Planning Policy Commission & Economic Vitality · Thursday, March 25, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison About Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2021* - Ron Faul improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2021* - Joan Probala Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 - Joy Lewis 2022 - Matt Monahan Membership 2022 - Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 - Jason Voiss seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2023 - Nina Milligan and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03. *Short term expiring April 30,…

3. REPORTS

City Council Updates

5 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.73

Open packet at p.73 ↗

Staff report:

FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Cancelled 8/12/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Land Use Element: Climate Change policies 2/25/21 Cancelled 8/26/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Redesignations/Rezones MARCH SEPTEMBER 3/11/21  Public Hearing: Electric Vehicle Charging 9/9/21 TBD Stations  CPPs and Growth Targets Presentation (Informational) 3/25/21  PPC/EVC Joint Meeting: Title 18: Signs 9/23/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments APRIL OCTOBER 4/8/21 Cancelled 10/14/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (continued) 4/22/21  Public Hearing: Signs Amendments 10/28/21 TBD MAY NOVEMBER 5/13/21  Storm and Surface Water Master Plan 11/11/21 To be rescheduled (holiday) Update Overview  PPC Training  Election of Officers 5/27/21  Title 18 Update Overview 11/25/21 Cancelled (holiday)  PPC Training JUNE DECEMBER…

4467 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ so this is the meeting uh the march 22

0:04 ↗ march 25th meeting the planning policy

0:06 ↗ commission we have

0:08 ↗ a uh we are having a joint meeting this

0:11 ↗ evening with the economic vitality

0:13 ↗ commission so please

0:14 ↗ welcome we're glad to see you and part

0:17 ↗ of

0:18 ↗ having a part of this discussion there's

0:20 ↗ a few things that we have to go over

0:22 ↗ first before we get into

0:24 ↗ uh introductions so i'd like to

0:27 ↗ uh take care of that before we do

0:30 ↗ anything else

0:31 ↗ because of the governor's proclamation

0:34 ↗ this

0:35 ↗ meeting is being held entirely remotely

0:41 ↗ when you have a question for all your

0:44 ↗ commissioners

0:46 ↗ use the chat and put in

0:50 ↗ question or comment and you will be

0:53 ↗ called upon

0:54 ↗ in the order that they go in um

0:58 ↗ we are not going to have uh

1:02 ↗ approval of minutes tonight so but we

1:04 ↗ are going to have kristin do

1:06 ↗ a roll call of the planning policy

1:10 ↗ commission

1:13 ↗ hey uh commissioner fall

1:16 ↗ here commissioner carl

1:22 ↗ here mr voice

1:26 ↗ here mr monaghan

1:30 ↗ here mr milligan

1:33 ↗ here commissioner zaragoza

1:37 ↗ here and uh commissioner lewis

1:41 ↗ here and chair propola here

1:46 ↗ so with that i would like to call on uh

1:48 ↗ jen

1:49 ↗ davis to introduce herself and to

1:53 ↗ introduce her commission

1:57 ↗ great thank you chair probably my name

1:58 ↗ is jen davis hayes and i am the economic

2:01 ↗ development manager for the city and i

2:02 ↗ staff the economic vitality commission

2:05 ↗ and this is a meeting tonight we

2:08 ↗ actually have new members on board so

2:10 ↗ uh thank you for uh allowing us to

2:13 ↗ introduce each other um so i'll do the

2:15 ↗ roll call

2:16 ↗ um with uh vice chair commissioner

2:19 ↗ bo doan

2:22 ↗ commissioner edwards

2:26 ↗ commissioner brown

2:31 ↗ i did see him yeah his mom is here

2:35 ↗ okay thank you commissioner casler

2:38 ↗ here commissioner mccrory

2:43 ↗ here commissioner remy

2:49 ↗ here commissioner freeze

2:52 ↗ here commissioner rightly

2:55 ↗ chris

2:59 ↗ here okay commissioner ashwin

3:03 ↗ i'm not going to try to do your last

3:04 ↗ name sorry sir

3:08 ↗ commission yeah that's like a

3:09 ↗ commissioner rogers

3:11 ↗ i don't believe he's here yet and uh

3:13 ↗ chair garcia

3:15 ↗ she did say she was going about 10 or 15

3:16 ↗ minutes um late

3:18 ↗ and we um are we do have one

3:20 ↗ commissioner who is um

3:22 ↗ excused uh commissioner uh probably who

3:25 ↗ is actually serving as the chair of

3:27 ↗ the ppc and so we will have um

3:30 ↗ our alternates sit in that seat if we

3:33 ↗ have any votes tonight so i don't

3:34 ↗ believe that we have any though thank

3:36 ↗ you

3:36 ↗ no we did we do not have any votes this

3:38 ↗ is strictly a conversation this evening

3:41 ↗ but i am going to call on kristen

3:44 ↗ to introduce any staff that's present

3:49 ↗ hopefully i don't miss anyone here we

3:51 ↗ have quite a few

3:52 ↗ so we have lucy sloman our land

3:54 ↗ development manager who's been going to

3:55 ↗ be giving our presentation tonight

3:58 ↗ we have andrea snyder our deputy city

4:00 ↗ administrator

4:01 ↗ jin dejesus hayes our economic

4:03 ↗ development manager

4:06 ↗ i believe that dan martinez and holly

4:09 ↗ keaton both planners with the community

4:11 ↗ development services

4:12 ↗ community planning and development

4:14 ↗ department are here excuse me

4:16 ↗ um ben club coblin's also with the

4:18 ↗ economic development and we have our

4:21 ↗ i'm kristen leason senior planner with

4:22 ↗ community planning and development

4:24 ↗ and last but certainly not least we have

4:26 ↗ our new

4:27 ↗ brand new um community planning and

4:29 ↗ development uh director

4:31 ↗ uh mini dollywood here with us tonight

4:33 ↗ who will uh hopefully speak a little

4:35 ↗ later

4:36 ↗ thank you oh i i'm one more thing before

4:38 ↗ i leave i apologize

4:40 ↗ welcome by the way minnie um one more

4:42 ↗ thing before i leave just to be clear

4:44 ↗ in the for newer members in when you

4:46 ↗ have a question or comment and joan

4:48 ↗ already said this

4:49 ↗ um but don't actually type the question

4:51 ↗ or the comment just put the word

4:53 ↗ question yeah we want to make sure that

4:57 ↗ the uh

4:57 ↗ conversation is had publicly and not in

5:00 ↗ writing

5:00 ↗ thank you um

5:05 ↗ this evening we're going to be talking

5:07 ↗ about the sign code

5:08 ↗ and we're going to run our meeting just

5:10 ↗ a little bit differently than normal

5:13 ↗ i want to set up the parameters of how

5:16 ↗ it's going to happen so you kind of know

5:18 ↗ what's going to happen

5:21 ↗ lucy sloman is going to

5:24 ↗ present this evening and she's going to

5:27 ↗ walk us through

5:28 ↗ all of the areas of the sign code

5:32 ↗ we are not here to rewrite the sign code

5:36 ↗ we are just here to offer our our

5:39 ↗ suggestions on some of the upgrades that

5:41 ↗ have been made but

5:42 ↗ mainly to answer some questions that the

5:45 ↗ city has asked

5:46 ↗ us we have never been in the position

5:48 ↗ where

5:49 ↗ um we have been asked to do actually

5:53 ↗ what we're doing tonight normally the

5:54 ↗ city brings their

5:56 ↗ draft proposal to us and we work

5:59 ↗ on the proposal tonight they are

6:02 ↗ actually asking

6:03 ↗ us to put our give us give them their in

6:06 ↗ our input before they actually make the

6:08 ↗ final draft

6:10 ↗ and so we have a special things going on

6:13 ↗ this evening but how it's going to work

6:15 ↗ lucy is going to give going through the

6:19 ↗ list of all of the areas and that i

6:22 ↗ think there's 14

6:23 ↗ areas of the sign code after that

6:27 ↗ i'm going and during the time that she's

6:30 ↗ presenting

6:32 ↗ the commissioners can ask questions or

6:34 ↗ offer comments so that we can get

6:37 ↗ each area uh

6:40 ↗ thoroughly discussed then i'm going to

6:43 ↗ open it up to public comment

6:46 ↗ and after public comment

6:49 ↗ then we're going to go back in your

6:51 ↗ packet there's a list of

6:53 ↗ five or six questions that the city has

6:55 ↗ asked us

6:56 ↗ to look into and we're going to go

6:58 ↗ through each one of those questions

7:01 ↗ i will um lead

7:04 ↗ basically that that discussion and then

7:08 ↗ if there is anybody in the audience

7:12 ↗ we will open it up for public comment

7:14 ↗ again

7:15 ↗ before before we come back to make

7:18 ↗ final decisions uh

7:22 ↗ discussion of the sign code so

7:26 ↗ i think you all understand that right so

7:29 ↗ there will be two

7:30 ↗ public comment periods

7:34 ↗ um i did uh forget to mention

7:37 ↗ that since we are going to have public

7:39 ↗ comments

7:40 ↗ and uh anybody who wants to make a

7:43 ↗ comment

7:44 ↗ the information is in the agenda and

7:46 ↗ online

7:48 ↗ and if you want to speak

7:52 ↗ hit star 3 you have 5 minutes to make

7:55 ↗ your comments

7:57 ↗ after you make your comments please turn

7:59 ↗ off your and make yourself

8:00 ↗ mute again so that we can go on uh with

8:03 ↗ that

8:04 ↗ i i'm going to introduce our

8:07 ↗ fantastic land development manager

8:11 ↗ lucy sloman and have her start our

8:14 ↗ presentation for the evening

8:17 ↗ good evening let me share my screen

8:41 ↗ uh is my screen um showing

8:45 ↗ it's showing but you oh there you go

8:48 ↗ that's better

8:55 ↗ okay not starting from the correct slide

8:58 ↗ just

8:58 ↗ give me a moment lucy you would want to

9:02 ↗ go to display settings as well because

9:03 ↗ we're seeing

9:05 ↗ um in switcher display settings um

9:13 ↗ there you go tell me what that when i

9:17 ↗ you said there you go

9:21 ↗ we were seeing your slide plus your

9:22 ↗ notes or any notes that would have been

9:24 ↗ there

9:25 ↗ and now we're just seeing your working

9:27 ↗ screen it's not on the slide screen yet

9:34 ↗ does that mean you're seeing the right

9:35 ↗ thing christian yes

9:37 ↗ okay great thank you because from what i

9:40 ↗ can i can't tell which of my many

9:42 ↗ screens

9:43 ↗ is the correct one so my apologies

9:46 ↗ good evening um lucy sloman land

9:49 ↗ development manager

9:55 ↗ so tonight is the first step in our sign

9:59 ↗ code update

10:00 ↗ we have had several preliminary meetings

10:03 ↗ with

10:04 ↗ different

10:08 ↗ commissions including two with ppc and

10:11 ↗ two with evc

10:13 ↗ or one with evc but now we're starting a

10:16 ↗ process with a draft

10:18 ↗ as chair provolone mentioned

10:21 ↗ what we've brought to you tonight is

10:23 ↗ what we call a discussion draft

10:25 ↗ this as you may have noticed has lots of

10:28 ↗ highlights and

10:29 ↗ red comments because there were many

10:32 ↗ questions that we really wanted

10:34 ↗ community

10:34 ↗ input before we prepared our draft

10:38 ↗ for the public hearing there are

10:41 ↗ two sort of big components to the

10:44 ↗ presentation tonight

10:46 ↗ after my introduction we will do an

10:48 ↗ overview

10:49 ↗ of the changes and we will

10:52 ↗ focus on the five discussion topics that

10:55 ↗ were included in your memo

10:57 ↗ these are on non-commercial signs old

11:00 ↗ town

11:01 ↗ signs the kiosks

11:04 ↗ flags and landmark signs

11:07 ↗ as was mentioned if after each of the

11:11 ↗ topics i will pause and ask if

11:13 ↗ commissioners have questions or comments

11:16 ↗ um use the chat as mentioned um

11:19 ↗ public will have two comment periods or

11:22 ↗ you are welcome to email me

11:24 ↗ my email will be up this evening

11:30 ↗ so i'm going to begin with a couple of

11:32 ↗ background

11:33 ↗ slides on background and goals the first

11:36 ↗ piece i want to address

11:38 ↗ is a u.s supreme court case that was

11:41 ↗ handed down

11:42 ↗ in 2015 called

11:46 ↗ reid versus the town of gilbert arizona

11:48 ↗ or

11:49 ↗ reed v gilbert for short this

11:52 ↗ directly impacted content content

11:56 ↗ based regulations meaning that we can no

11:58 ↗ longer

11:59 ↗ if we have to read a sign to know what

12:01 ↗ regulations apply

12:03 ↗ then we do not have the right

12:04 ↗ regulations

12:06 ↗ this is primarily affecting

12:08 ↗ non-commercial signs

12:11 ↗ in the images at the bottom of the slide

12:13 ↗ the slides

12:14 ↗ on the left are the images on the left

12:17 ↗ the event signs

12:18 ↗ ideological signs and election signs

12:21 ↗ those are examples of non-commercial

12:24 ↗ signs

12:24 ↗ in fact the event sign shown

12:29 ↗ was the sign that caused the supreme

12:31 ↗ court

12:32 ↗ case that was the genesis of it and

12:35 ↗ because

12:36 ↗ it's a u.s supreme court case it applied

12:38 ↗ across the united states and required

12:40 ↗ many

12:41 ↗ communities to update their

12:44 ↗ so one of our goals is to comply with

12:46 ↗ the supreme court case ending

12:48 ↗ and any other legal challenges changes

12:51 ↗ taken place

12:52 ↗ since then the on the lower right is an

12:55 ↗ example

12:55 ↗ of commercial signs that's what i think

12:58 ↗ most of us think of when we think of

12:59 ↗ sign codes is the signs that

13:01 ↗ are placed for businesses

13:04 ↗ but in this case um the superior case

13:08 ↗ was not

13:09 ↗ dealing with that

13:13 ↗ second piece of background is that in

13:15 ↗ the city of issaquah

13:17 ↗ we have three encodes right now we have

13:21 ↗ uh what is called imc 1811

13:24 ↗ imc stands for isquad municipal code

13:27 ↗ and 1811 is the

13:31 ↗ chapter that was adopted in 1998

13:35 ↗ and is about 34 pages long uh

13:38 ↗ central issaquah development and design

13:41 ↗ standards

13:42 ↗ more commonly written as cidds but

13:45 ↗ sometimes just

13:46 ↗ called central isquas standards was

13:49 ↗ adopted

13:50 ↗ in 2013 and then

13:53 ↗ in 2018 expanded to cover isqua high

13:57 ↗ ones and talus

13:59 ↗ the reason i mentioned the pages such as

14:01 ↗ 34 pages or 50 pages is just to give you

14:03 ↗ a sense of how extensive

14:05 ↗ sign codes are the old town design

14:08 ↗ standards

14:09 ↗ are not primarily sign sign standards

14:12 ↗ but they do have three pages

14:14 ↗ on sign design and they were adopted

14:17 ↗ in 2001. so our goals are

14:21 ↗ to consolidate all these various codes

14:23 ↗ into a single document that will cover

14:27 ↗ the entire city except those areas that

14:29 ↗ have

14:30 ↗ development agreements we have about

14:32 ↗ five development agreements

14:35 ↗ and make our rules consistent while also

14:38 ↗ recognizing that there are parts of the

14:40 ↗ city that may need to have unique

14:42 ↗ standards to maintain their character

14:47 ↗ our third and last background and set of

14:50 ↗ goals

14:50 ↗ is related to the work that staff has

14:54 ↗ been doing with council

14:56 ↗ related to title 18. title 18

14:59 ↗ is a partial a portion of the isquad

15:01 ↗ municipal code related to land use

15:04 ↗ and um beginning that process which

15:06 ↗ we're going to really dive into later

15:08 ↗ this year

15:09 ↗ um staff worked with council on a set of

15:12 ↗ goals and outcomes

15:14 ↗ um number goal and outcome number 12

15:18 ↗ relates to signs

15:19 ↗ and it had primarily four components

15:23 ↗ addressing reed b gilbert making sure

15:26 ↗ that the i-90 corridor complies with

15:29 ↗ state law

15:30 ↗ and the mountains to sound or m2s

15:33 ↗ vision making the code easier for

15:35 ↗ businesses to use

15:37 ↗ and making it so residents don't don't

15:40 ↗ notice a significant change

15:42 ↗ as we do this update so what we've

15:45 ↗ really looked at

15:46 ↗ um our goal was to streamline and we're

15:49 ↗ doing that both

15:50 ↗ in looking at the code in terms of what

15:53 ↗ would be regulated

15:54 ↗ collecting variations of signs into a

15:57 ↗ single type

15:58 ↗ while maintaining the options so we've

16:01 ↗ tried to

16:03 ↗ really pair it back without reducing

16:05 ↗ options

16:06 ↗ and in terms of process we've tried to

16:08 ↗ create a consistent process across the

16:11 ↗ city

16:12 ↗ and where decisions aren't discretionary

16:15 ↗ allow staff to make those decisions and

16:17 ↗ where they are

16:18 ↗ discretionary have the council make the

16:20 ↗ decision

16:21 ↗ and commission make the decision

16:25 ↗ so now that i've concluded my

16:28 ↗ introduction

16:29 ↗ i'm going to give you

16:32 ↗ the overview a couple of notes about

16:35 ↗ that

16:36 ↗ i'm going to quickly review each of the

16:38 ↗ sections and the changes that were made

16:40 ↗ to them

16:41 ↗ commissioners at the end of each of

16:43 ↗ these i will

16:44 ↗ stop to give commissioners an

16:46 ↗ opportunity to comment

16:48 ↗ on that section you're not limited to

16:51 ↗ commenting just on the changes that i've

16:53 ↗ identified you're welcome to comment on

16:55 ↗ any aspect that you think should be

16:57 ↗ noted

16:58 ↗ and use chat um as has been described

17:02 ↗ public will be able to comment at the

17:04 ↗ end but you're also welcome

17:06 ↗ to email comments to me my email appears

17:10 ↗ on each slide

17:11 ↗ and if it's easier or you get impatient

17:16 ↗ please feel free to email me

17:19 ↗ also if you see little errors typos

17:22 ↗ grammatical errors format problems

17:24 ↗ please email those as well we have a lot

17:27 ↗ of material to cover this evening and

17:28 ↗ won't really have time to cover that so

17:32 ↗ then once we finish the overview we will

17:34 ↗ go

17:35 ↗ into more depth on the five discussion

17:37 ↗ topics that were included in your memo

17:43 ↗ so here we go first section is purpose

17:47 ↗ um the purpose statements set the stage

17:49 ↗ for everything that follows

17:51 ↗ generally the ones that we've included

17:54 ↗ are a blend of central issaquah

17:56 ↗ and imc 1811. while it may

18:00 ↗ seem like this is kind of fluffy and

18:04 ↗ just words i will tell you that staff

18:06 ↗ uses these a lot when we have to do

18:08 ↗ adjustments of standards or

18:10 ↗ interpretations

18:12 ↗ and so they are important in terms of

18:13 ↗ setting the stage

18:15 ↗ um and give us a framework a big picture

18:17 ↗ view of what we're trying to accomplish

18:20 ↗ any comments from the commissioners

18:24 ↗ nope at this time okay

18:28 ↗ thank you i can't see the chat box so so

18:31 ↗ you know

18:32 ↗ oh then i will inform you if there is

18:35 ↗ one

18:35 ↗ okay perfect thank you next section

18:38 ↗ applicability this is generally new text

18:41 ↗ and partly

18:45 ↗ it just describes what the code will be

18:48 ↗ a plot

18:49 ↗ what the code applies to but it also

18:51 ↗ sets the stage for

18:53 ↗ commercial versus non-commercial signage

18:57 ↗ any comments from commissioners no

19:01 ↗ just continue on and i will interrupt

19:04 ↗ you

19:04 ↗ if there is one well i want to also give

19:07 ↗ them a pause they may not be

19:09 ↗ as quick on the typing at the chat

19:13 ↗ um so definitions

19:16 ↗ um generally there are a lot of

19:19 ↗ definitions in the sun code

19:20 ↗ um it's a significant part of

19:24 ↗ of the text and these are

19:27 ↗ primarily drawn from central isqua and

19:30 ↗ imc 1811

19:33 ↗ many of them match between central esqua

19:36 ↗ and 1811.

