39:25] in a rotary market
area, what they call it.
[39:27] And so I've seen examples
ranging from 150,000
[39:31] to more than
approximately $500,000,
[39:34] depending upon what
precisely is being condemned
[39:36] and for what purpose.
[39:38] The other thing is, you know,
we can only condemn when we are
[39:41] planning a public improvement
like a road or a park
[39:43] or whatnot or in a case where a
Billboard company says that we
[39:49] are removing a
Billboard or removing
[39:50] a Billboard pursuant to
state law, and the city says,
[39:53] no, right, we can do that.
[39:56] Right? but we would
have to pay for it.
[39:59] So our opportunities to remove
billboards through condemnation
[40:03] are pretty limited.
[40:04] They're limited to really
when a Billboard moves a sign
[40:07] and we choose to say no or
we're building something that
[40:10] is in the way of a Billboard.
[40:13] So neither Lee's Summit nor
also important to note, right?
[40:19] Neither Lee's Summit nor
Kansas City used a market
[40:21] analysis to establish ratio.
[40:23] Right they looked
for an optimal ratio
[40:25] that was amenable to both the
city and the sign companies.
[40:28] Now, we don't know the
value of each sign.
[40:31] I just don't.
[40:32] And and there's nothing
I can do to tell you.
[40:34] And we can make we can make
assumptions, but we don't know.
[40:37] But we can rely
on visual impact.
[40:39] We can rely on
height and sign area.
[40:41] We can rely on the nonconforming
status of billboards
[40:44] to prioritize the removal first.
[40:46] That is to say, you know,
if the city council,
[40:49] if the planning commission
and the city council
[40:51] ultimately are
amenable to a deal,
[40:53] we can kind of frame it
in a way that maximizes
[40:57] the public benefit of this.
[40:58] And the public benefit not
only includes the opportunity
[41:03] to promote messages of
the city on this sign,
[41:06] but also the opportunity
of removing billboards
[41:10] elsewhere in Mill Creek.
[41:12] And there is value
in that, right,
[41:14] whether the trade
is worth it or not
[41:16] is another question to have.
[41:18] But you know, there is value
in at least considering it.
[41:24] The role of the
planning commission
[41:26] and the city council.
[41:27] Is this.
[41:27] So really an allowance for
additional digital district
[41:30] signs in our code?
[41:32] Right gives the city council
the option to consider
[41:34] an exchange agreement.
[41:36] It creates, in
essence, a receiving
[41:37] zone for Billboard rights.
[41:40] Right it's important
to note that the city
[41:42] council has the
authority to negotiate
[41:45] an exchange agreement.
[41:46] It's just like a
development agreement.
[41:48] We can kind of say we would like
the city council to consider
[41:51] a development agreement that
includes x or trees here
[41:53] or whatnot.
[41:54] But note that the
city council is
[41:56] the one that actually negotiates
that development agreement.
[41:59] But we, the planning
commission and staff
[42:01] should consider
what are the impacts
[42:03] of additional district signs
in their appropriate locations.
[42:06] And that question was brought
up by a number of planning
[42:08] commissioners in the
form of, you know,
[42:10] does a sign make does a sign
make more sense on 1,300
[42:14] East than on Highland drive?
[42:16] Given proximity to given
proximity to residential,
[42:22] we should also consider
the opportunity
[42:24] to reduce the number
in square footage
[42:25] of billboards in Millcreek.
[42:28] We could consider we could.
[42:29] We could consider safety.
[42:31] You know, we could consider
the aesthetic impacts, right?
[42:35] We can also consider I think
the city council would welcome
[42:39] hearing from you on what
should an agreement look
[42:44] like in broad kind
of categories.
[42:47] Right should we limit it
to nonconforming billboards
[42:50] or does it make more sense to
remove billboards immediately
[42:52] adjacent to the city center
to maximize the visual benefit
[42:58] near the city center?
[42:59] I don't know.
[42:59] I don't know the answers
to these questions.
[43:01] But the point is, there
is precedent to consider
[43:05] these in the Kansas City area.
[43:06] And it's and it's worth asking.
[43:08] So based on the planning
commissioners concerns,
[43:12] I crafted four possible options.
[43:15] Right?
[43:16] option one is to amend
the site ordinance
[43:20] to allow for up to two
digital district signs.
[43:22] And that's what was written
here, subject to an exchange
[43:24] agreement that
removes billboards
[43:26] in the Mill Creek city center.
[43:27] So this option could
allow for the council
[43:31] to consider the
construction of up to two
[43:33] digital district signs.
[43:34] They could do one.
[43:35] They could do none.
[43:37] One at either end of
chambers avenue, subject
[43:39] to an exchange agreement.
[43:40] Billboards to be removed
would be in the city center
[43:42] and have a model motion here.
[43:46] Option two would be to allow for
up to two additional district
[43:48] signs subject to an exchange
agreement that removes
[43:51] any nonconforming
Billboard in Mill Creek
[43:53] or a Billboard that is
located near a gateway.
[43:55] And I suggest some
additional criteria.
[43:59] So any Billboard
that's taller than 32
[44:01] in height, any Billboard
that's larger than square feet
[44:04] and signs on any
two decked Billboard
[44:11] or any Billboard that is within
500 feet of municipal boundary.
[44:14] So four of those five things
are actually listed in our code
[44:17] as types of billboards that
we don't want any more.
[44:19] Right?
[44:20] and so, you know, this body
could advise the city council.
[44:24] Look, you know, it's not
it's not worth it's not worth
[44:28] the effort to remove a small
short sign when really our goal
[44:33] ought to be right
to remove the signs
[44:36] that have the greatest impact.
[44:38] And one way to do that
and maybe the best
[44:40] kind of rational
policy basis to do that
[44:42] is to say, look at the signs
that wouldn't be allowed today
[44:46] and remove those
and find the signs
[44:49] that are most in non-compliance
in some way or the other.
[44:51] What are the tallest signs?
[44:53] What are the biggest signs?
[44:55] You pick?
[44:56] I think that's
entirely reasonable.
[44:58] That's option two.
[45:01] Option 3 is essentially an
amalgamation of this option,
[45:04] but it would only allow for
one additional district sign.
[45:07] So again, you know, I heard
from planning commissioners that
[45:11] really like what's
causing some heartburn is
[45:14] the idea of a digital district
sign on Highland drive.
[45:17] Well, maybe the
city council would
[45:19] be well advised to
do one just on 1,300
[45:21] East and chambers Avenue.
[45:23] And that could also be
approached with the idea of,
[45:26] well, do we want to move?
[45:27] do we want to move just
the most nonconforming
[45:29] signs in the city for that one?
[45:31] Or do we want to focus the
sign removal in for signs
[45:35] in the city center?
[45:37] And I've got I've got two
model motions for that.
[45:40] And option four
is, is no changes.
[45:43] Right if the planning commission
has really strong feelings
[45:48] that the trade off of a
digital of a digital signage
[45:52] is just not worth an exchange
agreement at any price.
[45:56] Right then the city council
should hear that too.
[45:59] And in that case, you
would be making a motion.
[46:03] To change table 1861 13 the
draft ordinance to state
[46:08] that only one digital
district sign is allowed.
[46:10] And that's that one.
[46:11] 
[46:13] So again, kind of my
last couple slides here,
[46:18] and this is a repeat from
the last presentation.
[46:20] But to my knowledge and I've
looked all over the country,
[46:23] right, this is the
only voluntary exchange
[46:26] concept where the square footage
of billboards gets reduced.
[46:29] And I know that this is
a policy of the city.
[46:32] I the digital signs
have an impact, right?
[46:35] But I also know that this
digital sign is not nearly as
[46:40] bad as some of the digital
signs that we've approved
[46:43] even a few years ago, because
we've controlled better
[46:46] for brightness, we've
controlled better for, you know,
[46:49] where that sign, how the images
of that sign is directed.
[46:52] We limit it to a certain
degree of aspect from the sign.
[46:57] It is it is better designed in
the sense that it has a base.
[47:03] It has, you know, materials that
associate it with Mill Creek
[47:08] common.
[47:09] It also has controls in the
form of public messaging
[47:13] that, you know, that allows
us to communicate on the sign.
[47:17] And that has value, too.
[47:18] Right now, again, this is
just a preference, right?
[47:23] I know this is not
everybody's preference, but.
[47:27] I priced digital
signage differently
[47:29] than I think some people do.
[47:31] People younger than me.
[47:32] Price sometimes digital signage
differently than others do.
[47:36] But when I see a big
tall billboard, right.
[47:40] I personally would
prefer a smaller
[47:42] sign if it were digital.
[47:44] I understand that some people
may not feel that way, right?
[47:50] Because I acknowledged that
a set of considerations
[47:52] also kind of prompt these
divergent and deeply
[47:54] held attitudes that
we really can't square
[47:56] right at the end of the day.
[47:58] You know, I can come up
with four options for you
[48:01] to consider or to
base your motion
[48:02] or to base your
recommendation on.
[48:04] But what I can't
do is, is change
[48:07] anybody's mind in this room
about aesthetic issues.
[48:10] Right we like some things.
[48:13] We dislike some things.
[48:14] And that's and that's
hard to square.
[48:18] The other thing is
and I know this issue,
[48:20] this issue comes up in the
traffic in the traffic safety
[48:25] memorandum I, I put together.
[48:29] And it's important to
note what I didn't say
[48:31] and what I didn't
say was that there
[48:34] was not an impact
on digital signage,
[48:36] that digital signage is.
[48:37] I did not say that digital
signage is not distracting.
[48:40] What I did simply do was
look at traffic accidents
[48:43] that happened.
[48:44] And I looked for a
simple correlation,
[48:47] you know, in the sense that
you can tell when the pandemic
[48:51] hit by looking at traffic data.
[48:52] Right you can make a really easy
kind of assessment about that.
[48:57] And I couldn't
identify a correlation
[49:00] between the presence
of a digital Billboard
[49:01] and an increase in accidents.
[49:03] Now, admittedly, we have
limited data for this sign.
[49:07] I did find or I did
get from the traffic
[49:10] from unified police, an
indication of the traffic
[49:15] accidents at 2,300 East.
[49:18] There really isn't
much discussion
[49:20] on the nature of that
accident, whether it's
[49:22] caused by distraction or speed
or drunk driving or whatever.
[49:25] But that number 31 is in line
statistically with the trend
[49:32] that we've seen for
years on this road.
[49:36] And so really the
question is, you know,
[49:38] the fact is we
tolerate all sorts
[49:39] of distractions when we drive.
[49:41] Right you know, some people
some people are, you know,
[49:46] changing dials or some
people are swiping right when
[49:48] they should be turning left.
[49:50] Some people are doing
all sorts of things
[49:53] that cause distraction.
[49:56] And the real question is, you
know, in the midst of all that.
[50:00] Right does a digital
Billboard create
[50:03] an intolerable distraction?
[50:06] And would we be talking
about distraction
[50:08] if the city owned and operated
all the time on that sign?
[50:12] It?
[50:13] I don't know.
[50:14] I really don't know.
[50:15] This question tends not to come
up in the context of smaller,
[50:19] slightly smaller signs.
[50:20] It does come up in the
context of this sign.
[50:22] And I don't know
how much of that
[50:23] has to do with the nature
of the exchange agreement
[50:26] the last time or
the sign itself.
[50:28] I just don't know.
[50:30] But there are a lot of
these signs out there.
[50:33] They're on our highways.
[50:34] And it would stand to reason
that if they were deadly.
[50:41] Right we would know about it.
[50:42] We would.
[50:43] We would see we would
kind of we would.
[50:46] We would be able to
see that in the data.
[50:48] I can't I can't distinguish
that from the noise in the data.
[50:50] 
[50:53] So my professional
recommendation
[50:56] can't speak to political or
financial considerations.
[50:59] I think that if the city council
pursues this exchange, that it
[51:02] should pursue an
advantage as advantageous
[51:04] agreement as possible.
[51:05] We should ask for the most
billboards as possible.
[51:09] Ownership and control matters.
[51:11] And that's why I like
Mill Creek's kind
[51:12] of approach to this
better than Kansas City's.
[51:15] So in exchange, where a
sign company maintains
[51:17] private ownership of the
resulting digital sign,
[51:19] I think which should be
much higher than 3.1.
[51:21] I mean, it's interesting to
think that that's where, you
[51:25] know, that's roughly where
Lee's city and Kansas City
[51:27] landed on signs that
are permanently vested.
[51:31] And again, there's no
real perfect solution
[51:33] to reducing the number
of square footage
[51:35] of billboards in Mill Creek.
[51:37] But based on my negotiating
with Billboard companies,
[51:41] working with them,
working against them
[51:43] in some cases over 2 decades.
[51:45] Right I think my recommendation
is when we have an opportunity
[51:48] to be proactive with
Billboard companies,
[51:50] we should at least try.
[51:51] Right and this is a method to
actually permanently remove
[51:56] billboards which are among the
most difficult vested land use
[51:59] rights that we have in the
state next to railroads,
[52:02] mines and water to manage and.
[52:08] You know, some sort of
exchange of owned billboards
[52:10] to lease time on
a city owned sign
[52:11] is the most effective
method I can think
[52:13] of to achieving a policy goal.
[52:15] So just to recap our Community
Council recommendations.
[52:18] 
[52:22] You know where they are.
[52:23] I'll just read you the Mount
Olympus community councils.
[52:25] That's that's the
additional one.
[52:27] They met in March and they
made a unanimous recommendation
[52:30] to deny among the
members of attendance.
[52:33] The motion was based on
concerns about traffic safety
[52:36] and the aesthetics
of digital signs.
[52:38] And the verbatim summary
of the recommendation
[52:41] is included in the
staff report, which is
[52:44] available on the Creek website.
[52:46] That's that's my
presentation tonight.
[52:48] I don't know if you
have any questions.
[52:50] There are a number of people
in the audience that may
[52:51] want to speak to this as well.
[52:53] Of course I welcome that.
[52:54] That's at your
discretion as a chair,
[52:56] but let me know if you
have any questions.
[52:59] Thank you, Francis.
[53:00] Questions right now for
Francis on the digital signs.
[53:02] 
[53:06] I just have this is just more
of my curiosity to understand
[53:11] the whole sign business.
[53:14] To what extent may
a property owner
[53:16] raise a Billboard rental
rate when the lease expires?
[53:20] Can they potentially just
raise it to an absurd amount?
[53:24] And that would be a way
to get rid of a Billboard.
[53:26] 
[53:29] I don't know.
[53:31] I've only seen I've only
seen one Billboard lease.
[53:33] And it's pretty difficult to do.
[53:38] I think it can be done and
I think it has been done.
[53:40] And that's probably
why the state
[53:43] why there's that provision.
[53:44] That's one of the
reasons why there's
[53:45] that provision in
state law that allows
[53:47] these billboards to move.
[53:48] 
[53:50] But I mean, I could tell you
the Billboard list that I
[53:52] have seen is pretty punishing.
[53:56] It's difficult to get out of.
[53:59] Yeah, I mean, because we keep
wondering, like our billboards
[54:02] really going to always
be the way to advertise.
[54:05] But I mean, that's not a
decision for us to make.
[54:08] But I'm just saying,
I mean, I saw one
[54:11] the other day that's, you know,
advertising to advertise there,
[54:15] right?
[54:16] Yeah OK.
[54:22] The other question I
think I can't remember,
[54:24] I didn't write it down.
[54:25] I think it was the Kansas City.
[54:27] One of them required that
the billboards, the digital
[54:30] billboards be within two
could not be within 250 feet
[54:34] of a residential correct zone.
[54:37] That would not be
true for the ones
[54:38] that we are proposing
for the comments.
[54:43] Correct so this sign, if one
were to go on Highland drive,
[54:47] it would be 300 and
something feet to the nearest
[54:50] residence, which is that duplex
that's being built on woodland.
[54:53] OK then how about on the
other side, on highland?
[54:58] Not close.
[54:59] I mean, this isn't a
mixed use zone, right?
[55:03] So, I mean, there
will be residences.
[55:08] Right right.
[55:08] All all around us.
[55:10] But but it's mixed use.
[55:12] It's not but it's mixed use
and it's not residential.
[55:14] 
[55:17] Other questions for Francis.
[55:19] 
[55:21] Yeah, I have a general
question on this.
[55:25] So I understand that the
city is the applicant here.
[55:28] What's initiating the change?
[55:30] Like what's the
motivation behind it?
[55:32] Is it income for the city?
[55:33] Is it the idea to reduce
to try to reduce billboards
[55:37] within the city limits?
[55:39] And this is a method
in order to do that.
[55:41] And I'm just curious on
why this is coming to.
[55:45] Yeah so this is
initiated by the city.
[55:49] And it's initiated
for two reasons.
[55:51] I have I have a city manager
and a marketing department
[55:55] and a community
life team that has
[55:57] worked very hard on promoting
events on Creek common.
[56:01] And they see and
they hear the value.
[56:07] From people who live
nearby in understanding
[56:12] what's happening on
Mill Creek common.
[56:14] In other words, they like it
as an effective communications
[56:16] tool and they consider it an
effective communications tool.
[56:19] The city does not make any
revenue off of this sign.
[56:22] But what we do get I mean, in
fact, in fact, the Billboard
[56:25] company, the
billboard, the Reagan,
[56:27] which participated in
this digital district
[56:30] sign, paid for it.
[56:31] All right.
[56:32] We pay for the
electricity, but that's it.
[56:35] They pay to they pay
to erect the sign.
[56:37] They pay to manage
it on our behalf.
[56:39] We control the messaging on
40% of the time on the sign.
[56:42] That's what the
city gets, right?
[56:44] We don't get any residual
from the advertising revenue
[56:48] that Reagan puts on the sign.
[56:49] We do we do have a 10% discount
for Creek owned businesses.
[56:55] And that's why you do
see some local businesses
[56:58] advertising on the sign.
[57:00] And we hear from Creek
owned businesses that they
[57:08] like having that opportunity.
[57:11] So those are the city's reasons.
[57:15] Now, from my perspective
as a planner,
[57:17] like I don't necessarily care
about the marketing, right?
[57:20] As a planner, I'm more
interested in that's
[57:25] 1 hat that I wear, right?
[57:27] I'm more interested
in its impact visually
[57:30] and aesthetically.
[57:31] And and so that's why I've
always recommended that.
[57:36] And I've always thought
that a sign like this
[57:38] doesn't make sense absent some
sort of exchange agreement.
[57:41] Right? because if we just put
a sign up that's that big,
[57:44] I think we're just adding
to the visual clutter,
[57:45] not taking it away.
[57:48] However, if we can come up with
some sort of exchange agreement
[57:51] whereby a sign company agrees
to take down signs that we find
[57:55] annoying, then
maybe that sign has
[57:58] a little bit more value to me.
[57:59] 
[58:03] Does that answer your question?
[58:04] It does.
[58:05] Yeah I appreciate that.
[58:06] And I. Yeah I think I'll
for our discussion point,
[58:12] I'll have some
follow UPS to that.
[58:13] But that at least just
the data on why that is.
[58:16] That's that's great.
[58:17] Thank you.
[58:18] 
[58:21] I just have a clarification
question as well.
[58:24] Francis so we as you know,
because you've sent them to us,
[58:30] received.
[58:31] You know, stuff from
the community and stuff
[58:33] from the sign companies.
[58:35] And in some I don't know
how much time you've
[58:37] had to look at them because you
know, some we got like today
[58:42] but have you looked at there
are some comments in these that
[58:48] say this is against
your code and are we
[58:52] matching those up in our code?
[58:56] Like if it is going to be
are we overriding your code
[59:01] or do we have to look
at these few comments
[59:05] and make sure we're meeting you?
[59:07] I didn't I didn't
receive that comment.
[59:09] I mean, what I can say
is if you go to the state
[59:13] statute on Billboard relocation
and and city's relationship
[59:18] with billboards, it it does.
[59:22] It does speak to the ways in
which a city and a sign company
[59:26] can remove a Billboard.
[59:29] One of them is an
exchange agreement,
[59:32] and that's way up
at the top right?
[59:34] Deed gift exchange,
condemnation.
[59:38] And that exchange agreement.
[59:40] We've done one
already seems to be
[59:43] a plenary power of
the city council
[59:47] to consider within the
context of the zone.
[59:50] Right and that's why we're
proposing a zone change
[59:54] to create this kind
of receiving area
[59:57] for some of those sign rights.
[1:00:01] 33rd South is a road, right?
[1:00:05] But it is not a highway.
[1:00:06] It is not a grade
separated interchange.
[1:00:10] And so those provisions of the
Utah outdoor advertising act
[1:00:13] that apply to grade
separated highways
[1:00:17] don't apply to 33rd South.
[1:00:18] 
[1:00:21] It's regulated as though
it were a city street
[1:00:23] as far as UDOT is concerned.
[1:00:25] 
[1:00:28] Thanks, Diane.
[1:00:29] Hey, Dwayne.
[1:00:30] Do you have any questions
for Francis at this point?
[1:00:33] OK all right.
[1:00:36] We see you saying
shaking your head no.
[1:00:40] And you can hear us OK.
[1:00:43] Dwayne, can you hear us?
[1:00:44] 
[1:00:48] OK all right.
[1:00:50] Thank you.
[1:00:50] 
[1:00:53] Well, Thank you, Francis, for
covering the DEIB Community
[1:00:56] Council recommendation,
because there
[1:00:59] are some changes
to the ordinance
[1:01:01] when we reviewed it last month.
[1:01:04] I would like to hear
additional comments from.
[1:01:06] The public so we can gather
all the information we need.
[1:01:09] And then we can
have our discussion.