19:38 ↗ but we also have added some where we've

19:41 ↗ either

19:41 ↗ we believe that we need to

19:45 ↗ needed some new ones due to changes in

19:47 ↗ the code

19:48 ↗ or new kinds of signs or situations that

19:52 ↗ have come into our community

19:54 ↗ we also have occasionally pulled um

19:56 ↗ definitions from the rally development

19:58 ↗ agreement those show

20:00 ↗ up as rally d.a and we did that where we

20:04 ↗ thought a definition better suited a

20:06 ↗ situation or where we had a previously

20:08 ↗ undefined term

20:10 ↗ about 60 definitions were removed

20:14 ↗ we removed definitions that were listed

20:17 ↗ in our general definitions section

20:19 ↗ 1802 where text was

20:22 ↗ deleted or consolidated and we also have

20:25 ↗ taken the approach that cross

20:27 ↗ cross references are not going to be

20:29 ↗ left in

20:30 ↗ and an example of that would be the

20:34 ↗ current sign codes have box sign defined

20:37 ↗ and it says see uh cabinet sign

20:41 ↗ and when you go to cabinet now when you

20:43 ↗ go to cabinet sign it will just

20:44 ↗ give you the definition of a cabinet

20:46 ↗ sign and

20:48 ↗ then say also known as box sign

20:51 ↗ so many people are using um the codes

20:54 ↗ electronically that that kind of

20:56 ↗ searching makes it easier

20:58 ↗ and significantly shortens um the sign

21:01 ↗ code

21:04 ↗ any comments i have a question

21:07 ↗ from commissioner lewis

21:11 ↗ thank you chair problema commissioner

21:12 ↗ joy lewis here i was curious lucy um if

21:15 ↗ you guys had had discussions about

21:17 ↗ defining non-compliant

21:19 ↗ um we have uh non-conforming which is an

21:22 ↗ entirely different category

21:24 ↗ um i'm curious if there was um if it had

21:27 ↗ been purposely ruled out

21:28 ↗ to actually define what a non-compliant

21:30 ↗ sign

21:31 ↗ is um commissioner lewis could you tell

21:35 ↗ me

21:36 ↗ i would say we have not had that

21:38 ↗ discussion um

21:39 ↗ i'm interested if you could tell us a

21:41 ↗ little bit more about it and we'll look

21:43 ↗ into that

21:44 ↗ uh with the next draft the

21:46 ↗ classification of saying

21:47 ↗ um whether you know a sign has lapsed

21:50 ↗ from its permitted date

21:52 ↗ whether um it doesn't match what was

21:55 ↗ permitted

21:56 ↗ i don't know if there's a classification

21:57 ↗ for um basically what is

22:00 ↗ not adhering um to the um and then kind

22:03 ↗ of how that gets designated and those

22:05 ↗ next steps and so if it's worth having a

22:07 ↗ definition for it

22:08 ↗ i'm not sure um but i did notice that

22:10 ↗ that wasn't

22:11 ↗ addressed and i wasn't sure if it was on

22:12 ↗ purpose or not

22:14 ↗ um haven't discussed that before so

22:16 ↗ great we'll look into that thank you

22:19 ↗ so i have a comment from commissioner

22:23 ↗ matt

22:23 ↗ and i don't have his last name so i

22:25 ↗ apologize

22:27 ↗ don't worry thanks chair probably um i

22:29 ↗ had a comment on the definition of open

22:32 ↗ house uh it's currently defined as the

22:35 ↗ welcoming of viewers to a piece of

22:37 ↗ residential real estate which is being

22:38 ↗ offered for sale

22:40 ↗ this might just be my layperson's

22:42 ↗ understanding but i thought open houses

22:43 ↗ happen on designated days

22:46 ↗ i thought there should be some

22:47 ↗ incorporation of that concept given

22:49 ↗ i if i'm reading the sign code correctly

22:51 ↗ they get you know you get to put out a

22:52 ↗ lot more signs to advertise an open

22:54 ↗ house which makes sense

22:55 ↗ um but i wouldn't want them to have some

22:58 ↗ kind of loophole where they could leave

22:59 ↗ them out all the time by saying oh it's

23:00 ↗ an open house every day

23:01 ↗ um that's usually not the case

23:05 ↗ great thank you um i've made a note and

23:07 ↗ we'll look into that thank you

23:10 ↗ thank you

23:14 ↗ any more no okay

23:17 ↗ thank you

23:24 ↗ so we have a new section in the code

23:27 ↗ called

23:27 ↗ exempt from sign regulations while the

23:30 ↗ section is new

23:31 ↗ uh it does consolidate uh several

23:34 ↗ elements

23:34 ↗ that are present in central isqua or imc

23:38 ↗ 1811 and it basically has

23:42 ↗ five components the first is signs

23:45 ↗ that are required by government for

23:48 ↗ instance

23:49 ↗ um address signs are required by the

23:51 ↗ fire code

23:52 ↗ or land use um notice signs for

23:56 ↗ public hearings those are required by a

23:59 ↗ code

24:00 ↗ and um so this would say that we don't

24:02 ↗ have to provide

24:05 ↗ exemption or put them into the accepted

24:09 ↗ sign permits we can just rule

24:12 ↗ out that class second are

24:15 ↗ government signs for health safety and

24:17 ↗ welfare such as the sign shown in the

24:20 ↗ lower right

24:23 ↗ those kinds of warning signs

24:26 ↗ safety signs are exempted we are not

24:29 ↗ providing

24:30 ↗ a general exemption for government

24:34 ↗ signs for instance if the city

24:37 ↗ had a city hall or a park

24:40 ↗ the school district has a school

24:43 ↗ building or there's a fire station

24:46 ↗ they would need to follow the provisions

24:48 ↗ of the sign code

24:49 ↗ but the um health safety welfare signs

24:52 ↗ would not

24:53 ↗ the third category is art

24:56 ↗ um we had some text in the existing sign

25:00 ↗ codes

25:01 ↗ that talked about art um art

25:05 ↗ is not a sign but i do want to talk

25:07 ↗ about that a little bit

25:08 ↗ relative to logos versus something for

25:11 ↗ instance like

25:12 ↗ holiday decorations um

25:15 ↗ the sign in the lower left hand corner

25:17 ↗ those two banners on a poll

25:20 ↗ those could if they were the logo of a

25:23 ↗ shopping center

25:24 ↗ those would be regulated as a sign

25:27 ↗ however

25:28 ↗ if they are just art celebrating a

25:30 ↗ summer season for instance

25:32 ↗ they would not be regulated as signs

25:35 ↗ holiday decorations were specifically

25:37 ↗ existed from our code

25:39 ↗ those are not signs so we've tried to

25:42 ↗ clarify through this particular

25:44 ↗ provision

25:46 ↗ things that are not signs are

25:49 ↗ and are just there for artistic reasons

25:52 ↗ are not regulated

25:54 ↗ signs not visible to the public we have

25:58 ↗ had provisions

25:59 ↗ in the sign code for a long time saying

26:01 ↗ that if it's not visible to the public

26:03 ↗ from public spaces

26:05 ↗ that it's not regulated but we wanted to

26:08 ↗ put that up front

26:10 ↗ the fifth category is vehicles um i know

26:14 ↗ that we've received a comment from the

26:16 ↗ public about this

26:17 ↗ and so i want to speak a little bit

26:19 ↗ about this

26:21 ↗ vehicles that are driving down the road

26:24 ↗ that are parked in front of a customers

26:26 ↗ are parked in front in a parking space

26:29 ↗ in front of the business

26:30 ↗ that's the intent of this particular

26:33 ↗ provision

26:33 ↗ is to exempt them from sign regulations

26:37 ↗ however we have in the city seen

26:40 ↗ businesses using their vehicles parking

26:43 ↗ them

26:44 ↗ not in regular parking stalls but

26:47 ↗ placing them

26:48 ↗ to get give themselves an additional

26:50 ↗ sign

26:51 ↗ so for instance if you have a parking

26:53 ↗ lot in front of your business

26:54 ↗ and you place your van crossways across

26:57 ↗ head-in parking so that to ensure that

27:00 ↗ the side of your van

27:01 ↗ is visible to everyone driving by that

27:04 ↗ is a concern because it's giving you

27:06 ↗ an extra sign beyond those regulated by

27:09 ↗ the sign code

27:12 ↗ any questions uh yes i have several

27:15 ↗ first of all we have a

27:18 ↗ comment from commissioner lewis

27:23 ↗ or is it a question thank you chair

27:26 ↗ problem commissioner joy lewis i was

27:27 ↗ hoping lucy that you can

27:30 ↗ give us a little bit more about art that

27:32 ↗ isn't a sign

27:33 ↗ i think this one can get a little bit

27:34 ↗ tricky um and i'm going to use a

27:37 ↗ concrete example of a beloved piece of

27:39 ↗ art in our city and that's at the dairy

27:41 ↗ so you know when you start using

27:45 ↗ for instance a vintage logo that maybe

27:47 ↗ isn't

27:48 ↗ currently a place but is an of a

27:51 ↗ business

27:52 ↗ um obviously the images of cows and milk

27:55 ↗ evoke the

27:56 ↗ the functioning dairy transfer station

27:58 ↗ that is there

27:59 ↗ um and i was curious um where the city

28:02 ↗ um because it's a good i think it's a

28:04 ↗ good place as far as like something that

28:06 ↗ i think could go into

28:07 ↗ either either or um and i think it's

28:10 ↗ interesting to start

28:11 ↗ kind of discussing how we kind of piece

28:12 ↗ that apart since art often does imitate

28:14 ↗ the life that it's around it

28:16 ↗ uh pictures of children on the school

28:18 ↗ school mural i mean it starts to get a

28:20 ↗ little bit

28:21 ↗ um iffy right so i was hoping we could

28:23 ↗ have a little bit more of a conversation

28:24 ↗ about

28:25 ↗ specifics in our community for this sure

28:28 ↗ and and i love how you started with a

28:30 ↗ really easy example joy

28:32 ↗ um uh but you're right

28:36 ↗ uh it is a challenge that we face uh

28:39 ↗ with

28:39 ↗ uh murals in particular um we also

28:43 ↗ have had that question when top pot

28:45 ↗ donuts came in

28:46 ↗ they wanted to put in a large donut

28:49 ↗ and uh those kinds of uh

28:53 ↗ symbols related to a company

28:57 ↗ are considered a sign and so

29:00 ↗ it does become tricky with certain kinds

29:04 ↗ of businesses

29:06 ↗ such as swedish hospital they had

29:09 ↗ put images in their windows of

29:13 ↗ healthy people out enjoying life and

29:15 ↗ there was a discussion about

29:17 ↗ where that crossed the line so um

29:20 ↗ i think it is a great topic and we have

29:22 ↗ been talking with

29:24 ↗ daniel kenny who is our um

29:27 ↗ legal counsel uh and co-author for the

29:30 ↗ sign code

29:31 ↗ uh to help us try and figure out

29:35 ↗ um those edges and i think if you

29:39 ↗ um have more at partly we're relying on

29:42 ↗ the definition of signs

29:44 ↗ which is number 75

29:48 ↗ on page 21 if you're looking

29:51 ↗ at your packet um but i think

29:54 ↗ we're also looking for guidance um and

29:58 ↗ feedback from the commissioners

30:02 ↗ so i think to be more concrete to try to

30:05 ↗ help the discussion

30:06 ↗ does the fact that it's a currently used

30:08 ↗ logo make a difference for instance with

30:10 ↗ the city right

30:11 ↗ if it's um from another bygone era does

30:14 ↗ that then classify morris art than it

30:16 ↗ does necessarily as advertising

30:18 ↗ um and when generic symbols like a like

30:21 ↗ a donut or a cow are used

30:23 ↗ pastoral images and i you know i want to

30:24 ↗ say these are you know beloved things in

30:26 ↗ our community

30:27 ↗ that um are how do we best protect them

30:30 ↗ i think is a good example and

30:32 ↗ allow them to flourish throughout the

30:34 ↗ city i think it's something else that we

30:35 ↗ need to think about with our sign code

30:36 ↗ right how do we

30:37 ↗ how do we enable rather than um

30:40 ↗ necessarily just

30:41 ↗ kind of put everything into boxes um so

30:44 ↗ kind of where does that

30:45 ↗ line come as far as uh more these more

30:48 ↗ generic images i think is um

30:50 ↗ is something that's interesting to see

30:51 ↗ where does staff fall um on

30:53 ↗ you know rather than a current logo for

30:55 ↗ instance i

30:56 ↗ i see a difference between them i'm not

30:58 ↗ sure if staff does

31:01 ↗ well um i think to the point that i

31:04 ↗ i i believe i'm hearing um

31:09 ↗ unlike some other communities that have

31:11 ↗ more

31:12 ↗ older buildings with some of those uh

31:14 ↗ historic

31:16 ↗ logos for businesses that aren't in

31:18 ↗ place

31:19 ↗ um i agree and i think we would be

31:22 ↗ supportive

31:23 ↗ of uh allowing that history to be

31:26 ↗ retained when it isn't directly related

31:29 ↗ to a business that

31:30 ↗ it uh is active

31:33 ↗ uh i think it is uh

31:37 ↗ a little trickier when we get into um

31:40 ↗ these representations um what is the

31:43 ↗ difference between

31:45 ↗ you know a symbol for that has become so

31:48 ↗ closely associated that even though it's

31:50 ↗ not a word

31:51 ↗ it is effectively a logo um

31:54 ↗ so again i i'm i don't think we're

31:58 ↗ trying to be definitive at this point

32:01 ↗ um i'm hearing the concern and

32:04 ↗ i think that's one that we will continue

32:06 ↗ to work on

32:07 ↗ and bring back a response with the

32:11 ↗ public hearing draft thank you lucy

32:15 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

32:17 ↗ mccrory

32:22 ↗ thank you so lucy my question is about

32:26 ↗ when you

32:26 ↗ meld the art and the logos

32:30 ↗ on a banner and we have seen many times

32:34 ↗ on the street banners especially

32:36 ↗ lately where street banners are

32:39 ↗ paid for by businesses and

32:42 ↗ their logo is attached to that as a

32:46 ↗ promise

32:47 ↗ to trade the dollars for uh

32:50 ↗ helping purchase the art

32:56 ↗ has that my question i guess would be

32:57 ↗ has that been discussed

33:00 ↗ well banners typically are regulated

33:03 ↗ um by size rather uh

33:06 ↗ than um

33:10 ↗ uh you know

33:13 ↗ because you can have a sign like a wall

33:16 ↗ sign could be painted on

33:18 ↗ you have to in that sense it's usually

33:20 ↗ defined by the words and the logo and

33:22 ↗ the size

33:24 ↗ for a banner it's typically just the

33:26 ↗ overall banner size that's regulated and

33:28 ↗ so i want you

33:30 ↗ i'm speaking of your example in the

33:32 ↗ lower left hand corner

33:35 ↗ of your slide those sorts of

33:40 ↗ art right so as you mentioned seasonal

33:44 ↗ seasonal flags um pieces of art etc if

33:47 ↗ they're paid by

33:50 ↗ a sponsor as of has been a trend

33:53 ↗ lately so i was just wondering if that

33:55 ↗ had been discussed

33:57 ↗ because it changes fundraising for

33:59 ↗ certain imagery and art

34:02 ↗ as it's been perceived in the past so um

34:05 ↗ just to make sure i'm i'm answering your

34:07 ↗ question commissioner mccrory

34:09 ↗ um your point is that if the banners in

34:13 ↗ the lower left hand corner had a logo

34:15 ↗ if they were art they were seasonal but

34:18 ↗ if they had

34:19 ↗ a logo from say a bank or some

34:22 ↗ sponsoring entity

34:24 ↗ would that change it we have actually

34:27 ↗ discussed that we hadn't reached a

34:29 ↗ conclusion

34:30 ↗ um i think partly it's to understand if

34:33 ↗ that moves it from being a commercial to

34:35 ↗ a non-commercial sign

34:38 ↗ that was a concern but if that isn't our

34:41 ↗ issue do you have direction or

34:45 ↗ feedback for staff that you would

34:46 ↗ provide

34:51 ↗ kathy you needed

34:54 ↗ excuse me sorry um lucy not at this

34:57 ↗ point i don't have

34:58 ↗ feedback per se i can get that for you

35:01 ↗ it's just it was a question because

35:03 ↗ again i know many non-profits that have

35:06 ↗ um helped beautify different areas of

35:08 ↗ our our community

35:09 ↗ with seasonal art um but the way they

35:13 ↗ pay for it becomes

35:14 ↗ a little red flag in my mind sure

35:18 ↗ and um i think that we are conscious

35:20 ↗ that that is

35:21 ↗ pretty common and yet we don't want

35:24 ↗ the art to become just a tiny portion

35:27 ↗ of a much bigger logo so um i think

35:30 ↗ we'll need to explore what that is

35:32 ↗ um but i i appreciate you bringing that

35:35 ↗ up and that'll be another piece for us

35:37 ↗ to address

35:38 ↗ thank you

35:41 ↗ i have another question from

35:43 ↗ commissioner freeze

35:46 ↗ is that how you pronounce it priests

35:48 ↗ yeah that's close enough

35:49 ↗ not fussy about it um the question is

35:53 ↗ about the

35:53 ↗ the art that isn't a sign i get that

35:57 ↗ you know if the you know if it is a

36:00 ↗ representation of something that's

36:02 ↗ meaningful to the business you know

36:03 ↗ like a donut to a donut shop or if it

36:07 ↗ has a logo in it this

36:10 ↗ i'm just uh curious it's clear that it

36:13 ↗ doesn't matter whether it's for sale or

36:14 ↗ not so

36:15 ↗ there's a piece of art that is for sale

36:18 ↗ but doesn't represent the our

36:21 ↗ logo or represent a symbol that is

36:25 ↗ representative of the business

36:27 ↗ it's not considered a sign

36:30 ↗ right um so let's say a car dealership

36:35 ↗ wanted to have a donut i think that

36:39 ↗ could be considered um art

36:42 ↗ uh and not uh

36:45 ↗ um and not a a sign i will say that we

36:49 ↗ have struggled

36:50 ↗ on brown bear car wash as an example

36:53 ↗ they very typically put a sculpture of

36:55 ↗ brown bears

36:56 ↗ out in front of a car wash

36:59 ↗ and i and i know that that was i was not

37:04 ↗ a part of that discussion so i don't

37:05 ↗ remember exactly how it went but i know

37:07 ↗ that was a struggle

37:08 ↗ to try and balance the artistic

37:13 ↗ aspect with the sign aspect

37:18 ↗ thank you i have a question from

37:21 ↗ commissioner brown

37:26 ↗ my question is around uh holiday signs

37:30 ↗ uh for example that's related to

37:32 ↗ religious symbols

37:33 ↗ so for example or in hanukkah or

37:36 ↗ christmas time

37:38 ↗ you have various specific religious

37:40 ↗ symbols

37:41 ↗ that are could be perceived as

37:42 ↗ decoration is that something

37:45 ↗ that falls in this category as well

37:49 ↗ right um so if i i'm i'm

37:52 ↗ uh commissioner brown i am having a hard

37:54 ↗ time hearing you i

37:56 ↗ so if i didn't get your question

37:58 ↗ completely correct

37:59 ↗ um please let me know um

38:02 ↗ holiday decorations are not considered

38:05 ↗ signs um previously the sign code

38:09 ↗ listed them as not needing permits

38:12 ↗ and we're saying holiday decorations

38:16 ↗ are are just exempt from the sign code

38:19 ↗ i believe that when we get into

38:22 ↗ potentially religious symbols those

38:25 ↗ would be

38:25 ↗ non-commercial signs um that would be

38:30 ↗ potentially fall into uh

38:34 ↗ separate regulations um but i may

38:37 ↗ phone a friend here and uh ask

38:41 ↗ daniel kenny our

38:44 ↗ legal attorney that was redundant

38:47 ↗ our attorney uh to uh

38:50 ↗ help me out with that daniel yes

38:53 ↗ can everybody hear me okay yes great

38:56 ↗ uh commissioners daniel kenny with ogden

38:58 ↗ murphy wallace

39:00 ↗ your city attorney's office and i've

39:02 ↗ been before

39:03 ↗ both groups on different occasions so

39:05 ↗ good to see you all

39:06 ↗ and uh happy to be here to support lucy

39:08 ↗ in this sign code project

39:10 ↗ and i think i would concur with what you

39:11 ↗ said lucy i do think you know

39:14 ↗ we're touching on two areas here that

39:16 ↗ are probably

39:17 ↗ um now that we think about it probably

39:20 ↗ some of the fuzzier

39:20 ↗ areas that we've got um because um what

39:23 ↗ is art

39:24 ↗ and uh holiday decorations is is tough

39:27 ↗ for holiday decorations we certainly

39:29 ↗ would consider

39:30 ↗ ideological signs as non-commercial

39:33 ↗ signs

39:33 ↗ and so it would depend on the scenario

39:36 ↗ and the sign that you're putting forward

39:37 ↗ in your hypothetical

39:39 ↗ but holiday decorations also would be

39:42 ↗ not considered a sign so it just depends

39:44 ↗ on what that expression truly is

39:46 ↗ and i think i would just take a moment

39:48 ↗ to emphasize that

39:50 ↗ for both art and um these holiday

39:54 ↗ decorations that we're talking about

39:56 ↗ there is a potential exemption from the

39:58 ↗ sign code but even if they don't fall

40:00 ↗ within that they're still

40:02 ↗ could be allowed under the sign code

40:04 ↗ with a whole range of different options

40:06 ↗ for that communication so by

40:09 ↗ having it included or not included in

40:11 ↗ this particular section

40:13 ↗ does not mean that it would be x or not

40:15 ↗ allowed or allowed it's just

40:18 ↗ what path does it have forward

40:25 ↗ all right thank you so i have a

40:29 ↗ comment from commissioner foul

40:34 ↗ thank you madam chair so uh

40:37 ↗ to circle back to kathy mccrory's

40:40 ↗ conversation

40:41 ↗ and i forgot who what the commissioner

40:43 ↗ was that

40:44 ↗ discussed the art signs like in the

40:46 ↗ lower left hand corner

40:48 ↗ if an art sign has the

40:53 ↗ logo bearing in organization or

40:57 ↗ establishment as like a

41:02 ↗ co-advertising type campaign

41:05 ↗ but the intent is really to display the

41:06 ↗ art and then say maybe

41:10 ↗ sponsored by xyz organization

41:15 ↗ and the question i guess is to lucy

41:18 ↗ if we have a absence in policy

41:22 ↗ regulating that type of

41:24 ↗ sign or art because we're not exactly

41:27 ↗ clear where that line is

41:29 ↗ um to daniel kenny's point

41:33 ↗ about christmas decorations

41:36 ↗ is there a problem with not having a

41:39 ↗ policy in place

41:40 ↗ and if it becomes an abuse then

41:44 ↗ we can come back and create a uh or

41:47 ↗ update to the same code and just

41:49 ↗ leave that questionable at this point

41:56 ↗ sure um leaving things ambiguous um

41:59 ↗ is one way to go um and

42:03 ↗ uh we can come back uh and

42:06 ↗ update you know it's unlikely we're

42:10 ↗ gonna get everything spot

42:11 ↗ on as much as we'll try um we would

42:15 ↗ i think as commissioners bring up points

42:18 ↗ um it's important to consider those

42:21 ↗ and look at what other communities have

42:23 ↗ done

42:24 ↗ and um attempt to

42:27 ↗ shape um the signs and these

42:30 ↗ issues in ways that seem appropriate to

42:33 ↗ the community

42:36 ↗ if your recommendation is that you think

42:38 ↗ we should do it

42:39 ↗ that would be very helpful to know

42:42 ↗ however

42:43 ↗ there is the risk that someone puts up a

42:45 ↗ large commercial sign with a small

42:47 ↗ amount of art

42:48 ↗ and then we it's an interpretation and

42:51 ↗ the city

42:52 ↗ then has to um either live with it

42:56 ↗ or um uh

42:59 ↗ take some action and so i think is

43:03 ↗ we hope to frame things in consistent

43:06 ↗ with community

43:07 ↗ expectations upfront um

43:10 ↗ with the goal of not spending our time

43:14 ↗ um at the hearing examiner

43:17 ↗ or having to do code enforcement if we

43:19 ↗ can

43:21 ↗ right okay i'm just i don't want to get

43:23 ↗ into the what if scenario

43:24 ↗ because we could over analyze this thing

43:26 ↗ to pieces and

43:28 ↗ not ever cover every scenario

43:31 ↗ and i just wonder how important that is

43:33 ↗ for us because i

43:35 ↗ haven't seen abuse of that

43:38 ↗ not to say it can't happen but i just

43:40 ↗ haven't experienced it

43:42 ↗ um here in issaquah or um

43:45 ↗ in other places i haven't seen it either

43:46 ↗ so i kind of wonder if it's even

43:48 ↗ if it's just a no issue

43:52 ↗ thank you thank you i have a last

43:56 ↗ comment from commissioner

43:57 ↗ art

44:01 ↗ till i understand how to say your name

44:06 ↗ art's good um

44:09 ↗ one of the things that might make it

44:10 ↗ easy is

44:12 ↗ you know i i i don't want to see

44:15 ↗ us prohibit the sponsorship of artworks

44:19 ↗ and there may be an easy way to say the

44:23 ↗ the sponsor is allowed to say sponsored

44:25 ↗ by and their name

44:27 ↗ period if it has a call to action

44:31 ↗ if it has a product image if either of

44:34 ↗ those are present

44:35 ↗ it is considered signage rather than

44:38 ↗ artwork

44:39 ↗ so you know like if i'm a car dealer and

44:42 ↗ i i sponsored a wrap on some of the

44:45 ↗ this is the traffic light controllers

44:49 ↗ i could say you know sponsored by the

44:50 ↗ car dealer but i couldn't have a car

44:52 ↗ image on it or my logo image

44:54 ↗ but i gotta have a picture of a donut if

44:55 ↗ it was like national donut day

44:58 ↗ but you know if you said if it has a

45:00 ↗ call to action

45:02 ↗ product logo or product imagery then you

45:05 ↗ then it is a sign that may be a way to

45:09 ↗ carve out a safe space for art

45:10 ↗ sponsorship

45:12 ↗ without opening up the door to

45:16 ↗ you know fake art that is actually

45:18 ↗ marketing

45:20 ↗ uh sneaking in as artworks

45:24 ↗ thank you i appreciate the suggestion

45:28 ↗ uh there are no more questions

45:33 ↗ okay on to the next topic

45:37 ↗ permit requirements

45:40 ↗ um this is a new section but it does

45:42 ↗ pull from some

45:43 ↗ existing sections in central isla and

45:46 ↗ 1811.

45:48 ↗ permanent signs uh because that wasn't a

45:52 ↗ big part

45:53 ↗ of the reed b gilbert the requirements

45:56 ↗ are generally

45:56 ↗ unchanged um the

46:00 ↗ process has been made consistent across

46:02 ↗ the city

46:03 ↗ and is primarily administrative meaning

46:06 ↗ staff will make them

46:07 ↗ we also addressed a situation that we

46:10 ↗ infrequently which

46:11 ↗ is businesses wanting to

46:14 ↗ submit a sign package we welcome sign

46:17 ↗ packages

46:18 ↗ with multiple signs in it but we've had

46:20 ↗ some challenges knowing how they would

46:22 ↗ be feed and we tried to specify

46:24 ↗ that um to provide clarity for everyone

46:26 ↗ going forward

46:28 ↗ temporary sign process is entirely new

46:33 ↗ we're proposing that for

46:36 ↗ temporary signs in the right-of-way or

46:39 ↗ temporary commercial signs

46:40 ↗ on private property that someone would

46:44 ↗ submit a temporary sign agreement

46:48 ↗ there could be up to 25 signs per

46:51 ↗ agreement

46:52 ↗ there would be no fee for the agreement

46:56 ↗ the agreement would be valid for 60 days

46:59 ↗ with two renewals therefore you could

47:01 ↗ have up to 180 days

47:04 ↗ um and right now you can only have 120

47:08 ↗ days

47:09 ↗ um and then the last piece is the front

47:12 ↗ street banner

47:13 ↗ there are such as the image that's shown

47:17 ↗ there are currently two locations in the

47:19 ↗ city

47:20 ↗ that are used for these non-commercial

47:22 ↗ banners

47:24 ↗ and mostly we're just specifying that it

47:26 ↗ needs to be an equitable process meaning

47:29 ↗ that it is open to people anyone who is

47:32 ↗ interested in putting up a

47:34 ↗ non-commercial

47:36 ↗ banner any uh comments

47:40 ↗ yeah there aren't

47:46 ↗ sign zones uh

47:50 ↗ we are the sign zones is a new tool uh

47:53 ↗ that we're proposing

47:54 ↗ um we propose four sign zones in the

47:57 ↗ city

47:58 ↗ um the map below uh just shows you based

48:02 ↗ on the

48:03 ↗ land use zoning uh which where the four

48:06 ↗ zones would be located

48:08 ↗ um they're single-family multi-family

48:10 ↗ mixed use and non-residential

48:14 ↗ and for community facilities owned

48:16 ↗ property or

48:17 ↗ resource conservation zone property

48:20 ↗ it's matched with one of the four sign

48:24 ↗ zones

48:25 ↗ with which has the most similar

48:26 ↗ intensity

48:29 ↗ so uh community facilities facilities

48:32 ↗ which is where school buildings or

48:36 ↗ fire stations would be located would be

48:39 ↗ able to do signs similar to

48:41 ↗ non-residential so we're

48:43 ↗ we're trying to put like with like

48:46 ↗ any questions i

48:50 ↗ have a question a question from

48:52 ↗ commissioner art

48:54 ↗ uh it was on the previous slide but just

48:56 ↗ a quick question

48:58 ↗ are a boards or a-frame sandwich boards

49:01 ↗ considered a permanent

49:02 ↗ sign no they are considered a temporary

49:05 ↗ sign

49:11 ↗ my question on that is a lot of

49:13 ↗ businesses

49:15 ↗ we use those the year around so we'll

49:19 ↗ we won't be able to use them year-round

49:21 ↗ anymore

49:22 ↗ you will be able to use them year-round

49:24 ↗ you'll just have to renew your

49:26 ↗ agreements

49:26 ↗ on a regular basis

49:30 ↗ so essentially twice a year you'll have

49:32 ↗ to renew the agreements get proof of

49:34 ↗ insurance on

49:37 ↗ uh

49:40 ↗ the insurance piece i need to do a

49:42 ↗ little more research on

49:44 ↗ i believe so um but

49:47 ↗ every 60 days you would either be

49:49 ↗ renewing

49:50 ↗ your agreement or

49:53 ↗ submitting a new agreement after two

49:56 ↗ renewals um the reason

49:59 ↗ for this um instead of being able well

50:02 ↗ actually

50:06 ↗ actually i believe i'm wrong uh

50:08 ↗ commissioner freeze um

50:09 ↗ i believe that we actually have

50:11 ↗ specified that a frames

50:13 ↗ can be up your uh you get them for one

50:17 ↗ year at a time

50:18 ↗ okay yeah

50:22 ↗ agreed and is there a cost associated

50:25 ↗ with it

50:27 ↗ no okay i just wanted to clear that up

50:30 ↗ i used to be a fee for that right

50:33 ↗ um in in looking uh in looking at

50:38 ↗ um uh

50:41 ↗ past uh information it um

50:45 ↗ turns out that um a-frame

50:49 ↗ signs are a relatively uh

50:52 ↗ small amount of the income that the city

50:55 ↗ receives and by using a

50:59 ↗ more consistent process for

51:03 ↗ temporary signs it's a relatively

51:06 ↗ minor loss of income permanent signs are

51:09 ↗ the primary

51:10 ↗ um are 70 percent of the

51:14 ↗ funds that we receive even though it's a

51:16 ↗ much smaller number

51:19 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

51:21 ↗ fowle

51:25 ↗ thank you madam chair so this is a um

51:28 ↗ commissioner fall uh for lucy question

51:32 ↗ is when we're talking about a-frames

51:37 ↗ if an a-frame is low if a commercial

51:39 ↗ a-frame

51:40 ↗ is located on a public space

51:43 ↗ and i'm going to use the in a specific

51:45 ↗ example

51:46 ↗ um xxx has

51:50 ↗ or has been displaying a a-frame

51:53 ↗ sign on the public right-of-way

51:57 ↗ at the intersection of gilman and front

52:00 ↗ street

52:02 ↗ it's been there for i think

52:05 ↗ about a year now how does this

52:10 ↗ how does that sign and this code

52:17 ↗ would that sign me out of co out of

52:20 ↗ i'm not exactly sure is that something

52:22 ↗ that's allowable if it is

52:24 ↗ allowable and are we allowing

52:28 ↗ businesses to put a-frame signs on

52:30 ↗ public space

52:32 ↗ well uh two things i i would say one

52:36 ↗ is that while we've been in covid

52:38 ↗ there's been a moratorium

52:40 ↗ on um certain uh sign rules have been

52:44 ↗ lifted

52:44 ↗ as a result of covid to support

52:46 ↗ businesses

52:49 ↗ but the other piece and this is part of

52:51 ↗ the reason why we want to bring our sign

52:53 ↗ code into compliance

52:55 ↗ with reid v gilbert is we haven't been

52:58 ↗ able to enforce certain aspects

53:00 ↗ of our code because

53:03 ↗ the code is not compliant with the u.s

53:06 ↗ supreme court case

53:07 ↗ so as we're coming out of covid

53:11 ↗ i think the city regulations the the

53:14 ↗ moratorium on

53:15 ↗ um in for enforcing certain sign pieces

53:18 ↗ relative to covid

53:20 ↗ uh continues through june and the city

53:22 ↗ i'm sure we'll revisit it as we get

53:24 ↗ closer to that date

53:25 ↗ to decide um

53:28 ↗ how we're doing and whether that is

53:31 ↗ something to continue or not

53:33 ↗ and then with the adoption of this sign

53:35 ↗ code

53:36 ↗ we will again have a tool that we can

53:40 ↗ enforce

53:42 ↗ thank you no more questions

53:46 ↗ okay

53:54 ↗ so exception from permit requirements

53:57 ↗ um what this section is addressing is

54:01 ↗ there are certain kinds of signs that we

54:03 ↗ say they're relatively small

54:06 ↗ um the regulations are straightforward

54:08 ↗ and

54:09 ↗ we don't require someone to get a permit

54:12 ↗ as long as they remain in compliance

54:15 ↗ with the

54:17 ↗ sign requirements um the ones that are

54:20 ↗ listed and the requirements

54:22 ↗ generally match central issaquah and imc

54:25 ↗ 1811.

54:28 ↗ we have added the sign zones in which

54:30 ↗ each of those

54:31 ↗ different kinds of exceptions are

54:34 ↗ allowed

54:35 ↗ and we have added one kind of a

54:38 ↗ new sign which is a drive through

54:40 ↗ selection sign

54:41 ↗ that's what we're at least beginning to

54:44 ↗ propose calling it

54:46 ↗ which is the kind of um as you're going

54:49 ↗ through a drive through there's usually

54:50 ↗ a menu or some kind of selection board

54:52 ↗ that

54:53 ↗ is necessary we

54:56 ↗ are proposing that if you can see those

54:58 ↗ from the right-of-way they would need to

55:00 ↗ comply with the regulations

55:03 ↗ in this section and would not need a

55:04 ↗ permit if they aren't visible from the

55:07 ↗ right-of-way

55:08 ↗ they would be just exempt um

55:12 ↗ the reason we're doing this is there's

55:14 ↗ been some confusion

55:16 ↗ when drive-through businesses come in

55:20 ↗ if their menu boards are

55:23 ↗ visible from the right-of-way we've

55:25 ↗ treated it as another sign

55:27 ↗ and it's it's been hard to know how to

55:29 ↗ handle it and so we wanted to add

55:31 ↗ clarity

55:33 ↗ almost 15 items were deleted

55:37 ↗ from the exceptions from permit

55:39 ↗ requirements

55:41 ↗ half of those moved to the exempt

55:43 ↗ section which we previously discussed

55:46 ↗ three of them moved to other sign types

55:48 ↗ and

55:49 ↗ um three others were uh deleted because

55:52 ↗ they were generally

55:53 ↗ not signs um one was bulletin boards for

55:56 ↗ instance

55:57 ↗ that's the frame not the sign um and so

56:00 ↗ we

56:01 ↗ really wanted to focus on things that

56:03 ↗ were actually signs

56:05 ↗ questions no

56:07 ↗ [Music]