[1:01:11] So those of you
that are here, I'll
[1:01:14] ask you to come up in
no particular order.
[1:01:17] Give us your name and if
you'd like your address
[1:01:19] and your comments about three
minutes is amount of time
[1:01:22] because I do have
quite a few to read.
[1:01:23] And then we can intersperse
and I'll read some, hopefully.
[1:01:27] Victoria you can read
some so people don't
[1:01:28] have to hear from me too long.
[1:01:30] But go.
[1:01:31] Go ahead.
[1:01:32] Thank you.
[1:01:32] I'm Angel vice 3610,
Carolyn street and.
[1:01:38] I'm not going to repeat
what I said last time
[1:01:39] because you heard that.
[1:01:40] So there's a couple other
things that came up.
[1:01:43] One, I would assert that
billboards are a dying breed.
[1:01:46] You do see this Billboard
available signs all the time.
[1:01:50] And by converting them
to digital billboards,
[1:01:55] we are giving Billboard
companies a lifeline.
[1:01:58] We are helping them to make
it into the next century.
[1:02:01] I hope we don't do that.
[1:02:04] Francis said that it is a
benefit to the city center
[1:02:07] to have digital billboards.
[1:02:09] I disagree, and I think that's
an assumption, not a fact.
[1:02:15] And when he talks about
helping venture out,
[1:02:19] venture out doesn't
make money for the city,
[1:02:21] it costs money for the city.
[1:02:22] So really, is that something
we should sacrifice
[1:02:26] our aesthetics for
to help that people
[1:02:28] want to come ice skate great.
[1:02:30] If they don't hear about it,
it's not the end of the world.
[1:02:32] We're not making money
off of that exchange.
[1:02:36] There is a fifth option.
[1:02:38] I would assert that wasn't
in the five options of what
[1:02:41] you could propose tonight.
[1:02:42] The fifth option would
be you've already
[1:02:44] polluted my neighborhood here.
[1:02:46] How about Olympus cove?
[1:02:49] Get the next digital one.
[1:02:50] If we have to exchange static
billboards for a digital,
[1:02:54] why not up by Dan's
or up by smith's?
[1:02:58] Spread the love.
[1:03:01] And then finally,
I would remind you
[1:03:05] that in 2021 and now members
of the community have come out,
[1:03:10] have emailed, have texted
not as many tonight
[1:03:13] as there were three years ago.
[1:03:15] A lot of people are
burned out, but people
[1:03:17] have made it known
aesthetically,
[1:03:19] it's not what we want.
[1:03:20] I would rather stay
with the status quo,
[1:03:23] and I've heard that
over and over again.
[1:03:25] So I hope that y'all would
consider aesthetics is,
[1:03:31] like Francis said,
an important thing.
[1:03:33] And the community keeps saying
it's not the aesthetic we want.
[1:03:37] Thank you.
[1:03:37] Thank you.
[1:03:38] 
[1:03:43] My name is Marv Paulsen.
[1:03:45] I live at 3631 South Caroline.
[1:03:48] And three years ago.
[1:03:51] No, I'm not complaining
at you guys.
[1:03:54] OK this goes back to
what I thought was a.
[1:04:00] Binding compromise
three years ago,
[1:04:03] and I feel personally betrayed
now that is brought back up
[1:04:08] and I feel that the
community is being betrayed
[1:04:10] by bringing this back up.
[1:04:13] And I guess I could say that
option 4 was the choice.
[1:04:19] But I have to emphasize my
feeling of major betrayal
[1:04:25] by the council.
[1:04:28] And I hope you'll carry
that message to them.
[1:04:32] Uh, just to comment
on this little thing
[1:04:33] that was put out
here on 33rd south,
[1:04:36] this electronic Billboard.
[1:04:38] I don't know who's running that
thing, but in a previous life.
[1:04:41] I was in advertising
and who's ever doing
[1:04:44] the graphics on that thing.
[1:04:47] I got to tell you, it's.
[1:04:49] It's uncommunicative.
[1:04:52] Thanks, guys.
[1:04:54] Thank you, Mr Paulsen.
[1:04:55] 
[1:05:05] Congratulations on
your re-election.
[1:05:07] I can tell you're thrilled.
[1:05:09] Thank you.
[1:05:11] Yes so just before I comment,
because I've got it in writing,
[1:05:15] can I just submit for
the record what I've
[1:05:19] got here after I've read it?
[1:05:20] Is that OK or is that
against the rules or.
[1:05:23] No save somebody the
summarizing effort.
[1:05:25] You could do that.
[1:05:26] I think I have it here if
it's the one you emailed.
[1:05:29] No, I haven't emailed anything.
[1:05:31] So this is just.
[1:05:32] You can give it to us.
[1:05:33] You can shoot me an
email and I'll make sure
[1:05:35] that it gets into the record
or just I'm willing to just
[1:05:37] hand it over to.
[1:05:38] That works too.
[1:05:39] OK, perfect.
[1:05:40] All right.
[1:05:42] So why isn't the one sign
we have already enough?
[1:05:47] In the staff report submitted
for this meeting in the section
[1:05:50] titled options for an
exchange agreement.
[1:05:53] Is this opening phrase after
hearing from city staff
[1:05:56] and community partners about the
effectiveness of city messaging
[1:06:00] on the Mill Creek common
digital district sign,
[1:06:03] I want to repeat that the
effectiveness of the Mill Creek
[1:06:08] common digital district sign,
as in singular, as in one
[1:06:12] Billboard.
[1:06:14] So staff and others are saying
the one Billboard already
[1:06:17] installed managed to
draw in enough people
[1:06:19] to make all the Mill Creek
common events for the last two
[1:06:22] years super successful.
[1:06:25] One is clearly enough.
[1:06:27] We don't need two more to do
the job when one can do it.
[1:06:31] Signage saturation
in the current
[1:06:35] sign code 19.80
2.1 85 called off
[1:06:39] premises signs and billboards.
[1:06:41] Section h describes a
minimum 500 lineal feet
[1:06:45] separation requirement
for billboards
[1:06:47] on the same side of the street.
[1:06:49] The trace ombres Billboard
is only 314ft away
[1:06:53] from and on the same
side as the proposed
[1:06:56] location on Highland drive.
[1:06:58] That violates the
separation requirement.
[1:07:01] That spot is also only 69ft
from a self storage ground
[1:07:05] sign directly across the street.
[1:07:08] That violates the minimum 100
foot separation requirement
[1:07:11] between a Billboard and a ground
sign as described in section I.
[1:07:15] So why can this proposal go
forward without conforming
[1:07:18] to those requirements?
[1:07:20] It's because it's being
called a digital district
[1:07:22] sign rather than a Billboard.
[1:07:24] So poof.
[1:07:26] Separation requirement
doesn't apply anymore.
[1:07:29] My guess is that we have
these separation requirements
[1:07:31] because we don't want to
saturate an area with too
[1:07:33] much Billboard signage.
[1:07:35] Three digital billboards
all on a single city block
[1:07:38] is ridiculous, in my opinion.
[1:07:40] And exactly the
density the Billboard
[1:07:42] code is designed to prevent.
[1:07:43] Except when we
weirdly pretend that
[1:07:45] it doesn't apply because we're
not calling it a Billboard.
[1:07:48] Calling them district signs
rather than billboards
[1:07:50] is a distinction, in
my opinion, without
[1:07:52] a functional difference.
[1:07:54] So what will you be
doing in 40 years?
[1:07:57] Some people are claiming that
the Billboard exchange is
[1:08:00] a good deal because the digital
billboards will be temporary
[1:08:03] as then they would
tolerate the visual blight
[1:08:05] because the digital billboards
would come down after 40 years.
[1:08:09] That's misleading, and
it's not based in fact.
[1:08:12] 40 years isn't temporary.
[1:08:14] It's the rest of my life.
[1:08:16] God willing, I'll
maybe be dead by then.
[1:08:19] So it's know, if
you think about it,
[1:08:21] if you have a five-year-old
kid or a grandkid,
[1:08:23] they'll be married and
they'll have their own college
[1:08:25] age kids in 40 years.
[1:08:28] So it's not a temporary thing.
[1:08:31] And secondly, I've never heard
staff or the city council
[1:08:34] ever make a serious
statement or commitment
[1:08:36] that the digital
Billboard would be
[1:08:37] entirely removed while the
board and the framework.
[1:08:41] At the end of the lease.
[1:08:42] So any consideration
should presume
[1:08:45] that these digital billboards
will be a permanently
[1:08:47] installed Visual blight.
[1:08:49] So lastly, I don't
want to ever complain.
[1:08:51] I want to bring a solution as
well what my thoughts were.
[1:08:54] So what would Kathy do?
[1:08:56] Obviously, I don't want any
more digital billboards,
[1:08:58] but if I were forced to
make a decision right now,
[1:09:01] if you were nailing
my foot to the floor,
[1:09:03] I would pick option three.
[1:09:05] Just one digital
Billboard down on 13th.
[1:09:08] Opposite harmons
and would expand
[1:09:10] the exchange options to include
nonconforming billboards.
[1:09:13] That aren't necessarily
next to the city center.
[1:09:16] I'd be very aggressive
about getting a better
[1:09:18] exchange ratio, whether that's.
[1:09:21] Square footage or
the entire Billboard
[1:09:23] face like was mentioned in
one of the other cities.
[1:09:26] I would make sure that the
updated language is very clear.
[1:09:29] No more digital
billboards in the city
[1:09:31] center so that we don't have
to go through this again.
[1:09:34] Thank you.
[1:09:35] Thank you.
[1:09:36] Didn't catch your name.
[1:09:38] Thank you.
[1:09:39] 
[1:09:44] Greetings My name is Jeff young.
[1:09:46] 2401 South Foothill today
happens to be our sign
[1:09:52] company's 104th birthday.
[1:09:53] Can you believe that?
[1:09:55] 104 years.
[1:09:56] So my grandfather emigrated
from England in 1910,
[1:09:59] started the company
in Ogden, Utah.
[1:10:01] Thank you for the
partnership we've
[1:10:02] enjoyed with Creek for
more than a century
[1:10:06] and the Bill of
theater adebise is
[1:10:10] one of our projects among many.
[1:10:12] I want to address a couple
of things on premise code.
[1:10:15] First, we don't get many
requests for TVs in Windows.
[1:10:18] The glare, they're
not bright enough
[1:10:20] and the glare is horrible.
[1:10:21] So if you're setting a TV
back three feet inside,
[1:10:24] you might be able to see
a little bit at night.
[1:10:26] You can't see it during the day
and it's not really practical.
[1:10:29] So I would perhaps
suggest you remove that
[1:10:31] from your list of anxieties.
[1:10:34] We just don't see that
working very well.
[1:10:36] We love pole covers.
[1:10:38] Great move.
[1:10:39] A lot of cities that we work
with include this in their code
[1:10:42] and it makes a big
difference as far as sign
[1:10:45] companies are concerned.
[1:10:46] When you ask for pole covers,
we know exactly what you mean.
[1:10:49] If you're asking if
you want to specify
[1:10:51] masonry or some other element,
we're happy to do that too.
[1:10:54] And it makes a big difference.
[1:10:57] We're actually fine
with the square footage.
[1:10:59] We appreciate you being so
thoughtful and considerate
[1:11:02] of these businesses who are
advertising what they do.
[1:11:06] I want to address the light
temperature that Kelvin, Thanks
[1:11:10] for the adjustment to 4,000.
[1:11:11] There's a reason why these
lights are 6,500 Kelvin.
[1:11:15] It's because you can see
the blue on the flag.
[1:11:17] You can see the Mill Creek
logo, you can see your sweater.
[1:11:20] When you go to 4000, you wash
everything from yellow to blue
[1:11:24] goes away.
[1:11:25] It turns autopsy gray.
[1:11:27] It's horrible.
[1:11:28] And so in terms of
color rendition,
[1:11:30] the Kelvin temperature is not
something we recommend at all.
[1:11:34] I'm not sure where
that came from.
[1:11:35] We're big advocates of
brightness and hundreds
[1:11:39] nits is I'm sorry to
say, it's a little crazy
[1:11:44] because on page 10 on e,
it says illuminance level.
[1:11:47] I know you don't have that read.
[1:11:48] So it is draft.
[1:11:49] I don't know if
that's new or old,
[1:11:51] but the following
page on page 11,
[1:11:53] you have 0.2 candles
above ambient lighting.
[1:11:57] That is what hundreds
and hundreds of cities
[1:12:00] have adopted successfully.
[1:12:01] And just 0.2 candles
above ambient light
[1:12:05] is hardly brighter than
what you see around it.
[1:12:09] And those light levels are
very, very conservative.
[1:12:14] To give you a sense,
going back to 100
[1:12:15] and it's not many
people have a nit gun.
[1:12:18] We own one.
[1:12:19] We never use it.
[1:12:20] It sits in a cabinet.
[1:12:21] I don't know if you've got one.
[1:12:22] Francis, do you have a net gun?
[1:12:24] No, but I have a consultant.
[1:12:25] Yeah OK.
[1:12:26] Well, someone's
got one somewhere.
[1:12:27] That's the problem.
[1:12:28] The photo meter that
you use is really cheap.
[1:12:31] And it's easy to use.
[1:12:32] I pointed my nit gun
at my lights on my car,
[1:12:35] and it hit 10,000 and
then it went off to error.
[1:12:39] Then I turned at high beams.
[1:12:40] And I couldn't even
get it to register.
[1:12:41] To give you a sense how
bright headlights are on cars,
[1:12:45] it's the NIT gun
doesn't even work.
[1:12:49] So 100 nits is
hardly bright at all.
[1:12:53] And I recommend that
the city consider
[1:12:56] just deleting E and keeping
f the 0.2 foot candles.
[1:13:00] So I'd mention that for
you to consider in terms
[1:13:04] of electronics on pole signs,
let me just mention there's
[1:13:07] a series we're advocates of
having electronics on poles
[1:13:10] for a series of reasons.
[1:13:12] First off, customers
want the visibility
[1:13:13] of their advertising.
[1:13:14] We understand that.
[1:13:16] When the sign goes
on the ground.
[1:13:18] Vandalism sprinklers.
[1:13:20] Radiant heat from the ground.
[1:13:22] Snow from snow plows.
[1:13:25] It's the signs.
[1:13:27] Ends up looking horrible
in a short amount of time.
[1:13:30] They're very hard to
maintain and it just
[1:13:33] puts all sorts of complications
in the way of us keeping
[1:13:36] the signs, looking well and
looking good over a long period
[1:13:40] of time.
[1:13:40] So you might guess
that I would say
[1:13:44] that we would love
to continue to put
[1:13:46] electronics on pole signs.
[1:13:49] If I may switch over to the
off premise side for a minute.
[1:13:53] And Nathan is here.
[1:13:54] Nathan is my nephew.
[1:13:55] He's fourth generation
with the company.
[1:13:57] I'm third.
[1:13:58] Mr young, will you be able to
summarize in about a minute?
[1:14:00] We're coming.
[1:14:01] I know I've taken way too much
time and I'll stop on page 16.
[1:14:05] You have one change to
the copy face in a 24 hour
[1:14:09] period on digital billboards.
[1:14:12] If I'm reading that correctly.
[1:14:14] Is that what you intend to do?
[1:14:15] Francis that's the existing.
[1:14:17] So it is existing.
[1:14:18] That's in the
existing requirement.
[1:14:20] We're not making any changes to
the off premise or off premise
[1:14:25] section because we have to
notice that separately would
[1:14:27] have received a separate
notice if we were
[1:14:29] making any substantive changes.
[1:14:30] Yeah, I have not
seen 24 hour holds
[1:14:32] in all the meetings I've gone
to in the decades and decades.
[1:14:36] So I wave a little red flag
on K on the 24 hour period,
[1:14:40] Virginia Tech
transportation established
[1:14:42] the safety threshold
on distraction
[1:14:45] and drivers texting
is 4.6 seconds.
[1:14:49] Looking away from the road,
Virginia Tech says two seconds
[1:14:52] is the safety threshold.
[1:14:53] The federal study
commissioned to investigate.
[1:14:57] I glances at signs
say number one,
[1:14:59] eye glances at digital signs
happened twice as often.
[1:15:02] People look at electronic
signs twice as often
[1:15:05] and they glance no
more than 1.3 seconds.
[1:15:08] Most of them were
less than 1 second.
[1:15:10] So, yes, your
attention is drawn.
[1:15:11] I know.
[1:15:12] I'm done.
[1:15:13] Yeah, we let me have
if you want to have
[1:15:15] Nathan carry on from the
comments and I'll finish up.
[1:15:18] Signs are not.
[1:15:20] Unsafe signs are.
[1:15:22] They're not causing
traffic accidents.
[1:15:24] Thank you.
[1:15:25] 
[1:15:34] Yeah good evening.
[1:15:35] Thanks for the
opportunity, Francis.
[1:15:37] Very well done.
[1:15:38] Really appreciate
the energy, effort
[1:15:39] you put into all of this.
[1:15:41] First and foremost, I would
just say engage us, please,
[1:15:45] as a member of the community,
I'm the demographic
[1:15:47] that you want in your city.
[1:15:49] Engage us.
[1:15:50] We know billboards.
[1:15:51] So please, as you go
through these renditions,
[1:15:54] reach out to us.
[1:15:55] Reach out to Reagan.
[1:15:57] We're here.
[1:15:58] We're here to help.
[1:15:59] I drafted a letter today with
11 points talking predominantly
[1:16:03] about the sign code on the
off premise side, the touch
[1:16:09] on four of them quickly.
[1:16:11] The first one is related
to the exchange program.
[1:16:13] I look at your economics on that
and understand which companies
[1:16:17] have the most to do any
exchanges in your city
[1:16:20] because that's going to create
a monopoly pretty quickly.
[1:16:24] And from the
industry's perspective,
[1:16:26] that's not favorable.
[1:16:28] We want healthy
competition because it then
[1:16:32] starts changing
rates and prices,
[1:16:33] which then business
owners, communities
[1:16:36] start to feel the impact of it.
[1:16:38] So that's something to consider.
[1:16:40] Jeff mentioned the other
one on the sign change.
[1:16:42] I've never seen that before.
[1:16:45] I'm new to that one, so.
[1:16:48] Our we run eight slots and they
change every eight seconds.
[1:16:52] That's industry standard for us.
[1:16:55] The next one is
there was a provision
[1:16:57] in there that was related to.
[1:16:59] 
[1:17:02] On 0 2 about providing
a demo permit in order
[1:17:05] to get a new permit, and we had
to provide our lease agreement.
[1:17:09] No, please, please, please, no.
[1:17:12] Because as soon as we
hand over our lease
[1:17:13] agreement to the
city, it becomes
[1:17:15] potentially public document.
[1:17:17] And that's our
proprietary information.
[1:17:19] And we're healthy
competitors in this space.
[1:17:22] And by doing that, it's
harmful to our business.
[1:17:25] Other cities and municipalities.
[1:17:27] Udot does it great.
[1:17:28] There's a form that we fill
out with the landowner.
[1:17:30] It gets notarized, says, hey,
this is a real deal lease.
[1:17:34] And then the next
was the lighting.
[1:17:38] There was a request in
there for the lighting to be
[1:17:39] downward instead of upward.
[1:17:41] I think we need to
talk about technology
[1:17:43] and what LEDs have
done to the industry,
[1:17:45] both from the sign perspective
and the Billboard side.
[1:17:48] So in summary, I would love
to sit down and have more
[1:17:52] conversation to help
answer any questions
[1:17:54] you would have from billboards.
[1:17:56] Valuations we are
a unified industry
[1:18:00] and we love what we do because
it promotes small business
[1:18:04] and that's at the core of what
makes communities like Creek
[1:18:07] great.
[1:18:08] And so Thank you for your time.
[1:18:10] If you have
questions, you should
[1:18:11] have my information there.
[1:18:12] Look forward to
working with you.
[1:18:14] I didn't catch your name.
[1:18:16] My name is Nathan young.
[1:18:18] Thank you.
[1:18:18] Thank you.
[1:18:19] Thank you, Mr young.
[1:18:20] 
[1:18:23] Let's take a little
break and I've
[1:18:25] got some comments to
read here that have
[1:18:28] come through on email.
[1:18:31] Some of these are lengthy.
[1:18:33] And I do want to have
the comments comply
[1:18:36] with our rough three minutes.
[1:18:38] So I'm condensing.
[1:18:41] Some of what the comments are.
[1:18:43] But at least you
I think you have
[1:18:45] the same emails that I have.
[1:18:48] So you'll have the full
comment for the record.
[1:18:52] I just finished the
proposals at 23 016.
[1:18:55] I have to say, and this is also
from Jake Hathaway in the Mount
[1:18:58] Airy neighborhood,
I have to say I'm
[1:19:00] disappointed that we
will still that we are
[1:19:02] still discussing this topic.
[1:19:03] Let me start with
this calling them
[1:19:05] district Stines is disgraceful.
[1:19:07] Changing the words we use
for electronic or electric
[1:19:10] seems like a deliberate
way to deceive the public.
[1:19:13] Let's be honest with the
citizens of Mill Creek.
[1:19:15] These are digital billboards.
[1:19:17] Well, you've proposed
some innocuous changes
[1:19:19] to the sign ordinance.
[1:19:20] It is clear that the primary
objective of these changes
[1:19:22] is to allow more digital signs.
[1:19:24] I don't know why we
must keep telling you
[1:19:26] that the citizens
of Mill Creek don't
[1:19:28] want additional billboards.
[1:19:30] We don't want the first one.
[1:19:31] We certainly don't want more.
[1:19:32] The planning commission should
be helping solve real problems.
[1:19:35] The city has not trying to
facilitate a wealthy sign
[1:19:37] company to have more rights
against the expressed desires
[1:19:40] of its citizens.
[1:19:41] The planning commission
has outlined four options.
[1:19:44] Not surprisingly, three of
them increase the number
[1:19:46] of digital signs in the city.
[1:19:48] Those are wrong choices.
[1:19:49] The citizens of Creek
have spoken up about this.
[1:19:52] There's got to be other options.
[1:19:54] I would rather live
in, with what we have
[1:19:57] than add more digital signs.
[1:19:58] I'm guessing the city
council and others
[1:20:00] are getting a lot of pressure
from the sign company on this.
[1:20:03] My suggestion is rather
than change our code
[1:20:05] to help the sign company, we
change our codes to protect
[1:20:09] the citizens of the city.
[1:20:10] After all, this is
our city, not theirs.
[1:20:13] They already have a
history of legal action
[1:20:15] against cities and towns.
[1:20:16] We should protect our city
from that in our own codes
[1:20:21] and ordinances and restrict
digital billboards to just
[1:20:24] the one we already have.
[1:20:25] 
[1:20:31] These comments are
from Tom Stevens.
[1:20:36] The city's plan for two
more digital billboards
[1:20:39] in the city center is troubling
for a number of reasons.
[1:20:42] One, the city continues to
advance a false equivalency
[1:20:45] narrative that digital
and static billboards are
[1:20:49] more similar than they
are different in terms
[1:20:51] of safety, risk, blight
and economic value
[1:20:54] to Billboard owners.
[1:20:55] In fact, each
digital Billboard has
[1:20:57] a safety risk, as evidenced
by credible studies
[1:21:00] far more lucrative.
[1:21:01] Two Billboard the
Billboard owner,
[1:21:03] as evidenced by the Billboard
industry's own claims
[1:21:05] and represent far more blight.
[1:21:08] And due to their design,
color, images, brightness
[1:21:10] and pulsating screen
changes changes every 8
[1:21:13] seconds to the city appears.
[1:21:15] I'm willing to
accept the evidence
[1:21:16] that digital
billboards represent
[1:21:18] an unacceptable safety hazard,
as evidenced by its continuing
[1:21:22] effort to gain a
positive recommendation
[1:21:24] for its digital Billboard plan.
[1:21:26] This action exposures the city
to future litigation arising
[1:21:31] from accidents in the
immediate vicinity
[1:21:33] of its digital billboards.
[1:21:35] Three, the city asserts that
exchanging static billboards
[1:21:39] for digital billboards
will reduce the number
[1:21:41] of billboards in Mill Creek.
[1:21:43] This is correct, but
only on the margin
[1:21:45] and at the and at
a very high price.
[1:21:48] The city is proposing that
for each digital Billboard
[1:21:50] face installed, three
static Billboard
[1:21:52] faces will be removed.
[1:21:53] For the sake of discussion,
let's say each of the existing
[1:21:56] 51 billboards in Mill Creek
represent 600ft of sign face
[1:22:00] double sided, which
adds up to 30,600in
[1:22:04] aggregate square footage for the
entire inventory of billboards.
[1:22:07] Getting rid of three
static billboards,
[1:22:09] 1,800 square feet, adding
one digital billboard,
[1:22:13] 600ft for a net reduction
of 1,200 square feet being
[1:22:16] on average, two
of the existing 51
[1:22:19] static billboards,
a 4% reduction
[1:22:21] in the current aggregate
of 30,600 square foot.
[1:22:26] As at the proposed
sign phase trade ratio,
[1:22:30] Creek will end up with 25
digital Billboard faces, which,
[1:22:34] as bad as that is, is
an unlikely outcome
[1:22:36] as the Billboard
owners will probably
[1:22:38] be interested in
trading out a minority
[1:22:41] of their static billboards,
keeping the balance
[1:22:42] and leaving Creek worse off.
[1:22:45] For the reasons above
and the others, and that
[1:22:47] others will express a negative.
[1:22:49] Recommendation to
the city council
[1:22:51] is the best course of action.
[1:22:52] 
[1:23:03] And this is from Janine Terrill.
[1:23:06] Oh, no.
[1:23:06] This is from Dr. Jan Schwartz.
[1:23:08] I'll do that one first.
[1:23:09] 
[1:23:12] I am a 30 plus year resident
of the Salt Lake valley,
[1:23:14] and like many of
you, I have lived
[1:23:16] in various parts of the
Valley throughout those years.
[1:23:18] A typical week I spend
time in South salt lake,
[1:23:21] Murray millcreek, Murray Murray
again, guess Riverton and West
[1:23:24] Jordan as I go about accessing
doctor's appointments,
[1:23:27] my home, my office,
shopping and more.
[1:23:29] In fact, I drive-through
Creek to get
[1:23:31] from home to work each day.
[1:23:32] I'm strongly opposed
to the addition
[1:23:34] of electronic billboards
in Millcreek that
[1:23:36] is being discussed tonight.
[1:23:37] Studies have shown that
electronic billboards are
[1:23:40] more distracting to drivers.
[1:23:42] I've listed one such study
below and tagged the source
[1:23:45] and Creek is
already experiencing
[1:23:46] increased traffic and the
hazards that come with it.
[1:23:49] While there may be a
financial benefit to the city,
[1:23:51] the potential cost of injury
to people and property
[1:23:54] cannot be overlooked.
[1:23:55] I hope that the council will
reconsider the idea of adding
[1:23:58] more digital billboards.
[1:23:59] Maintaining the
safety of residents
[1:24:01] should be the priority.
[1:24:02] Dr. Jean Schwartz.
[1:24:04] Then there's a couple
others on this page.
[1:24:06] I understand it.
[1:24:08] This is from Brian workman.
[1:24:10] As a resident of Mill
Creek for over 20 years,
[1:24:12] I oppose the addition of
more digital billboards.
[1:24:15] That's one of the
things that I love
[1:24:16] about the area of Mill Creek.
[1:24:18] It's quiet and there's
less obnoxious advertising.
[1:24:21] There's a vote to be taken.
[1:24:22] I vote against
additional billboards.
[1:24:24] Please take this into
account for the record.
[1:24:26] Sincerely, Ryan workman.
[1:24:28] The last one is
from Janine Terrill.
[1:24:30] I ran opposed to these in 2021.
[1:24:33] I know they installed one and
are now trying to install more.
[1:24:36] I'm just trying to
keep it to the one.
[1:24:38] I feel like these
are a real nuisance.
[1:24:40] These electronic billboards.
[1:24:41] Billboard jail.
[1:24:42] I'm not sure I can make it
to the city council meeting,
[1:24:45] but I would very much like to
be included in the narrative.
[1:24:47] I have a daughter
that's on the spectrum.
[1:24:49] And these kind of
billboards make her seizure.
[1:24:51] 
[1:24:55] Thank you, Victoria.
[1:24:56] Yeah, just check that off.
[1:24:57] Um, this comment is from Gary
Blake, 1189 East iris lane.
[1:25:04] A comment on billboards.
[1:25:05] The negative effect upon traffic
safety of any type of Billboard
[1:25:10] is so obvious.
[1:25:11] Any Billboard company
obviously believes
[1:25:13] and intends that drivers
will look at their Billboard.
[1:25:15] Otherwise the Billboard
company would have nothing
[1:25:17] to sell to its customers.
[1:25:19] The Billboard company
obviously knows
[1:25:21] this implicitly
and will therefore
[1:25:23] make its displays attractive.
[1:25:25] Therefore, a degree
of driver distraction
[1:25:27] is a natural
result. Furthermore,
[1:25:29] the rapid recycling
of bright colored
[1:25:31] digital Billboard
messages results in even
[1:25:33] more driver distraction.
[1:25:35] Obviously we should not want to
make traffic on our city roads
[1:25:38] more unsafe by increasing
the distraction distraction
[1:25:41] of our drivers.
[1:25:42] Therefore, instead of wanting
more billboards, especially
[1:25:45] digital ones, we
obviously should
[1:25:47] want fewer rather than more.
[1:25:49] 
[1:25:52] This is a.
[1:25:54] Comment from Brent crane.
[1:25:57] Ukraine apologies.
[1:26:05] I'm with border.
[1:26:06] 
[1:26:11] Yeah, you did that one.
[1:26:12] 
[1:26:16] It seemed like his first.
[1:26:17] 
[1:26:20] No BLEEP.
[1:26:20] Here we go.
[1:26:23] Of he's opposed to.
[1:26:32] The billboards said they.
[1:26:36] Their blight to one census.
[1:26:39] And there he's being
constantly barraged by.
[1:26:43] Advertising I don't want to
see the boards that are hawked.
[1:26:45] Beauty makeovers and
erectile dysfunction
[1:26:47] are especially offensive.
[1:26:49] One of the reasons I love
traveling, especially
[1:26:51] to other countries,
is their lack
[1:26:52] of billboards and
other advertisements
[1:26:54] that are unwanted
by the population.
[1:26:56] I see the landscape and
enjoy people and sights and
[1:26:58] the natural beauty of the area.
[1:27:01] This is particularly
true for the Salt Lake
[1:27:03] Valley and suburbs nestled
beneath the grandeur
[1:27:05] of the Wasatch Front.
[1:27:07] I realized that the
ship sailed long ago,
[1:27:08] but we must learn to live with
the visual and cultural damage.
[1:27:12] However, I believe it's
not too late to stop
[1:27:13] spoiling the beautiful
city of Mill Creek.
[1:27:16] When I saw the current
digital sign at City center,
[1:27:17] my first thought was of Las
Vegas, downtown Los Angeles
[1:27:21] or times square, new York,
with their garish digital signs
[1:27:24] and light shows.
[1:27:25] Please may the council
be better than that.
[1:27:27] Let us turn Mill Creek
into a kinder and gentler
[1:27:29] city as boulder, Colorado.
[1:27:31] Stowe, Vermont.
[1:27:32] Carmel, California.
[1:27:33] Please strive to be
a city that values
[1:27:35] peace and tranquility over
blatant light show advertising.
[1:27:39] At the very least, please
press the pause button
[1:27:41] for a couple of years and
then reevaluate the need
[1:27:44] for effects of digital signs.
[1:27:46] Once they are up, they will
never come down and more
[1:27:48] will be added.
[1:27:49] I understand that digital signs
are also a driver safety issue,
[1:27:52] but I'll leave that
to issues, that issue
[1:27:55] to others that are
more knowledgeable.
[1:27:57] And that's from Brent crane.
[1:27:59] 
[1:28:04] I'll summarize because
it was a long letter.
[1:28:08] This is from the president of
scenic America, mark Falzone.
[1:28:14] We understand that
the town of Mill Creek
[1:28:16] is currently considering a
proposal that will bring added
[1:28:18] visual pollution in the
form of digital billboards
[1:28:21] three within a single city
block to the community.
[1:28:24] We have read through the
details of the proposal,
[1:28:26] including the history
that is setting the stage
[1:28:28] for this potential project.
[1:28:30] We would like to offer
the Mill Creek planning
[1:28:32] commission the following
scientific facts
[1:28:34] about outdoor advertising.
[1:28:36] The first point is about
driver pedestrian safety,
[1:28:41] and it does go into some
quite a bit of studies.
[1:28:48] But summarize.
[1:28:51] 27 studies found that average
outdoor advertisings were
[1:28:54] designed specifically to
grab drivers attention away
[1:28:57] from the roadway.
[1:28:59] Talks about when there's
inclement weather, higher
[1:29:02] speeds, traffic
changes that they
[1:29:04] are distractions and not safe.
[1:29:07] The second is
environmental degradation.
[1:29:11] Billboards require
large consumption
[1:29:13] materials as well as the
removal of trees and vegetation.
[1:29:17] Talks about.
[1:29:18] The illuminated Billboard
says it can consume over 7,000
[1:29:21] kilowatt hours annually
in a single board,
[1:29:24] can consume nearly 163,000
kilowatt hours annually.
[1:29:29] For comparison, an
average home in the US
[1:29:33] is 11,000 kilowatt hours.
[1:29:35] Led signs also contribute to
high levels of light pollution.
[1:29:39] Fewer billboards
leads to a reduction
[1:29:42] in resource consumption,
waste, pollution and the energy
[1:29:45] for maintenance.
[1:29:46] The last is.
[1:29:48] Guess he's got for social
economic implications.
[1:29:53] Talks about the
contribute to maintenance
[1:29:55] costs, decrease property
values, loss of tourism revenue.
[1:29:58] 
[1:30:03] Cities may also incur
costs associated
[1:30:04] with regulating the placement
and maintenance of billboards.
[1:30:08] It goes on to some stuff about
zoning and signing ordinances,
[1:30:11] which I don't think
really speaks to what
[1:30:13] this application is about.
[1:30:15] I'll skip that part.
[1:30:16] And then.
[1:30:18] Athletics and
community character.
[1:30:20] One of the most important
apparent impacts
[1:30:22] that billboards
have on communities
[1:30:23] is the immediate decline of the
visual appeal of billboards.
[1:30:26] Often large and imposing
can dominate the landscape
[1:30:28] and distract from the natural
beauty of the surroundings.
[1:30:31] 
[1:30:34] So he.
[1:30:40] The one.
[1:30:42] This is a different
point we haven't heard.
[1:30:44] But furthermore, scenic
America is strongly
[1:30:45] concerned about the
ways in which the town
[1:30:47] leadership allowed for the
installation of billboards
[1:30:49] in the first place.
[1:30:50] The rewriting of the sign code
to remove off premise signs
[1:30:53] and to allow for district signs.
[1:30:55] And the concerning
relationship between the mayor
[1:30:57] and his wife to Reagan
outdoors do not reflect
[1:31:01] well on the town leadership.
[1:31:02] These are tactics
that raise red flags
[1:31:04] and are more likely to be seen
in communities where corruption
[1:31:07] is rampant and certainly not
to be expected in a state
[1:31:10] as highly regulated as Utah.
[1:31:12] It is for these reasons that we
implore the planning commission
[1:31:14] to carefully consider
the implications that
[1:31:17] added outdoor
advertising will have
[1:31:18] on your beautiful community.
[1:31:20] 
[1:31:26] We go back to.
[1:31:29] Audience you're the last
one if you'd want to.
[1:31:32] 
[1:31:35] Oh oh, Yeah.
[1:31:39] I didn't know I have one from
Susan that just came through.
[1:31:43] I'm sorry.
[1:31:44] I'm glad you're here, too.
[1:31:45] Oh, it's OK.
[1:31:46] Yeah my name is Mitchell Weiss.
[1:31:48] I live at 3610 South
Caroline Street.
[1:31:52] And I'll just read this email.
[1:31:53] 
[1:31:56] As a professional advertiser and
marketing director of over 30
[1:32:00] years, I can attest to the
inefficacy of Billboard
[1:32:04] advertising, their limited
audience targeting,
[1:32:07] lack of interaction
and attribution,
[1:32:10] short exposure
time are just a few
[1:32:12] of the parallel perils
that have all but
[1:32:15] decimated the outdoor
advertising industry.
[1:32:18] This is why the outdoor
advertising industry cannot
[1:32:21] sustain itself without
government partnerships
[1:32:24] and lobbying that produce
ironclad 100 plus year leases,
[1:32:29] provisions and other guarantees
through state legislation.
[1:32:32] Fans of the free market
would certainly exclaim, let
[1:32:35] the market decide their fate.
[1:32:38] The outdoor
advertising industry is
[1:32:39] desperately trying to
stay relevant by moving
[1:32:42] to more digital formats.
[1:32:44] But I would assert that this
strategy is merely a better
[1:32:47] profit model for them, selling
multiple advertisements
[1:32:50] on a single Billboard
as it does not
[1:32:53] solve the above mentioned perils
of their advertising services.
[1:32:57] I have a hard time believing
that any corporation
[1:33:00] would trade down assets without
guaranteeing itself a windfall.
[1:33:05] Our city's motto, connected by
nature, is in direct opposition
[1:33:10] to our city administration's
penchant for digital billboards
[1:33:14] these past few years.
[1:33:16] When I consult organizations
regarding their brand stories,
[1:33:20] I cannot stress enough that each
employee of that organization
[1:33:23] has the opportunity
to be a brand
[1:33:25] ambassador by exuding their
brand message and essence.
[1:33:29] Doing so can create a lifestyle
and an ecosystem that attracts
[1:33:33] their targeted
audience, bringing them
[1:33:35] into their organization's
story, creating
[1:33:38] fervent and devoted buy in.
[1:33:41] I have heard of no such buy in
favor of digital billboards.
[1:33:46] Now the boring stuff safety.
[1:33:49] There are many studies
showing the potential hazards
[1:33:51] of digital roadside billboards.
[1:33:53] Here's one from the National
Center of transportation
[1:33:56] systems, productivity
and management in 2015,
[1:34:00] showing that 23% of crashes
and near crashes that occur
[1:34:04] in Metropolitan environments
are attributable to eyes
[1:34:08] off the forward roadway
greater than 2 seconds.
[1:34:11] Nearly 80% of the crashes
and 65% of the near crashes
[1:34:16] were caused by distractions
that made the driver look
[1:34:19] away for up to three seconds.
[1:34:23] Of course, there are
contradictory studies.
[1:34:26] We just mentioned
one by the Virginia
[1:34:28] Tech transportation institute,
which was made in 2004.
[1:34:32] They found that
digital billboards.
[1:34:35] Our safety neutral because they
found that the typical glance
[1:34:39] in the direction of
a digital Billboard
[1:34:41] was less than 1 second.
[1:34:44] If this is the
case, we have come
[1:34:46] full circle to the inefficacy
of outdoor digital advertising.
[1:34:52] My proposal is sorry.
[1:34:54] My proposal is that we let the
static billboards stand where
[1:34:57] they are, where they
have become ubiquitous,
[1:34:59] irrelevant, and invisible.
[1:35:01] Maybe this could give
outdoor advertising
[1:35:04] the incentive to
become connected
[1:35:05] by nature to Creek city.
[1:35:08] Thank you.
[1:35:09] Thank you.
[1:35:11] This year.
[1:35:12] I've got two more.
[1:35:14] This is from MJ Merkley.
[1:35:18] Mark Lee.
[1:35:20] I implore you to seriously
reconsider the decision.
[1:35:23] Due to significant
safety hazards,
[1:35:25] these billboards pose
digital billboards
[1:35:27] while visually intrusive and
unsightly present far more
[1:35:29] pressing concern in
terms of public safety.
[1:35:32] The bright flashing lights and
constantly changing messages
[1:35:34] serve as an unnecessary
distraction distraction
[1:35:37] to drivers potentially
leading to accidents
[1:35:39] and endangering
lives on our roads.
[1:35:41] Studies have consistently
shown that such distractions
[1:35:44] contribute to driver
fatigue, decreased
[1:35:46] reaction times and an increased
likelihood of accidents.
[1:35:50] Mill Creek prides
itself on being
[1:35:52] safe and a welcoming community
for all residents and visitors.
[1:35:55] Introducing more
digital billboards
[1:35:57] contradicts this commitment
and puts our citizens
[1:35:59] at unnecessary risk.
[1:36:01] Moreover, these
billboards detract
[1:36:03] from the aesthetic appeal
of our neighborhoods
[1:36:05] and commercial
areas, diminishing
[1:36:07] the overall quality of life for
those who call Mill Creek home.
[1:36:10] As our elected representative
on the planning commission,
[1:36:13] I urge you to take Swift
and decisive action
[1:36:16] to prevent the installation or
expansion of digital billboards
[1:36:19] in our city.
[1:36:20] It is imperative
that we prioritize
[1:36:22] the safety and well-being of
our community above all else.
[1:36:25] I implore you to consider
the long term ramifications
[1:36:28] of allowing such structures
to proliferate, proliferate
[1:36:30] in Mill Creek and
act in the best
[1:36:33] interests of those you serve.
[1:36:34] The safety of our
community depends on.
[1:36:38] Your on our collective
action and responsibility.
[1:36:41] 
[1:36:44] Hits this one here
from Chris Kaiser.
[1:36:48] OK the last one is
from Chris Keyser.
[1:36:52] KSR as a Mill Creek resident
and taxpayer, I am frustrated.
[1:36:57] The planning
commission is yet again
[1:36:59] trying to put more digital
billboards in the city center.
[1:37:03] Don't sell our city center
to the sign companies
[1:37:06] on my daily commute when I
stop by the red light at 33rd
[1:37:11] and see that billboard,
it disappoints me
[1:37:14] in my elected
officials every time,
[1:37:16] especially when there is a huge
picture of the mayor's face.
[1:37:19] What a conflict of interest.
[1:37:22] I don't think I personally
drive by it all the time
[1:37:24] and I've never
seen his face, but.
[1:37:26] OK Thank you there.
[1:37:29] Thanks, Elise.
[1:37:30] 
[1:37:32] One just came through from.
[1:37:36] I got one from scenic America.
[1:37:38] Scenic Yeah.
[1:37:40] I saw the one from
scenic America.
[1:37:42] This is scenic to Utah.
[1:37:44] This is from Kate.
[1:37:48] it's scenic Utah.
[1:37:50] Yes and then the one I
heard read was from the I
[1:37:54] think from the National
with scenic America.
[1:37:59] Before I jump to
that one, there was I
[1:38:00] want to make sure I
get Susan b, Susan.
[1:38:03] 
[1:38:06] Bolden.
[1:38:06] Bowe N I live in your
neighbor, neighboring
[1:38:11] city of South Salt Lake.
[1:38:12] I'm writing to ask
you to please vote
[1:38:13] no on those horribly
distracting signs.
[1:38:17] I do a lot of my shopping
near your city center,
[1:38:20] and we have a few retail
spaces in my area.