56:13 ↗ commercial permanent signs

56:16 ↗ so before permanent signs

56:20 ↗ were neither commercial nor

56:22 ↗ non-commercial but now we have divided

56:24 ↗ our code between

56:26 ↗ commercial and non-commercial generally

56:29 ↗ this section

56:30 ↗ matches central issaquah for two reasons

56:33 ↗ the first is that central isoqua is

56:35 ↗ built around

56:36 ↗ a primary secondary and additional sign

56:40 ↗ format meaning each sign is identified

56:44 ↗ as to whether it is a primary secondary

56:46 ↗ or additional sign

56:48 ↗ we have found that's really helpful in

56:50 ↗ terms of complying with the rules to

56:53 ↗ identify which signs

56:54 ↗ fall into which categories the other

56:57 ↗ piece was

56:58 ↗ um central issaquah is based

57:01 ↗ um we the city regulates the size of

57:04 ↗ letters that can be on signs

57:07 ↗ central issaquah does this by relating

57:10 ↗ this the letter size to the size of the

57:14 ↗ building

57:15 ↗ or the size of the facade

57:19 ↗ imc 1811 does it not by that

57:23 ↗ but by how far the building is from the

57:26 ↗ right-of-way

57:27 ↗ and part of the reason that we don't

57:29 ↗ want to do that is it created

57:31 ↗ a kind of reverse incentive to put your

57:34 ↗ building further and further away

57:37 ↗ from the street got a bigger sign and

57:41 ↗ it also meant that the sign wasn't in

57:44 ↗ proportion

57:45 ↗ to the facade or the building

57:48 ↗ and the reason i have a picture of

57:49 ↗ swedish in the upper right hand corner

57:52 ↗ is

57:53 ↗ swedish was built at the time that we

57:55 ↗ were switching between these two

57:57 ↗ approaches and

58:00 ↗ so the larger sign that you see on the

58:03 ↗ front of the building and the smaller

58:05 ↗ sign that you see on the side of the

58:07 ↗ building

58:08 ↗ were originally reversed and

58:11 ↗ because that was what was allowed that

58:13 ↗ little tiny sign

58:14 ↗ had to be on the front of the building

58:16 ↗ because it was right next to the

58:17 ↗ right-of-way

58:18 ↗ and the larger sign was on the side once

58:21 ↗ those rules were

58:23 ↗ changed so that it was based on the

58:25 ↗ facade they actually traded their

58:27 ↗ existing signs

58:28 ↗ so that they could have ones that were

58:30 ↗ more in proportion

58:34 ↗ in addition um we've added sign zones

58:38 ↗ again

58:39 ↗ and another a new type of sign called

58:42 ↗ follow-through signs

58:43 ↗ these are the signs that you see in the

58:45 ↗ lower left hand corner

58:47 ↗ the upper sign is the kind of sign that

58:49 ↗ washdot

58:50 ↗ would put along i-90 for instance

58:54 ↗ and then um to get that kind of sign

58:58 ↗ washout requires that there are what

59:00 ↗ they call follow-through signs

59:02 ↗ which means that you know their sign on

59:06 ↗ the highway shows

59:07 ↗ you turn right or you turn left if you

59:09 ↗ can't

59:10 ↗ immediately continue driving right to

59:13 ↗ that business then they're going to want

59:15 ↗ additional signs that tell you where

59:17 ↗ additional turns are necessary

59:19 ↗ and without those they will not allow

59:21 ↗ you to have a sign on

59:23 ↗ the highway and it's something that

59:25 ↗ we've struggled with

59:26 ↗ uh in the city and so we've we've

59:29 ↗ actually

59:30 ↗ added that and the sign would be

59:32 ↗ approximately like the red robin sign

59:34 ↗ that you see on the bottom

59:37 ↗ to simplify the code we've done a couple

59:40 ↗ of things one

59:41 ↗ where we have variations on a sign we've

59:44 ↗ bundled those together

59:46 ↗ instead of treating them as separate

59:47 ↗ signs so painted wall sign

59:49 ↗ painted wall mural multi business wall

59:53 ↗ signs and

59:53 ↗ art and wall signs are all together um

59:56 ↗ with different

59:57 ↗ uh those different provisions under wall

1:00:00 ↗ signs

1:00:02 ↗ we've also taken situations such as

1:00:05 ↗ awning signs and canopy signs that have

1:00:08 ↗ similar or identical provisions and put

1:00:11 ↗ those together

1:00:13 ↗ uh we've deleted some signs and some

1:00:16 ↗ provisions

1:00:17 ↗ one of the provisions that we deleted

1:00:19 ↗ was a requirement that

1:00:21 ↗ in a multi-tenant building on the

1:00:23 ↗ requirement that signs had to be located

1:00:26 ↗ where the business space was we got a

1:00:29 ↗ lot of pushback

1:00:30 ↗ from various multi-tenant buildings

1:00:33 ↗ about that requirement

1:00:35 ↗ we didn't get anyone thinking that was a

1:00:37 ↗ good idea so

1:00:38 ↗ we're proposing to delete it

1:00:41 ↗ and as a result of the kinds of changes

1:00:45 ↗ i described before

1:00:47 ↗ 14 sign types have been reduced

1:00:50 ↗ um to uh maybe more

1:00:54 ↗ been removed and we have about 10 signs

1:00:57 ↗ now

1:00:58 ↗ um but we haven't reduced any options

1:01:01 ↗ the only

1:01:02 ↗ sign type that we um are proposing to

1:01:04 ↗ delete

1:01:05 ↗ is the franchise sign we propose that

1:01:09 ↗ with the issaquah highlands sign code

1:01:12 ↗ more than 20 years ago and i don't

1:01:14 ↗ believe anyone has ever used it

1:01:16 ↗ and um so we think that we should just

1:01:20 ↗ eliminate that

1:01:22 ↗ any questions no okay

1:01:28 ↗ uh as a continuation of talking about um

1:01:31 ↗ permanent signs permanent commercial

1:01:34 ↗ signs i i want to

1:01:36 ↗ also speak about monument signs for a

1:01:37 ↗ moment

1:01:39 ↗ there are probably six different types

1:01:41 ↗ of monument signs that are proposed in

1:01:43 ↗ the sign code

1:01:45 ↗ in the existing sign codes we have

1:01:47 ↗ combined all of those

1:01:49 ↗ under monument signs while retaining all

1:01:51 ↗ the various

1:01:52 ↗ options for businesses

1:01:57 ↗ we there were different rules between

1:02:00 ↗ central issaquah

1:02:01 ↗ and imc 1811 and we have

1:02:05 ↗ brought those together and tried to

1:02:07 ↗ simplify them

1:02:08 ↗ so um there are certain areas which are

1:02:11 ↗ shown in purple

1:02:12 ↗ on them up to the lower right the lower

1:02:14 ↗ left

1:02:16 ↗ those are where monument signs are

1:02:18 ↗ allowed outright that's the way it is

1:02:20 ↗ right now

1:02:22 ↗ in the red areas which are central

1:02:25 ↗ issaquah

1:02:26 ↗ cbd and isqua highlands and talus

1:02:30 ↗ what we've done is eliminate the

1:02:32 ↗ requirement to

1:02:34 ↗ have to get an adjustment of standards

1:02:36 ↗ to keep using your existing monument

1:02:38 ↗ sign

1:02:39 ↗ what we proposed instead is that

1:02:43 ↗ if you have a monument sign at the point

1:02:45 ↗ at which this code is adopted you can

1:02:48 ↗ continue

1:02:48 ↗ until you redevelop your property at the

1:02:51 ↗ time you redevelop your property

1:02:53 ↗ you would have to eliminate your

1:02:55 ↗ monument sign unless

1:02:58 ↗ through the land use permit process you

1:03:00 ↗ are able to demonstrate that that is a

1:03:02 ↗ necessary sign

1:03:04 ↗ because your business or building would

1:03:06 ↗ not be visible without it

1:03:09 ↗ any questions no okay

1:03:17 ↗ uh temporary commercial signs um

1:03:20 ↗ so this is a new category because as i

1:03:23 ↗ mentioned we used to just have temporary

1:03:25 ↗ signs

1:03:26 ↗ um we have carried forward

1:03:29 ↗ some of the provisions from existing

1:03:32 ↗ codes such as the types and the

1:03:33 ↗ regulations

1:03:35 ↗ to speak about a-frames

1:03:40 ↗ we have two different approaches partly

1:03:43 ↗ in recognition

1:03:44 ↗ of the fact that some buildings are set

1:03:47 ↗ much further back from the right-of-way

1:03:49 ↗ um for an on-premises sign which is the

1:03:52 ↗ first choice

1:03:53 ↗ um it has to be in front of a business

1:03:56 ↗ and no further than 20 feet from the

1:03:58 ↗ pedestrian entry

1:04:00 ↗ that works in a lot of areas of the city

1:04:02 ↗ where buildings are

1:04:04 ↗ quite close to or at the right-of-way

1:04:07 ↗ but there are also areas in which

1:04:11 ↗ buildings are set back and so if a

1:04:14 ↗ a-frame excuse me wouldn't be visible

1:04:20 ↗ from the right-of-way then you're

1:04:23 ↗ allowed to have

1:04:25 ↗ it up to 50 feet away from the entrance

1:04:27 ↗ but it needs to be the shortest distance

1:04:30 ↗ between the sign and the visible primary

1:04:33 ↗ entry so that

1:04:34 ↗ it's not ending up

1:04:37 ↗ very separated from the business

1:04:40 ↗ we will entertain alternate locations

1:04:44 ↗ that have to be approved in writing

1:04:46 ↗ if neither of those circumstances

1:04:50 ↗ would result in a visible sign

1:04:54 ↗ and uh the types of temporary signs that

1:04:58 ↗ have been

1:04:58 ↗ uh removed or deleted have been moved to

1:05:01 ↗ other categories

1:05:03 ↗ questions no questions

1:05:11 ↗ um one provision that applies

1:05:15 ↗ to both temporary uh commercial and

1:05:18 ↗ uh non-commercial signs in the

1:05:21 ↗ right-of-way

1:05:22 ↗ is that we are requiring adjacent

1:05:25 ↗ property owner permission

1:05:27 ↗ this is

1:05:31 ↗ a result of various

1:05:35 ↗ situations that have come up in

1:05:36 ↗ washington and

1:05:38 ↗ so it would be part of the sign

1:05:40 ↗ agreement

1:05:41 ↗ that you have received permission from

1:05:45 ↗ the adjacent property owner

1:05:48 ↗ for uh non-commercial temporary kinds

1:05:51 ↗ this

1:05:51 ↗ is really um uh as i

1:05:55 ↗ i mentioned here it's a new category

1:05:57 ↗ just with temporary signs

1:05:59 ↗ this is um most specifically

1:06:02 ↗ in response to reed fee gilbert again

1:06:05 ↗ we're carrying forward many

1:06:07 ↗ of the provisions i think i won't say a

1:06:09 ↗ lot about this because it's a big topic

1:06:12 ↗ in the discussions later on i just want

1:06:15 ↗ to point out that

1:06:17 ↗ often when we think of non-commercial

1:06:19 ↗ signs we think of political signs such

1:06:21 ↗ as the

1:06:22 ↗ lower um or right center and right

1:06:26 ↗ signs but in fact there are lots of

1:06:28 ↗ other

1:06:29 ↗ non-commercial signs such as a banner in

1:06:31 ↗ someone's

1:06:32 ↗ at someone's house or graduation or a

1:06:35 ↗ birthday

1:06:36 ↗ or um just banners on street polls

1:06:40 ↗ um so there are many reasons that we end

1:06:42 ↗ with non-commercial signs

1:06:44 ↗ not just political ones any questions

1:06:48 ↗ uh no there aren't uh yes there is

1:06:52 ↗ uh i have a question from commissioner

1:06:55 ↗ matt

1:06:57 ↗ thanks chair probable i got that one

1:06:59 ↗ right in under the wire um

1:07:01 ↗ it's probably a question for the

1:07:03 ↗ attorney

1:07:04 ↗ um which is the distinction between

1:07:06 ↗ commercial

1:07:07 ↗ and non-commercial makes a lot of sense

1:07:09 ↗ to me but

1:07:10 ↗ you know i think a strict reading of

1:07:13 ↗ justice

1:07:14 ↗ thomas's i believe majority opinion

1:07:17 ↗ might not allow this versus when i read

1:07:20 ↗ justice solido's concurrence

1:07:22 ↗ he says that it's okay to distinguish

1:07:24 ↗ between signs

1:07:26 ↗ on commercial property versus signs on

1:07:27 ↗ residential property

1:07:29 ↗ i'm just wondering you know have we kind

1:07:30 ↗ of pressure tested that

1:07:32 ↗ concept in light of kind of the sweeping

1:07:35 ↗ nature of justice thomas's majority

1:07:36 ↗ opinion

1:07:38 ↗ i'm so glad that you suggested the

1:07:40 ↗ attorney respond

1:07:44 ↗ i'm on myself so i i can tell

1:07:48 ↗ um great question so

1:07:51 ↗ so the reid versus town of gilbert case

1:07:54 ↗ um

1:07:55 ↗ did not deal with commercial signs and

1:07:57 ↗ there have been cases that have

1:07:59 ↗ um specifically not utilized

1:08:03 ↗ um the the decision and read

1:08:06 ↗ when analyzing regulation of commercial

1:08:09 ↗ signs

1:08:10 ↗ um there are some that have though and

1:08:12 ↗ so it is a good question

1:08:14 ↗ in the ninth circuit which is where we

1:08:16 ↗ are um it has not been used

1:08:19 ↗ and so there is um since just two

1:08:22 ↗ lawyers talking here

1:08:24 ↗ um there's a split in the circuits and

1:08:26 ↗ there's a chance that there would be

1:08:27 ↗ another supreme court ruling that would

1:08:29 ↗ clarify that split but for for our

1:08:32 ↗ purposes in the ninth circuit right now

1:08:34 ↗ and really what i would view as the um

1:08:38 ↗ uh unanimous well not you know the the

1:08:41 ↗ majority

1:08:42 ↗ of uh circuits are saying that it is

1:08:45 ↗ does not deal with commercial and

1:08:47 ↗ commercial speech just has a

1:08:49 ↗ lesser regulation the standard for the

1:08:51 ↗ scrutiny

1:08:52 ↗ is is a lesser standard for commercial

1:08:57 ↗ got it thank you i'm a little hesitant

1:08:59 ↗ to rely on the wisdom of the ninth

1:09:01 ↗ circuit as the supreme court routinely

1:09:03 ↗ disagrees with them but uh

1:09:04 ↗ we got to do deal with the president

1:09:06 ↗ we're dealing with i guess so thank you

1:09:09 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

1:09:11 ↗ lewis

1:09:13 ↗ thank you chair problem commissioner joy

1:09:14 ↗ lewis here i'm curious lucy with this

1:09:17 ↗ change of designation

1:09:18 ↗ um how we're planning on dealing with um

1:09:21 ↗ checking

1:09:21 ↗ requirements with having adjacent

1:09:23 ↗ properties permission

1:09:25 ↗ or there's another place in the document

1:09:26 ↗ where we talk about political signs

1:09:28 ↗ um when posting on people's lawns

1:09:31 ↗ needing to have their permission

1:09:33 ↗ um what is the plan for having these

1:09:35 ↗ changes because i would assume that

1:09:37 ↗ there isn't actually staff to be

1:09:38 ↗ sorting through um and double checking

1:09:41 ↗ everything that's being vouched for

1:09:43 ↗ um on these applications

1:09:46 ↗ that's correct it would be uh in

1:09:49 ↗ response to complaints

1:09:50 ↗ uh so uh we uh the the idea behind the

1:09:55 ↗ agreement

1:09:56 ↗ is in some ways a self-certification

1:09:59 ↗ process

1:10:00 ↗ um and then if there was a concern

1:10:03 ↗ raised or

1:10:05 ↗ an appearance that an area was not

1:10:08 ↗ compliant

1:10:08 ↗ in terms of the size or the number of

1:10:10 ↗ signs then

1:10:12 ↗ uh we would turn to the agreement

1:10:15 ↗ as a way of understanding

1:10:19 ↗ how someone proposed that they were

1:10:23 ↗ compliant self-certifying

1:10:28 ↗ what prompted getting

1:10:32 ↗ owner permission from adjacent

1:10:35 ↗ properties

1:10:37 ↗ and i yet again turn to my find

1:10:40 ↗ attorney friend mr daniel kenny yeah

1:10:44 ↗ well that's a good question it's a tool

1:10:46 ↗ that a lot of jurisdictions use

1:10:48 ↗ certainly not all of them um and it is

1:10:51 ↗ something that's been around for a while

1:10:53 ↗ the the i don't want to overly dive into

1:10:56 ↗ the

1:10:57 ↗ the legal analysis but there is an

1:10:59 ↗ underlying

1:11:00 ↗ property ownership interest in the right

1:11:02 ↗ of way in most circumstances

1:11:05 ↗ assuming the city doesn't own it

1:11:07 ↗ outright in fee

1:11:08 ↗ and so that underlying property

1:11:11 ↗ ownership interests

1:11:12 ↗ belonging to that adjacent property

1:11:15 ↗ would

1:11:17 ↗ would tend to say that if it's not if

1:11:20 ↗ the right-of-way is not being used

1:11:22 ↗ for transportation and utility purposes

1:11:24 ↗ the

1:11:25 ↗ primary purpose of a right of way that

1:11:27 ↗ that adjacent property owner has

1:11:29 ↗ more rights to that property you know

1:11:33 ↗ in theory they could get a right-of-way

1:11:35 ↗ use permit and even

1:11:36 ↗ possibly put up a fence maybe even

1:11:39 ↗ encroach a little bit with a garage if

1:11:41 ↗ it's not interfering with the purpose of

1:11:43 ↗ the right-of-way

1:11:44 ↗ and so the same same concept is true if

1:11:46 ↗ somebody's going to place a sign that's

1:11:48 ↗ not for those utility purposes and

1:11:50 ↗ transportation purposes

1:11:52 ↗ that adjacent property owner should have

1:11:54 ↗ more of a say in that

1:11:58 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

1:12:00 ↗ milligan

1:12:04 ↗ i thank you chair problem nina milligan

1:12:07 ↗ here

1:12:08 ↗ is this the place where you wanted us to

1:12:10 ↗ chime in

1:12:11 ↗ about the spacing of signs in the

1:12:14 ↗ right-of-way

1:12:15 ↗ and how we might limit the

1:12:19 ↗ distance between signs i can't remember

1:12:21 ↗ where this comes in but i did want to

1:12:23 ↗ talk about it

1:12:25 ↗ um i we absolutely want to talk about it

1:12:28 ↗ i think we will wait till the end

1:12:30 ↗ when we're talking about the five

1:12:32 ↗ discussion topics

1:12:34 ↗ if you don't mind um i have a slide that

1:12:36 ↗ i think will have

1:12:37 ↗ more information that will support that

1:12:40 ↗ conversation

1:12:42 ↗ um looking at the clock it is now

1:12:46 ↗ 7 40 and we are only halfway through

1:12:48 ↗ these slides

1:12:50 ↗ so i'm not sure if you want to continue

1:12:53 ↗ for if you know think about how long you

1:12:56 ↗ want to continue

1:12:58 ↗ we might be here for a while to finish

1:13:01 ↗ this

1:13:01 ↗ discussion um there is

1:13:04 ↗ a another question from

1:13:10 ↗ uh i'm not sure is there a question from

1:13:14 ↗ that

1:13:15 ↗ oh commissioner okay there's a question

1:13:18 ↗ from art

1:13:20 ↗ uh my question had been answered uh just

1:13:22 ↗ before so i'm good

1:13:24 ↗ okay so that's it

1:13:28 ↗ okay i think we're actually over the

1:13:30 ↗ hump um

1:13:31 ↗ and the rest of the overview goes

1:13:33 ↗ relatively quickly

1:13:37 ↗ general sign standards and

1:13:39 ↗ administration

1:13:40 ↗ again collected from various central

1:13:43 ↗ isquad

1:13:43 ↗ and 1811 sections the purpose was to add

1:13:48 ↗ clarifying language

1:13:50 ↗ where we had seen previous issues

1:13:54 ↗ i assume there are no comments there are

1:13:56 ↗ no comments

1:13:58 ↗ prohibited signs again mostly matches

1:14:01 ↗ central isquad in 1811. um

1:14:05 ↗ some elements were moved into this

1:14:08 ↗ section

1:14:08 ↗ or we specified things that we

1:14:11 ↗ have um extrapolated from what was in

1:14:15 ↗ the

1:14:15 ↗ uh prohibited section for clarity such

1:14:19 ↗ as

1:14:19 ↗ cabinet signs feather signs highway

1:14:22 ↗ advertising

1:14:23 ↗ and crane signs the right-of-way

1:14:27 ↗ section of the code was deleted um

1:14:30 ↗ because we've moved it into all the

1:14:32 ↗ different

1:14:33 ↗ you know temporary commercial temporary

1:14:35 ↗ non-commercial sections

1:14:37 ↗ um but there is a one

1:14:40 ↗ element of prohibited that uh tries to

1:14:44 ↗ clarify

1:14:45 ↗ what is allowed in the right-of-way any

1:14:47 ↗ questions

1:14:49 ↗ um i

1:14:52 ↗ have a follow-up on uh some uh

1:14:56 ↗ comments that i received from the pub

1:14:58 ↗ cup public from

1:14:59 ↗ uh the highlands and i'm looking at the

1:15:04 ↗ uh picture on the lower right hand side

1:15:08 ↗ uh whereas advertising on the

1:15:11 ↗ uh whatever that's called

1:15:14 ↗ would that be the same as advertising

1:15:18 ↗ on the uh

1:15:22 ↗ the thing that goes across the road up

1:15:24 ↗ in the highlands oh the pedestrian

1:15:26 ↗ bridge

1:15:27 ↗ right uh i think that the pedestrian

1:15:31 ↗ bridge

1:15:34 ↗ well what's on the pedestrian bridge

1:15:38 ↗ at issaquah highlands is not a

1:15:40 ↗ commercial sign

1:15:41 ↗ uh it's not a bit about a business um

1:15:44 ↗ it would be a uh non-commercial sign

1:15:48 ↗ and then would need to comply with the

1:15:51 ↗ non-commercial rules in the right-of-way

1:15:54 ↗ so so the highlands could put up

1:15:58 ↗ advertising a new streetery

1:16:02 ↗ or whatever they had they had the right

1:16:04 ↗ to do that with a permit

1:16:07 ↗ well i'm not sure a streetery would be

1:16:10 ↗ considered non-commercial

1:16:12 ↗ um so i think because it's supporting

1:16:16 ↗ healthcare workers

1:16:18 ↗ if i remember the banner correctly um

1:16:21 ↗ if that is non-commercial so it would

1:16:24 ↗ follow the non-commercial

1:16:26 ↗ in the right-of-way rules um

1:16:30 ↗ the uh sign on the crane uh

1:16:33 ↗ typically it is the construction company

1:16:36 ↗ it is

1:16:36 ↗ advertising the construction company and

1:16:39 ↗ so

1:16:39 ↗ um we've had some issues with that in

1:16:42 ↗ the past because

1:16:44 ↗ um we have a rule that there are no

1:16:46 ↗ signs over 65 feet up

1:16:49 ↗ in the air are 65 feet high

1:16:53 ↗ those cranes are much higher than that

1:16:56 ↗ and

1:16:56 ↗ um so we thought instead of having to

1:17:00 ↗ explain this every time

1:17:02 ↗ we would be overt but obviously this is

1:17:05 ↗ a proposal

1:17:07 ↗ okay any other questions on this page

1:17:12 ↗ no okay uh

1:17:16 ↗ non-conform forming signs again mostly

1:17:19 ↗ matches central issaquah

1:17:22 ↗ and imc 1811. um

1:17:25 ↗ there were some clarifying edits and we

1:17:27 ↗ will discuss

1:17:28 ↗ landmark signs as one of the discussion

1:17:31 ↗ topics

1:17:33 ↗ uh removal of signs again

1:17:37 ↗ matches generally matches central isquad

1:17:39 ↗ in 1811 with some clarifying edits

1:17:43 ↗ and then we've added some elements to

1:17:45 ↗ implement the temporary signs

1:17:47 ↗ and temporary sign agreements

1:17:51 ↗ adjustment of standards this is the last

1:17:55 ↗ chapter it mostly matches central

1:17:58 ↗ issaquah's

1:17:59 ↗ section for purpose and criteria the

1:18:02 ↗ process

1:18:03 ↗ is changed in central issaquah

1:18:07 ↗ and imc 1811 this is an administrative

1:18:10 ↗ process

1:18:12 ↗ performed by staff however

1:18:16 ↗ because currently

1:18:19 ↗ in 1811 the development commission

1:18:23 ↗ looks at signs on major streets and

1:18:26 ↗ we've proposed to remove that

1:18:28 ↗ a responsibility because there's not a

1:18:30 ↗ lot of discretion in those

1:18:31 ↗ reviews we have proposed instead

1:18:35 ↗ that the development commission review

1:18:38 ↗ adjustment of standards

1:18:40 ↗ there will be the same provision that

1:18:42 ↗ 1811 has now of an

1:18:44 ↗ informal review where the development

1:18:47 ↗ commission

1:18:47 ↗ can decide determine that

1:18:51 ↗ they don't think it is necessary for

1:18:53 ↗ them to review it and send it back to

1:18:55 ↗ staff to make the decision

1:18:57 ↗ in when the packet came out for this

1:19:00 ↗ meeting

1:19:01 ↗ i sent uh the development commission the

1:19:04 ↗ packet along with a more

1:19:06 ↗ um explain a longer explanation

1:19:10 ↗ of the changes that we were proposing

1:19:13 ↗ and the reasons behind them

1:19:15 ↗ i've heard from three commissioners two

1:19:18 ↗ regular and one alternate and all of

1:19:20 ↗ them

1:19:21 ↗ said that they had no concerns with the

1:19:24 ↗ changing of their role

1:19:26 ↗ they did make some other comments and i

1:19:29 ↗ will

1:19:30 ↗ um fold those into the

1:19:33 ↗ tracking and preparation of the public

1:19:36 ↗ hearing document

1:19:39 ↗ any comments i have a comment from

1:19:42 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:19:44 ↗ thank you chair probla commissioner joy