[1:38:23] I am frequently at
harmons, La Frontera
[1:38:26] and the brickyard shops, but I
reroute or go to other places
[1:38:30] when those large too bright
ever changing and therefore
[1:38:33] ever distracting signs
are there blocking
[1:38:36] my view of the mountains
and distracting me.
[1:38:39] If you allow these signs,
I will shop elsewhere.
[1:38:41] 
[1:38:45] Francis, if you've got that
one from the public comment.
[1:38:49] You want to do that one?
[1:38:50] Sure if it's long,
you can summarize.
[1:38:54] I'm just scrolling
through it now.
[1:38:55] It looks.
[1:38:56] Yeah so scenic Utah.
[1:38:58] This is.
[1:38:58] This is from Kate
kopischke from scenic Utah.
[1:39:01] 
[1:39:05] scenic Utah has been
following mill Creek's most
[1:39:06] recent static digital
Billboard exchange proposal
[1:39:09] and responding to
requests for information
[1:39:10] from residents concerned about
the impacts of more digital
[1:39:13] signage in the new city center.
[1:39:15] We provided comments about
the same issue in 2021,
[1:39:17] when the city first disclosed
its negotiations with Reagan
[1:39:20] outdoor advertising to
remove static billboards that
[1:39:23] were preventing
completion of the Mill
[1:39:24] Creek common redevelopment.
[1:39:25] We opposed then and
opposed now digitizing
[1:39:27] this attractive and pedestrian
friendly new space, which
[1:39:30] the city promotes as a place
where Mill Creek makes memories
[1:39:32] and where its showpiece event
space boasts spectacular views.
[1:39:35] There's nothing memorable,
visually spectacular,
[1:39:37] or even aesthetically
pleasing about
[1:39:39] digital outdoor advertising.
[1:39:40] We understand the challenges
cities across Utah and America
[1:39:42] face in moving long
standing static billboards,
[1:39:45] Thanks to state law
that gives billboards
[1:39:47] the right to maintain
and remain in perpetuity.
[1:39:49] Sign owners can refuse to remove
the billboards unless cities
[1:39:52] agree to spend huge sums of
public money buying them out,
[1:39:55] or they agree to the kind
of digital trade deals
[1:39:57] Mill Creek is now cutting
with the industry.
[1:40:00] The benefits to Billboard
companies of these exchanges
[1:40:02] far outweighs the benefits
to cities and residents.
[1:40:05] By industry's own estimates,
digital billboards
[1:40:07] allow for replacement of 12
to 16 ads on one structure,
[1:40:10] especially if
they're double sided.
[1:40:12] This means reaping profits
from multiple advertisers
[1:40:14] at the same time generating
the same amount of revenue
[1:40:16] as at least six to
eight static billboards.
[1:40:18] Industry also profits
by eliminating
[1:40:20] the material costs of
static, static billboards,
[1:40:22] vinyl, steel, labor.
[1:40:24] Et cetera.
[1:40:24] The revenue of
these deals generate
[1:40:26] for cities pales in
comparison to the money
[1:40:28] Billboard companies earn.
[1:40:29] But even in light of the
extra income from Mill Creek
[1:40:31] treasury, this plan does not
align from the city's stated
[1:40:34] goals to improve the safety and
visual image of the community
[1:40:36] by enhancing the look and
feel of major corridors
[1:40:38] and protecting our
scenic viewsheds.
[1:40:40] Instead, it saddles
residents and visitors
[1:40:42] with a range of
negative impacts,
[1:40:43] including safety hazards.
[1:40:45] There is no opting out.
[1:40:46] One reason so many people
object to billboards
[1:40:48] and what makes them
such an effective medium
[1:40:49] is that you can't
not look at them.
[1:40:51] Unlike smartphones, televisions
or printed material,
[1:40:54] outdoor advertising is
in our public realm.
[1:40:56] It's forced on views
with no way to opt out.
[1:40:58] The city provided a lengthy
overview of studies related
[1:41:01] to safety risks in
digital billboards,
[1:41:02] a key concern of
residents opposition
[1:41:04] to the digital design proposal.
[1:41:06] It concluded there is no
evidence in any of these data
[1:41:08] sets to suggest a correlation
between the digitization
[1:41:10] of billboards at Mill
Creek's intersections
[1:41:12] or an increased number
of distracted driving
[1:41:14] accidents or even accidents.
[1:41:15] Overall, however,
scenic Utah researchers
[1:41:17] who have been investigating this
issue for the past three years
[1:41:20] reached a different conclusion.
[1:41:22] Excuse me.
[1:41:23] For example, this map and
data set crashes in proximity
[1:41:26] to digital billboards produced
by scenic Utah's data manager
[1:41:29] offers as evidence correlating
billboards and safety risks,
[1:41:32] digital billboards are
increasingly incorporating
[1:41:34] facial recognition
enabled another technology
[1:41:36] to target customers based
on their location, age,
[1:41:39] gender and online interests.
[1:41:41] Raising privacy concerns.
[1:41:42] The data are
captured anonymously
[1:41:44] without consumers consent and
without a means of opting out
[1:41:46] of the surreptitious targeting.
[1:41:48] These and other considerations
about the impacts and public
[1:41:50] sentiment regarding digital
billboards in Mill Creek
[1:41:52] should give pause
to the city leaders
[1:41:54] before moving forward to
approve this exchange mechanism
[1:41:57] rather than acquiescing
to industry's
[1:41:58] onerous and community
unfriendly demands.
[1:42:00] We urge the city to
consider other mechanisms
[1:42:02] for removing
unwanted billboards,
[1:42:04] or at the least requiring more
stringent conditions in terms
[1:42:07] for how future digital signage
will be sited regulated
[1:42:10] and managed to meet the city's
character and protection goals.
[1:42:12] We appreciate the opportunity
to provide our perspective
[1:42:15] on this difficult
decision and would welcome
[1:42:17] an opportunity to
meet with city leaders
[1:42:18] to offer additional input.
[1:42:20] Sincerely, Kate
kopischke, scenic Utah.
[1:42:23] Thank you, Francis.
[1:42:25] I haven't done that since I
was debating in high school.
[1:42:28] 
[1:42:32] And I think that's all
the public comments.
[1:42:33] Unless I'll just check
with Elise quickly
[1:42:36] to see if anything has come
through in the last couple
[1:42:38] of minutes.
[1:42:39] OK, so I'll close the
public comment portion
[1:42:43] for this application and
bring it back to commission
[1:42:47] for discussion and.
[1:42:51] Emotion and we can
think our emotions are
[1:42:53] we can do a
recommendation in favor,
[1:42:56] in favor of changes, denial
or even possibly continuance
[1:43:00] if we have a need to do that.
[1:43:02] 
[1:43:05] Francis, do you have a slide
that shows all four proposed
[1:43:07] options on the same slide?
[1:43:09] No I don't.
[1:43:13] I wish I did.
[1:43:14] I can kind of
cycle through them.
[1:43:15] Right if you want.
[1:43:15] Real quick.
[1:43:16] 
[1:43:22] So option one is to allow for
up to two digital district signs
[1:43:28] that would emphasize removing
of digital removing of existing
[1:43:31] billboards in the city center.
[1:43:33] Option two would be to
digital district signs
[1:43:37] subject to an exchange
agreement that removes
[1:43:40] nonconforming billboards
anywhere in Mill Creek
[1:43:42] subject to these standards.
[1:43:43] These five.
[1:43:44] Option 3 is 1 sign.
[1:43:46] OK and we can treat
that as either
[1:43:49] removing billboards
in the city center
[1:43:51] or these nonconforming signs.
[1:43:53] And option 4 is the null option.
[1:43:55] Don't do anything.
[1:43:56] Leave it alone.
[1:43:59] That's the option.
[1:44:00] And I took some notes
related to the notes
[1:44:02] that you had on the
sign code that I
[1:44:05] put up here, too,
because we'll need
[1:44:06] to talk about that as well.
[1:44:08] We can handle this
however you want.
[1:44:10] And I think these
are good options.
[1:44:12] We can use this as
a jumping off point,
[1:44:13] but we could also look
at a combination of these
[1:44:17] or a different option, too.
[1:44:20] But this I think from last week.
[1:44:21] I don't want to speak
for you, Francis,
[1:44:22] but you're presenting
this from direction
[1:44:26] from the city to look at ways
to reduce digital billboards,
[1:44:30] since that was part of a policy
in our general plan, right?
[1:44:34] So I think that's
why these are one,
[1:44:36] two, three are looking at
exchanges to reduce billboards.
[1:44:40] And Mr chair, I
have one suggestion.
[1:44:44] If you put the
exchange agreements out
[1:44:47] to a bid or proposals from
various sign companies,
[1:44:50] if you pick one of the options
that contemplate an exchange.
[1:44:54] Thank you.
[1:44:58] And before we got
into the discussion,
[1:44:59] I just wanted to
do just a brief,
[1:45:01] clarifying, clarifying response.
[1:45:05] Nathan and I do I read
your letter and Thank you.
[1:45:09] Since we were
looking at the sign
[1:45:11] regarding the outdoor
advertising, the billboards.
[1:45:16] Since this sign change, the
part that covers billboards
[1:45:19] is just for these
district signs.
[1:45:21] The points you referenced
aren't things we're
[1:45:25] looking at changing right?
[1:45:27] Right now.
[1:45:28] So Yeah.
[1:45:33] Yeah and I think, I
think it was something
[1:45:34] I was talking with Jeff about
is we stumbled upon all this
[1:45:39] through an employee getting on
the site to apply for a permit.
[1:45:42] And so all of this
is completely for us.
[1:45:46] Brand new.
[1:45:46] And so were a little
bit surprised to just
[1:45:49] be finding out about
this now, considering.
[1:45:53] Yeah, what we do.
[1:45:54] And so I think for that reason,
if we can help on the Billboard
[1:45:57] side, on the sign side.
[1:46:00] We're all ears.
[1:46:01] We live and interact
in these communities.
[1:46:05] Yeah so whatever questions
you have, we're here.
[1:46:07] Yeah and I appreciate
you putting that later
[1:46:09] because I just want to clarify.
[1:46:10] So we weren't ignoring
the points you brought up.
[1:46:14] They're just not germane to
the part of the ordinance
[1:46:18] that we're looking at.
[1:46:18] Yeah, well, because we have
the digital Billboard out
[1:46:21] on the 15, if that
one piece of code is,
[1:46:24] it can only change
once every 24 hours.
[1:46:27] Doesn't happen.
[1:46:29] So sorry.
[1:46:30] 
[1:46:34] Yeah, that's.
[1:46:35] Yeah, that's existing code.
[1:46:37] But I suggest you call
me and then we can talk
[1:46:39] about your particular issue.
[1:46:40] 
[1:46:52] Commissioners thoughts.
[1:46:53] 
[1:46:58] And Dwayne.
[1:46:58] I don't want to ignore you.
[1:46:59] We see you on the screen
so you can jump in.
[1:47:01] You're still part
of this discussion.
[1:47:03] 
[1:47:14] And what do we vote for?
[1:47:15] 
[1:47:18] And with this, the major issues
on this safety aesthetics
[1:47:23] and to me, value is what
it really boils down to.
[1:47:27] Um, safety.
[1:47:28] There's, you know, arguments
on both sides of this.
[1:47:30] I think that's kind of a push.
[1:47:32] Aesthetics of value to me
are the two big issues.
[1:47:35] Um, aesthetically, I'm not
a fan of digital billboards.
[1:47:40] I really, really don't like
the existing district sign
[1:47:42] for a number of reasons,
primarily because this
[1:47:45] is the entryway into the
Commons and I don't think
[1:47:48] it's welcoming to the Commons.
[1:47:49] I don't think it's
consistent with,
[1:47:51] you know, people arriving
at a city center.
[1:47:54] It's so digital and lacking
in real design and components
[1:48:01] there that, you know,
branded as you know, hey,
[1:48:04] you've just arrived at
the city center and this,
[1:48:06] this is Mill Creek.
[1:48:08] Um, if there's going to
be another district sign,
[1:48:10] I would want a completely
different design
[1:48:12] than what is there so that
there's more than just a
[1:48:16] hanging digital signage there.
[1:48:19] Um, but for me on this,
the value on this,
[1:48:22] is it worth the trade offs?
[1:48:25] Is it worth dealing
with the digital signs
[1:48:28] in order to get rid of some
of these existing billboards?
[1:48:32] Um, personally, I don't
think that the trade
[1:48:36] off is worth it at this point.
[1:48:37] If I'm going to make a
change to the status quo,
[1:48:40] I want to be persuaded that I'm
moving in a better direction.
[1:48:44] And quite frankly, I'm
not persuaded that this is
[1:48:46] moving in a better direction.
[1:48:48] I really don't like
static billboards
[1:48:50] or digital billboards, but
unfortunately, you know,
[1:48:53] we're faced with an
either/or situation
[1:48:56] rather than neither of them.
[1:48:58] And so if it's an
either/or situation,
[1:49:00] I'll take the devil I know.
[1:49:02] And I would say, you know, let's
just, um, keep the existing
[1:49:07] billboards until we come up
with what I would believe
[1:49:09] would be a better solution
for getting rid of billboards
[1:49:12] rather than charging into
these digital billboards
[1:49:15] coming into the Commons.
[1:49:17] Um, if inevitably there's
going to be digital billboards,
[1:49:20] I would only do
the one on 13 piece
[1:49:22] and get the one
off Highland drive.
[1:49:23] And when it comes time to
make a motion and vote,
[1:49:27] my recommendation would be
because there's so much tied up
[1:49:31] with the district
digital signs compared
[1:49:33] to the rest of the sign code.
[1:49:34] In general, my
preference would be to
[1:49:37] for two separate recommendations
to the city council.
[1:49:39] One regarding the sign
code overall exclusive
[1:49:44] of signs, and then a
separate recommendation
[1:49:49] regarding signs aspect of it.
[1:49:53] Thank you, Dwayne.
[1:49:55] That got loud.
[1:49:56] 
[1:49:59] Other thoughts.
[1:50:00] Diane? go ahead.
[1:50:03] Diane so I would totally
agree with Duane.
[1:50:07] I think about the same
thing back and forth.
[1:50:10] For me personally, on the
changes to the basic code,
[1:50:15] I think we can make some
of those that needed
[1:50:18] to be changed or adjusted.
[1:50:20] I think that from
the ASCO letter
[1:50:24] we should look to make sure
that what we're doing in code
[1:50:28] doesn't really go against
every piece of technology
[1:50:31] that's already out there.
[1:50:33] So those are like I think
he talked about lighting
[1:50:37] and this the safety issues.
[1:50:40] So safety for me, big issue.
[1:50:45] I don't feel like
I have enough data.
[1:50:48] We have had like two people
send us tiny little studies
[1:50:54] and I'm a data queen, so I
don't feel like from a safety
[1:50:59] perspective, I can
say whether they're
[1:51:01] good or bad, digital
or static because we
[1:51:05] don't really have data.
[1:51:08] So my vote would be to do
nothing from the standpoint
[1:51:12] of I don't have
enough data to make
[1:51:15] a solid decision either way.
[1:51:17] I think the other
piece for me is.
[1:51:22] This exchange conversation.
[1:51:25] And I and I did tell Francis,
if we had to have one
[1:51:28] here in the city center,
a digital billboard,
[1:51:31] I would only put one more
and put it on the 1,300 side
[1:51:35] because there's no housing
and it's all commercial.
[1:51:39] And frankly, it's
facing Salt Lake City.
[1:51:42] So, you know, it's
not Mill Creek
[1:51:44] that would be so obnoxious for.
[1:51:47] Not yet.
[1:51:50] I we might want it someday, huh?
[1:51:52] The other portion for me,
though, is in the discussion
[1:51:55] of the exchanges.
[1:51:57] Again, I don't feel like
I have enough information.
[1:52:00] And frankly, what I do
know, based on calculations
[1:52:03] and I don't know which gentleman
it was who sent the email where
[1:52:07] he actually went through
the square footage
[1:52:09] of the signs that
existed in Mill creek,
[1:52:11] and he added them all up.
[1:52:13] To me, there needs to be
a formula for exchange.
[1:52:16] A very mathematical formula
that if we're going to give you
[1:52:20] a billboard, you have to
give us some relatively equal
[1:52:24] amount of the old static ones.
[1:52:26] But again, I feel
like I don't have
[1:52:28] enough information to
make a logical motion
[1:52:33] to say we should do anything.
[1:52:36] And then on the final part of
it, I'm kind of with everybody
[1:52:42] we've heard from
and I guess this
[1:52:44] was the same result three years
ago is people don't like them.
[1:52:48] And I know you guys run the
business, so I'm really sorry,
[1:52:50] but people don't like them.
[1:52:52] And so the reality is, if
we want a community, which
[1:52:56] our general plan says, mountain
views, mountain views don't
[1:52:59] take away views, we've already
made adjustments by taking away
[1:53:03] views for people with housing.
[1:53:06] And I think if we can
get rid of signage.
[1:53:10] To keep or get views.
[1:53:12] I would always vote for views.
[1:53:16] And I know there's a lot
of people who don't really
[1:53:18] make that into a thing
because they've lived here
[1:53:21] their whole lives and
make assumptions about how
[1:53:23] cool the mountains are.
[1:53:24] But I haven't.
[1:53:25] And I want mountain
views all day long.
[1:53:28] So to me, we should just
go take them all down.
[1:53:32] So sorry.
[1:53:34] I know you guys probably run a
great business, but so again,
[1:53:37] I don't have I don't
feel like I have
[1:53:39] enough information to make.
[1:53:41] I can make minor code.
[1:53:44] But option wise, I would
be at 3:00 or four.
[1:53:49] Thanks, Diane.
[1:53:50] 
[1:53:55] I think on the just with the
several issues that have been
[1:53:58] pointed out here on
the safety item, again,
[1:54:01] I think I know a
lot of these studies
[1:54:02] can go you can read it
either way, but just
[1:54:05] from personal experience and
living in this neighborhood,
[1:54:08] when I drive in the
day and even at night,
[1:54:11] it's not that much of a
problem when you're driving
[1:54:14] past this sign, but as soon
as the snow or the rain falls,
[1:54:17] it can't see anything.
[1:54:19] It just erases the
lines all through this.
[1:54:21] And I hate it because
that happens on I-15, too.
[1:54:23] And that's really my
big opposition and where
[1:54:25] the safety concern comes in.
[1:54:26] And usually the
studies, at least
[1:54:29] the ones that I've
reviewed, have,
[1:54:31] don't really address that.
[1:54:33] So that's as far as the safety
that I'd like to make note of.
[1:54:38] So and just again, to my
understanding is because this
[1:54:41] is a legislative item, we are
just making a recommendation
[1:54:44] to the city that.
[1:54:46] Correct and so if we're
making a recommendation,
[1:54:51] I would vote for four that
we keep it the way it is.
[1:54:54] However, if the city is
going to move, since they're
[1:54:58] the applicant, if they're going
to city council is going to go
[1:55:01] and do what they
want to do, I I'm
[1:55:03] with you where I want a
very clear understanding
[1:55:05] of what this exchange is.
[1:55:07] And we talked about
value also where
[1:55:11] there are certain signs
that have a greater value
[1:55:15] for being removed than others.
[1:55:16] Right and and also, there has
to be an equitable approach
[1:55:20] because if we provide
one digital sign that's
[1:55:23] an advantageous to
one company, however,
[1:55:26] the signs that we
want to remove might
[1:55:27] be from different companies.
[1:55:29] So that's how that
balance works.
[1:55:31] It sounds like a
nightmare of a formula,
[1:55:33] but I think that's something
that I would like to have
[1:55:37] a very hopefully that
city council has a very
[1:55:39] clear understanding
of what it is
[1:55:40] that they would be
accepting if they
[1:55:42] decided to go that direction.
[1:55:44] That would be my recommendation.
[1:55:45] Thanks, David.
[1:55:46] 
[1:55:54] Yeah, I. I definitely
prefer option four.
[1:55:59] I don't see a
pressing need to do
[1:56:03] the sign right now I feel like.
[1:56:07] Like Diane.
[1:56:08] I feel like data
has not presented.
[1:56:10] And I'm thinking a
little bit different data
[1:56:12] and that's I just heard
anecdotal data about the need
[1:56:16] for this, for the sign that
it was helpful for the city
[1:56:19] and publicizing
its events and also
[1:56:21] that it was been effective.
[1:56:22] So far.
[1:56:23] But the reality is
that's not the only way
[1:56:25] the city publicizes its events.
[1:56:27] So I feel like that's
sort of an assumption
[1:56:29] that the sign is another sign
is going to make this huge,
[1:56:34] this huge difference.
[1:56:36] I, I also think that I mean,
I think competition is good.
[1:56:42] I thought that was
interesting what
[1:56:43] you was saying about
having competition
[1:56:47] if we were going to.
[1:56:50] Build a district sign.
[1:56:52] But I think it's sort of
interesting because it's also
[1:56:54] saying that they
see value in terms
[1:56:56] of from a financial
point of view
[1:56:58] and want to level
the playing field.
[1:57:00] So that's telling me
that they see potential.
[1:57:05] Financial remuneration
that I'm not I
[1:57:08] guess I'm not really thinking
the city is trying to.
[1:57:11] Um, build the coffers of.
[1:57:14] Billboard companies.
[1:57:16] I'm obviously because I've
been on the planning commission
[1:57:18] for a while, I'm
very much concerned
[1:57:22] about viewsheds and
about protecting
[1:57:24] our views of the mountain.
[1:57:27] I also just want to
make one more comment.
[1:57:31] I do feel like I like the
conservative lighting standards
[1:57:34] that we have in
the current code.
[1:57:37] I think that they were put
together with thought and care
[1:57:40] and I see no reason
to change those.
[1:57:43] And I also see that I would
like to agree with separating
[1:57:47] the two sections of the sign
ordinance that we're looking
[1:57:51] at, the digital I mean,
just the regular Billboard
[1:57:55] ordinance or the sign
ordinance and then
[1:57:57] the district sign ordinance
and let's see, I think lasting.
[1:58:03] And I actually I'm the
person that suggested the
[1:58:06] if we had to have
a district sign,
[1:58:09] I was the one who suggested
the one on Highland.
[1:58:14] Last time.
[1:58:15] I consider it an inferior
solution, but, you know.
[1:58:21] If we can't if we can't
ban it altogether.
[1:58:25] And I do think, as I agreeing
with my fellow commissioners,
[1:58:28] that we need to have much
clearer, stronger language
[1:58:31] of what kind of a ratio or
how we would not just like,
[1:58:34] we'll make a good deal.
[1:58:37] Not very compelling to me.
[1:58:38] Thank you.
[1:58:40] Thanks, Victoria.
[1:58:41] Steve or Nils.
[1:58:42] Thanks I feel like I'm
clearly in the minority
[1:58:48] here that I actually think
the sign looks pretty good.
[1:58:52] If I could have
two more of those
[1:58:53] versus a bunch of
billboards, I'd
[1:58:55] rather have two more of those.
[1:58:57] Just from the aesthetics of the
structure itself, I'm speaking.
[1:59:02] So that said, I think the caveat
to that I'd probably prefer
[1:59:06] option two with the
caveat that, you know,
[1:59:09] the exchange
agreement would need
[1:59:10] to be quite aggressive
to make it worth
[1:59:12] it to justify putting those in.
[1:59:16] I'd like it in the sense
that it could take down
[1:59:19] some unattractive billboards
and also in the vein
[1:59:24] that we've talked
about, you know,
[1:59:26] sightlines and mountain
views, these are much smaller.
[1:59:28] They're much shorter.
[1:59:30] I think it does a better job
of protecting those views.
[1:59:33] But clearly, I'm in the
minority here, so it's OK.
[1:59:38] 
[1:59:42] Um, I don't know if you're
totally in the minority males,
[1:59:45] but.
[1:59:45] 
[1:59:48] You know, I mean, I wish
we could get rid of all the
[1:59:53] off premise signs,
actually, and replace them
[1:59:56] with if I knew all the square
footage of off premise signs
[2:00:00] on 3,300 South all the
way from through the city.
[2:00:04] I wish we could take
that square footage
[2:00:07] and put them to every 8
seconds on a few billboards,
[2:00:12] have just three
or four billboards
[2:00:14] in that whole entire area of
33 instead of the 100 or so.
[2:00:19] I don't know how
many off premise
[2:00:20] signs should say we have.
[2:00:23] 54, 50, 51, 51.
[2:00:25] I'd like to take get
rid of 51 off premise.
[2:00:28] Oh, in the city or
on that corridor?
[2:00:30] Oh, in the city.
[2:00:31] In the city.
[2:00:32] I'd like to get rid of
51 off premise billboards
[2:00:36] and put it down to five
or six digital billboards
[2:00:42] for throughout the entire
city in strategic places.
[2:00:46] Yeah, I don't think that's
an issue with one on.
[2:00:50] 
[2:00:52] On 13th east, the
Highland drive one.
[2:00:55] I mean, there will be a
new building right there
[2:00:57] that blocks that whole
neighborhood from even
[2:00:59] seeing that digital sign.
[2:01:02] But but maybe three digital
signs isn't really needed.
[2:01:06] And right in this vicinity,
we need these more
[2:01:09] spread out throughout the city.
[2:01:11] And look at that
exchange agreement a lot
[2:01:15] closer and more have a
better exchange on it.
[2:01:21] But it's.
[2:01:23] I don't know.
[2:01:24] It's hard to.
[2:01:28] Um, it's a.
[2:01:30] You know, signage is needed.
[2:01:32] It's a legitimate business, too.
[2:01:34] But on premise signs, too,
is extremely important.
[2:01:38] And I like what we've
done on premise stuff
[2:01:41] that we've changed in that.
[2:01:44] But anyway.
[2:01:46] And so I guess I'm
not helping any.
[2:01:48] No, you kind of recommendation.
[2:01:50] That's helping.
[2:01:51] 
[2:01:53] I kind of like to ask a
question of the Glasgow guys.
[2:01:57] So do you know how
many billboards
[2:01:59] you have in Mill creek?
[2:02:01] It's five.
[2:02:02] Yeah come on up.
[2:02:03] Just curious.
[2:02:04] I'm going to ask
several questions.
[2:02:06] Yes, we have five structures
totaling nine faces.
[2:02:08] OK so from an
educational standpoint,
[2:02:11] for those of us who, you know,
want to get rid of billboards,
[2:02:15] and I agree with you, I actually
like the Mill Creek sign.
[2:02:19] What I want to be
educated on is what
[2:02:23] is happening in your industry.
[2:02:25] The people are going
electronic, right?
[2:02:27] I mean, there's Francis and
I had this conversation.
[2:02:32] It's unavoidable.
[2:02:33] It's going there now,
whether it's Billboard signs
[2:02:37] or whatever.
[2:02:38] You know, I brought up the fact
that I don't know if anybody's
[2:02:41] paid attention that there is
one now below the Golden arches
[2:02:46] at the McDonald's on 33rd.
[2:02:48] And it's not a huge
one, but it's digital.
[2:02:51] And as businesses
come down or up
[2:02:54] 33rd, are they going to
be coming for permits
[2:02:59] and they will meet
code and they're
[2:03:01] going to get digital signs.
[2:03:03] So from a Billboard
perspective, as we've
[2:03:06] been talking, because
I know you said
[2:03:08] you're new to what's going on.
[2:03:10] If if we said to you, we want
you to take all five of those
[2:03:15] down and have one electronic
sign, what would you say to me?
[2:03:20] It's a very good question.
[2:03:21] I think I think first you need
to segment it out on premise
[2:03:25] and off premise are two
very, very different worlds.
[2:03:28] So off premise, if you came
to me and said, give me five.
[2:03:32] And I'll give you that
one right there, it
[2:03:35] all depends on the terms.
[2:03:36] And the reality
is Yes goes view.
[2:03:39] We haven't been
here for 140 years
[2:03:41] just because we're
never going away.
[2:03:45] We are long term
committed company.
[2:03:48] And so when it comes to
working with landowners
[2:03:51] and getting ground leases,
we're not trying to make
[2:03:55] a quick escape on this thing.
[2:03:57] We we derive relationships
and our landowners
[2:04:01] derive value out of our
structures being there.
[2:04:03] They get money.
[2:04:04] And so by saying, yeah,
let's take five away,
[2:04:08] you're ruining income of
five potential landowners in
[2:04:12] your community and its income.
[2:04:14] And so it's a
balance between what
[2:04:18] does the company
need versus what
[2:04:19] do we do with the landowners?
[2:04:21] In in a market
like this where we
[2:04:24] can't go to a commercial zone
and just say, yep, got it.
[2:04:28] Got to deal with the landowner.
[2:04:29] We're going to put a new
Billboard in the ground
[2:04:30] because you don't
allow new billboards.
[2:04:32] It's tricky because there's the
supply that's here is locked.
[2:04:38] You can't do anything.
[2:04:40] You can't add, you
can't take away.
[2:04:41] So you're asking us to take
away in exchange for a digital.
[2:04:45] In some respects.
[2:04:46] Yeah, it could make sense.
[2:04:49] But in our case, we've
got five structures.
[2:04:53] Probably not because
we've got five structures
[2:04:56] that are performing well.
[2:04:57] We've got great landowners,
great agreements.
[2:05:00] It doesn't make sense.
[2:05:01] But if I had 200 structures.
[2:05:04] And I had of the 230 of them
that were just kind of snoozers
[2:05:07] and I didn't really like them
or the leases weren't that great
[2:05:10] or the structure was being
obstructed by an apartment
[2:05:14] building road expansion, you
know, all the other factors
[2:05:17] say, OK, yeah, I think I
could negotiate with the city
[2:05:19] and say, OK.
[2:05:21] Give you these for
this sure makes sense.
[2:05:24] And so I think to answer
your question of would you.
[2:05:27] There are so many factors
to it, because what's
[2:05:30] valuable to us on the
side is the relationship
[2:05:33] and a location that is
aesthetically pleasing,
[2:05:36] that has the eyes.
[2:05:38] And you know, that's how
we grow our business.
[2:05:42] 
[2:05:48] So at the moment.
[2:05:49] And I think that would be Yeah.
[2:05:51] One thought I'd add is
looking at the total numbers
[2:05:55] of billboards you have in your
city that's going to give you
[2:05:58] a perspective of who
you'll be negotiating
[2:06:00] with because we've got five.
[2:06:02] There's two other there's two
other larger groups than us,
[2:06:05] right?
[2:06:06] And so exchanging 5 to 1,
getting rid of all of ours
[2:06:11] versus someone that's got 100.
[2:06:13] Well, then I
understand that issue
[2:06:14] with competition kind of thing.
[2:06:17] Did you want?
[2:06:18] Need more information?
[2:06:19] Are we out of time?
[2:06:20] No, go ahead.
[2:06:20] Yeah, it's property rights.
[2:06:22] Straight property rights.
[2:06:23] And if we were talking
about we hate walgreens,
[2:06:25] what would Walgreens be saying?
[2:06:27] You know, we hate
tattoo parlors.
[2:06:29] Get rid of them.
[2:06:31] OK, well, we have land.
[2:06:33] We have invested.
[2:06:34] We have a business, and the
cash flows are compelling.
[2:06:39] What's happened as print
media, television, media.
[2:06:45] Is all being squeezed.
[2:06:47] Right?
[2:06:47] so it's all gone online.
[2:06:48] That's where all
the money's gone.
[2:06:50] Our little teeny sliver
of the advertising
[2:06:52] spend, which is barely see
it in the great grand scheme.
[2:06:55] We're getting tons of
pressure because people are
[2:06:57] looking for ways to advertise.
[2:07:00] The industry now has big data.
[2:07:03] So your cell phone
information, we
[2:07:06] don't have facial recognition.
[2:07:07] I don't know where
that came from.
[2:07:08] I've never talked to anybody
identifying people that way.
[2:07:11] That's in a movie
somewhere, probably, but.
[2:07:14] We know who's passing by.
[2:07:16] The signs and advertisers
pay per 1,000.
[2:07:18] And billboards are
compelling because it's
[2:07:20] $14 per thousand, 15, 16, 17
per thousand, not 35 on TV.
[2:07:27] And so if I'm a business trying
to make my way and 2% more
[2:07:31] revenue makes a
difference for me,
[2:07:32] I'm definitely going to do
everything I can to advertise.
[2:07:35] So I say harmons foods.
[2:07:36] OK, how do we feel
about harmons?
[2:07:38] You know, when
you're talking about,
[2:07:39] hey, billboards, you're
talking about hey and harmons
[2:07:41] too, because they
advertise extensively
[2:07:44] and I imagine them
trying to compete
[2:07:46] against Walmart and Fred
Meyer and everybody else.
[2:07:48] Hard business, right?
[2:07:49] My grandfather on my mom's side
was a grocer on the avenues,
[2:07:52] a little teeny store
his whole life.
[2:07:54] That's all he did.
[2:07:55] Think about Harmon's plight.
[2:07:57] How do we feel about harmon's?
[2:07:59] They are paying immense
amounts of money
[2:08:01] to advertise digitally,
mostly because it makes sense
[2:08:06] and there's value there.
[2:08:08] Ken foster, University of
Utah professor, communications
[2:08:12] department, did a survey.
[2:08:15] We get in our circles
and I heard all this,
[2:08:16] you know, we've
heard it before, too.
[2:08:18] And I don't dismiss any of
your feelings about science.
[2:08:21] I got it.
[2:08:21] I understand it.
[2:08:23] People hate Barnes.
[2:08:24] People hate power poles.
[2:08:26] We all have my neighbor
painted his house green.
[2:08:29] I don't like green homes.
[2:08:30] And then he made his roof green.
[2:08:33] Ken foster did this study.
[2:08:35] It's been about 10 years ago.
[2:08:36] 12 years ago.
[2:08:37] What do you think about science?
[2:08:39] And it was about
ten, 12% hated him.
[2:08:44] So from that study,
the University of Utah,
[2:08:46] we know there's a segment
of the population that
[2:08:49] just hates signs vehemently.
[2:08:51] And you've heard it tonight.
[2:08:53] The rest of the
people are actually
[2:08:55] rather interested
in them and they're
[2:08:57] actually curious about them
and they like looking at them.
[2:09:01] And even though the
glance is one second,
[2:09:04] the branding makes a big
difference on someone's
[2:09:07] decisions, amazingly so
advertising does work,
[2:09:11] and we're grateful for the
free enterprise system.
[2:09:13] We're grateful for
property rights,
[2:09:14] we're grateful to
be in business.
[2:09:15] And we know because I don't
have a Billboard in my backyard
[2:09:18] either.
[2:09:19] There's residential zones
and there's commercial zones.
[2:09:22] Commercial zones are there
for a purpose, right?
[2:09:25] Let's let commercial
zones be commercial zones.
[2:09:27] Let's let residential
zones be residential zones.
[2:09:30] Thank you.
[2:09:31] Thank you.
[2:09:32] Thank you.
[2:09:32] Thank you.
[2:09:33] That was helpful.
[2:09:34] So I think the only other
discussion comment I have is
[2:09:37] I kind of do agree and I
actually talked, I think
[2:09:40] with Francis about this, that.
[2:09:43] Do we really need
them all in if we're
[2:09:46] going to do district signs?
[2:09:48] I mean, I would like to have
a proposal to put a district
[2:09:53] sign in every district and
not just in the city center
[2:09:57] and let the small
businesses, because it's
[2:10:00] my understanding
that electronic signs
[2:10:02] actually help small businesses.
[2:10:04] Correct because it's
less expensive than doing
[2:10:08] the big Billboard.
[2:10:11] So is there.
[2:10:12] If we're going to do it, do
we do some kind of spread out?
[2:10:16] And I, I live up near
Mount Olympus, too.
[2:10:20] But I mean, fair is fair.
[2:10:23] You know, if we're
going to put them up,
[2:10:25] do we spread them out
across the whole city?
[2:10:30] I think that could
be something that.
[2:10:33] You know it's outside
of the scope for this.
[2:10:35] But it's a valid point
for down the road
[2:10:38] if we want to
reduce signs, maybe
[2:10:42] there is an appetite for that.
[2:10:44] I've got a few thoughts and
I splitting in two parts.
[2:10:48] I really do like
all the changes.
[2:10:49] And Thank you Francis.
[2:10:51] On the excluding
the district signs
[2:10:53] all the different changes.
[2:10:54] I mean.
[2:10:55] Everything got.
[2:10:57] That clarified.
[2:11:03] In in your changes
I think I had.
[2:11:06] 
[2:11:09] The one thing that I was looking
at, though, and this I think,
[2:11:12] was from the USCIS letter.
[2:11:14] 
[2:11:17] Where I thought in
the last meeting
[2:11:19] we talked about that
pure white would
[2:11:21] be able to be used for logos.
[2:11:24] Was that accurate or
was I misremembering?
[2:11:28] That's not really
a word, but my.
[2:11:30] Give me a minute.
[2:11:31] I see.
[2:11:35] We would love to redraft that.
[2:11:36] 
[2:11:43] What's we would love.
[2:11:46] I'll talk.
[2:11:47] I'll talk with you off the line.
[2:11:48] 
[2:12:07] Yeah OK.
[2:12:08] So under on page 1868
120d no, cc3b, I think.
[2:12:18] C3b Yeah.
[2:12:20] Internally illuminated signs
show you semi-opaque materials
[2:12:23] for signed copies
such that light
[2:12:24] emanating emanating
from the sign
[2:12:29] is diffuse,
transparent or clear.
[2:12:30] Materials are not
allowed for signed copy.
[2:12:32] Pure white material
pure white materials
[2:12:34] are prohibited for non copy.
[2:12:37] Or let's see.
[2:12:41] Pure white materials are
prohibited for non copier logo
[2:12:43] portions of the sign e.g.
backgrounds of graphics
[2:12:46] and sign backgrounds
should be made
[2:12:47] of completely opaque materials.
[2:12:49] I think there's a problem
with the sentence.
[2:12:51] The intention is the
opposite that you can use.
[2:12:53] Yeah that you can use pure
white materials for the wording
[2:12:58] and logo a sign.
[2:12:59] OK and that's what I just
wanted to clarify because I saw
[2:13:02] that the prohibition, I was
thinking that we were agreeable
[2:13:06] for the logo to be able
to be represented with,
[2:13:09] with a pure white.
[2:13:11] So I just wanted.
[2:13:14] That's that's the intention.
[2:13:16] So OK, I'm making a
note of all of these.
[2:13:18] So we can so that you can craft
a motion when you're ready.
[2:13:21] Yeah um, that's all I had for.
[2:13:26] And then my other comment
earlier about maybe
[2:13:28] just looking at so
here's, so here's
[2:13:35] what I have by way of notes.
[2:13:37] 
[2:13:39] Clarify Yep.
[2:13:41] Yep the duration of
temporary signs and.
[2:13:44] Yeah the parks commissioners
about the district signed.
[2:13:49] And I appreciate the four
options, but I'm looking at.
[2:13:54] Well, I'd mentioned last
meeting was these are all
[2:13:57] looking, you know,
1 to 3 are looking
[2:13:59] at the exchange agreement.
[2:14:02] But I think there's
another option.
[2:14:03] And that's just.
[2:14:05] Have the have a smaller district
sign that's 100% of 100%
[2:14:11] of the turns are Mill Creek.
[2:14:14] And I think if you
had a smaller sign
[2:14:16] and I use that example,
last month about, you know,
[2:14:20] the Middle East.
[2:14:22] East high.
[2:14:24] You know, there.
[2:14:26] A sign like, you know, not
to look just like this,
[2:14:29] but it's a smaller
sign face than 288ft
[2:14:33] Or it could be like, you
know, the Christian academy,
[2:14:36] they've got their sign there.
[2:14:40] And we've seen them
around, you know,
[2:14:41] credit unions and
stuff happened.
[2:14:42] So I'm not opposed to.
[2:14:45] Digital for if it were smaller
and just for Mill Creek and.
[2:14:53] I feel like some of it is.
[2:14:55] Perhaps the cost, because I
know this agreement would be,
[2:14:58] you know, advertiser,
potentially
[2:15:01] Reagan would pay for it,
install it and all of that.
[2:15:05] And while that may
seem advantageous,
[2:15:09] I look at the whole concept
of building the city center.
[2:15:12] We you know, we had
district signs in there.
[2:15:16] I think they were called
Monument signs initially,
[2:15:18] but from the beginning.
[2:15:20] So we knew there was
going to be signs there.
[2:15:21] So I think that had
to be considered
[2:15:22] in the construction cost.
[2:15:23] So I'm still looking at let's
put signs on both sides,
[2:15:26] but let's have them be smaller.
[2:15:29] And let's have them
be 100% for Mill Creek
[2:15:31] and let's do option for
not do but but let's
[2:15:36] not do nothing at all.
[2:15:38] And don't have
any district signs
[2:15:39] like no let's still
have a district sign
[2:15:40] and I'm not opposed.
[2:15:41] If it were a small digital
sign, I don't think the cost
[2:15:45] would be extremely expensive.
[2:15:46] I don't think East
High's spending hundreds
[2:15:48] of thousands of dollars.
[2:15:49] Summit Christian Academy
or the credit unions
[2:15:51] are spending lots
of money for this.
[2:15:54] I don't think it's feasible.
[2:15:54] But, you know, having 100% of
the turns instead of only 40%
[2:15:58] on a large sign, if you have
100% on the smaller sign,
[2:16:01] you're still I think you're
going to have a larger
[2:16:03] impact for your community
events because you have
[2:16:07] 100% of the rotations on there.
[2:16:10] I also work in
advertising, have done it.
[2:16:12] Since the 90s.
[2:16:13] And I look at this as
you know, you could
[2:16:17] have a large sign with
a horrible graphic,
[2:16:20] a horrible messaging.
[2:16:21] It's not necessarily the size.
[2:16:22] Size can matter to a point.
[2:16:26] Like if you're on a freeway,
having a 120 square foot
[2:16:30] sign is not going to work
because of the speeds
[2:16:32] of the cars and the traffic.
[2:16:33] So that's why they
have the larger signs.
[2:16:37] But I look, I make
the comparison.
[2:16:39] Let's say you're at
the bar and you know,
[2:16:41] you're watching the game
on a 72 inch screen TV
[2:16:44] versus a 48 inch screen
TV because you're
[2:16:47] sitting a little bit closer.
[2:16:48] I don't think you're.
[2:16:50] You know, your enjoyment
of watching that game
[2:16:54] isn't drastically reduced.
[2:16:56] You're still getting the
you're still seeing the action.
[2:16:58] You're still getting
what's going on.
[2:16:59] Even though it's on
a smaller screen.
[2:17:01] And because the
speeds are lower here,
[2:17:03] I don't think we
need this large sign.
[2:17:04] So I'm in favor of
recommending, recommending
[2:17:08] to the city council, like we'll
look at just doing our own.
[2:17:11] Let's not.
[2:17:12] You know, it could be an
option to look at reducing
[2:17:16] square footage of
billboards in the city,
[2:17:19] but I don't think
there's a pressing need
[2:17:20] to do that right now.