1:19:46 ↗ lewis here i just wanted to say that

1:19:49 ↗ i read this change as being very

1:19:50 ↗ positive we have

1:19:52 ↗ we asked our development commissioners

1:19:54 ↗ on to do some heavy lifts

1:19:56 ↗ throughout the year and i thought that

1:19:57 ↗ the way steph designed this way you

1:19:59 ↗ designed this lucy

1:20:00 ↗ was really positive and i'm happy to

1:20:02 ↗ hear that they saw it that way as well

1:20:03 ↗ so i just wanted to say

1:20:05 ↗ that i this particular point i noticed

1:20:07 ↗ and i appreciated

1:20:09 ↗ well thank you commissioner lewis i i

1:20:11 ↗ appreciate that

1:20:15 ↗ um so

1:20:18 ↗ um that is the end of the overview and

1:20:21 ↗ it is an opportunity for public comment

1:20:25 ↗ so with that uh i will open it up to

1:20:28 ↗ public comment

1:20:29 ↗ and ask kristin or whoever

1:20:32 ↗ is there anybody signed up for public

1:20:35 ↗ comment

1:20:36 ↗ yes we did have a randy banneker sign up

1:20:39 ↗ to speak

1:20:40 ↗ i have two phone numbers on here one

1:20:42 ↗ ends in nine one and one ends of nine

1:20:44 ↗ five so mr banneker if you could just

1:20:48 ↗ hit star

1:20:48 ↗ three and let me know which one you are

1:20:50 ↗ i will unmute you

1:20:52 ↗ if you're here

1:20:58 ↗ okay i have unmuted you

1:21:02 ↗ thank you uh this is randy banneker and

1:21:04 ↗ am i audible

1:21:05 ↗ yes we're audible oh okay thank you very

1:21:09 ↗ much

1:21:09 ↗ uh members of the planning policy

1:21:11 ↗ commission and economic

1:21:12 ↗ vitality commission i'm brandi banneker

1:21:15 ↗ i'm speaking tonight on behalf of the

1:21:16 ↗ seattle king county realtors

1:21:18 ↗ i'm going to keep my comments extremely

1:21:20 ↗ brief and and submit comments in writing

1:21:23 ↗ just in respect for your time

1:21:25 ↗ but i wanted to note that we support the

1:21:28 ↗ amendment package

1:21:29 ↗ before you tonight and wish to

1:21:31 ↗ complement staff

1:21:32 ↗ on on the draft in the package we see

1:21:35 ↗ that it meets the

1:21:37 ↗ objectives stated for the code update

1:21:40 ↗ it's understandable

1:21:41 ↗ practical and it aligns very nicely with

1:21:44 ↗ the reed versus gilbert decision

1:21:47 ↗ um our members place a very high value

1:21:50 ↗ on the opportunity to do business

1:21:51 ↗ uh in the city of issaquah to work with

1:21:54 ↗ your homeowners and and folks moving

1:21:56 ↗ into the city

1:21:57 ↗ um signage plays a tremendous role in

1:22:00 ↗ that

1:22:01 ↗ uh we appreciate the allowance to post

1:22:03 ↗ uh on-premises

1:22:04 ↗ uh temporary real estate signage that uh

1:22:07 ↗ advertises homes for sale rent or lease

1:22:10 ↗ and off-premise open house signage

1:22:12 ↗ that's posted during

1:22:13 ↗ open house hours there's a question

1:22:16 ↗ about how to

1:22:18 ↗ avoid a situation where it's an open

1:22:20 ↗ house 24

1:22:21 ↗ 7. and i would just suggest adding the

1:22:24 ↗ requirement

1:22:25 ↗ um that uh an open house during an open

1:22:29 ↗ house

1:22:30 ↗ the owner or the owner

1:22:33 ↗ seller or the broker must be physically

1:22:36 ↗ present

1:22:37 ↗ so that the house is available for

1:22:39 ↗ inspection by a potential buyer

1:22:42 ↗ that language is included in um just

1:22:45 ↗ well just a few cities i've i've i can

1:22:47 ↗ tell you off the top of my head

1:22:48 ↗ rantin sammamish and unincorporated king

1:22:51 ↗ county

1:22:52 ↗ uh the last thing uh just two other

1:22:55 ↗ points i want to make is that

1:22:56 ↗ signage real estate signage is extremely

1:22:59 ↗ important in the process of buying and

1:23:01 ↗ selling a house

1:23:02 ↗ about 50 percent of buyers find their

1:23:04 ↗ way to that house

1:23:06 ↗ with signage and and perhaps the most

1:23:09 ↗ important message

1:23:11 ↗ is that signs play a very important role

1:23:14 ↗ in fair housing and anti-discrimination

1:23:17 ↗ signs simply cannot discriminate a real

1:23:20 ↗ estate sign invites any purpose

1:23:21 ↗ regardless

1:23:22 ↗ of who who they are or where they're

1:23:25 ↗ from

1:23:26 ↗ to know what's for sale in the community

1:23:28 ↗ it makes it possible it makes it

1:23:30 ↗ impossible for any real estate broker

1:23:33 ↗ landlord or owner or organization to

1:23:36 ↗ deny

1:23:37 ↗ that the property is available and hence

1:23:39 ↗ it makes discrimination substantially

1:23:41 ↗ impossible

1:23:42 ↗ i'm going to leave it there i thank you

1:23:43 ↗ very much for your time tonight

1:23:45 ↗ thank you randy does anybody else signed

1:23:48 ↗ up to speak

1:23:50 ↗ no one else has signed up to speak but

1:23:52 ↗ if the person with the

1:23:54 ↗ last two numbers of the phone number

1:23:55 ↗ nine five would like to speak would you

1:23:57 ↗ please hit star three and indicate so

1:24:08 ↗ uh that person has not indicated they

1:24:10 ↗ would like to speak so i think we can

1:24:11 ↗ move on

1:24:12 ↗ there's no one else no one else signed

1:24:14 ↗ up

1:24:17 ↗ so lucy you're finished with your uh

1:24:20 ↗ initial presentation

1:24:24 ↗ um the next thing that we're going to do

1:24:26 ↗ is have a discussion

1:24:28 ↗ about the move on to the discussion

1:24:30 ↗ topics

1:24:32 ↗ okay um

1:24:37 ↗ so the city has asked us to

1:24:41 ↗ actually give us give them our

1:24:45 ↗ input on some of these things i will say

1:24:48 ↗ that

1:24:48 ↗ we have received several comments

1:24:51 ↗ written comments from the public

1:24:53 ↗ and i think some of them have been

1:24:56 ↗ addressed

1:24:56 ↗ already if there are

1:25:00 ↗ ones that have not been addressed i

1:25:02 ↗ would hope the staff would

1:25:04 ↗ would look at them and pay attention to

1:25:06 ↗ them they're

1:25:07 ↗ too lengthy to go into all of them right

1:25:10 ↗ now but we appreciate

1:25:12 ↗ the community for taking the time to add

1:25:16 ↗ some

1:25:18 ↗ some more information to the sign code

1:25:21 ↗ so with that

1:25:22 ↗ uh do you just want lucy do you just

1:25:24 ↗ want to go in and and

1:25:26 ↗ do the questions i see uh another slide

1:25:30 ↗ up on your screen so i'm not sure

1:25:32 ↗ um

1:25:35 ↗ so um

1:25:38 ↗ i i'm i'm trying to just display

1:25:42 ↗ one uh sign one slide so

1:25:46 ↗ i i made a switch at a recommendation i

1:25:49 ↗ apologize if it's not appearing

1:25:50 ↗ correctly it's hard for me to know which

1:25:52 ↗ view you're actually seeing

1:25:54 ↗ um the first topic that we're discussing

1:25:58 ↗ is the

1:25:59 ↗ temporary non-commercial signs and

1:26:02 ↗ our all is to try and

1:26:05 ↗ find balance between protecting free

1:26:08 ↗ speech and protecting

1:26:10 ↗ and preserving the community character

1:26:12 ↗ these are new regulations

1:26:15 ↗ it is the most challenging part of the

1:26:17 ↗ code

1:26:19 ↗ and would impact both private property

1:26:22 ↗ and signs in the right-of-way

1:26:26 ↗ just as a note our

1:26:29 ↗ existing codes

1:26:33 ↗ temporary signs in general can be 32

1:26:35 ↗ square feet

1:26:36 ↗ political signs are

1:26:40 ↗ exceptions from the sign permit

1:26:42 ↗ requirements

1:26:43 ↗ or a four square foot sign and then with

1:26:46 ↗ a permit allows 32 square feet per face

1:26:51 ↗ the charts that we've had are

1:26:56 ↗ replicated on the slide i actually added

1:26:59 ↗ sign height i thought that might be

1:27:01 ↗ something

1:27:02 ↗ that the commissioners might want to

1:27:05 ↗ address

1:27:06 ↗ the options of not regulating

1:27:10 ↗ requiring a minimum separation or using

1:27:13 ↗ the length

1:27:14 ↗ of the property are provided here i

1:27:18 ↗ do want to note that the reason that i

1:27:21 ↗ um again as i said earlier

1:27:24 ↗ uh included the um images here

1:27:28 ↗ is that we often think of this as being

1:27:30 ↗ political signs

1:27:32 ↗ when in fact it can often just be as

1:27:35 ↗ simple as a banner on someone's problem

1:27:40 ↗ so um there is a

1:27:43 ↗ comment from commissioner arc but

1:27:48 ↗ your questions do not go along with the

1:27:51 ↗ ones that i see on screen

1:27:53 ↗ so i'm a little confused so um

1:27:57 ↗ so will commissioner art like to make

1:27:59 ↗ his comment

1:28:01 ↗ are you not seeing the topic number one

1:28:03 ↗ are you seeing a different one

1:28:05 ↗ i am seeing topic number one i see

1:28:08 ↗ topic number one but on the

1:28:12 ↗ uh memo that we got the question it

1:28:15 ↗ says the same thing but it's a different

1:28:17 ↗ question it says what technique

1:28:19 ↗ is appropriate to support the speech

1:28:22 ↗ while promoting safe

1:28:26 ↗ sight lines and retaining our community

1:28:28 ↗ character

1:28:29 ↗ and it gave gives us several options to

1:28:32 ↗ discuss

1:28:34 ↗ right thank you for clarifying

1:28:40 ↗ so

1:28:42 ↗ should i go ahead yes please okay

1:28:45 ↗ um for temporary political signs

1:28:49 ↗ um i would you know personally i think

1:28:52 ↗ it's probably better to just go

1:28:54 ↗ to up to 32 square feet i think

1:28:58 ↗ my understanding is washington code

1:29:00 ↗ supports up to 32 square feet

1:29:04 ↗ i don't know that i'd want to make

1:29:06 ↗ people have to get a permit

1:29:08 ↗ to put a political sign that is

1:29:10 ↗ supported by the state

1:29:12 ↗ of the size that's supported by the

1:29:13 ↗ state

1:29:18 ↗ so this would the temporary sign

1:29:21 ↗ agreement would

1:29:23 ↗ apply here um so there wouldn't be a

1:29:25 ↗ permit

1:29:26 ↗ um required you would be essentially

1:29:29 ↗ self-certifying that you're

1:29:30 ↗ complying with the regulations um

1:29:34 ↗ and and just to clarify um it

1:29:39 ↗ are you um commissioner freeze

1:29:42 ↗ suggesting

1:29:42 ↗ that we um essentially option number one

1:29:46 ↗ that we not regulate spacing we just

1:29:50 ↗ um identify a size

1:29:53 ↗ and leave it

1:29:56 ↗ at that i i'm reacting to the existing

1:30:00 ↗ code 32 square feet with

1:30:02 ↗ permit for political signs i would

1:30:05 ↗ prefer

1:30:06 ↗ that we and this is political only

1:30:09 ↗ i would say regulate not

1:30:12 ↗ regulate as long as they're under 32

1:30:15 ↗ feet

1:30:16 ↗ square feet as i believe is noted in

1:30:19 ↗ the washington state code i just

1:30:22 ↗ i don't want to put any barriers or

1:30:26 ↗ you know kind of like a make it

1:30:29 ↗ easier or more difficult for different

1:30:31 ↗ people in different situations who have

1:30:34 ↗ equal access to having

1:30:35 ↗ a a political a temporary political sign

1:30:40 ↗ other signs like birthdays and stuff

1:30:42 ↗ like that you know i'm okay with

1:30:44 ↗ a different standard for them but

1:30:45 ↗ political has a particular

1:30:48 ↗ uh you know there's a particular

1:30:50 ↗ entitlement to that through the state

1:30:52 ↗ so well i i want i just want to clarify

1:30:56 ↗ that we can we cannot make that

1:30:58 ↗ distinction

1:30:59 ↗ um that and and i apologize if the way i

1:31:03 ↗ structured the slide uh has led to this

1:31:05 ↗ confusion

1:31:07 ↗ in our current code because we haven't

1:31:09 ↗ tried to comply

1:31:10 ↗ yet with reidv gilbert we were able to

1:31:13 ↗ make the distinction between temporary

1:31:15 ↗ signs

1:31:16 ↗ and political signs but going forward to

1:31:19 ↗ have a code that complies with reedy

1:31:21 ↗ gilbert

1:31:22 ↗ we will have to have one standard that

1:31:26 ↗ meets

1:31:27 ↗ all those different kinds of signs we

1:31:29 ↗ won't be able to

1:31:30 ↗ say here's the set of rules for

1:31:32 ↗ political signs

1:31:33 ↗ and here's the set of rules for birthday

1:31:35 ↗ banners

1:31:36 ↗ we'll only be able to have one

1:31:51 ↗ that are set forth on uh

1:31:55 ↗ it was hard for me to understand until i

1:31:57 ↗ went through the thing that

1:31:58 ↗ all signs have to be treated exactly the

1:32:02 ↗ same way

1:32:02 ↗ and that's the way the court has come

1:32:05 ↗ down

1:32:06 ↗ uh you can't have a 20-foot sign for

1:32:10 ↗ real estate and

1:32:11 ↗ and a 14-foot sign for political science

1:32:15 ↗ they all have to fall into the same

1:32:17 ↗ into the same planet

1:32:20 ↗ and you know honestly i think um

1:32:22 ↗ everyone's struggled with this it's a

1:32:24 ↗ very

1:32:25 ↗ it upended the way sign codes have been

1:32:28 ↗ handled

1:32:29 ↗ um i think across the country certainly

1:32:31 ↗ in our region

1:32:33 ↗ and um so it is something we've all

1:32:36 ↗ struggled with which is why it was so

1:32:38 ↗ important to have

1:32:41 ↗ a discussion with the community because

1:32:43 ↗ this is a new way of handling it and we

1:32:46 ↗ want to make sure that the

1:32:47 ↗ provisions that we put out

1:32:50 ↗ both as as i've said protect free speech

1:32:54 ↗ and maintain the character of the

1:32:56 ↗ community

1:32:58 ↗ i believe um i'm seeing a little comment

1:33:02 ↗ yeah it's a comment from commissioner

1:33:06 ↗ fall

1:33:09 ↗ uh thank you madam chair and this is

1:33:12 ↗ commissioner falls so i have a question

1:33:14 ↗ for

1:33:14 ↗ uh lucy um actually a couple questions

1:33:18 ↗ uh they're pretty shorts go to my

1:33:21 ↗ onenote here

1:33:24 ↗ as i read through the sign code i did

1:33:27 ↗ see things that referred to

1:33:29 ↗ yard sale signs um and

1:33:32 ↗ in terms of being able to

1:33:37 ↗ i guess enforce the yard sale sign

1:33:41 ↗ do we want to require dates

1:33:44 ↗ on yard sale signs so that

1:33:48 ↗ if someone leaves a yard sale sign up

1:33:50 ↗ for a week

1:33:52 ↗ someone who has the authority or a

1:33:56 ↗ fellow citizen would be able to see that

1:33:59 ↗ and realize that

1:34:00 ↗ it can come down because it is now past

1:34:02 ↗ a specific date

1:34:04 ↗ and the same thing also for um like a

1:34:07 ↗ lost pet

1:34:08 ↗ when i go for when i walk my dogs

1:34:10 ↗ through

1:34:11 ↗ on the rainier trail sometimes i see

1:34:13 ↗ lost pets

1:34:14 ↗ and i i want to give the owners the

1:34:16 ↗ opportunity to be able to

1:34:18 ↗ advertise that their pet is lost and

1:34:21 ↗ respect that

1:34:22 ↗ and realize that sometimes putting a

1:34:24 ↗ sign up

1:34:26 ↗ on a public poll or something like that

1:34:29 ↗ in a space

1:34:31 ↗ where the pet may have disappeared is

1:34:34 ↗ well makes good common sense and i don't

1:34:36 ↗ have any problems with that but do we

1:34:38 ↗ have any regulation around

1:34:40 ↗ that type of thing and how long that

1:34:42 ↗ sign can stay up

1:34:44 ↗ and then my third question is referring

1:34:47 ↗ more to

1:34:47 ↗ a political overtone but we have um

1:34:51 ↗ in the last year we've really seen this

1:34:53 ↗ kind of come out but we have

1:34:55 ↗ uh black lives matter uh flags

1:34:58 ↗ and banners sorry is it a flag or is it

1:35:00 ↗ a banner

1:35:02 ↗ um the rainbow flag stop to steal

1:35:05 ↗ they're on vehicles they're on

1:35:07 ↗ stationary on property

1:35:09 ↗ whether it's a residence or commercial

1:35:12 ↗ is do we is there regulation along that

1:35:16 ↗ is there guidelines that tell people

1:35:19 ↗ that they can put that type of sign out

1:35:22 ↗ and typically um they are four by eight

1:35:24 ↗ so they are 32 square feet

1:35:27 ↗ in approximation so those are my three

1:35:30 ↗ questions

1:35:33 ↗ um so uh let us talk about

1:35:37 ↗ uh the dates on some of those signs

1:35:41 ↗ i i think that it's probably beyond

1:35:44 ↗ the capacity of our code enforcement

1:35:47 ↗ officer

1:35:48 ↗ to um be pursuing that

1:35:51 ↗ and i believe that they're supposed to

1:35:53 ↗ be located on private property which

1:35:55 ↗ means that we would

1:35:56 ↗ probably not be picking them up but

1:36:00 ↗ i will add it to our list to discuss

1:36:03 ↗ um in terms of lost pets the one thing i

1:36:07 ↗ would say there

1:36:08 ↗ is you're not actually allowed to put

1:36:10 ↗ signs on public polls

1:36:12 ↗ uh doesn't mean people don't do it um

1:36:14 ↗ but

1:36:15 ↗ um i'm not sure that the dates are going

1:36:18 ↗ to solve

1:36:19 ↗ the problem there even though it would

1:36:23 ↗ help people know how likely it was

1:36:26 ↗ if that was still an issue

1:36:30 ↗ with the kinds of stop the steel rainbow

1:36:34 ↗ black live matter uh

1:36:37 ↗ materials those would all fall under

1:36:41 ↗ the uh non-commercial signs um

1:36:45 ↗ that that is i think a essential part

1:36:48 ↗ of what we're discussing with the

1:36:51 ↗ temporary non-commercial signs

1:36:53 ↗ that for instance at a house

1:36:57 ↗ or an apartment building or

1:37:00 ↗ a commercial building what size

1:37:05 ↗ banner or

1:37:11 ↗ window sign should be allowed

1:37:14 ↗ and

1:37:18 ↗ you know right now um the the community

1:37:22 ↗ that we

1:37:22 ↗ found that had a um sign code that we've

1:37:27 ↗ kind of borrowed

1:37:28 ↗ heavily from for this section is olympia

1:37:31 ↗ and in theirs they did not limit the

1:37:34 ↗ number of signs

1:37:35 ↗ but uh on single-family property for

1:37:38 ↗ instance they just limited each sign to

1:37:40 ↗ 10 square feet

1:37:42 ↗ um that could result in a lot of signs

1:37:45 ↗ um some communities have um

1:37:48 ↗ provided very specific limitations

1:37:51 ↗ for the number of signs no matter what

1:37:53 ↗ kind of use

1:37:55 ↗ and i think again that is

1:37:58 ↗ what we're looking to the commissioners

1:38:00 ↗ to give us a sense of what seems

1:38:03 ↗ like a good balance between a visual

1:38:05 ↗ impact

1:38:06 ↗ and free speech

1:38:11 ↗ okay thank you there are three things

1:38:14 ↗ on that slide that the city would like

1:38:18 ↗ clarification on

1:38:19 ↗ so kind of think about it and i'm going

1:38:21 ↗ to go to a question from commissioner

1:38:23 ↗ lewis

1:38:25 ↗ thank you chair provolo commissioner joy

1:38:27 ↗ lewis here i think that um

1:38:29 ↗ this specific this first um agenda topic

1:38:33 ↗ um is a good way to actually talk about

1:38:35 ↗ something that you had said

1:38:37 ↗ um in the packet which is to talk about

1:38:38 ↗ speech inversely proportional to density

1:38:41 ↗ um i think it's an important topic that

1:38:43 ↗ we could spend quite a bit of time on

1:38:44 ↗ and i'd like to hear from everybody

1:38:46 ↗ on it um i think it's something also

1:38:48 ↗ that should really go as the equity

1:38:50 ↗ board is formed and goes to them well i

1:38:52 ↗ don't want to stop our process here

1:38:54 ↗ i think it's an interesting topic to

1:38:55 ↗ have them take up

1:38:57 ↗ um and i think when we talk about

1:39:01 ↗ regulating um the amount of speech

1:39:03 ↗ effectively

1:39:04 ↗ we are talking about um inequity and so

1:39:07 ↗ i

1:39:07 ↗ would um i'd like to hear comments that

1:39:09 ↗ are kind of directed to that i thought

1:39:10 ↗ that was an interesting point in your

1:39:12 ↗ packet

1:39:13 ↗ and i'd also love to have staff kind of

1:39:14 ↗ talk to us about what are the common

1:39:16 ↗ issues or pushback that we've had

1:39:19 ↗ from the community in the past i mean

1:39:21 ↗ have we are we again trying to solve a

1:39:23 ↗ problem that maybe

1:39:24 ↗ isn't a problem have we found that it's

1:39:26 ↗ been a common thing of people putting

1:39:28 ↗ um a distracting amount of speech

1:39:31 ↗ on their property um you know i think

1:39:34 ↗ that's a

1:39:34 ↗ that's an interesting question right for

1:39:37 ↗ for this particular

1:39:38 ↗ topic

1:39:43 ↗ i'm looking at my chat to see if our

1:39:45 ↗ code enforcement officer provides me

1:39:47 ↗ with

1:39:48 ↗ any um information um

1:39:52 ↗ at this point he hasn't uh and so

1:39:55 ↗ from my perspective which is much less

1:39:58 ↗ a frontline i i think that we all are

1:40:01 ↗ aware that during certain political

1:40:04 ↗ seasons

1:40:04 ↗ um there's quite a bit of signage that

1:40:08 ↗ shows up but i

1:40:12 ↗ think that we are trying to again as

1:40:15 ↗ as it's similar to commissioner falls

1:40:19 ↗ comment

1:40:20 ↗ uh earlier that while

1:40:23 ↗ we don't want to wear ourselves

1:40:27 ↗ out with what-ifs i think we do want to

1:40:30 ↗ try and give

1:40:32 ↗ give things some edges that seem

1:40:35 ↗ a reasonable balance um up front

1:40:42 ↗ i feel if uh if you're looking for a

1:40:46 ↗ direct

1:40:47 ↗ comment on this um to be able to speed

1:40:50 ↗ it along i'd love to tell you

1:40:51 ↗ that i think it's reasonable for the

1:40:53 ↗ city to require a minimum separation

1:40:55 ↗ um if there is the concern of having um

1:40:58 ↗ a visual distraction but i do think that

1:41:01 ↗ exceptions should be made for instance

1:41:03 ↗ if someone is putting a particular

1:41:05 ↗ amount

1:41:05 ↗ of flags to represent members of their

1:41:07 ↗ family that are that are serving

1:41:09 ↗ across these and that exceeds that

1:41:11 ↗ number for the square footage they have

1:41:13 ↗ i think that there should be a comment

1:41:15 ↗ section that says i would like to exceed

1:41:17 ↗ whatever

1:41:18 ↗ that minimum separation is and this is

1:41:20 ↗ why and it can be dealt with

1:41:21 ↗ um so if there is going to be a

1:41:23 ↗ regulation i think there should be

1:41:24 ↗ an availability of people um requesting

1:41:27 ↗ their permit to say why and to have

1:41:30 ↗ exceptions

1:41:32 ↗ thank you um uh chairperson

1:41:36 ↗ probila i noticed that andrea snyder

1:41:39 ↗ yeah i was gonna call on her next thank

1:41:42 ↗ you

1:41:42 ↗ um she actually said never mind later on

1:41:46 ↗ in the chat down here

1:41:47 ↗ this is andrea snyder hi everybody i'm

1:41:50 ↗ andrea snyder the deputy city

1:41:52 ↗ administrator

1:41:53 ↗ and um i was going to weigh in on this

1:41:56 ↗ question

1:41:56 ↗ but then i saw that our code enforcement

1:41:59 ↗ officer chris garbowsky

1:42:01 ↗ seems to want to make a comment so i

1:42:03 ↗ will

1:42:05 ↗ seed to him and see if he has any

1:42:08 ↗ additional information to provide

1:42:09 ↗ thank you very much

1:42:16 ↗ thanks chair provola uh commissioner

1:42:19 ↗ lewis

1:42:20 ↗ in direct response to your question i

1:42:22 ↗ don't have

1:42:23 ↗ any uh personal enforcement experience

1:42:27 ↗ in this jurisdiction

1:42:28 ↗ with a proliferation of uh

1:42:32 ↗ political signs on a on a single family

1:42:35 ↗ residential property so it's

1:42:38 ↗ it's not a problem that i've experienced

1:42:40 ↗ in this jurisdiction

1:42:42 ↗ uh in my previous jurisdiction which was

1:42:44 ↗ the city of olympia i

1:42:46 ↗ i did have direct anecdotal evidence of

1:42:49 ↗ or

1:42:49 ↗ experience with that but i

1:42:52 ↗ you know that's under an old sign code

1:42:55 ↗ under

1:42:56 ↗ uh life pre reed v gilbert so it would

1:42:58 ↗ be comparing apples to oranges at this

1:43:00 ↗ point

1:43:03 ↗ thank you officer kabrowski it's nice to

1:43:05 ↗ see you again

1:43:07 ↗ thank you good to see you

1:43:10 ↗ so i have a question from commissioner

1:43:12 ↗ mccrory

1:43:17 ↗ [Music]