[2:17:22] Let's go do the.
[2:17:24] Let's go to our district signs.
[2:17:25] Let's even have it be,
you know, maybe 100 square
[2:17:28] foot digital sign as well.
[2:17:30] And later on, if
we want to strike
[2:17:33] a deal with an
outdoor advertiser
[2:17:36] to do like what you
suggested, you know,
[2:17:38] maybe we figure out which
ones remove something else.
[2:17:40] But I don't think this is our
only opportunity to reduce
[2:17:44] billboards through an exchange.
[2:17:47] So just along those lines.
[2:17:51] When I was looking at this
and thinking about this,
[2:17:54] I was thinking of big
comparison between 33rd and 39th
[2:17:59] and 39th doesn't have any
public as far as I mean,
[2:18:03] above, let's say 23rd any, you
know, advertising billboards.
[2:18:06] But they do have the
banners for the high school
[2:18:08] and that's local
and it looks good
[2:18:10] and no one complains about that.
[2:18:11] And it's small and it's
but it's very community.
[2:18:15] I mean, that and it looks good.
[2:18:17] Yeah, that's kind
of my feeling too,
[2:18:19] is even though there
would be some signage,
[2:18:21] I think some signage is
appropriate for our city
[2:18:25] center.
[2:18:27] But I feel like it reduces the
it's not it doesn't feel so
[2:18:31] cheap like we as a
city sold out to like,
[2:18:33] well, we had to make this
deal because we saved a couple
[2:18:37] hundred thousand
dollars on Reagan
[2:18:38] putting them in because
we wouldn't have to know,
[2:18:40] I don't think I wouldn't want
the city to erect a two 188
[2:18:44] square foot sign
in the messages.
[2:18:46] You know, it would be the
same as this one here.
[2:18:48] I don't think that's
necessary or appropriate.
[2:18:50] So I'm looking at a smaller sign
like we had originally thought
[2:18:56] about when we looked at
the city center plans,
[2:18:59] you know, five, six years ago.
[2:19:02] Um, so those are
my thoughts on it.
[2:19:05] 
[2:19:10] Well, they probably.
[2:19:11] I would look at it
just for construction.
[2:19:14] Yeah, I've looked at
it as just the same.
[2:19:16] As for building anything
else, you know, like the sign
[2:19:19] that we put on
Mill Creek common,
[2:19:20] you know, that went out to bid
to somebody to put up there?
[2:19:23] Maybe, but I don't know.
[2:19:26] Yeah Yeah.
[2:19:30] Yeah so I don't
know how we I mean,
[2:19:33] we can continue
the conversation.
[2:19:35] I, I don't know if I
don't feel like we have
[2:19:37] an appetite for a continuance.
[2:19:39] I think we have
enough information
[2:19:41] to make a recommendation.
[2:19:42] But it.
[2:19:44] We and Dwayne.
[2:19:46] I don't want to ignore you.
[2:19:47] We've had a conversation now.
[2:19:49] Do you have any
other thoughts you
[2:19:51] want to bring up
since you went first
[2:19:52] and you've heard a lot
of information now?
[2:19:54] 
[2:20:01] And there should be I mean,
that's what we're here for,
[2:20:04] is to hear different viewpoints.
[2:20:06] Yeah we had several
commissioners looking at
[2:20:10] just let's go with option four.
[2:20:12] We have a prefer an option to.
[2:20:16] Steve, I don't know if you
had a specific number option
[2:20:18] or if yours was
kind of a hybrid.
[2:20:20] And we can when we
make the motion,
[2:20:21] we can use the one, two, 3 as.
[2:20:25] There's a place to
start if we want,
[2:20:26] and then modify it from there.
[2:20:30] Or one, two.
[2:20:31] One, two, four.
[2:20:32] 
[2:20:40] well, you makes some
good points and.
[2:20:43] 
[2:20:46] And why do we need three
large digital signs
[2:20:50] around their mean that
can still be like the one
[2:20:53] if it was out there.
[2:20:54] It still have.
[2:20:56] Just like, I don't know.
[2:20:59] Well, doesn't necessarily
have to be a monument sign,
[2:21:01] but it has to be a sign
that would still scroll
[2:21:05] or have some digital to it.
[2:21:08] But it's just for
Mill Creek city
[2:21:11] and it's something smaller.
[2:21:12] And we do it only for.
[2:21:15] Advertising for.
[2:21:16] 
[2:21:21] I mean, I guess you could do
it for any events or anything.
[2:21:24] Throughout Mill
Creek city two or.
[2:21:26] Or just what happens
to the commons?
[2:21:29] Or would there be
advertising for businesses
[2:21:31] in the Commons area here on.
[2:21:36] I don't know.
[2:21:37] I guess my thought was just
keep it within the city.
[2:21:41] So I'm not a personally
I'm not opposed
[2:21:44] if we wanted to advertise the.
[2:21:47] It almost seems like we need
to make a recommendation
[2:21:50] on what happens here.
[2:21:53] And then another
recommendation on what
[2:21:55] happens as far as our whole
entire sign ordinance and.
[2:22:00] A whole entire sign
ordinance, I think.
[2:22:02] Gentleman from.
[2:22:05] Maybe there's a few things
we should look at there and.
[2:22:08] 
[2:22:12] You know, listen to their.
[2:22:14] 
[2:22:16] Ideas along with Reagan's ideas.
[2:22:18] Maybe we've already
had stuff from Reagan
[2:22:20] or some of the other large
I don't know who all does
[2:22:22] signs here with Saunders or.
[2:22:25] Here in the city, but.
[2:22:26] 
[2:22:30] to take some of their points
and maybe look further at this.
[2:22:34] The whole overall sign
ordinance, but at least
[2:22:36] make a recommendation on.
[2:22:38] Think should happen here.
[2:22:39] 
[2:22:43] Yeah, that's what I think.
[2:22:44] Yeah, because I know
we're looking at,
[2:22:46] you know, The
changes proposed are
[2:22:48] really with the district signs.
[2:22:50] Um, you know, and should they.
[2:22:52] What should we do about the.
[2:22:54] What changes, if any, should
we make for the sign ordinance?
[2:22:57] Ordinance regarding
the district signs?
[2:22:59] And then the other part is,
of course, the other weeks
[2:23:02] we have to our sign ordinance.
[2:23:04] I still think we should look.
[2:23:05] Change somehow because and
only I mean only the sign
[2:23:11] companies are going to.
[2:23:12] It's got to be something.
[2:23:15] It's the benefits of them.
[2:23:18] I mean.
[2:23:19] I mean, that's what
we're in the business
[2:23:20] just like Walgreens is
in the business to be.
[2:23:23] They're in the same business.
[2:23:25] So it has to be something
that would still be
[2:23:28] workable for any sign company.
[2:23:30] 
[2:23:34] So I'm just trying to think
about how we move this forward.
[2:23:43] And if we called
Sean's proposal five.
[2:23:48] It really?
[2:23:48] It is.
[2:23:49] 
[2:23:53] helpful for us to pull.
[2:23:55] Just choose a number
right now and see where.
[2:23:59] I mean, I think yours has.
[2:24:02] Midst to it.
[2:24:04] I don't know if we
can say we have.
[2:24:06] This choice, but our
backup is this I don't know
[2:24:10] what we can do to give more.
[2:24:13] Or if it would be helpful
if we each just said
[2:24:16] what our first choice number is
and then we're taking the we're
[2:24:19] not taking the
official vote, but just
[2:24:21] to know where people are and.
[2:24:23] 
[2:24:26] How we can craft something.
[2:24:27] 
[2:24:31] I'm looking at the
votes, and I'm.
[2:24:33] Might be for.
[2:24:33] 
[2:24:36] And then that would
then help craft
[2:24:38] like where the motion goes.
[2:24:41] You could do that.
[2:24:41] Or if you want to make a motion,
we can see where that goes.
[2:24:44] 
[2:24:46] But my feeling is if you
want to do a straw poll.
[2:24:49] Yeah, well, I'm right.
[2:24:50] I'm for that.
[2:24:54] I see merits in 3 and 5.
[2:24:56] So what do I do with that?
[2:24:59] Oh for five.
[2:25:00] I think we've achieved five.
[2:25:02] I think it's sitting
right out here
[2:25:05] and I think that
adding additional one
[2:25:07] doesn't accomplish anything.
[2:25:11] I think I'm appreciate
the amount of advertising,
[2:25:13] the numbers that we got.
[2:25:14] That 40% is the city
advertising that happens here.
[2:25:17] Fantastic but also it's
there with the discount
[2:25:21] of helping Creek businesses.
[2:25:23] So I think five, in my
opinion, is achieved.
[2:25:27] So I'd go for on my Dave is
for hills where do you are
[2:25:31] you still like looking at two.
[2:25:35] Yeah I mean, my
preference overall would
[2:25:36] be no signs like everyone else.
[2:25:39] I mean, not everyone
literally, but.
[2:25:41] But if we're choosing
sides and again,
[2:25:43] it's hard because
we don't know what
[2:25:44] that exchange agreement is.
[2:25:46] If I could take down
5 billboards on 33rd
[2:25:49] for another one of those.
[2:25:50] Yeah, do it.
[2:25:51] But if it's one for
one, probably not.
[2:25:56] so in that sense, it's hard.
[2:25:57] Like I said, I probably
choose to with the caveat
[2:26:00] that exchange agreement
needs to be substantial.
[2:26:04] I mean, it needs to
have some meat to it.
[2:26:06] So that would be my preference
if I could take down AI mean,
[2:26:09] if you drive up down
33rd, it's a lot of signs.
[2:26:12] If you could take some
down for a smaller,
[2:26:15] more aesthetically pleasing
sign, I'd love to do that.
[2:26:18] Um, so it's hard without
knowing the details
[2:26:21] of exchange agreement,
but that would be minus 2.
[2:26:23] With that caveat, the
robust exchange and.
[2:26:27] 
[2:26:30] Feel like I'm.
[2:26:32] I would do for from the
standpoint of for right now,
[2:26:39] I just feel like we still don't
have enough to do or enough
[2:26:44] to clarify.
[2:26:45] On the other hand, I
do agree with you that
[2:26:49] is there an option 5 to say
no on the district signs
[2:26:53] as they've been brought to us?
[2:26:55] But we recommend smaller signs.
[2:27:01] And we can recommend,
if everybody
[2:27:03] agrees that they only be city
owned and not advertisements.
[2:27:10] Um, I kind of feel like we
should do that as one thing
[2:27:13] and decide, are we letting
them do it or aren't we?
[2:27:18] And then can we then make
recommendations to the city
[2:27:22] council or back to
the city planners
[2:27:25] to say, we want you to
look at smaller signs,
[2:27:28] we want you to look
at an exchange,
[2:27:31] but we just don't
have enough data yet
[2:27:33] to make any of those decisions.
[2:27:34] We'd like to have a what would
it be like to those four city
[2:27:41] council people if we said,
each of you get one, then
[2:27:45] and they have to figure
out what to do with it?
[2:27:48] I mean, you know.
[2:27:50] I don't know how
they feel about that.
[2:27:54] Because we don't have
any representatives
[2:27:56] from the city council.
[2:27:58] I think we'd have to just
craft that as a recommendation
[2:28:02] because if we make a
recommendation and then said,
[2:28:05] but we want to see what the
exchange agreement is then.
[2:28:09] Wants to make a recommendation.
[2:28:10] I think it would be we
want a recommendation
[2:28:12] of a really robust.
[2:28:13] We have to suggest that.
[2:28:15] And I'm with you, I'd
go for the 7 to 1.
[2:28:17] But if we can get rid of 7
and give them a one digital,
[2:28:20] I might be all about that.
[2:28:23] Uh, Victoria.
[2:28:24] 
[2:28:29] Well, for you.
[2:28:30] Please use your microphone.
[2:28:33] The light on.
[2:28:36] Yes, I support forest,
my first choice.
[2:28:39] But yes, the details.
[2:28:40] We got rid of all 3,300
signs and put one digital.
[2:28:44] Yeah, I'm all in.
[2:28:45] So what I see in what's
being suggested right now
[2:28:51] is not robust enough
for me to want
[2:28:53] to support one or
two and even three
[2:28:58] where it would have less
visual impact on the city.
[2:29:02] Again, you know, I'd
be like five, 5 to 1.
[2:29:06] And I'm going to also point out
that those numbers in Kansas
[2:29:11] City or Lee county, which
one it was, but they were
[2:29:15] talking about how they had
had 13 billboards and they
[2:29:18] went to six.
[2:29:19] And I'm thinking, you know, as
a percentage of their billboards
[2:29:24] in the city.
[2:29:24] And as I recall,
you said that, Lee.
[2:29:27] We've had only 100,000 people.
[2:29:30] Well, that's the
size that we have.
[2:29:32] So they're talking about a
city that has 13 billboards
[2:29:35] and they're trying to reduce it.
[2:29:37] I mean, they're getting rid of
50% That is so so that to me
[2:29:41] that those exchange rates are
not equivalent to what we're
[2:29:45] talking about when we're
talking starting at a smaller
[2:29:47] city with 51 billboards.
[2:29:50] So to make an impact,
I feel like it
[2:29:53] needs to be much more robust.
[2:29:55] So given that what I'm seeing
presented is not strong enough,
[2:29:59] I would go with.
[2:30:00] For Thank you.
[2:30:03] Steve I will go along with four.
[2:30:11] However So I just want
to know the Billboard
[2:30:17] that's out out here now.
[2:30:20] Was there an exchange
on that one at all?
[2:30:22] Yes OK.
[2:30:24] Because there was the
removal of an existing sign
[2:30:28] that was there.
[2:30:30] Uh, plus.
[2:30:32] Plus 924ft of vested rights
of billboards that Reagan
[2:30:38] had previously removed.
[2:30:39] We have a Billboard
bank concept.
[2:30:42] One of those signs
was actually over
[2:30:44] here on the corner of by
the check cashing business,
[2:30:47] I believe.
[2:30:47] And then there was another
sign that was down the road,
[2:30:50] and they were both
kind of 30 sheet signs.
[2:30:52] I don't remember.
[2:30:52] It goes back a long time, but
they had bank square footage
[2:30:56] that we threw in.
[2:30:57] They surrendered the rights to.
[2:31:00] So that's why I wouldn't mind.
[2:31:01] 3 with the option that
we try to get a better
[2:31:03] deal for the one on 1,300 East.
[2:31:07] Option three or 4, I think
initially you said for.
[2:31:12] I'm not sure which
option it was, but we're.
[2:31:15] Is one Billboard and 4.
[2:31:17] Right so I'm saying 3 with
the one Billboard on Richmond.
[2:31:23] Yeah out on that's
on 1,300 East right.
[2:31:27] And that would be but to
get a better exchange.
[2:31:32] Then you got on the original.
[2:31:34] At least tried to.
[2:31:34] If not.
[2:31:36] Don't do it.
[2:31:39] A Dwayne.
[2:31:40] 
[2:31:48] If we change the
sign code to give,
[2:31:52] to allow two additional
district signs,
[2:31:55] and then it becomes a
legislative matter for the city
[2:31:58] council where they
essentially have
[2:32:00] a blank check to
do whatever they
[2:32:01] want on an exchange agreement.
[2:32:03] With so many unknowns and
variables still in play here.
[2:32:07] I would opt for you
know, I would vote
[2:32:10] for option number four that we.
[2:32:14] Advanced the sign code in
general because there's no need
[2:32:17] to hold up the remainder
of the sign code
[2:32:18] just over district signs.
[2:32:19] Let's get the sign code
updated and implemented.
[2:32:24] But I I'm not persuaded that now
is the right time to move on.
[2:32:30] The digital district
signs in the city center.
[2:32:37] OK thanks, Duane.
[2:32:38] Thanks and my thoughts
are kind of that hybrid
[2:32:41] that I suggested.
[2:32:42] It's kind of like.
[2:32:44] 4 plus.
[2:32:47] I think a district
signs are fine.
[2:32:50] They don't have to be digital.
[2:32:52] They could just be a
nice district sign.
[2:32:54] Welcome to the city
center chair, Lamar.
[2:32:57] Yes, actually, maybe
propose some language
[2:33:00] here for you to look at.
[2:33:01] I don't know whether
that'll work, but.
[2:33:02] OK let's see.
[2:33:06] Oh, you know what?
[2:33:08] Yeah, that's correct.
[2:33:10] So that would have
the effect of,
[2:33:12] you know, so there's only
one digital district sign.
[2:33:15] But, you know, we could create
a district monument sign.
[2:33:18] Yeah, something
along those lines.
[2:33:21] I'm just kind of
spitballing and.
[2:33:24] And when you're saying the
one digital district sign,
[2:33:26] that's the one that
already exists.
[2:33:28] Yes this one out here.
[2:33:29] So not additional, right?
[2:33:31] Yeah and then this would be.
[2:33:34] We could have a district
monument sign feet.
[2:33:37] Area of electronic
message limited.
[2:33:39] Yeah that.
[2:33:40] So what's on the screen that
captures kind of my feeling.
[2:33:45] I feel that's what I was
trying to articulate earlier.
[2:33:50] But Francis did
it a lot shorter.
[2:33:53] So in this case, we're
saying only one that exists,
[2:33:58] only the one that exists.
[2:33:59] So so no additional no.
[2:34:01] No additional signs.
[2:34:04] Well, there would be additional
they would be limited.
[2:34:07] But there's no
exchange with Reagan
[2:34:10] for taking down Billboard.
[2:34:12] There's no exchange.
[2:34:12] It's not it's not a large one.
[2:34:14] It's a smaller one.
[2:34:16] Yeah so that's kind of
where my feeling is.
[2:34:23] For me, this model
motion would work.
[2:34:25] I don't know about you.
[2:34:28] May capture what we wanted
with no additional sign.
[2:34:30] And I think we could also
say if the city council.
[2:34:36] Had an appetite that they did
want to do an exchange that we
[2:34:38] highly recommend, that it's
a very aggressive, robust,
[2:34:42] you know, good exchange ratio
of what they're going to.
[2:34:48] Exchange how many
what the ratio is.
[2:34:50] And also which
signs are removed.
[2:34:52] So they're not removing
signs that while it's
[2:34:55] a billboard, signs that we
don't really care about.
[2:34:57] Like there's a few that I
didn't even know existed until.
[2:35:00] This, we started
looking at billboards.
[2:35:03] So to me, if they
remove those, I don't
[2:35:04] think anybody would even know.
[2:35:07] I think they have to be
substantial, meaningful signs.
[2:35:11] So can we make recommendations
on top of maybe doing a motion
[2:35:17] that we approve, but
can we just give them
[2:35:19] a list of these are
the things we recommend
[2:35:21] before we do anything else.
[2:35:24] Yeah you can advise the
council on, on, on those.
[2:35:27] And that's one of
the reasons why I
[2:35:28] created this list here, right?
[2:35:31] You know, disregard, disregard
the language in the option.
[2:35:34] Just look at these.
[2:35:36] Yeah Uh, oops.
[2:35:37] Let me get.
[2:35:38] Sorry, commissioner
Vance, I'm going
[2:35:39] to push you out of the way,
um, so that everybody can see,
[2:35:43] including you.
[2:35:45] But I mean, those were kind of.
[2:35:51] In listening to you
write, those are maybe
[2:35:54] my proposed parameters, like
not knowing what the value
[2:35:57] of some of these signs are.
[2:35:58] Right? here's a basis for us to
say like pick from these signs,
[2:36:02] right?
[2:36:02] If they move forward
with deciding
[2:36:04] we do want to do
an exchange, this
[2:36:05] could be a recommendation of
and I personally, I like this.
[2:36:10] These because that
makes sure that we're
[2:36:12] getting more meaningful
signs removed, not just
[2:36:16] the ones that are
against a building
[2:36:17] that nobody really
notices anyway.
[2:36:20] 
[2:36:22] I think I've heard all
the commissioners like.
[2:36:26] Well, most of us, I
think, are OK if we
[2:36:28] do another one on 1,300.
[2:36:31] But I think most people
are like one way, not
[2:36:35] really one way or the
other on the putting one
[2:36:37] on the other side.
[2:36:38] So, I mean, can we recommend
that we only they could put two
[2:36:42] up, but we recommend that they
only put the one on 1,300 up
[2:36:48] and the other sign just be a
regular like welcome to Mill
[2:36:52] Creek sign.
[2:36:54] That is an option
too right Yeah.
[2:36:56] And then make other
recommendations of you
[2:36:59] know, we things that we think
they should do like if we think
[2:37:04] that it shouldn't
be for advertising,
[2:37:06] it should be owned by the city.
[2:37:10] Or, you know, just
for city information.
[2:37:13] I mean.
[2:37:14] 
[2:37:17] Well, commissioners,
does this give us
[2:37:19] enough information
for anybody that would
[2:37:20] be willing to make a motion?
[2:37:24] Are we permitted to
separate the two?
[2:37:27] Yes portions of this?
[2:37:29] I think so.
[2:37:29] So so why don't we go ahead
and I'm going to recommend
[2:37:36] that we recommend
approval of the sign
[2:37:44] ordinance portion of t 23016.
[2:37:48] And I think there's.
[2:37:49] Yeah you've got the
notes with this.
[2:37:52] With the.
[2:37:55] Items that we considered today.
[2:37:59] 
[2:38:02] Can I make.
[2:38:03] Can I. Can I suggest something?
[2:38:04] Yeah, because I'm not sure about
one of those as I'm reading it.
[2:38:09] Are you comfortable,
Francis, on the brightness
[2:38:11] and light temperature?
[2:38:12] Because I heard a statement of
I like bright light and that's
[2:38:14] not my statement about my life.