1:43:18 ↗ thank you commissioner probably this is

1:43:20 ↗ uh commissioner mccrory from evc

1:43:23 ↗ i have a question and then a comment

1:43:26 ↗ just for clarification

1:43:27 ↗ when we say private property

1:43:31 ↗ we are referring to only residential

1:43:34 ↗ property is that correct

1:43:36 ↗ no it would be all property okay

1:43:40 ↗ um that being the case i think um i

1:43:43 ↗ i i think it's a broader conversation

1:43:45 ↗ because i

1:43:47 ↗ i think we're thinking of of all private

1:43:49 ↗ property being residential or

1:43:51 ↗ residential property um but my comment

1:43:54 ↗ is i do think that uh

1:43:58 ↗ this needs to be regulated somehow some

1:44:00 ↗ way and lucy i wish i

1:44:02 ↗ could could help you in um achieving

1:44:04 ↗ that

1:44:06 ↗ but when i think about temporary

1:44:09 ↗ non-commercial signage

1:44:12 ↗ and i weigh that with our

1:44:17 ↗ our values of how we perceive our

1:44:20 ↗ community

1:44:22 ↗ of the public safety that might become

1:44:25 ↗ at risk

1:44:26 ↗ with um excessive signage

1:44:30 ↗ and then just ensuring that our

1:44:33 ↗ businesses

1:44:34 ↗ aren't buried behind

1:44:37 ↗ other non-commercial signage when

1:44:40 ↗ they're struggling especially right now

1:44:43 ↗ um to make sure their signage is out

1:44:46 ↗ and being seen only to be buried

1:44:50 ↗ by other temporary signs

1:44:54 ↗ um that might arise by just doing away

1:44:57 ↗ with regulating

1:44:58 ↗ and and to that point also enforcing so

1:45:02 ↗ again not i have no idea how to get

1:45:04 ↗ there but i

1:45:05 ↗ i am concerned with um

1:45:09 ↗ an abundance of signs that could

1:45:10 ↗ actually impede our safety

1:45:12 ↗ um affect negatively impact our

1:45:15 ↗ businesses

1:45:16 ↗ and um and take away from the beauty of

1:45:18 ↗ issaquah to be honest with you

1:45:20 ↗ thank you thank you

1:45:23 ↗ i have a question from uh a comment

1:45:27 ↗ from commissioner voice

1:45:31 ↗ thank you chair provola and thank you

1:45:34 ↗ manager sloman

1:45:35 ↗ um i feel like the five-man band there

1:45:38 ↗ keep saying

1:45:38 ↗ signs well i don't even want to hear

1:45:42 ↗ that word again

1:45:43 ↗ so i'm going to try and take establish

1:45:45 ↗ what i think it is you guys are looking

1:45:47 ↗ for

1:45:48 ↗ i'm going to say that option number

1:45:49 ↗ three is the one that i seem to agree

1:45:52 ↗ with the most

1:45:52 ↗ i think option number one is probably

1:45:54 ↗ the worst

1:45:56 ↗ so to have absolutely no regulation by

1:45:58 ↗ the city i think would uh kind of go

1:46:00 ↗ against israel

1:46:01 ↗ values to miss mccrory's point and also

1:46:06 ↗ i think three even though there is going

1:46:08 ↗ to be a bit of math for people to figure

1:46:10 ↗ this out

1:46:11 ↗ obviously our corporations do that when

1:46:13 ↗ they're coming up with their signage

1:46:15 ↗ when you guys showed that one particular

1:46:16 ↗ corporate office

1:46:17 ↗ off of i-90 it's not impossible

1:46:21 ↗ it may take a little longer for others

1:46:23 ↗ but

1:46:24 ↗ if people are going to be producing

1:46:26 ↗ multiple amounts of signs

1:46:28 ↗ i think that's not a lot to ask i think

1:46:31 ↗ the five foot rule

1:46:33 ↗ i'm open to hear about it but it seems

1:46:35 ↗ like things get cluttered pretty quickly

1:46:37 ↗ and i'm happy to hear officer

1:46:39 ↗ garbowsky's comment that he hasn't seen

1:46:41 ↗ it in is a claw

1:46:42 ↗ i guess my point is i don't want to see

1:46:44 ↗ it in his aqua

1:46:45 ↗ so i like the idea of it being basically

1:46:49 ↗ regulated i like the idea of the city of

1:46:51 ↗ israel

1:46:52 ↗ still having a little bit of purview and

1:46:54 ↗ still having a little bit of

1:46:56 ↗ i guess the ability to have people

1:46:59 ↗ comply

1:47:00 ↗ with some of the regulations so if you

1:47:02 ↗ were going to ask me my opinion

1:47:03 ↗ at the moment i would go with number

1:47:05 ↗ three

1:47:07 ↗ so how would you do that how what

1:47:11 ↗ you calculated on the the length of the

1:47:14 ↗ property

1:47:16 ↗ but you're still back to how many signs

1:47:19 ↗ per foot

1:47:20 ↗ whether it's five feet or whatever so

1:47:23 ↗ what percentage of space would you like

1:47:27 ↗ to put in there

1:47:32 ↗ are you addressing me yes i am

1:47:35 ↗ well i don't have that magic number um i

1:47:38 ↗ guess

1:47:39 ↗ it probably would be a percentage so the

1:47:41 ↗ larger the building

1:47:42 ↗ the more amount of signs they could

1:47:44 ↗ probably put i would assume

1:47:46 ↗ it's pretty simple math but i don't know

1:47:48 ↗ if there's an actual standard like a

1:47:50 ↗ metric

1:47:50 ↗ like a percentage i don't know if it's a

1:47:52 ↗ foot rule

1:47:54 ↗ five foot seems pretty crammed i mean

1:47:57 ↗ you know that's shorter than my height

1:47:59 ↗ so it seems like a lot

1:48:01 ↗ could be lined up in a piece of property

1:48:04 ↗ i understand that

1:48:05 ↗ uh you know as far as the reed beep

1:48:08 ↗ gilbert we really can't make

1:48:09 ↗ considerations for political seasons

1:48:11 ↗ versus any other season

1:48:13 ↗ and i think i'll have a different

1:48:16 ↗ question when we get to the flag portion

1:48:18 ↗ because i do also want to address

1:48:22 ↗ commissioner lewis's point you know if

1:48:24 ↗ you have memorial day or fourth of july

1:48:26 ↗ when people put all those little flags

1:48:27 ↗ in their yard

1:48:28 ↗ i mean i i guess there's a spirit to it

1:48:32 ↗ people you know i i know there's not i

1:48:35 ↗ guess i would hope there's more common

1:48:37 ↗ sense

1:48:37 ↗ but i like the idea of the city still

1:48:40 ↗ being able to step

1:48:41 ↗ in and kind of regulate some of our

1:48:43 ↗ aesthetics

1:48:44 ↗ and like i said i personally like number

1:48:46 ↗ three

1:48:47 ↗ number one scares me um number two

1:48:51 ↗ i don't know i don't know if that's the

1:48:52 ↗ best one i kind of i don't know what

1:48:54 ↗ metric to be

1:48:54 ↗ that would be used that would be the

1:48:56 ↗ most successful but i at the moment from

1:48:58 ↗ what

1:48:58 ↗ i believe staff is looking for

1:49:01 ↗ i would say number three so

1:49:05 ↗ it's the direction i i haven't heard any

1:49:08 ↗ comments against that to

1:49:10 ↗ go with number three but to

1:49:14 ↗ have the city come up with a the metric

1:49:16 ↗ of

1:49:17 ↗ what that's going to be so if the metric

1:49:20 ↗ comes up at five feet

1:49:23 ↗ or six feet

1:49:26 ↗ you're going to have to make a decision

1:49:28 ↗ on that

1:49:29 ↗ based on a picture look at you know

1:49:33 ↗ what does it look like well i i

1:49:35 ↗ appreciate

1:49:36 ↗ um the challenge that we've given you

1:49:39 ↗ and part of it was the challenge that we

1:49:41 ↗ faced

1:49:43 ↗ and um chairperson probila is correct

1:49:47 ↗ that

1:49:48 ↗ we do often come with a polished draft

1:49:50 ↗ um

1:49:52 ↗ but we recognized that first of all

1:49:54 ↗ we're doing something new

1:49:56 ↗ and we're not fine-tuning something and

1:49:58 ↗ this is

1:49:59 ↗ um a significant piece of uh reflecting

1:50:03 ↗ the community

1:50:04 ↗ so even if we don't come away with an

1:50:06 ↗ exact answer tonight i think that the

1:50:09 ↗ information that we're getting

1:50:10 ↗ is very helpful to us in terms of going

1:50:14 ↗ back

1:50:14 ↗ and trying to come up with a final

1:50:18 ↗ proposal that will come forward for the

1:50:21 ↗ public hearing

1:50:24 ↗ so i have a question from commissioner

1:50:28 ↗ milligan thank you chair probably this

1:50:32 ↗ is nina milligan

1:50:33 ↗ uh the question uh kind of two questions

1:50:36 ↗ and they dovetailed together and i

1:50:38 ↗ want to thank commissioner voice for

1:50:41 ↗ um pointing out the merits of number

1:50:43 ↗ three and i would like to say that i

1:50:45 ↗ agree with them

1:50:46 ↗ and and backing up a little bit the um

1:50:50 ↗ the separation the minimum separation of

1:50:52 ↗ five feet

1:50:53 ↗ doesn't seem to really it's a it's a

1:50:56 ↗ standard

1:50:57 ↗ but does it speak to our concerns are

1:50:59 ↗ our concerns

1:51:00 ↗ um having over signage and then but then

1:51:04 ↗ to me my greater concern was um safety

1:51:07 ↗ and sight lines

1:51:08 ↗ um would that really achieve the

1:51:10 ↗ objective

1:51:12 ↗ if the objective is don't get in the way

1:51:15 ↗ of sight lines

1:51:16 ↗ then that would be an enforceable um

1:51:20 ↗ standard but coming to it from

1:51:23 ↗ even another direction is the permission

1:51:25 ↗ if we're talking about right-of-way

1:51:26 ↗ and we're talking about permission of

1:51:28 ↗ the adjacent property owner

1:51:30 ↗ and i'm sorry there was so much to read

1:51:32 ↗ so lucy please remind me

1:51:34 ↗ when the property owner gives permission

1:51:37 ↗ to someone

1:51:38 ↗ to put signs in the adjacent

1:51:41 ↗ right-of-way do they have control over

1:51:43 ↗ how many signs they can put in the

1:51:45 ↗ adjacent right-of-way

1:51:47 ↗ do they become the owner of the use of

1:51:50 ↗ that adjacent right-of-way and how it is

1:51:52 ↗ used

1:51:52 ↗ um or or is that and then the

1:51:56 ↗ um the use is defined by this or could

1:51:59 ↗ the

1:52:00 ↗ adjacent property owner say hey you can

1:52:01 ↗ put one sign out there and then

1:52:03 ↗ the next person has to put another sign

1:52:06 ↗ five feet from there

1:52:07 ↗ you know and say i'm trying to put those

1:52:08 ↗ two together when it's actually being

1:52:10 ↗ applied

1:52:11 ↗ um we'll give it a shot and see if i've

1:52:14 ↗ got it

1:52:15 ↗ um if i've got your question that is

1:52:18 ↗ um i believe that

1:52:22 ↗ uh the adjacent property owner

1:52:26 ↗ in giving permission can probably use

1:52:28 ↗ any criteria they choose

1:52:30 ↗ and i from what daniel kinney has said

1:52:34 ↗ to us

1:52:35 ↗ you know part of the concern is that

1:52:37 ↗ since

1:52:38 ↗ there is an underlying right to that

1:52:41 ↗ property

1:52:42 ↗ because it is not in fact owned it's

1:52:44 ↗ sort of like an easement almost

1:52:46 ↗ um to the city right of way um most

1:52:49 ↗ right-of-way

1:52:50 ↗ um you know having someone

1:52:53 ↗ um put a candidate that you are

1:52:56 ↗ vehemently opposed to

1:52:58 ↗ in front of your house or your business

1:53:00 ↗ you have the ability to say

1:53:02 ↗ you know yes to your candidate and no to

1:53:05 ↗ your candidate

1:53:06 ↗ um i think that like many things the

1:53:10 ↗ city

1:53:11 ↗ sets a minimum or they set a maximum and

1:53:14 ↗ then

1:53:14 ↗ other things can happen as long as it's

1:53:18 ↗ um that you're compliant and so

1:53:21 ↗ um what i would say is

1:53:24 ↗ you know they might grant one person the

1:53:27 ↗ right to put a sign out and

1:53:28 ↗ no more um and even though

1:53:31 ↗ you would have a long enough uh frontage

1:53:35 ↗ uh to have five signs

1:53:38 ↗ um and that uh as i understand it

1:53:41 ↗ and i hope daniel chimes in if i'm

1:53:43 ↗ getting this wrong

1:53:45 ↗ um even though there is the ability to

1:53:48 ↗ have more

1:53:49 ↗ and and i think one of the things with

1:53:51 ↗ number three um that

1:53:54 ↗ that i would like to hear more about

1:53:58 ↗ from the brave people who are willing to

1:54:01 ↗ pick an option

1:54:02 ↗ and put it out there is um

1:54:06 ↗ you know one question related to that is

1:54:09 ↗ if a homeowner has a bigger piece of

1:54:12 ↗ property

1:54:13 ↗ should they have more voice than a

1:54:16 ↗ property owner with a smaller piece of

1:54:18 ↗ property

1:54:19 ↗ um that is kind of the implication is

1:54:22 ↗ that

1:54:22 ↗ if you have a bigger piece of property

1:54:24 ↗ you get more signs if you have

1:54:27 ↗ a small townhouse property you get less

1:54:31 ↗ maybe that's good maybe it's that you

1:54:34 ↗ have more frontage and therefore

1:54:36 ↗ you know there's more space for it or

1:54:39 ↗ you might say

1:54:40 ↗ one has one vote and i'm i'm interested

1:54:43 ↗ in hearing more of the commissioners

1:54:46 ↗ thinking just because it helps us when

1:54:48 ↗ we go back

1:54:49 ↗ to sort of sort through these various

1:54:51 ↗ provisions

1:54:52 ↗ that have been put out in as as

1:54:55 ↗ options to to actually settle on one

1:55:06 ↗ well for right now we're going to have a

1:55:11 ↗ comment from commissioner chris

1:55:19 ↗ thank you chair problem it's a little

1:55:21 ↗ after the fact now

1:55:22 ↗ but i did want to comment on

1:55:23 ↗ commissioner mccrory's concerns about

1:55:26 ↗ public safety

1:55:27 ↗ um so um

1:55:31 ↗ one thing that the supreme court

1:55:32 ↗ decision doesn't do

1:55:35 ↗ uh and daniel kelly can back me up on

1:55:38 ↗ this is it doesn't infringe on the

1:55:40 ↗ city's right

1:55:41 ↗ to stipulate time place and manner of

1:55:44 ↗ these signs

1:55:45 ↗ regardless of of what the signs say

1:55:49 ↗ so if a sign is in some way creating a

1:55:52 ↗ public

1:55:52 ↗ hazard either it's encroaching into the

1:55:55 ↗ travel portion of the right-of-way

1:55:56 ↗ creating a pedestrian or vehicle hazard

1:55:59 ↗ or if it is obstructing

1:56:02 ↗ the clear sight triangle or if it

1:56:05 ↗ it is causing any other imminent danger

1:56:08 ↗ in any way

1:56:10 ↗ the city is well within its rights to

1:56:12 ↗ immediately impound that sign

1:56:14 ↗ so from a public safety standpoint i

1:56:16 ↗ think that we're still

1:56:18 ↗ you know we still have the ability as a

1:56:20 ↗ jurisdiction to

1:56:21 ↗ to deal with signs that uh that create

1:56:25 ↗ that kind of a hazard

1:56:28 ↗ so you have two comments

1:56:32 ↗ is there an additional comment you want

1:56:34 ↗ to make you're in the chat box twice

1:56:37 ↗ no thank you chair um

1:56:40 ↗ i have a comment from

1:56:45 ↗ um you're gonna have to help me with

1:56:48 ↗ this one because i

1:56:50 ↗ don't know first and last names

1:56:53 ↗ and jolly i'm julie

1:56:58 ↗ um about um thank you um

1:57:02 ↗ regal um the option one

1:57:06 ↗ um about the regulation i think that's

1:57:08 ↗ really important for the city of

1:57:10 ↗ issaquah to have some sort of regulation

1:57:13 ↗ on the non-commercial signs

1:57:16 ↗ in regards to the time frame period

1:57:19 ↗ and how many signs that they can put it

1:57:22 ↗ up

1:57:24 ↗ about the minimum separation during the

1:57:27 ↗ election time driving on the newport

1:57:30 ↗ gilman and on thomas it was

1:57:33 ↗ a bunch of signs all

1:57:36 ↗ clustered together

1:57:40 ↗ was not a good site because it was a

1:57:43 ↗ lockdown

1:57:44 ↗ and families were home we were going for

1:57:48 ↗ more walks and

1:57:50 ↗ it was it was not a great site because

1:57:54 ↗ it was just so much clustered it looked

1:57:56 ↗ like somebody has just

1:57:58 ↗ made a big mess in the corner of the

1:58:01 ↗ street so i think minimum separation

1:58:06 ↗ three feet two feet

1:58:10 ↗ maybe a good idea and i agree with lucy

1:58:14 ↗ about the

1:58:15 ↗ length of the property it

1:58:18 ↗ really doesn't sound

1:58:21 ↗ very appealing to

1:58:24 ↗ put that out maybe because

1:58:28 ↗ as lucy mentioned that if you have a big

1:58:31 ↗ house it doesn't mean

1:58:32 ↗ you can just put a big banner out there

1:58:34 ↗ for something and small house can just

1:58:37 ↗ put

1:58:38 ↗ a very small little thing um

1:58:41 ↗ whatever they're putting the signage up

1:58:43 ↗ for so

1:58:45 ↗ i think putting that out there with the

1:58:48 ↗ length of property

1:58:50 ↗ uh maybe not good for the

1:58:53 ↗ for the whole community sending up the

1:58:56 ↗ message

1:58:57 ↗ of um um

1:59:01 ↗ like equal rights for everybody so i

1:59:03 ↗ think it's just

1:59:04 ↗ blend of the property doesn't sound

1:59:06 ↗ really good for

1:59:08 ↗ non-commercial signs

1:59:13 ↗ i don't think you're gonna win either

1:59:15 ↗ way

1:59:17 ↗ yeah i agree just a comment so

1:59:20 ↗ thank you so i have a comment from

1:59:24 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:59:29 ↗ uh thank you joan this is uh

1:59:30 ↗ commissioner richard zaragoza

1:59:32 ↗ uh so i wanted to comment on i certainly

1:59:35 ↗ think that some regulation is necessary

1:59:38 ↗ um the requirement for

1:59:41 ↗ uh five feet separation

1:59:45 ↗ essentially becomes the length of

1:59:47 ↗ property

1:59:48 ↗ calculated if it's 100 feet

1:59:51 ↗ within five feet basically that becomes

1:59:54 ↗ the

1:59:55 ↗ the same requirement um but i also

2:00:00 ↗ felt kind of strong about the

2:00:03 ↗ the comment that um

2:00:08 ↗ lucy sloman made about the bigger the

2:00:10 ↗ house the bigger the voice

2:00:12 ↗ then that felt pretty unfair to me

2:00:16 ↗ um that a large house could have

2:00:19 ↗ a dozen different signs but a townhouse

2:00:21 ↗ could have

2:00:22 ↗ you know with five feet maybe two so i

2:00:25 ↗ think

2:00:26 ↗ capping it to the property so everybody

2:00:29 ↗ has the same amount

2:00:30 ↗ of numbers of signs

2:00:34 ↗ no matter how large the property is

2:00:36 ↗ makes more sense to me

2:00:37 ↗ as far as fairness um but it doesn't

2:00:41 ↗ address

2:00:42 ↗ as you're saying kind of easements where

2:00:44 ↗ where it's it's not owned by a

2:00:45 ↗ particular person

2:00:47 ↗ um but i guess it could still

2:00:50 ↗ apply um as far as like what the number

2:00:52 ↗ is

2:00:54 ↗ um maybe what we can do is go by

2:00:57 ↗ the smaller the smaller average so

2:01:00 ↗ smaller size houses like townhouses

2:01:02 ↗ would have i don't know 25 feet

2:01:04 ↗ so what is what is um aesthetic

2:01:08 ↗ on a 25-foot property something like

2:01:10 ↗ three and then

2:01:11 ↗ apply that to larger properties

2:01:15 ↗ that's my comment either that

2:01:18 ↗ you could specify no more than

2:01:22 ↗ so many signs for property yes exactly

2:01:26 ↗ which doesn't cut into

2:01:29 ↗ discrimination about uh size of property

2:01:33 ↗ yeah i think it just would matter if if

2:01:35 ↗ it's a large number like 15

2:01:37 ↗ then on a small townhouse it's gonna

2:01:39 ↗ look

2:01:40 ↗ very cluttered or it could be cluttered

2:01:42 ↗ because you've given such a large number

2:01:44 ↗ of course on very large properties 15

2:01:46 ↗ might seem like

2:01:47 ↗ you know too little but i think it's

2:01:49 ↗ better to err on the side of too little

2:01:50 ↗ than too many

2:01:55 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner

2:01:57 ↗ freeze

2:02:01 ↗ a couple of observations one is that

2:02:05 ↗ if you use three you're probably going

2:02:07 ↗ to have to have some

2:02:09 ↗ form of two because

2:02:12 ↗ let's say i have a hundred feet

2:02:15 ↗ linear feet of length of property and

2:02:18 ↗ then allows me 10 signs

2:02:24 ↗ under just 3 i could put all 10 signs at

2:02:26 ↗ one corner of the property two inches

2:02:28 ↗ apart

2:02:31 ↗ so you're probably gonna you know number

2:02:34 ↗ three i'm entitled to x number of signs

2:02:36 ↗ but it doesn't say how far apart they

2:02:38 ↗ have to be

2:02:39 ↗ so that doesn't say they have to be

2:02:41 ↗ evenly

2:02:42 ↗ spread across the property the

2:02:46 ↗ other challenge with things like

2:02:48 ↗ townhouses and things like that

2:02:50 ↗ is going to be

2:02:55 ↗ what you do about the driveways you know

2:02:57 ↗ like if you're in a 25 foot

2:03:00 ↗ wide townhouse um

2:03:04 ↗ probably you know 10 or 11 feet of that

2:03:06 ↗ is going to be your driveway

2:03:09 ↗ so you know your your practical limit

2:03:11 ↗ becomes

2:03:12 ↗ you know 10 feet

2:03:15 ↗ so you kind of need to consider that as

2:03:17 ↗ well in

2:03:19 ↗ in crafting this the

2:03:23 ↗ last observation i'll make is

2:03:26 ↗ for multi-family housing you know when

2:03:28 ↗ you think about things like condos

2:03:31 ↗ where you don't have a dedicated you

2:03:33 ↗ know linear front

2:03:35 ↗ um it's going to be very difficult to

2:03:39 ↗ really maintain a strict numerical

2:03:41 ↗ equity

2:03:42 ↗ between a co signage for political

2:03:44 ↗ signage for a condo

2:03:46 ↗ and political signage for a

2:03:50 ↗ single family with you know like 40 feet

2:03:52 ↗ of front space

2:03:55 ↗ so there's there's some challenges there

2:03:58 ↗ um just need to keep in mind

2:04:04 ↗ so we're going to take the last two

2:04:07 ↗ comments and then

2:04:08 ↗ go on to the next question

2:04:12 ↗ so i have a comment from commissioner

2:04:15 ↗ fall

2:04:19 ↗ thank you madam chair so i

2:04:22 ↗ originally had a comment uh to go back

2:04:25 ↗ to jason voice's

2:04:27 ↗ um uh proposal and

2:04:31 ↗ boy everybody had some really good

2:04:32 ↗ feedback here so

2:04:34 ↗ i'm actually going to add on to a little

2:04:36 ↗ bit um

2:04:38 ↗ i like the i support jason's idea of

2:04:41 ↗ using

2:04:42 ↗ number three and um

2:04:46 ↗ art's suggestion of using number two

2:04:49 ↗ uh which is also going to a nollie

2:04:53 ↗ um if we have a thousands

2:04:56 ↗ if a property owner has a thousand

2:04:58 ↗ thousand linear feet

2:04:59 ↗ on the street uh if we went with a

2:05:03 ↗ number of fictitious numbers say uh

2:05:07 ↗ two tenths of a percent that would have

2:05:09 ↗ routed to the nearest

2:05:10 ↗ hole that would allow them three signs

2:05:12 ↗ for a thousand feet

2:05:14 ↗ we could also say that that property

2:05:16 ↗ owner could have three

2:05:18 ↗ three signs for that thousand feet and a

2:05:20 ↗ property owner that may only have a

2:05:22 ↗ hundred linear feet we could say there's

2:05:24 ↗ a minimum

2:05:25 ↗ um of two sites so

2:05:29 ↗ that property owner that only has a

2:05:30 ↗ hundred feet could have

2:05:33 ↗ up to two signs or three signs based on

2:05:35 ↗ that hundred but it's just

2:05:37 ↗ putting in that there's a minimum that

2:05:40 ↗ that person can have

2:05:43 ↗ and based on the square footage and then

2:05:47 ↗ after that minimum

2:05:48 ↗ then it's based on linear fee

2:05:51 ↗ so that solves number two and number

2:05:53 ↗ three in the same bucket

2:05:55 ↗ and then i think what we're also hearing

2:05:56 ↗ is that people are talking about

2:05:58 ↗ residential versus commercial should we

2:06:00 ↗ treat residential differently than we

2:06:02 ↗ should treat commercial

2:06:06 ↗ and then when we're talking about

2:06:08 ↗ townhouses versus regular houses

2:06:11 ↗ typically townhouses condominiums and

2:06:13 ↗ apartments that are then regulated by

2:06:15 ↗ either

2:06:16 ↗ the landlord

2:06:21 ↗ limitations and or an hoa association so

2:06:25 ↗ if we're talking about limiting free

2:06:27 ↗ speech of whether a person could put up

2:06:29 ↗ a blm

2:06:30 ↗ sign in their window or a

2:06:33 ↗ commercial sign in their window

2:06:36 ↗ that meets the commercial format for

2:06:38 ↗ residents

2:06:40 ↗ what happens when we're having that sign

2:06:43 ↗ in a hoa situation does the hoa take

2:06:47 ↗ um priority or

2:06:50 ↗ is the city code going to allow them to

2:06:53 ↗ override

2:06:54 ↗ the hoa codes

2:06:59 ↗ and that's all thank you

2:07:02 ↗ thank you to have a last comment from

2:07:06 ↗ commissioner carl

2:07:11 ↗ thank you this is janice carl um

2:07:15 ↗ i have just a couple of comments and

2:07:17 ↗ i'll do them very quickly i really

2:07:19 ↗ appreciate the suggestion

2:07:20 ↗ that a couple of folks have made of a

2:07:22 ↗ single maximum number of signs

2:07:25 ↗ per property or lot however that's going

2:07:29 ↗ to be defined

2:07:30 ↗ in terms of ownership i can see the

2:07:33 ↗ concerns about

2:07:36 ↗ restrictions from an hoa

2:07:39 ↗ or similar overriding set of rules

2:07:42 ↗ but i think that that's a nice way to

2:07:45 ↗ manage the equity so

2:07:47 ↗ if we said three signs per lot then that

2:07:50 ↗ would be a reasonable across the board

2:07:52 ↗ regardless of the size of the lot

2:07:55 ↗ i feel that there's a fairly low need

2:07:59 ↗ to ensure minimum separation between

2:08:02 ↗ signs

2:08:04 ↗ the exception to this would be if you're

2:08:06 ↗ worried about

2:08:08 ↗ the ability to see around a corner or

2:08:10 ↗ have visibility to traffic but

2:08:13 ↗ the displayer of the sign has an

2:08:16 ↗ interest in making sure there is some

2:08:18 ↗ separation between the signs because if

2:08:20 ↗ the signs are too close together

2:08:22 ↗ that inhibits the readability of those

2:08:24 ↗ signs and

2:08:25 ↗ that's not their point um

2:08:28 ↗ so i feel like that requirement

2:08:32 ↗ is less critical that's all i have thank

2:08:34 ↗ you

2:08:37 ↗ so lucy does that give you enough

2:08:40 ↗ to think about it does thank you so much

2:08:44 ↗ i appreciate i appreciate everyone

2:08:47 ↗ diving into the

2:08:49 ↗ deep end the pool with us while we try

2:08:51 ↗ and sort this out thank you very much

2:08:54 ↗ so we go on to the second question

2:08:57 ↗ yes uh the second question i i put the

2:09:00 ↗ hard one up first so hopefully it gets

2:09:02 ↗ easier from here

2:09:05 ↗ second topic has to do with the old town

2:09:07 ↗ design standards which includes three

2:09:09 ↗ pages on sign design

2:09:12 ↗ these regulations are different than the

2:09:15 ↗ regulations in other parts of tan

2:09:17 ↗ and even conflict conflict with the

2:09:20 ↗ um regulations for signs in 1811.

2:09:27 ↗ basically the existing code each page

2:09:29 ↗ has a topic

2:09:31 ↗ those three are listed integration with

2:09:34 ↗ architecture building mounted signs

2:09:36 ↗ and whimsical artistic elements

2:09:39 ↗ integrated integration with architecture

2:09:42 ↗ requires that you identify locations

2:09:45 ↗ with the design of buildings so the

2:09:47 ↗ signs fit with the architecture

2:09:50 ↗ architectural character and proportional

2:09:53 ↗ i'm losing my ability to speak

2:09:56 ↗ proportional

2:09:59 ↗ to the building uh the building mounted

2:10:02 ↗ lines

2:10:03 ↗ uh does not allow any freestanding signs

2:10:06 ↗ with two exceptions one

2:10:07 ↗ is where you have an existing single

2:10:10 ↗ family home that is being used for a

2:10:12 ↗ business and you're allowed to have

2:10:14 ↗ essentially a monument signed or a

2:10:17 ↗ multi-building

2:10:18 ↗ multi-tenant

2:10:22 ↗ project and again you're allowed to have

2:10:25 ↗ a monument sign

2:10:27 ↗ the third is called whimsical

2:10:30 ↗ artistic elements it is only guidelines

2:10:34 ↗ and encourages highly graphic signs to

2:10:37 ↗ convey

2:10:38 ↗ products or services use ornamental

2:10:41 ↗ brackets be pedestrian oriented

2:10:43 ↗ and allows a certain uh

2:10:46 ↗ amount of additional signs cabinet signs

2:10:49 ↗ and neon outlining of buildings are not

2:10:52 ↗ allowed

2:10:53 ↗ so as the memo uh identifies

2:10:57 ↗ some of these um are kind of challenging

2:11:01 ↗ a lot of the buildings in the cbd are

2:11:03 ↗ historic

2:11:04 ↗ and uh so trying to identify

2:11:08 ↗ where those uh sign areas go

2:11:12 ↗ um may be difficult um

2:11:15 ↗ given that we don't have those at this

2:11:17 ↗ point um

2:11:18 ↗ and then tracking those over time

2:11:23 ↗ and then you know what is architectural

2:11:26 ↗ fit

2:11:26 ↗ to one person may not be architectural

2:11:29 ↗ fit to another

2:11:30 ↗ however if this is something that's

2:11:32 ↗ important to the commissioners

2:11:34 ↗ um it would be we would want to update

2:11:38 ↗ that the building mounted signs

2:11:41 ↗ these are essentially monument signs

2:11:44 ↗ smaller than the signs allowed

2:11:48 ↗ in the rest of the cities again is this

2:11:50 ↗ an important feature of the central

2:11:53 ↗ business district

2:11:55 ↗ um and if so then we would want to look

2:11:58 ↗ at um at how best to do that

2:12:02 ↗ um to be consistent with the cbd

2:12:06 ↗ the whimsical artistic elements some of

2:12:09 ↗ these

2:12:09 ↗ are either already prohibited such as

2:12:13 ↗ cabinet signs some of them are

2:12:15 ↗ guidelines

2:12:17 ↗ or we already have additional sign

2:12:20 ↗ provisions

2:12:21 ↗ um so it we're really looking forward to

2:12:23 ↗ hearing from the commissioners to

2:12:26 ↗ figure out um are there essential

2:12:28 ↗ components of this

2:12:29 ↗ that should be retained for cbd or

2:12:33 ↗ whether consistency is more important

2:12:41 ↗ when you talk about cbd are you talking

2:12:44 ↗ about

2:12:46 ↗ all of old town or more specifically

2:12:49 ↗ front street and sunset where the

2:12:51 ↗ businesses are

2:12:53 ↗ that's a great question um old town is

2:12:56 ↗ much bigger than cbd

2:12:58 ↗ um cbd is the actual um zoning area

2:13:02 ↗ that this applies to as i understand it

2:13:06 ↗ and uh so this is primarily

2:13:09 ↗ front street and maybe the first half

2:13:12 ↗ block of sunset so it really is

2:13:15 ↗ front street just south of

2:13:18 ↗ sunset uh north to

2:13:22 ↗ i think about where the creek crosses it

2:13:26 ↗ so the cbd

2:13:29 ↗ front street is uh

2:13:33 ↗ i think a complete different element

2:13:36 ↗ of the city i don't think that

2:13:40 ↗ you can lump it in there are too many

2:13:46 ↗ uh differences too many

2:13:49 ↗ uh things that

2:13:52 ↗ add art and color and uh

2:13:58 ↗ things to make that part of the city

2:14:01 ↗ different and i don't think you can just

2:14:03 ↗ go

2:14:04 ↗ and say all of these other

2:14:09 ↗ rules apply but in

2:14:12 ↗ in order to get a sense of what is

2:14:16 ↗ important i think we should

2:14:18 ↗ somebody has to dig deep into

2:14:22 ↗ what is essential and what can be

2:14:26 ↗ uh put in to have a hybrid but i really

2:14:29 ↗ think that there are some things that

2:14:31 ↗ need to be different based on where it

2:14:33 ↗ is

2:14:35 ↗ thank you i don't see any other comments

2:14:39 ↗ in the or questions in the

2:14:42 ↗ i think you need to talk to dia i think

2:14:44 ↗ you need to to see what

2:14:46 ↗ what what they have had down there and

2:14:49 ↗ what they think is coming

2:14:53 ↗ so um i have a comment from commissioner

2:14:57 ↗ mccory

2:15:01 ↗ thank you commissioner problem

2:15:03 ↗ commissioner mccrory here with evc

2:15:05 ↗ um i just want to say i think some

2:15:07 ↗ things could pertain

2:15:09 ↗ uh temporary signage for instance

2:15:12 ↗ um and i do agree that

2:15:15 ↗ um some of the design standards that

2:15:18 ↗ exist now

2:15:19 ↗ um need to take into account the the

2:15:22 ↗ architecture

2:15:23 ↗ of the downtown core i would hate to see

2:15:26 ↗ that go away

2:15:27 ↗ um you uh um i think the

2:15:30 ↗ the business um owners down there have

2:15:33 ↗ done a great job thus far

2:15:35 ↗ of making sure the signage

2:15:40 ↗ complements the buildings so i do think

2:15:44 ↗ i agree with joan that i think that that

2:15:46 ↗ integration of architecture needs to

2:15:48 ↗ remain specific

2:15:50 ↗ for cbd um on the other hand i do think

2:15:53 ↗ there's some areas of commonality

2:15:55 ↗ um with the temporary signs etc that

2:15:58 ↗ that could

2:15:59 ↗ flow throughout the city thank you i

2:16:04 ↗ have a comment from commissioner lewis

2:16:07 ↗ thank you chair provolo commissioner joy

2:16:09 ↗ lewis here um

2:16:10 ↗ i agree with the previous comments that

2:16:13 ↗ have been stated about

2:16:15 ↗ cbd being designated separate and i

2:16:17 ↗ believe in your memo

2:16:18 ↗ we actually talk about it adhering to

2:16:20 ↗ the old town standards

2:16:21 ↗ um and i believe that we do actually

2:16:24 ↗ speak about that in the old town

2:16:25 ↗ standards and so

2:16:26 ↗ the design i'm sorry standard so it's uh

2:16:29 ↗ it's something i believe is actually

2:16:30 ↗ addressed so when we kind of think about

2:16:32 ↗ it versus the rest of the city i think

2:16:33 ↗ it is important to think about the cbd

2:16:36 ↗ as being a part of old town um and being

2:16:38 ↗ that gateway into the community and so i

2:16:40 ↗ more closely align

2:16:41 ↗ that view i also think that as we've

2:16:43 ↗ looked at whether it be our designation

2:16:46 ↗ um of how we see our city expanding in

2:16:48 ↗ the future and um

2:16:50 ↗ wall street for instance the plans that

2:16:52 ↗ we have next to the rally

2:16:54 ↗ property and development build out we

2:16:56 ↗ see us wanting to create

2:16:59 ↗ really more identity with our

2:17:00 ↗ neighborhoods we've worked a lot on that

2:17:02 ↗ in our commission

2:17:03 ↗ and i think that allowing that room um

2:17:06 ↗ is important

2:17:06 ↗ as communities want to help define and

2:17:09 ↗ create that sense of space

2:17:11 ↗ and so having the cbd be different from

2:17:13 ↗ what our rest of our sign code is for

2:17:15 ↗ the city

2:17:16 ↗ i think adheres to the kind of overall

2:17:17 ↗ plans that we've talked about

2:17:19 ↗ thank you so

2:17:22 ↗ i'm assuming that commissioner casler

2:17:26 ↗ just made a comment

2:17:28 ↗ uh in the chat

2:17:33 ↗ hi there yes i just wanted to say that i

2:17:36 ↗ agree with the last three speakers and i

2:17:38 ↗ think the other thing to consider

2:17:40 ↗ is because old town and some

2:17:43 ↗ other areas that are connected has been

2:17:46 ↗ designated as a creative arts district

2:17:49 ↗ i think we need to consider that as well

2:17:51 ↗ because it

2:17:52 ↗ it does and it does tell us that art is

2:17:55 ↗ going to be a core

2:17:57 ↗ and then whatever we decide you know in

2:17:59 ↗ terms of the signage art versus logos

2:18:02 ↗ and all those things

2:18:03 ↗ we just need to be very cognizant that

2:18:05 ↗ there are some different things at play

2:18:10 ↗ so i have a comment from commissioner

2:18:12 ↗ voice

2:18:15 ↗ thank you chair probable again and i

2:18:17 ↗ want to thank commissioner lewis for

2:18:18 ↗ stating it

2:18:19 ↗ so well uh yeah i do believe cbd

2:18:23 ↗ is an important integral part of our

2:18:24 ↗ city and as someone who lives next to it

2:18:26 ↗ and spends a lot of time

2:18:28 ↗ near it it is unique and i believe that

2:18:30 ↗ uniqueness

2:18:31 ↗ has been thought out well planned out by

2:18:34 ↗ different commissions and i think it

2:18:36 ↗ should

2:18:36 ↗ be retained so to keep cbd uh consistent

2:18:39 ↗ with the city

2:18:40 ↗ i don't believe it would be appropriate

2:18:42 ↗ it is

2:18:43 ↗ a unique part and feature of our city

2:18:47 ↗ so retaining all the sign design

2:18:49 ↗ provisions that people have spent so

2:18:51 ↗ long coming together

2:18:52 ↗ and putting that together i think would

2:18:54 ↗ be appropriate

2:18:55 ↗ um to commissioner mccrory's point about

2:18:58 ↗ temporary signage

2:18:59 ↗ we've seen this through the pandemic

2:19:02 ↗ with the

2:19:03 ↗ basically like a moratorium so the

2:19:05 ↗ businesses like i won't name businesses

2:19:07 ↗ but

2:19:08 ↗ specific ones on front streets were able

2:19:10 ↗ to use a frames and

2:19:12 ↗ to advertise as a way to help provide

2:19:15 ↗ some relief

2:19:16 ↗ so number two i guess retain some not

2:19:18 ↗ all sign design provisions

2:19:20 ↗ that seems enticing but yeah i

2:19:23 ↗ definitely

2:19:24 ↗ want to keep cbd unique so i would

2:19:27 ↗ scratch number one

2:19:30 ↗ leaning towards number three but i could

2:19:32 ↗ understand how someone could make an

2:19:34 ↗ argument for the near future and

2:19:36 ↗ possibly permanently

2:19:38 ↗ for maybe a few small revisions

2:19:41 ↗ so thank you

2:19:45 ↗ um i don't have any other comments in

2:19:48 ↗ the

2:19:49 ↗ in the chat hey thank you

2:19:57 ↗ number three is the directional

2:20:01 ↗ and informational signs for business and

2:20:03 ↗ civic purposes

2:20:05 ↗ which is a provision from the central

2:20:08 ↗ issaquest

2:20:09 ↗ science standards

2:20:12 ↗ the information includes

2:20:15 ↗ maps business names civic sites

2:20:19 ↗ the one uh example that we have in the

2:20:22 ↗ city

2:20:23 ↗ is is qua highlands which has about 10

2:20:26 ↗ or so

2:20:27 ↗ of these in right-of-way with one on

2:20:29 ↗ public land and

2:20:31 ↗ and they're managed by the isqua

2:20:33 ↗ highlands community association

2:20:36 ↗ and um it's tricky to figure out a way

2:20:39 ↗ to maintain these

2:20:41 ↗ it would probably require us to develop

2:20:44 ↗ a

2:20:44 ↗ master sign plan program and so we

2:20:48 ↗ really wanted

2:20:49 ↗ to find out from the commissioners

2:20:52 ↗ whether this was

2:20:54 ↗ important to the community and whether

2:20:57 ↗ we should pursue

2:20:58 ↗ trying to figure out what kind of

2:21:00 ↗ program we would need to have to retain

2:21:02 ↗ them

2:21:03 ↗ or whether we eliminate this kind of

2:21:06 ↗ sign

2:21:06 ↗ that would not require that these go

2:21:09 ↗ away but it would

2:21:10 ↗ make them legally non-conforming which

2:21:13 ↗ means

2:21:14 ↗ that if a car ran into them or

2:21:18 ↗ just as they wear out they would not be

2:21:21 ↗ able to be replaced

2:21:24 ↗ i think they are a positive contribution

2:21:27 ↗ to the looks of the

2:21:29 ↗ of the highlands and i would be very

2:21:31 ↗ disappointed if they were eliminated

2:21:34 ↗ even uh one by one uh

2:21:37 ↗ so i think that we have to find some way

2:21:39 ↗ to continue them

2:21:42 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner

2:21:46 ↗ mulligan

2:21:49 ↗ thank you chair probably nina milligan

2:21:51 ↗ here lucy have a comment and a question

2:21:54 ↗ one is

2:21:54 ↗ uh thank you um sure pro bowl i agree

2:21:57 ↗ with you

2:21:58 ↗ i live and spend a lot of time in isoqua

2:22:00 ↗ highlands and really enjoy these and i

2:22:02 ↗ think they're a valuable tool

2:22:04 ↗ um i would hate to see them go away

2:22:08 ↗ they are as we've just been discussing

2:22:10 ↗ about old town a unique feature in

2:22:12 ↗ issaquah highlands it's very nice and

2:22:14 ↗ it's a very

2:22:15 ↗ compatible with the personality of the

2:22:18 ↗ walkable

2:22:19 ↗ community to have these kiosks not just

2:22:21 ↗ with

2:22:22 ↗ directional signs to businesses but also

2:22:24 ↗ informational and inspirational posters

2:22:26 ↗ in them

2:22:27 ↗ uh and then so the question lucy is uh

2:22:30 ↗ are there other these came about perhaps

2:22:34 ↗ through something that was allowed in

2:22:35 ↗ the development agreement and then

2:22:38 ↗ um and then we come become after the

2:22:40 ↗ development agreement part of

2:22:42 ↗ the regulations in the imc um what other

2:22:46 ↗ in rowley or in lakeside or something

2:22:48 ↗ like that would they be allowed to build

2:22:50 ↗ these signs and then once they come

2:22:52 ↗ into the city and the imc then they

2:22:53 ↗ can't have them anymore you know it's

2:22:55 ↗ just um is there a way that we can look

2:22:56 ↗ forward to the other development

2:22:57 ↗ agreements

2:22:58 ↗ as well um so

2:23:02 ↗ you're right about the history of these

2:23:05 ↗ um it was

2:23:06 ↗ um ironically the follow-through signs

2:23:10 ↗ that we are trying to uh

2:23:13 ↗ allow we propose to allow uh in the city

2:23:17 ↗ that was the genesis

2:23:18 ↗ of of these kiosks because

2:23:22 ↗ some of the businesses up on park drive

2:23:24 ↗ felt that

2:23:25 ↗ it was difficult for people to find them

2:23:27 ↗ certainly

2:23:28 ↗ before smartphones and people trying to

2:23:32 ↗ get to businesses they could not put

2:23:34 ↗ anything up on i-90

2:23:36 ↗ because there were too many turns and

2:23:39 ↗ they wanted the follow-through signs

2:23:43 ↗ the master developer proposed the kiosks

2:23:46 ↗ as a solution

2:23:47 ↗ and then it was

2:23:51 ↗ brought into the development agreement

2:23:53 ↗ then

2:23:54 ↗ when some of the later development

2:23:56 ↗ agreements came along such as rally

2:23:58 ↗ swedish lakeside and then

2:24:02 ↗ central esqua they continued that

2:24:05 ↗ forward

2:24:06 ↗ um the placement of them

2:24:09 ↗ and the point of them was to allow them

2:24:10 ↗ in the right-of-way so that they were in

2:24:12 ↗ a

2:24:12 ↗ they were positioned to serve both

2:24:14 ↗ pedestrians from the sidewalk

2:24:16 ↗ and cars from the traveling um

2:24:20 ↗ it's the positioning of them in the

2:24:21 ↗ right-of-way that is the challenge

2:24:24 ↗ um and so i think uh they're

2:24:27 ↗ um there may be ways to address it i

2:24:30 ↗ think we just before we

2:24:32 ↗ spent a lot of effort trying to craft a

2:24:34 ↗ program

2:24:36 ↗ that would allow this i think we wanted

2:24:38 ↗ to get um

2:24:39 ↗ the commissioner's input

2:24:42 ↗ before making that investment that yes

2:24:45 ↗ this is a program to be carried forward

2:24:47 ↗ and it sounds like something that we

2:24:50 ↗ will be

2:24:50 ↗ exploring before we issue the draft

2:24:54 ↗ i have a question from

2:24:58 ↗ uh commissioner fowle

2:25:01 ↗ thank you madam chair uh and to um

2:25:04 ↗ commissioner prabula and uh mulligan

2:25:08 ↗ uh

2:25:13 ↗ but that's okay okay

2:25:16 ↗ um i think they're a great asset uh

2:25:20 ↗ and i would like to continue to see them

2:25:22 ↗ in the future because

2:25:25 ↗ not everybody has navigation on their

2:25:26 ↗ car not everybody's probably gonna

2:25:28 ↗ want navigation on their future car and

2:25:33 ↗ they don't create a distraction

2:25:36 ↗ so i think they are an asset to the

2:25:39 ↗ community

2:25:40 ↗ as far as i think when you

2:25:44 ↗ have made a comment if they're

2:25:45 ↗ vandalized or someone ran into it

2:25:49 ↗ who would replace it the city wouldn't

2:25:52 ↗ have any stake in this except for the

2:25:54 ↗ fact that

2:25:54 ↗ it is on public right-of-way if that's

2:25:57 ↗ correct

2:25:58 ↗ then i don't see

2:26:02 ↗ any negative to having it if the city is

2:26:05 ↗ on the hook for replacing it

2:26:06 ↗ and maintaining it then i i kind of

2:26:09 ↗ question whether or not that's the right

2:26:11 ↗ business model to have for this but i do

2:26:13 ↗ support them

2:26:17 ↗ thank you i have a comment from

2:26:20 ↗ commissioner lewis

2:26:22 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here i

2:26:25 ↗ think one of the issues

2:26:26 ↗ with uh number two is the issue of the

2:26:30 ↗ non-conforming right and the idea of

2:26:32 ↗ having

2:26:32 ↗ something right now that um serves a

2:26:35 ↗ purpose and is useful

2:26:37 ↗ becoming something that as it becomes

2:26:39 ↗ dilapidated or needs care

2:26:41 ↗ just is slowly eroding in our community

2:26:43 ↗ with the non-conforming

2:26:45 ↗ and so i i'm against having that um

2:26:48 ↗ be an option for the particular signage

2:26:51 ↗ i do want to comment

2:26:52 ↗ um as a former commissioner for the ubdc

2:26:55 ↗ um we had overwhelmingly positive

2:26:59 ↗ comments

2:27:00 ↗ in the highlands for these and they

2:27:02 ↗ really did help increase that

2:27:03 ↗ walkability in that sense

2:27:05 ↗ um of a car less community and so as we

2:27:09 ↗ look forward

2:27:10 ↗ um to a future that has a little less

2:27:12 ↗ cars

2:27:13 ↗ i do think that it helps contribute to

2:27:15 ↗ the overall direction that we want to go

2:27:16 ↗ with the city especially

2:27:18 ↗ in particular areas um so i do want to

2:27:20 ↗ voice that i think that

2:27:21 ↗ um there is a space for them how much

2:27:24 ↗ you need to invest in a program right

2:27:25 ↗ now is debatable

2:27:27 ↗ but certainly allowing that option i

2:27:29 ↗ think is a positive one

2:27:30 ↗ thank you thank you uh

2:27:34 ↗ i have a question comment from

2:27:36 ↗ commissioner's voice

2:27:40 ↗ thank you chair probably um i'm in

2:27:42 ↗ agreement with all my fellow

2:27:44 ↗ commissioners that have just spoken i

2:27:46 ↗ think they're an asset i think

2:27:48 ↗ um again to commissioner lewis's point

2:27:50 ↗ as people become

2:27:52 ↗ more multimodal these will become assets

2:27:56 ↗ you can even put them in the cbd as long

2:27:59 ↗ as it follows the character

2:28:00 ↗ so having the city develop a program

2:28:03 ↗ that allows the business districts to

2:28:04 ↗ have these similar kiosks

2:28:07 ↗ i think would be appropriate my fear is

2:28:10 ↗ similar to commissioner fowles who is on

2:28:12 ↗ the hook for these if they are

2:28:14 ↗ most likely not necessarily to be

2:28:16 ↗ damaged but vandalized and

2:28:18 ↗ nobody wants to look at those eyesores

2:28:20 ↗ so i'd be interested to hear more about

2:28:22 ↗ the maintenance and the up

2:28:23 ↗ the upkeep of these kiosks but generally

2:28:26 ↗ completely in favor for them

2:28:27 ↗ so just to be clear there is a kiosk in

2:28:32 ↗ downtown right next to stan's barbecue

2:28:35 ↗ so there is one already down there um

2:28:40 ↗ which is uh being maintained by dia and

2:28:43 ↗ uh adds some

2:28:47 ↗ nice uh contrast to it in the city

2:28:50 ↗ so um so

2:28:54 ↗ shall we go on to number four

2:29:01 ↗ uh topic number four is flags

2:29:05 ↗ um jurisdictions are inconsistent about

2:29:08 ↗ whether flags are regulated

2:29:10 ↗ by sign codes it's many different

2:29:13 ↗ approaches

2:29:14 ↗ especially in dealing with governmental

2:29:16 ↗ flags

2:29:17 ↗ a non-governmental flag such as flags

2:29:20 ↗ with

2:29:20 ↗ business logos on them could or would be

2:29:23 ↗ handled

2:29:24 ↗ like banners currently the code

2:29:28 ↗ accepts from signed permits flags up to

2:29:32 ↗ 25 square feet

2:29:34 ↗ in central issaquah you can get a permit

2:29:37 ↗ for a flag larger than 25 square feet

2:29:40 ↗ but there isn't a maximum

2:29:42 ↗ it's um a little wishy-washy and i think

2:29:45 ↗ would be hard to enforce

2:29:47 ↗ i will tell you i don't remember anyone

2:29:49 ↗ applying for one of those

2:29:52 ↗ the concern that brought this to our

2:29:54 ↗ attention

2:29:55 ↗ is that in other communities

2:29:58 ↗ monumental flags have been installed for

2:30:00 ↗ example up to 3 200 square feet which is

2:30:03 ↗ the one that is pictured below

2:30:05 ↗ um these large flags can be uh

2:30:07 ↗ distracting and noisy

2:30:10 ↗ so we're interested in the

2:30:13 ↗ commissioner's

2:30:14 ↗ recommendations about whether we

2:30:16 ↗ regulate this

2:30:17 ↗ and what

2:30:20 ↗ what standards we apply

2:30:24 ↗ so our first comment is from

2:30:26 ↗ commissioner fall

2:30:28 ↗ thank you uh madam chair so i

2:30:32 ↗ uh

2:30:35 ↗ i had a conversation with evergreen ford

2:30:38 ↗ chevrolet

2:30:39 ↗ when they moved to uh east lake somalia

2:30:42 ↗ parkway there

2:30:44 ↗ may be a discussion of having such a

2:30:46 ↗ flag

2:30:47 ↗ at that location and so this might be

2:30:51 ↗ an important conversation how big would

2:30:53 ↗ we

2:30:54 ↗ as a community think is an acceptable

2:30:57 ↗ size flag

2:30:58 ↗ if they decide to go for maximum

2:31:05 ↗ thank you thank you

2:31:10 ↗ i think we should be more concerned

2:31:14 ↗ with having a flag that sides in any

2:31:17 ↗ residential area

2:31:19 ↗ because they do make a lot of noise

2:31:24 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner

2:31:26 ↗ freeze

2:31:28 ↗ well take that back i have a comment

2:31:30 ↗ from commissioner

2:31:33 ↗ milligan now again no thank you joan

2:31:36 ↗ commissioner milligan here uh the

2:31:40 ↗ size um the direction you're taking with

2:31:43 ↗ the sizes

2:31:44 ↗ is fine i thought i saw in our packet a

2:31:46 ↗ question about whether

2:31:48 ↗ flags could only be governmental uh

2:31:50 ↗ representations of a

2:31:52 ↗ city county or state and i just wanted

2:31:54 ↗ to chime in about the

2:31:56 ↗ um the pow flags um

2:31:59 ↗ would be something that is part of a

2:32:02 ↗ flag flying etiquette and it's not

2:32:03 ↗ included in our

2:32:05 ↗ code so just want to make a note of that

2:32:10 ↗ now i have a comment from commissioner

2:32:12 ↗ voice

2:32:18 ↗ but thank you madam chair i believe i'm

2:32:20 ↗ right behind commissioner freeze

2:32:33 ↗ i would prefer number three um

2:32:38 ↗ dealing with it as an exception allows

2:32:40 ↗ you to control

2:32:41 ↗ you know have a maximum but between the

2:32:44 ↗ maximum and the 25 foot

2:32:47 ↗ 25 square foot kind of limit you would

2:32:50 ↗ be able to take local conditions into

2:32:53 ↗ account you know like how you know

2:32:56 ↗ do a test on seeing how big it is before