[2:38:17] Yeah so, I mean, I guess
that's a point of debate.
[2:38:19] I heard a couple
people on the council
[2:38:21] saying, well, let's
consider, let's at least
[2:38:23] consider the sign
industry best practice.
[2:38:25] But I know that that, that
Commissioner Reed used you.
[2:38:30] I like what you have.
[2:38:32] OK so I don't know.
[2:38:34] Does anyone I'm going to
say to cut that part out.
[2:38:37] But you can give a friendly
Amendment not friendly.
[2:38:40] You can amend it and see if
the votes are to keep that in.
[2:38:45] Is that right?
[2:38:46] I propose it without the
considering adjustments
[2:38:51] to the brightness and light
temperature and then we can
[2:38:53] someone else can change that.
[2:38:55] 
[2:38:58] And the rest, I think is OK.
[2:39:01] Um, and so and this is
without the digital,
[2:39:04] the district sign portion
of this proposed ordinance.
[2:39:11] So do I have a second on that?
[2:39:12] Are you clear on
what I'm saying?
[2:39:15] I'll second it.
[2:39:16] OK I move that we recommend
approval to the city council
[2:39:23] of the sign ordinance
portion of zt 23 016, which
[2:39:28] amends the existing sign code.
[2:39:30] Chapter 19.82 with the additions
that we have discussed that
[2:39:36] are listed here in
the notes section,
[2:39:38] excluding the brightness
and light temperature.
[2:39:42] 
[2:39:45] recommendations.
[2:39:47] A motion by Reed.
[2:39:48] Is there a second?
[2:39:49] 
[2:39:51] I'll second with
the clarification
[2:39:53] that this is expressly
excluding signs, which I don't
[2:39:57] think we heard in
the oral motion,
[2:39:58] but is in the written motion.
[2:40:00] Yeah, it's a part of
that bullet point one,
[2:40:03] not including the
provision regarding
[2:40:05] digital district signs.
[2:40:08] So if people don't
agree with me,
[2:40:11] I'm undercutting myself
right on the spot.
[2:40:15] If you don't agree
with me, then I'm
[2:40:17] going to propose an
Amendment to mine
[2:40:20] and we can take a
separate vote on it.
[2:40:22] Or if you're all good with it,
we'll just go ahead and vote.
[2:40:24] Yeah, just got a motion by
Reed and a second by Vans.
[2:40:31] So we can open it
for discussion.
[2:40:33] I just have a favor
of what you've
[2:40:35] presented with a strikethrough
for bullet point for.
[2:40:39] Yeah, but I do have a
concern when it comes to
[2:40:42] on the brightness
and temperature
[2:40:43] and the I don't have a
problem with the best industry
[2:40:47] practices or something.
[2:40:48] You have to can't just if
the color or the brightness
[2:40:54] is such that it
makes a digital sign
[2:40:56] impossible to read and look at.
[2:40:59] I mean, you just can't do that.
[2:41:01] You've got to have
something that.
[2:41:04] That the industry can put up
and was willing to put up.
[2:41:07] And there has to be
at least a discussion
[2:41:10] between the industry and.
[2:41:14] And the ordinance has to make
sense for the brightness.
[2:41:18] My understanding.
[2:41:18] Maybe I'm wrong is that the
standards that are specified
[2:41:23] in this draft
ordinance are the ones
[2:41:25] that are the same as what is
in the existing district sign.
[2:41:29] Is that correct?
[2:41:30] Are you talking are you
talking about the brightness
[2:41:32] of the brightness of
electronic message centers?
[2:41:35] No so so the brightness for,
you know, just standard signs.
[2:41:40] That's that's new language.
[2:41:42] And it was attempted it was an
attempt to balance, you know,
[2:41:46] the rights of sign companies.
[2:41:49] But the but the city's interest
broadly to gradually move
[2:41:53] toward a dark sky
compliant city knowing
[2:41:56] that we'll never get there.
[2:41:57] Right we'll never
achieve a state of grace,
[2:41:59] but we can always try.
[2:42:01] Um, and that was the intent.
[2:42:04] And the code consultant
kind of borrowed codes
[2:42:07] from cities in
Colorado and Arizona
[2:42:09] to move us in that direction.
[2:42:11] And that's where they came up
with the 100 nit requirement.
[2:42:15] OK Yeah.
[2:42:16] So maybe that's fine.
[2:42:18] I mean, I think there
should be a balance there,
[2:42:21] but I think there
should be discussion.
[2:42:23] It sounds like
you've had discussion
[2:42:25] with people in the industry,
but you know, we're not Torrey,
[2:42:30] Utah either.
[2:42:31] We're we're Creek city
and Salt Lake City.
[2:42:34] So there.
[2:42:35] 
[2:42:38] It can be a dark sky anyway,
but so maybe it's just what you
[2:42:43] have in there is just perfect.
[2:42:45] That's that's what the
motion is saying is.
[2:42:47] Yeah all right.
[2:42:48] OK and I like it that way too.
[2:42:51] I is perfect for.
[2:42:53] I mean, I want to be.
[2:42:56] Well, I think since it's our
city where the residents that
[2:43:00] live here, that we don't
need to just rely on the best
[2:43:03] practices of the industry,
I think we should rely
[2:43:05] on what makes sense to us
and then have the industry
[2:43:09] adapt to it.
[2:43:11] And, you know, and since
other cities have done it,
[2:43:14] it's not just a number that
staff pulled out of a hat.
[2:43:17] I think there's
some basis for it.
[2:43:20] It probably will
require some change.
[2:43:22] Some signs won't be as bright.
[2:43:23] But just because
some other city does,
[2:43:25] it doesn't mean we
should do it either.
[2:43:26] We should do it
what's best for us.
[2:43:27] That's right.
[2:43:28] And I feel like it is best.
[2:43:30] My recommendation is like,
yeah, leave it out like.
[2:43:33] So there are some
extreme cities on that.
[2:43:36] Yeah Yeah.
[2:43:37] I don't want to be extreme.
[2:43:39] Well, we have a
motion and a second
[2:43:43] and any more discussion
on this or I'm
[2:43:46] ready to call for a vote.
[2:43:49] So, Dwayne, since you're remote,
we're going to start with you,
[2:43:52] and then we'll do a
vote here on site.
[2:43:56] I vote Yes.
[2:43:58] Votes Yes.
[2:44:00] Holtzberg Yes.
[2:44:02] Lofgren no.
[2:44:03] Soul Yes.
[2:44:05] Lamars Yes.
[2:44:06] Reed Yes.
[2:44:08] And Anderson.
[2:44:09] 
[2:44:16] I vote no.
[2:44:17] OK and Anderson is no.
[2:44:19] So the first part
of this ordinance.
[2:44:22] Passes for two to.
[2:44:26] As a recommendation.
[2:44:27] The city council.
[2:44:28] Is that right?
[2:44:28] For one, two, three,
five, five, two.
[2:44:31] Thank you.
[2:44:35] The people who object are
supposed to state why?
[2:44:38] Correct?
[2:44:39] they have the opportunity
to statewide, if you'd
[2:44:41] like to give some clarity.
[2:44:45] Just the light
discussion we had.
[2:44:47] I think we should
match industry standard
[2:44:49] makes more sense for
given being Mill Creek.
[2:44:51] We're not.
[2:44:53] The only community
I can think of
[2:44:54] is kayenta down in St George.
[2:44:56] That's a dark place.
[2:44:58] And I don't think
we are that so.
[2:45:00] Thank you.
[2:45:02] Uh, I agree.
[2:45:04] And I also think, you
know, even though we've.
[2:45:07] I mean this is a good motion.
[2:45:10] But I think we.
[2:45:12] Need to have.
[2:45:13] I'm not so sure we're
there on exactly what
[2:45:15] we need in the sign ordinance.
[2:45:18] I'd like to hear more of what,
like, yesco has to say and.
[2:45:22] And others.
[2:45:23] OK Thank you.
[2:45:25] Even on this.
[2:45:25] Well, we don't have
any safety stuff.
[2:45:28] Well, basically,
all of these are
[2:45:30] going to become
nonconforming signs if they
[2:45:32] don't meet the standards.
[2:45:35] Yeah, I mean, that's the thing
Utah Science Association said
[2:45:38] is these are so far
are what we have is
[2:45:42] far below what the standard is.
[2:45:45] So these a lot of these will
come to us as non conforming.
[2:45:49] So when that happens, I guess
after we get a half a dozen,
[2:45:52] we'll probably change our minds.
[2:45:53] 
[2:45:56] Francis, any existing sign
would still be able to continue
[2:45:59] as they are or would.
[2:46:00] Yeah, it can be.
[2:46:01] It could be it could be
maintained as long as the sign
[2:46:03] doesn't change in size, right?
[2:46:05] So the moment it gets the
moment gets taller or bigger.
[2:46:08] Right it has to come
into compliance.
[2:46:10] But, you know, any existing
sign can stay there forever.
[2:46:14] It's legal nonconforming.
[2:46:15] Yeah Yeah.
[2:46:16] Legal nonconforming.
[2:46:18] OK Thank you.
[2:46:20] Those recommendations and
even for Nils and Steve,
[2:46:25] that does help city
council get a gauge
[2:46:28] on where our collective
thoughts were on this motion.
[2:46:34] So thank you.
[2:46:36] Now district the
district signed portion.
[2:46:39] And Francis, if you
could scroll to that.
[2:46:42] OK model motion that you had.
[2:46:45] So I did AI wrote
up a model motion,
[2:46:48] you know, just kind of
based on discussion.
[2:46:52] This is something I
just came up with.
[2:46:54] But that's no changes.
[2:46:58] Plus a monument sign.
[2:46:59] Option number 4 is.
[2:47:02] 
[2:47:06] Number four is, is no changes,
which essentially means that.
[2:47:13] Here I'm going to do this
state that no additional.
[2:47:15] 
[2:47:23] This would, you
know, essentially
[2:47:26] say one is enough, right?
[2:47:27] That's the one.
[2:47:28] And that's the
one enough option.
[2:47:31] Option three.
[2:47:32] 
[2:47:35] Option three says essentially
one digital district sign.
[2:47:39] And you can look at either
nonconforming signs anywhere
[2:47:42] in Mill Creek or signs
near the city center,
[2:47:44] as in your model motion.
[2:47:47] Option two is the
two digital district
[2:47:51] signs with the
nonconforming sign list.
[2:47:54] Right and paraphrasing
an option one
[2:47:56] is the two additional
district signs
[2:47:59] emphasizing signs in the
city center to be removed
[2:48:02] and back to four.
[2:48:04] That's just saying.
[2:48:06] With no additional district
digital district signs.
[2:48:09] But it's not.
[2:48:11] It's not illuminating.
[2:48:13] Just a static district sign.
[2:48:16] No, it would not.
[2:48:17] It would not eliminate a static.
[2:48:18] I mean, the truth is
that's already allowed.
[2:48:20] Right that's the
code already allows
[2:48:22] that we can do that tomorrow.
[2:48:23] OK well, I like the my
thoughts are I do like the 5
[2:48:33] because I'm not.
[2:48:35] Opposed to a digital just
but for just the city.
[2:48:40] That's kind of where I land.
[2:48:42] I'm OK.
[2:48:43] I'm OK.
[2:48:44] Giving some leeway on the
digital portion there.
[2:48:46] 
[2:48:49] So I would like to make a
motion on option 4 here.
[2:48:54] OK, go ahead.
[2:48:55] So I recommend that the
city council approve z 24
[2:49:01] with the following modification.
[2:49:03] With respect to signs in the
city center table 18.16 point
[2:49:09] 113in the draft ordinance
should be amended to state
[2:49:12] that no additional district
signs are allowed in the city
[2:49:16] center overlay zone.
[2:49:18] Motion by Holzberger.
[2:49:21] I'll second, second.
[2:49:24] Victoria Reid beat you,
but that letter beat me.
[2:49:27] I'm fine.
[2:49:27] 
[2:49:30] Any additional discussion
or changes to that motion?
[2:49:36] OK, Dwayne, I'll start
voting again with you online.
[2:49:40] Dwayne Vance.
[2:49:42] Yes David Holzberger.
[2:49:44] Yes Nils Lofgren.
[2:49:46] No Ansel.
[2:49:47] 
[2:49:54] Let me come back to you.
[2:49:56] Steve Anderson.
[2:49:57] 
[2:50:06] I vote Yes, Peloton this one?
[2:50:08] Victoria Reid.
[2:50:09] Yes Lamar.
[2:50:11] Yes Diane Sewell.
[2:50:14] 
[2:50:17] Yes and the answer is Yes.
[2:50:21] And commissioners?
[2:50:22] I would.
[2:50:24] Maybe this should.
[2:50:26] Can we still then
clarify outside
[2:50:28] of emotion of additional
recommendation,
[2:50:30] like if they did go
with the digital sign?
[2:50:33] Yeah, that I think that you
understand the sentiment
[2:50:36] that we would if they did
pursue an exchange that
[2:50:39] would be robust.
[2:50:40] And I don't speak for
other commissioners
[2:50:42] but that the bullet
points in number two
[2:50:45] of like what signs
they should consider.
[2:50:47] I think we're in agreement
with that those 5 above 32
[2:50:53] and double Decker.
[2:50:54] And all of that.
[2:50:54] Does that sound like
what we well would want?
[2:50:57] I think option 5 is something.
[2:51:02] We should make them
consider like that we want.
[2:51:05] If they're going
to do something,
[2:51:06] they need to bring it back to
us with another of their options
[2:51:10] of we want a smaller sign.
[2:51:12] We want to recommend that
it's owned by the city.
[2:51:15] We want to recommend
that, you know,
[2:51:17] they look at other
options, like if you're
[2:51:20] going to put digital signs
and put them in other places
[2:51:22] than just in the city center.
[2:51:24] Yeah, I mean, to me, those
are kind of the things
[2:51:27] that I think we
should not tell them.
[2:51:30] Absolutely not ever,
but that we want
[2:51:34] them to consider other things.
[2:51:36] Yeah, the city council does have
the option to remand something
[2:51:39] back to the planning commission.
[2:51:40] Yeah, but they don't have to.
[2:51:42] Yeah so it would be
at their discretion.
[2:51:43] Totally at their discretion.
[2:51:45] Yeah but France, if you
could relay that one to them.
[2:51:49] I think that's OK.
[2:51:50] I think you understand the.
[2:51:51] Yes our thoughts
just add one thing
[2:51:54] like Thank you in
the option we had is
[2:51:56] that it would be a
meaningful reduction.
[2:51:58] And I feel like that language
is so squishy of what does
[2:52:02] a meaningful reduction mean?
[2:52:04] And so to me, it needs to be
far stronger, like more robust,
[2:52:07] like 5 to 1 or
something like that.
[2:52:09] I'm making something up.
[2:52:10] But, but heck, that's as good
as a meaningful reduction.
[2:52:16] OK Thank you.
[2:52:17] 
[2:52:21] OK Thank you.
[2:52:23] We got through that.
[2:52:23] Thank you both, Mr
Young's and Kathy
[2:52:29] Blake for joining us live at the
meeting tonight for this board.
[2:52:34] And also, if anybody wants.
[2:52:36] Sorry to interrupt, if anybody
would like a free coupon
[2:52:40] to either noodle head
downstairs, $5 or Mill Creek
[2:52:44] pizza house or one
of each, they're
[2:52:47] actually on the table outside.
[2:52:48] Just grab one on your way out.
[2:52:49] 
[2:52:53] Thank you.
[2:52:55] Commissioners a break.
[2:52:57] We do need to go through
some training with John.
[2:53:02] I would propose that we do
a five, eight minute break.
[2:53:06] There's lukewarm
pizza in the EOC.
[2:53:10] It's really good.
[2:53:11] Dwayne, we'll meet you back
for training about 8:00.
[2:53:15] It did?
[2:53:16] Yeah and they're much better.
[2:53:18] They're they're actually
happy to have you there.
[2:53:20] 
[3:06:35] I have a little clicker for you.
[3:06:37] I got to get this other
free freezers taking
[3:06:39] up too much space eating.
[3:06:42] Which button is it, man?
[3:06:44] 
[3:07:06] let me start, because
everybody here.
[3:07:08] Yes how much fun
signs and open meeting
[3:07:16] training in the same meeting
to approve the minutes to.
[3:07:20] Oh Wow.
[3:07:21] Open OK.
[3:07:29] OK are you ready?
[3:07:31] OK Utah law requires the chair
to ensure that the public body
[3:07:38] has annual training.
[3:07:39] So this is Sean's insurance.
[3:07:42] 
[3:07:44] Provided by lease
that you're trained.
[3:07:48] Thank you for helping out.
[3:07:49] And when you're done with this,
you will be officially trained.
[3:07:55] The act provides
that all meetings
[3:07:56] are open unless they're
closed for a specific reason
[3:08:00] or statutory or case law.
[3:08:03] And we'll go through
that in a minute.
[3:08:05] Meeting is defined as
a quorum in this case.
[3:08:08] That before.
[3:08:11] Five oh, OK.
[3:08:15] You're right to discuss
or act upon a matter
[3:08:19] over which the public
body has jurisdiction.
[3:08:22] A meeting does not include a
chance or a social meeting.
[3:08:27] 
[3:08:29] Then this planning
commission has special rules.
[3:08:34] That no member of
the and this is
[3:08:36] outside the parameters
of open meetings,
[3:08:38] but it relates back and forth.
[3:08:40] And I'm sure I'm going
to get a question on it.
[3:08:42] So I thought I'd just
bring it up anyway.
[3:08:44] That no member of
the commission shall
[3:08:46] have ex-parte
communication regarding
[3:08:50] an administrative or rezoning
matter or applications
[3:08:54] before the council.
[3:08:55] And what's an ex-parte?
[3:08:57] Communication means
a communication.
[3:09:00] Electronic social.
[3:09:03] Media regarding any of
those and we'll get to it.
[3:09:07] A couple of examples
that help explain that.
[3:09:09] 
[3:09:12] Now, this is not intuitive.
[3:09:15] This is anti intuitive.
[3:09:17] This this section.
[3:09:19] That nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to restrict
[3:09:23] a member of a public
body from transmitting
[3:09:26] an electronic message to other
members of the public body
[3:09:29] at any time when the
public body is not
[3:09:32] convened in an open meeting.
[3:09:34] Well, if you can't
get together and talk,
[3:09:37] but you can get together
electronically and talk.
[3:09:40] It just anti-intuitive.
[3:09:41] But that's the statute
and that's what's allowed.
[3:09:44] But not during counsel.
[3:09:45] When you can't say,
hey, how are you voting?
[3:09:47] Oh, you know.
[3:09:49] And John, does that have to be
through our Mill Creek email?
[3:09:53] Nope it doesn't identify
just electronic message.
[3:09:57] 
[3:10:03] Somebody goes after you.
[3:10:04] 
[3:10:07] Grandma, then they could open
them up and clean up my inbox.
[3:10:10] 
[3:10:12] Unfortunately, you
get to clean it
[3:10:14] out and then give it to Elise.
[3:10:16] And then she gives it out.
[3:10:18] Yeah the statute requires
a 24 hour advance notice
[3:10:24] at least takes care of that.
[3:10:26] And notice also required
a yearly notice at least.
[3:10:30] Also takes care of that.
[3:10:32] 
[3:10:35] The notice that goes out
should be specific enough
[3:10:38] to give a reasonable
person notification
[3:10:40] of what's the matter,
what's on the agenda?
[3:10:43] Now the chair in
their discretion.
[3:10:47] May listen or may
allow topics raised
[3:10:51] by the public that
are not on the agenda,
[3:10:54] but you can't make a decision.
[3:10:58] Yes Yeah.
[3:11:00] Council chair.
[3:11:01] Commission chair.
[3:11:01] 
[3:11:05] Because the rules are
a little different.
[3:11:07] Well, I'm not for
open Meetings Law.
[3:11:11] Written minutes,
which you prove here.
[3:11:15] There's two types
written and recorded.
[3:11:18] There's the recording
over there on top
[3:11:20] of the little shelf by Elise
and the written minutes.
[3:11:25] Elise is working on right now.
[3:11:27] And those are the
ones you'll approve.
[3:11:28] The written minutes
become the official record
[3:11:31] of the action taken.
[3:11:34] I haven't ever had this case.
[3:11:35] But if somebody listens
to the recording
[3:11:38] and it says AAA and the
written minutes, say B. The way
[3:11:43] the statute says is
B wins, even though.
[3:11:47] May actually be different.
[3:11:50] What's that?
[3:11:50] 
[3:11:54] She can if you
approve the minutes.
[3:11:57] Those are the official minutes.
[3:11:58] Now, I haven't had that case.
[3:12:00] A judge may do
something different,
[3:12:02] but anyway, that's
what the statute says.
[3:12:06] Then you can only hold a closed
meeting for specific purposes.
[3:12:11] First, one character and
competency of an individual.
[3:12:17] Or to discuss reasonably
imminent litigation,
[3:12:22] you would have no reason to go
into a closed meeting for that
[3:12:25] because that's not
within your purview.
[3:12:29] Discuss purchase or exchange
or lease of real property.
[3:12:33] Again, not within
your purview, but this
[3:12:35] is open meetings, training.
[3:12:36] So you're getting all of it.
[3:12:38] Discuss the sale
of real property.
[3:12:41] And this one might be
when the commission
[3:12:44] is acting in a judicial
or quasi judicial status.
[3:12:50] So this is if an appeal
comes to you, for example,
[3:12:53] you can get together and
discuss how to decide the case.
[3:12:58] In in a closed meeting.
[3:13:01] What about if there was
like Mike Winder said, hey,
[3:13:05] we have this idea,
I'm floating around
[3:13:06] for this particular merchant.
[3:13:09] In and wanted to talk
to us about that.
[3:13:11] That would be a closed meeting.
[3:13:13] Because not with the
planning commission.
[3:13:15] He's going to have to divide
you up in pieces and parts.
[3:13:19] So there's not a quorum.
[3:13:20] And if he asks me,
that's what I'd tell him.
[3:13:23] You can do that.
[3:13:26] Yeah OK.
[3:13:27] As long as there's not a quorum.
[3:13:30] You just got to remember
what he told one group.
[3:13:31] He tells the same
to the other group.
[3:13:33] And we've done meetings
like that with you before.
[3:13:36] 
[3:13:41] Minutes of a closed meeting
are protected record.
[3:13:44] Records under grandma.
[3:13:47] So it can't be disclosed.
[3:13:49] 
[3:13:53] OK case study number one.
[3:13:56] You've seen this one before.
[3:13:58] Let's say it's five
planning commissioners,
[3:14:00] because I can't count.
[3:14:03] Five planning commissioners
have been properly
[3:14:06] taught to shop local and
they run into each other
[3:14:09] at the local Smith store.
[3:14:12] And one of the
commissioners starts
[3:14:13] discussing a request
for a conditional use
[3:14:16] that's on council agenda.
[3:14:18] 
[3:14:21] One of you have to leave.
[3:14:23] This is the recommendation
that you say that it's not
[3:14:27] an appropriate forum
to discuss the matter
[3:14:29] and change the subject.
[3:14:31] Continue shopping or walk away.
[3:14:34] You may not discuss the matter
and indicate how you will vote.
[3:14:38] And wouldn't that apply,
though, even, let's say,
[3:14:40] me in Victoria.
[3:14:42] We shouldn't be talking.
[3:14:43] We will get to that.
[3:14:44] I got a specific example
to that coming right up.
[3:14:47] Well, it's like
number five or 6, but.
[3:14:52] OK number two, you're in
church and the constituent
[3:14:56] comes up to you and wants
to talk about a new daycare
[3:15:00] in the neighborhood.
[3:15:02] That's a conditional use.
[3:15:05] What can you do?
[3:15:06] What can't you do?
[3:15:08] Well, you can discuss the matter
because you're not a quorum.
[3:15:10] 
[3:15:14] But the PC rules are
planning commission
[3:15:16] rules recommends
or says you can't
[3:15:19] have ex parte communication.
[3:15:21] Now the question is, is
that ex parte communication?
[3:15:24] What I would recommend is you.
[3:15:26] It's not appropriate to
discuss that in this forum.
[3:15:30] And you continue your
worship or walk away.
[3:15:33] 
[3:15:37] We'll get to your
question later.
[3:15:40] Facebook Dilemma.
[3:15:42] While perusing the
Facebook, you encounter
[3:15:45] a post about a daycare that
has a pending conditional use
[3:15:50] application.
[3:15:51] The post contains some
obvious misinformation.
[3:15:56] Can't believe that happens, but
that you consider outrageous
[3:16:01] and an intentional
misrepresentation and you want
[3:16:04] to set the record straight.
[3:16:05] 
[3:16:08] Open meeting says you
can do what you want.
[3:16:12] Pc rule suggests that you
close the post and say nothing.
[3:16:15] 
[3:16:26] What do you mean
for instead of them
[3:16:28] the planning, the city council.
[3:16:30] These rules were proposed
by the planning commission
[3:16:33] and adopted.
[3:16:35] How long ago is that?
[3:16:37] Probably about 20 minutes after
the city was incorporated.
[3:16:41] OK a couple of hours.
[3:16:43] I mean, if you want
to look at them,
[3:16:44] we can look at them again.
[3:16:45] 
[3:16:48] A question on that one.
[3:16:51] Because occasionally
I will see I
[3:16:53] don't get involved in all the.
[3:16:55] Clamour that's going on.
[3:16:57] Well, I'll say here's a
link to that has the packet.
[3:17:01] 
[3:17:04] You know, I'll put here's
a link where you can
[3:17:07] find more information about it.
[3:17:09] And I just put that in there.
[3:17:10] But I'm not saying
anything about it.
[3:17:12] To me, that feels like
that should be appropriate.
[3:17:14] It's just information
that's public information
[3:17:16] and it's just
linking them to the.
[3:17:18] That's probably OK,
but I would think
[3:17:21] it's in the city's interest.
[3:17:23] Yeah yeah, me too.
[3:17:26] Well probably is.
[3:17:29] But I don't know if it's
your job to protect the city.
[3:17:33] Well, no, I was.
[3:17:34] It's even stuff about even.
[3:17:38] Stuff that is coming to us.
[3:17:39] Like, you know, people
make comments all the time
[3:17:43] on like Facebook's old now.
[3:17:45] So it's the neighbors app
like every single day.
[3:17:48] There's just weird stuff.
[3:17:50] And there are times too, I've
sent a couple and I'm like.
[3:17:53] This is I'm not sure this
is correct information.
[3:17:57] Here's a link to
the city's website
[3:18:00] that has the factual data on it.
[3:18:02] I think you're OK with that
if you do nothing more.
[3:18:05] Yeah, I think I don't get
involved in the conversation,
[3:18:08] but I don't either.
[3:18:08] I think it was somebody
with a Porsche dealership.
[3:18:10] Somebody was like, yeah,
they're going to take up
[3:18:11] that whole parcel
and they're going
[3:18:12] to build this huge building.
[3:18:14] And so I just like, oh,
here's a link to the packet,
[3:18:17] has some pictures.
[3:18:18] It contains some
obvious misinformation
[3:18:21] and is considered
outrageous and an
[3:18:24] intentional misrepresentation
happens all the time.
[3:18:29] And if you feel like
you need to give a link,
[3:18:32] you're probably OK with that.
[3:18:34] I wouldn't say anything more.
[3:18:36] Yeah, I never would
give an opinion.
[3:18:38] And I wouldn't even say that
this is where the accurate
[3:18:40] information is, because
what the people are saying
[3:18:43] is that's not accurate.
[3:18:45] Yeah because then
you start expressing
[3:18:49] your opinion that isn't
related to planning commission.
[3:18:52] So I'll give you an example.
[3:18:54] Somebody who was posting.
[3:18:55] It's been a month or so
probably about something that
[3:18:59] was going on in Mill Creek.
[3:19:02] Like if it's not on
the council agenda,
[3:19:05] if it's not on the
commission agenda, it's not.
[3:19:07] Yeah Yes.
[3:19:11] After it's over.
[3:19:12] OK like you get a comment about
signs tonight or something?
[3:19:17] Yeah, because it's over.
[3:19:20] Well, at least our part
is right for the moment.
[3:19:26] OK inspecting property.
[3:19:28] You are a diligent
member of the commission
[3:19:30] and you visit a
property that has
[3:19:33] a pending conditional
use application
[3:19:35] before the Commission.
[3:19:37] Is there a problem with that?
[3:19:41] No violation of
the Open Meetings.
[3:19:43] No violation of the PC rules.
[3:19:46] Best practices is.
[3:19:48] You might want to explain what
you observed to the planning
[3:19:52] commission at the open meeting.
[3:19:54] Give them.
[3:19:56] The benefit of your inspection.
[3:19:59] Best practice not required.
[3:20:02] And on that one I did.
[3:20:03] I've done that a few times.
[3:20:04] But I talked.
[3:20:05] I knocked on the door,
told them who I was,
[3:20:07] and let them up
front like I'm here.
[3:20:10] Just get some information
from you, if that's OK.
[3:20:12] They were always great, but told
them like because of, you know,
[3:20:15] it's pending.
[3:20:16] We can't talk about
my opinion of it.
[3:20:20] And they appreciated
that and they we didn't.
[3:20:23] Go down that path
with the conversation.
[3:20:25] And then I did talk to
the commission like, hey,
[3:20:27] so I visited this guy and I got
some additional information.
[3:20:30] This is what it was.
[3:20:31] OK permitted to ask.
[3:20:35] 
[3:20:38] If they're here?
[3:20:39] Yes oh, you know what?
[3:20:44] How about 4.5 right here?
[3:20:46] While inspecting the
property and conditioning,
[3:20:50] the owner comes out,
approaches, and wants
[3:20:53] to discuss the conditional
use application.
[3:20:56] Is that a problem?
[3:20:59] It's not.
[3:21:00] Well, we're not in
Minnesota and we're
[3:21:02] not in Kansas or Kansas City.
[3:21:05] I really have an
objection to this.
[3:21:09] I have.
[3:21:12] I mean, I guess I
can't change it,
[3:21:14] but I felt like it
was really helpful.
[3:21:16] It's not like I'm
going to be persuaded
[3:21:18] by them any more than I
would be if they came here.
[3:21:22] I feel like it closes
down information.
[3:21:24] OK, so let's see
what my answer is.
[3:21:26] All right.
[3:21:27] It's not a violation of
the Open Meetings Law.
[3:21:29] Right but it is a
violation of the rules.
[3:21:32] Right which I
disagree with them.
[3:21:35] So I think we should review our
rules best practice recommend
[3:21:41] that it is not appropriate for
them to discuss this matter
[3:21:43] and walk away.
[3:21:44] Tell them to come and make their
case to the entire planning
[3:21:48] commission.
[3:21:49] 
[3:21:52] Right I mean, you may have
gotten I'm just telling you,
[3:21:54] you may have gotten
some good information.
[3:21:56] But there's no
question in my mind
[3:21:57] that that's an
ex-parte communication.
[3:22:00] And you have information
that the rest of the body
[3:22:02] doesn't have.
[3:22:03] And that's the rationale for.
[3:22:06] Not allowing you that part
that we all have information
[3:22:10] in our heads that we use,
and if we didn't, we wouldn't
[3:22:13] be on the planning commission.
[3:22:14] So, I mean.
[3:22:17] Well, that's true, but
that's about everything.
[3:22:19] That's not about a
pending application
[3:22:22] in front of the council.
[3:22:23] I lived in a different system
and I don't agree with it.
[3:22:27] But what we have and I will
follow what we're supposed
[3:22:29] to do before I remember going
through some of this training
[3:22:31] and maybe a few years
ago was OK for us
[3:22:36] not to give opinions on it.
[3:22:37] But then because I
would come back and say,
[3:22:39] hey, I visited the guy and I
said this where I found out
[3:22:42] I didn't talk about
opinions of it,
[3:22:43] but I did gather
additional information.
[3:22:45] I shared it and at least
the rules at that point.
[3:22:47] So that wasn't an
ex parte as long
[3:22:48] as the rest of the Commission
has the same information
[3:22:51] that I got.
[3:22:51] Right I remember that.
[3:22:52] Well, that would be the best
practice if you're involved
[3:22:56] in ex parte communication.
[3:22:58] One one thing that
I think we could do
[3:23:01] is Commissioner Lamar,
commissioner reed, John Brown
[3:23:07] and I Let's go to lunch and talk
about amendments to the rules
[3:23:13] of procedure that
are appropriate
[3:23:16] and see if we can kind address
some of the concerns that way.
[3:23:20] Yeah, because I think we could
iron out some of the details
[3:23:22] and make sure that we're
still following the spirit,
[3:23:25] but also make sure the language.
[3:23:27] Yeah And we're not in
violation of the language.
[3:23:30] There's a body of law around
the rationale for the rule
[3:23:35] of no ex parte communication.
[3:23:37] So just because we want to do
it doesn't mean we can or we
[3:23:41] should, because there's
this body of law
[3:23:43] that we have to look at and
see what we can do and not do.
[3:23:47] For the record on that part, I
think we should not be talking
[3:23:50] to the applicants
outside of this meeting
[3:23:53] because it just seems
that it would appear
[3:23:56] to be favorable or favoritism
and it just doesn't
[3:23:59] seem like we should be talking.
[3:24:01] We can visit the site, take
pictures, do whatever we want,
[3:24:04] and share that back here.
[3:24:06] But I disagree that or
I agree with the rule
[3:24:10] and disagree with the comments
that we should be able to talk
[3:24:13] to the pending applicant.
[3:24:15] So could it be like, would
you be agreeable if we show up
[3:24:18] as their private property,
like, hey, I want to,
[3:24:19] you know, I'm on the
commission, I want
[3:24:21] to look at a couple of things.
[3:24:23] Is it permissible for me
to look at whatever it is.
[3:24:27] But then just not talk?
[3:24:29] To them about
getting additional.
[3:24:31] I guess it's their option to
allow you on the property,
[3:24:34] but it just seems like we
shouldn't be talking to them
[3:24:35] prior to this public meeting.
[3:24:38] That's my opinion.
[3:24:41] If you want to
enter the property,
[3:24:42] the planning commission has
authority to enter property.
[3:24:46] Statutorily so it's
probably not a trespass,
[3:24:49] but I wouldn't go on
anybody's property
[3:24:51] without asking them regardless.
[3:24:53] Yeah probably get shot
or get the dog after you.
[3:24:58] I mean, one of them
was a while back.
[3:24:59] And they had a horse property
there off 13th and little South
[3:25:02] of 45th.
[3:25:03] And I think he wanted
to build a stable.
[3:25:06] But if you're talking
to him, there's
[3:25:07] no question that's ex-parte.
[3:25:09] Right but I was
just asking like,
[3:25:11] so where is this
your property or is
[3:25:12] this the neighbor's fence?
[3:25:14] And then he was like, no,
this is my fence and this
[3:25:16] and was that.
[3:25:16] And I did come back and disclose
it because it helped to me.
[3:25:19] It helped the commission
and me understand
[3:25:24] like, where is his pasture
and where is that stream?
[3:25:27] Oh, that's his
neighbor's stream.
[3:25:28] I cannot argue
that it's helpful.
[3:25:31] But that's ex parte
communication.
[3:25:34] So we'd have to if we
wanted to do that, we
[3:25:37] would need to update our rules.
[3:25:39] But there's also this
body of law around it
[3:25:42] that precludes it's
well, it's state law.
[3:25:47] Some of judicially created.
[3:25:50] The city council can go
and talk and they're not.
[3:25:52] But all the difference.
[3:25:54] Is there an elected official?
[3:25:56] And their decisions
are legislative
[3:25:59] and they can make it upon
save the well or whatever.
[3:26:03] But you can't.
[3:26:04] You have to have a rational
basis for your decision.
[3:26:09] No, no.
[3:26:10] And I mean, I agree.
[3:26:11] I don't really want
someone to lobby me,
[3:26:13] but I like to be able to talk.
[3:26:15] Questions like
the kind of thing.
[3:26:16] 
[3:26:19] I can tell you it's a
problem, slippery slope.
[3:26:21] Because when you
talk to the person.
[3:26:23] And the person that
doesn't want it
[3:26:25] hears that you talk to
the person who wants it,
[3:26:28] then you've got a problem.
[3:26:29] Then we got the
city has a problem.
[3:26:31] And that's my that's my argument
for it should happen here.
[3:26:35] So that all the people have an
opinion gets at the same time
[3:26:38] because that's what I would
hate it if someone said, well,
[3:26:42] why did you talk to them?
[3:26:43] But you didn't talk to me.
[3:26:43] I live right next door.
[3:26:44] I don't I don't want
this retaining wall on
[3:26:46] this property, you know, like.
[3:26:47] And then the next
door one and the next.
[3:26:50] It's a slippery slope never end.
[3:26:53] My recommendation is, is if
they want to if they come
[3:26:56] out like this, hypothetical.
[3:26:59] Um, tell them to come to
the planning commission
[3:27:03] and tell everybody.
[3:27:05] Bring the pitcher or
whatever so you can explain
[3:27:09] where the fence line is.
[3:27:10] 
[3:27:15] OK there's 4.5.
[3:27:19] OK, so what are
your obligations?
[3:27:22] Discuss and disclose
communication.
[3:27:24] That's what you
did in that case.
[3:27:26] And depending upon
what you heard
[3:27:29] and when I talked to
Francis about this,
[3:27:31] this is a drastic result. Or
you may want to recuse yourself
[3:27:37] depending upon what you heard.
[3:27:38] 
[3:27:44] So this is not
necessarily a conflict.
[3:27:47] They didn't, you know, slip
you $100 to vote for them.
[3:27:50] You know, that would be
a conflict of interest.
[3:27:52] But because it's got
to be 500 at least.
[3:27:54] Yeah OK.
[3:27:55] 
[3:27:58] When you heard you were all
driving them, aren't we?
[3:28:02] Have you seen mine?
[3:28:05] So if you are allowed to buy
a Porsche ever in this room,
[3:28:11] ever, ever.
[3:28:13] 
[3:28:16] So buy a Lamborghini
for all I care.
[3:28:18] Just never, ever buy a Porsche.
[3:28:21] A Ferrari maybe.
[3:28:22] So if you're involved in
ex-party communication,
[3:28:25] this is what your obligation is.
[3:28:26] And this is exactly
what Chairman Lamar did.
[3:28:29] Discussed or disclose
it to the council.
[3:28:32] In the meeting you
discussed and disclosed
[3:28:35] the ex parte communication.
[3:28:37] Number five.
[3:28:39] You are approached by
a fellow commission
[3:28:42] member regarding a
pending conditional use
[3:28:46] application one on one.
[3:28:49] Is it a problem or is it not?
[3:28:53] Drum roll.
[3:28:56] Open meetings, no violation,
PC rule, no violation.
[3:29:01] You can do it.
[3:29:02] You can talk one on one
among the planning commission
[3:29:06] as long as it doesn't
turn into a quorum.
[3:29:10] So we can talk
about our opinions
[3:29:11] and the virtues you favor.
[3:29:13] You can talk to.
[3:29:15] Yeah oh, Wow.
[3:29:16] Did Victoria as
much as you want.
[3:29:19] OK OK.
[3:29:23] As long as it's one on one.
[3:29:24] As long as it doesn't turn
into more than five people.
[3:29:26] But if it's electronic,
you can do it.
[3:29:30] Which is absurd, but
that's what it is.
[3:29:33] 
[3:29:36] OK number six.
[3:29:39] You are confused
by a staff report
[3:29:42] and you call staff
for clarification.
[3:29:47] Good job.
[3:29:50] What?
[3:29:50] 
[3:29:53] give us a second here.
[3:29:54] 
[3:30:07] OK we were at number
six, I think, right?
[3:30:12] OK you call Francis.
[3:30:14] Hey, what is you?
[3:30:15] What are you talking about?
[3:30:18] It is not a violation of
the Open Meetings Act.
[3:30:21] It's not a violation
of the PC rules.
[3:30:26] And it actually is probably best
practice to clarify with staff.
[3:30:33] If you have question and
discuss it in the PC meeting.
[3:30:38] Or I will.
[3:30:40] Or we will.
[3:30:41] Francis will.
[3:30:41] 
[3:30:45] Any questions?
[3:30:47] 
[3:30:49] You have been deemed trained.
[3:30:53] Thank you.
[3:30:55] Whipping us into shape.
[3:30:56] There OK.
[3:31:01] We need to do a motion.
[3:31:04] I'll do that.
[3:31:04] We have approval of the
January meeting minutes.
[3:31:09] Thank you, Elise.
[3:31:10] I think you put those together.
[3:31:11] Was that alex?
[3:31:12] That was Alex.
[3:31:14] Did a good job.
[3:31:15] I didn't read every
word for word, but.
[3:31:18] You go browse through it.
[3:31:20] Hopefully she didn't change him.
[3:31:23] Because that's.
[3:31:23] That's what makes
it so she could.
[3:31:26] That's the.
[3:31:27] So I make a motion to
approve the January 17
[3:31:30] minutes as presented by staff.
[3:31:34] Second and a second by Lofgren.
[3:31:39] Nils Lamar made a motion and.
[3:31:43] Lofgren the second.
[3:31:46] All in favor say Yes or aye?
[3:31:48] Aye anybody opposed?
[3:31:51] Updates from the
planning director.
[3:31:56] No Thank you all for everything.
[3:32:03] I appreciate your time,
your willingness to.
[3:32:08] Discuss with me privately.
[3:32:12] And publicly issues
great and small.
[3:32:14] I just really enjoy
working with you.
[3:32:16] So thank you.
[3:32:16] Thank you.
[3:32:17] Thanks for helping craft
motions on the fly.
[3:32:20] Does that help?
[3:32:21] Yeah, if I write them
into the PowerPoint
[3:32:23] presentation like that.
[3:32:24] Yeah OK.
[3:32:26] Because I don't want
to, like, lead you on
[3:32:28] and I don't want to lead you
astray, but I want to of, like,
[3:32:31] help you.
[3:32:32] Yeah, so.
[3:32:33] So I appreciate that.
[3:32:35] Francis and then, you know,
we've had some light agendas.
[3:32:40] What what is spring
summer look like?
[3:32:42] Do you have any idea?
[3:32:43] Are there a lot of
developers gearing up or.
[3:32:46] I think it's going
to gear up again.
[3:32:49] What what I think what
we're experiencing
[3:32:52] is kind of an echo of
the high interest rates.
[3:32:54] But now the interest rates
are beginning to go down.
[3:32:57] You know, the Fed has
announced that they
[3:32:59] plan on doing some cuts here
in the next quarterly meeting.
[3:33:02] You know, I expect there's
going to be more interest.
[3:33:07] Moving into summer.
[3:33:10] So cool.
[3:33:11] Yeah all righty.
[3:33:13] We just need one more
motion to adjourn.
[3:33:16] I'll make a motion to
adjourn our March meeting.
[3:33:19] Second All in favor?
[3:33:21] Aye any opposed?
[3:33:25] Thank you for pizza as well.
[3:33:27] Is this from the New.
[3:33:30]