2:32:58 ↗ it gets too noisy

2:33:00 ↗ you know if the flags out in the middle

2:33:02 ↗ of nowhere you know maybe not care as

2:33:04 ↗ much that it's

2:33:05 ↗ a little larger a little noisier but

2:33:09 ↗ i'm not sure you know i don't know that

2:33:11 ↗ i would just say 25 feet and be done

2:33:13 ↗ with it

2:33:14 ↗ i i would have you know like a standard

2:33:16 ↗ size

2:33:17 ↗ a maximum size and then between the two

2:33:20 ↗ it's an exception process

2:33:24 ↗ thank you

2:33:28 ↗ commissioner boyce

2:33:31 ↗ thank you chair probably i have had the

2:33:33 ↗ privilege of following some

2:33:34 ↗ amazing comments by other commissioners

2:33:36 ↗ so they're making my work pretty easy

2:33:38 ↗ tonight

2:33:39 ↗ again i i would agree with number three

2:33:42 ↗ uh kind of

2:33:43 ↗ believe in that rule if it ain't broke

2:33:44 ↗ don't fix it it seems to be the rule

2:33:47 ↗ that's been governing

2:33:48 ↗ the city of issaquah for a while and i

2:33:51 ↗ do like

2:33:52 ↗ uh what commissioner freeze just says i

2:33:53 ↗ like the city being able to offer

2:33:55 ↗ special permits but having that under

2:33:57 ↗ their purview

2:33:59 ↗ i think you know i can only speak for

2:34:00 ↗ myself i love to see old glory flying

2:34:03 ↗ but i don't want to see something like

2:34:06 ↗ when you're driving on the way to tacoma

2:34:08 ↗ and you see that monster of a flag i

2:34:11 ↗ mean that thing

2:34:12 ↗ is gotta be the size of a basketball

2:34:13 ↗ court so

2:34:15 ↗ not really goes with the city so again

2:34:18 ↗ having the city to be able to offer

2:34:20 ↗ special permits or

2:34:21 ↗ make special exceptions i'm okay with

2:34:23 ↗ but at least someone in the city

2:34:25 ↗ is able to have a purview have a little

2:34:28 ↗ bit of control over

2:34:29 ↗ what's acceptable i think a 25 foot

2:34:32 ↗ square foot flag is is

2:34:34 ↗ i believe that's i mean that's pretty

2:34:36 ↗ big that's five by five square feet

2:34:39 ↗ to be able to not have to require a

2:34:41 ↗ permit to do that

2:34:42 ↗ i think is fine with me um i did have a

2:34:45 ↗ question however

2:34:47 ↗ so you had mentioned company flag so i'm

2:34:49 ↗ thinking like costco

2:34:51 ↗ i mean i imagine they're going to fly

2:34:52 ↗ the costco flag from their headquarters

2:34:54 ↗ how would that work is that a banner or

2:34:58 ↗ would that be considered a flag

2:35:00 ↗ i think we're going to treat them as

2:35:02 ↗ banners um because

2:35:03 ↗ it's uh you know sometimes banners are

2:35:07 ↗ are stabilized at the top and the bottom

2:35:09 ↗ but we've got you know we've seen

2:35:11 ↗ banners that are flown like flags

2:35:13 ↗ flags that are flown like banners um

2:35:16 ↗ i think that we want to make that

2:35:18 ↗ distinction consider

2:35:20 ↗ flags governmental uh cover

2:35:23 ↗ uh business things as banners um

2:35:27 ↗ commissioner milligan brings up a good

2:35:29 ↗ point about um some other kinds

2:35:31 ↗ of uh non-commercial uh

2:35:35 ↗ flags uh that we should consider uh

2:35:39 ↗ how and if we address that so um

2:35:43 ↗ more more internal discussion to uh it's

2:35:46 ↗ clearly needed

2:35:47 ↗ i can't remember where i saw it in the

2:35:49 ↗ packet um

2:35:50 ↗ ms sloman but somewhere i mentioned and

2:35:52 ↗ i don't know if it was in the flag

2:35:54 ↗ section but quasi

2:35:55 ↗ governmental i would think the pow flag

2:35:58 ↗ would probably

2:35:59 ↗ fall under that and then one

2:36:02 ↗ other thing i would add is just

2:36:04 ↗ something earlier to our conversation

2:36:06 ↗ about temporary signs and residential

2:36:08 ↗ areas you know the city of samamish does

2:36:11 ↗ a great job

2:36:12 ↗ in the city of israel does too during

2:36:14 ↗ the fourth of july upcoming week

2:36:16 ↗ where people plant flags everywhere it's

2:36:18 ↗ beautiful it's wonderful

2:36:20 ↗ memorial day would that would a flag

2:36:23 ↗ in a yard be considered a flag or a

2:36:26 ↗ temporary sign

2:36:29 ↗ i think if it is a governmental flag um

2:36:32 ↗ you know the little ones that they

2:36:35 ↗ sometimes

2:36:36 ↗ plant as a field i think it would still

2:36:39 ↗ be a flag and i believe that the

2:36:40 ↗ exception

2:36:42 ↗ from sign permits as written currently

2:36:45 ↗ does not

2:36:45 ↗ specify a number um so i think as long

2:36:48 ↗ as you're under that 25

2:36:50 ↗ foot um square 25 square foot limit

2:36:54 ↗ uh it doesn't there's not a numerical

2:36:58 ↗ limit

2:36:58 ↗ and so i i don't think that would be a

2:37:01 ↗ problem

2:37:01 ↗ but i appreciate the reminder that that

2:37:03 ↗ does happen

2:37:05 ↗ great thank you so just as a

2:37:07 ↗ clarification

2:37:09 ↗ uh the flags on front street

2:37:13 ↗ are they are these the ones that you're

2:37:18 ↗ uh that are from light standards uh

2:37:22 ↗ that are attached to the buildings that

2:37:25 ↗ uh kiwanis puts up all the way down

2:37:27 ↗ front straight uh thanks for that

2:37:30 ↗ reminder to uh

2:37:32 ↗ i will um it's important to have all of

2:37:35 ↗ these options on the table to make sure

2:37:37 ↗ that we're

2:37:38 ↗ um getting the right regulations for the

2:37:40 ↗ situations that we find

2:37:43 ↗ okay well that you know if if uh

2:37:46 ↗ we weren't able to put up those flags on

2:37:48 ↗ the fourth of july i think that the city

2:37:50 ↗ would be very

2:37:52 ↗ sad um

2:37:56 ↗ so i have a question from

2:37:59 ↗ commissioner lewis

2:38:02 ↗ thank you chair probably commissioner

2:38:04 ↗ joy lewis here um i'm curious when we

2:38:06 ↗ when we talk about flags i think really

2:38:08 ↗ we also need to be talking about

2:38:09 ↗ holes right how we're hanging our flags

2:38:12 ↗ and so we talk about

2:38:13 ↗ um the regulations on height of the

2:38:16 ↗ ability to build a pole

2:38:18 ↗ large enough to hang a monumental flag

2:38:22 ↗ i'm not aware that we're eight that the

2:38:23 ↗ code allows for that right now

2:38:25 ↗ so i'm not sure if that actually catches

2:38:27 ↗ this without needing to designate it

2:38:28 ↗ specifically in sign code but you can

2:38:30 ↗ double check that for me

2:38:32 ↗ um i don't think there's any place

2:38:34 ↗ that's appropriate in our community to

2:38:36 ↗ have a monumental flag

2:38:38 ↗ however i do think if if it's for a

2:38:42 ↗ timed amount um then that could be an

2:38:45 ↗ option as well like joan mentions for

2:38:47 ↗ specific

2:38:48 ↗ holidays um i do want to piggyback off

2:38:50 ↗ nina's comments

2:38:52 ↗ um because there are a variety of flags

2:38:54 ↗ that are

2:38:55 ↗ non-governmental um she brought up a

2:38:57 ↗ great one another one um

2:38:58 ↗ that i hold there is the gangster flag

2:39:00 ↗ it's been co-opted by the tea party

2:39:03 ↗ and now the uh stop the steel movement

2:39:06 ↗ but prior it was the flag of patriots so

2:39:09 ↗ there's a lot of different flags that we

2:39:10 ↗ fly and that have a lot of different

2:39:12 ↗ meanings besides

2:39:13 ↗ even our strict governmental ideas

2:39:16 ↗ so i do think that there needs to be a

2:39:19 ↗ reconsideration right now the definition

2:39:21 ↗ on page 28

2:39:22 ↗ is very strict i don't know that that is

2:39:24 ↗ the death

2:39:25 ↗ that is where we want to go um and i

2:39:27 ↗ would love for you to also remind me

2:39:29 ↗ sorry i have to look

2:39:29 ↗ in my packet what we say the size

2:39:31 ↗ regulation is for banners

2:39:34 ↗ or banners for banners yeah because

2:39:36 ↗ we're basically treating everything that

2:39:38 ↗ isn't a

2:39:39 ↗ governmental flag a banner well there

2:39:41 ↗ are a couple of different sizes

2:39:43 ↗ uh it depends on uh whether they're

2:39:46 ↗ commercial

2:39:47 ↗ or not and then whether they are on

2:39:51 ↗ um uh

2:39:54 ↗ light poles or not uh so

2:39:58 ↗ um so i do think that that gets trickier

2:40:01 ↗ when we start thinking about

2:40:02 ↗ designations of

2:40:04 ↗ pride flag um and and such as far as

2:40:07 ↗ um again you know we're supposed to be

2:40:10 ↗ really looking at this as being content

2:40:12 ↗ neutral

2:40:13 ↗ and so we have a really strict

2:40:14 ↗ definition on flags and then banners

2:40:17 ↗ it starts to get a little bit trickier

2:40:18 ↗ and then where does it end up

2:40:20 ↗ falling when you're um having patriotic

2:40:23 ↗ um sentiments that are typically

2:40:25 ↗ often on a flagpole so um i do think

2:40:28 ↗ that this is a situation that needs to

2:40:30 ↗ be

2:40:30 ↗ um where the administration needs to

2:40:32 ↗ decide this is where we strongly feel

2:40:34 ↗ because i think there is

2:40:35 ↗ right now um a lot of wiggle room and um

2:40:39 ↗ it would be nice to see

2:40:40 ↗ you guys tell us this is what we want we

2:40:42 ↗ can tell you i don't know if i feel like

2:40:43 ↗ that

2:40:44 ↗ um but right now i don't know that we

2:40:46 ↗ can put up a poll

2:40:47 ↗ for a monumental flag um according

2:40:50 ↗ to just fight limits so i would

2:40:55 ↗ i would bring that up i would like you

2:40:58 ↗ go ahead uh well i was just i i i

2:41:02 ↗ appreciate you saying the the last part

2:41:04 ↗ commissioner lewis because

2:41:05 ↗ um right there's height limits

2:41:09 ↗ um there's also the kind of permit you

2:41:11 ↗ would need to

2:41:12 ↗ construct a poll for a monumental flag i

2:41:15 ↗ mean just

2:41:16 ↗ the structural and uh and such

2:41:20 ↗ i think that there is a certain it might

2:41:23 ↗ be 20 feet

2:41:24 ↗ um i believe you can put up a 20-foot

2:41:26 ↗ pole without

2:41:28 ↗ uh need permit um but

2:41:31 ↗ beyond that it may but then how that

2:41:34 ↗ fits into the height limit

2:41:35 ↗ um i will do a little more research on

2:41:38 ↗ and then how that fits in with our

2:41:39 ↗ lighting code right because generally

2:41:41 ↗ then

2:41:41 ↗ when you put in a flag of that size you

2:41:43 ↗ want to uplight it right and so then

2:41:45 ↗ you're talking about

2:41:46 ↗ um you know you know ron brought up the

2:41:48 ↗ example of a relocation

2:41:50 ↗ um for the car dealership i mean that's

2:41:52 ↗ right by crete so you're talking about

2:41:54 ↗ noise and light now

2:41:55 ↗ for the other citizens of our community

2:41:58 ↗ are

2:41:59 ↗ our furry and winged friends i mean

2:42:01 ↗ there's a lot of considerations that

2:42:02 ↗ have to go into not just

2:42:04 ↗ i really like giant flags so well

2:42:07 ↗ i i think that my understanding and i am

2:42:09 ↗ not an expert on this but

2:42:11 ↗ the lighting of flags is a important

2:42:14 ↗ consideration

2:42:17 ↗ i don't believe it has to be uplit i

2:42:19 ↗ think that is the most convenient form

2:42:21 ↗ of lighting

2:42:22 ↗ if you aren't taking the flag down every

2:42:25 ↗ uh

2:42:25 ↗ evening then you do have to light it and

2:42:27 ↗ to leave it up in all kinds of weather

2:42:30 ↗ um but i believe that there are more

2:42:32 ↗ directional lighting that

2:42:34 ↗ is possible um but it is it is an

2:42:37 ↗ important consideration when you think

2:42:39 ↗ about

2:42:41 ↗ the larger the flag the greater the

2:42:43 ↗ light that's going to be necessary

2:42:44 ↗ or not have to take it down every

2:42:46 ↗ evening thank you very much

2:42:49 ↗ since we started this discussion with uh

2:42:52 ↗ making sure that we complied with the

2:42:56 ↗ supreme court's decision of being

2:42:59 ↗ content

2:43:00 ↗ content neutral um i think that maybe

2:43:03 ↗ you should run it by the attorney

2:43:06 ↗ uh does it fit the same

2:43:10 ↗ requirements as a boards

2:43:13 ↗ where every a board has to be the same

2:43:15 ↗ size but we can't

2:43:17 ↗ dictate different sizes for different

2:43:20 ↗ people

2:43:23 ↗ okay um i have a comment from

2:43:28 ↗ uh commissioner freeze

2:43:31 ↗ yeah a couple of things i unlike echo

2:43:34 ↗ the you know we need to consider flags

2:43:36 ↗ from a functional perspective not a

2:43:37 ↗ content perspective

2:43:40 ↗ we need to think about things like the

2:43:42 ↗ pow mia flag the rainbow flag

2:43:45 ↗ you know the other important flags that

2:43:48 ↗ people use

2:43:50 ↗ the kind of the other thing that hit my

2:43:53 ↗ mind is

2:43:54 ↗ we need to think about if i have an

2:43:56 ↗ 80-foot building i can hang a 75-foot

2:43:59 ↗ flag from the side of the building

2:44:01 ↗ without a

2:44:02 ↗ without a flagpole you know what do we

2:44:05 ↗ do in that case

2:44:07 ↗ and then the last comment is i would

2:44:10 ↗ want to

2:44:11 ↗ have something in the code that allows

2:44:14 ↗ construction workers

2:44:17 ↗ and the the crane operators

2:44:20 ↗ to still put a flag up on the on the

2:44:22 ↗ crane or the building it's tradition

2:44:25 ↗ when you top off the steel for a

2:44:27 ↗ building to hoist a flag on the building

2:44:29 ↗ and i think the tradition i wouldn't

2:44:31 ↗ want to i wouldn't want to make

2:44:33 ↗ uh illegal

2:44:38 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner brown

2:44:41 ↗ yes thank you can you hear me okay yes

2:44:43 ↗ sir

2:44:44 ↗ oh great uh thank you uh chair of

2:44:47 ↗ poblar uh uh probably

2:44:50 ↗ did i pronounce that correctly yes it

2:44:52 ↗ did yes you can

2:44:55 ↗ i'm i'm torn a little bit on this

2:44:58 ↗ uh topic as a veteran

2:45:01 ↗ obviously i favor uh the flag

2:45:04 ↗ and the waving of it as much as we can

2:45:08 ↗ however knowing that especially large

2:45:11 ↗ flags on a pole

2:45:12 ↗ can make horrendous sounds uh

2:45:15 ↗ in the wind i mean decimal level is

2:45:18 ↗ sometimes ear piercing so keeping that

2:45:22 ↗ in mind

2:45:23 ↗ i i would i would not uh

2:45:27 ↗ up for number one the option one uh and

2:45:30 ↗ sorry

2:45:30 ↗ option two wouldn't be an option for me

2:45:32 ↗ either in that and

2:45:34 ↗ in regard to you could put large flags

2:45:37 ↗ on the side of a building and that and

2:45:40 ↗ not make any noise

2:45:41 ↗ however on a flagpole like i said it

2:45:43 ↗ could make tremendous amount of noise

2:45:45 ↗ so what i would uh favor number three

2:45:48 ↗ having

2:45:48 ↗ uh both an exception to the size uh

2:45:51 ↗ and also keeping in mind what what would

2:45:55 ↗ that

2:45:55 ↗ the maximum be for a flag to be on a

2:45:58 ↗ pole

2:45:58 ↗ to minimize somewhat the sound of it

2:46:02 ↗ uh from the wind uh

2:46:05 ↗ flapping it uh from yeah from flapping

2:46:09 ↗ it

2:46:15 ↗ i have a comment from

2:46:18 ↗ commissioner john

2:46:22 ↗ there is no last name so i don't know

2:46:24 ↗ who that is

2:46:27 ↗ hello i had a question but it's now been

2:46:29 ↗ addressed so let's move on

2:46:32 ↗ okay thank you um is there anything else

2:46:35 ↗ in regard to this lucy do you have your

2:46:39 ↗ i do thank you okay i think we have one

2:46:42 ↗ more topic

2:46:44 ↗ we do um landmark signs

2:46:48 ↗ um both central is and imc 1811 have

2:46:52 ↗ landmark

2:46:53 ↗ sign provisions uh the current code

2:46:56 ↗ uh dates um

2:47:00 ↗ it establishes december 31st 1965

2:47:04 ↗ or more than 55 years old as the cutoff

2:47:07 ↗ day

2:47:08 ↗ i think that was probably established in

2:47:10 ↗ the 1990s

2:47:11 ↗ um i looked today i have not

2:47:15 ↗ found a record of any signs being

2:47:17 ↗ designated as landmark

2:47:18 ↗ to date but we do have some signs that i

2:47:22 ↗ certainly hear about

2:47:23 ↗ which are the three that are shown

2:47:26 ↗ mostly

2:47:27 ↗ partly as signs in their own right but

2:47:30 ↗ sometimes just

2:47:31 ↗ in association with beloved businesses

2:47:34 ↗ um so we're interested

2:47:36 ↗ in hearing from the commissioners about

2:47:38 ↗ um

2:47:39 ↗ whether we should change the date or not

2:47:42 ↗ um 40 years is a common uh date range

2:47:46 ↗ for landmark signs and

2:47:48 ↗ whether we should through the adoption

2:47:51 ↗ of this code

2:47:53 ↗ establish this collection some or all of

2:47:56 ↗ these signs

2:47:57 ↗ as landmark signs these are

2:48:00 ↗ xxx root beer the grange and this two

2:48:03 ↗ signs with bones

2:48:11 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

2:48:14 ↗ voice

2:48:16 ↗ more of a comment but uh thank you chair

2:48:18 ↗ provolo

2:48:20 ↗ so number two makes no sense to me right

2:48:22 ↗ because it literally says keep the date

2:48:25 ↗ but identify signs to landmark even if

2:48:28 ↗ they aren't that old so that seems

2:48:30 ↗ pretty

2:48:30 ↗ that one seems kind of absurd um so i

2:48:33 ↗ think number two

2:48:34 ↗ gets gets kicked to the cam uh

2:48:37 ↗ keep the date the same and not classify

2:48:39 ↗ any signs as landmark signs

2:48:41 ↗ i think i like option number three i

2:48:43 ↗ don't know what it is tonight about

2:48:44 ↗ option number three

2:48:46 ↗ but it seems to be the number for me um

2:48:48 ↗ i think we can be

2:48:50 ↗ again if that was the actually adopted

2:48:52 ↗ in the 1990s

2:48:53 ↗ okay that was what 30 some 30

2:48:56 ↗ 25 years 35 years my mass a little off

2:48:59 ↗ it's late

2:49:00 ↗ but we need to be able to shift that was

2:49:03 ↗ 30 years ago

2:49:04 ↗ so what was a landmark in the 1990s

2:49:07 ↗ um you know for some of us the 1990s or

2:49:10 ↗ a landmark

2:49:11 ↗ so that that needs to be a moving target

2:49:14 ↗ it just needs to be a moving target so

2:49:17 ↗ for what it for what it amounts to i'm

2:49:19 ↗ going to go with lucky number three

2:49:21 ↗ thank you

2:49:24 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner lewis

2:49:29 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here i

2:49:31 ↗ agree with um

2:49:33 ↗ commissioner voice's comment i think

2:49:34 ↗ that it should be a moving target right

2:49:36 ↗ so i think it's important to say if that

2:49:38 ↗ was the date that was selected in the

2:49:39 ↗ 90s that we have continuity

2:49:41 ↗ um i'm i'm not in favor of landmark

2:49:44 ↗ status

2:49:45 ↗ for these particular signs and if we do

2:49:47 ↗ end up keeping the date

2:49:49 ↗ um i i think it's easier to

2:49:52 ↗ um they're not about to go anywhere i

2:49:54 ↗ don't think that we have a protection

2:49:56 ↗ that ends up happening

2:49:57 ↗ necessarily so um i do think i am in

2:50:00 ↗ favor of

2:50:01 ↗ of moving of moving that as a moving

2:50:03 ↗ target as suggested

2:50:04 ↗ um but instead of having a landmark

2:50:06 ↗ status um i would i would

2:50:08 ↗ direct it to our issaquah treasures and

2:50:10 ↗ i would then instead say if it's been

2:50:12 ↗ designated a treasure

2:50:14 ↗ then we should be able to then so that

2:50:15 ↗ kind of gives us a wider range of maybe

2:50:17 ↗ signs that would have it rather than

2:50:18 ↗ designating these three

2:50:20 ↗ but if they're a treasure then it kind

2:50:21 ↗ of then has a default

2:50:23 ↗ kind of um exemption built in thank you

2:50:26 ↗ the one thing i would add um to the that

2:50:29 ↗ comment

2:50:30 ↗ is um probably the bones and the grange

2:50:33 ↗ sign

2:50:34 ↗ can be replaced now that they are

2:50:36 ↗ outside of central iskwa

2:50:38 ↗ but the xxx sign is probably legally

2:50:41 ↗ non-conforming

2:50:43 ↗ which means that if there was a fire or

2:50:46 ↗ hit by lightning or um some act

2:50:50 ↗ um i'm not sure that it could be um

2:50:54 ↗ uh replaced as is

2:50:57 ↗ and so that is the consideration um

2:51:01 ↗ of making a landmark that uh allows

2:51:04 ↗ its rebuilding to match the existing

2:51:07 ↗ sign

2:51:07 ↗ in spite of being legally non-compete

2:51:10 ↗ agreed i think that i would sense give a

2:51:12 ↗ broader categorization that would

2:51:14 ↗ designate any any signage that

2:51:16 ↗ is associated with an issaquah treasure

2:51:18 ↗ of having that exemption

2:51:19 ↗ rather than landmarking these specific

2:51:22 ↗ one two three businesses i would say

2:51:24 ↗ thank you for clarifying comment from

2:51:28 ↗ commissioner

2:51:30 ↗ mccory

2:51:35 ↗ thank you commissioner purple kathy

2:51:37 ↗ mccrory commissioner with the evc

2:51:39 ↗ um i i definitely agree i think

2:51:43 ↗ three is um a better way to go

2:51:47 ↗ i also agree with commissioner lewis

2:51:51 ↗ i'm not sure that i know

2:51:54 ↗ all of the landmark signs in town um

2:51:58 ↗ to exempt one just because

2:52:01 ↗ we weren't aware of it um

2:52:04 ↗ so i think having those jewels included

2:52:07 ↗ just in case uh again it's

2:52:11 ↗ late and i'm trying to go through i'm

2:52:13 ↗ trying to drive through town in my mind

2:52:16 ↗ um i'm trying to envision some top pot

2:52:18 ↗ to be real honest with you is that one

2:52:20 ↗ landmark

2:52:21 ↗ or is it on top of the building um

2:52:24 ↗ or is it excuse me is it a um monument

2:52:28 ↗ sign but but and again i just um

2:52:31 ↗ in agreement number three and i and i

2:52:33 ↗ love the idea

2:52:35 ↗ of of if it's a treasure as well that

2:52:38 ↗ should be

2:52:39 ↗ um considered

2:52:45 ↗ thank you madam chair so i'm going to

2:52:47 ↗ make this kind of quick uh

2:52:48 ↗ to kathy commissioner kathy and

2:52:51 ↗ commissioner lewis's

2:52:52 ↗ comments i agree with them i think

2:52:56 ↗ they are naturally treasures

2:52:59 ↗ but i understand what lucy is saying

2:53:01 ↗ about landmark status

2:53:03 ↗ as long as they are protected

2:53:06 ↗ i think that's the goal i think that's

2:53:08 ↗ what people here

2:53:09 ↗ want to see is the protective so

2:53:12 ↗ if triple x had a fire they would be

2:53:15 ↗ able to rebuild

2:53:17 ↗ um to the

2:53:20 ↗ to the old standard so they would be

2:53:22 ↗ able to recreate it and i think that's

2:53:25 ↗ i think that's important how we get

2:53:28 ↗ there i think is

2:53:29 ↗ is up to the city to decide but i think

2:53:31 ↗ it still needs to be protected

2:53:34 ↗ all right thank you so i have uh

2:53:38 ↗ the last comment from

2:53:41 ↗ commissioner milligan

2:53:44 ↗ thank you chair problem nina milligan

2:53:46 ↗ here um

2:53:47 ↗ thank you i agree with it seems like a

2:53:50 ↗ consensus that to change the date

2:53:53 ↗ i'm seeing 40 years but i am reminded in

2:53:56 ↗ looking at other building landmark

2:53:59 ↗ times that the city of seattle i think

2:54:02 ↗ has a 25-year

2:54:04 ↗ kind of rolling um standard for being

2:54:07 ↗ considered as a landmark

2:54:09 ↗ and then of course then we're talking

2:54:10 ↗ about being considered as a landmark or

2:54:13 ↗ whether

2:54:14 ↗ they are automatically landmarked

2:54:17 ↗ um those are two other things to talk

2:54:19 ↗ about and i would

2:54:20 ↗ like to defer to the expertise that we

2:54:22 ↗ have in our city so wonderful

2:54:24 ↗ and erica many is that the historical

2:54:27 ↗ society

2:54:28 ↗ i think she should be reached out to on

2:54:29 ↗ this topic

2:54:36 ↗ lucy okay i'm just

2:54:39 ↗ writing as fast as i can uh thank you

2:54:44 ↗ um so uh

2:54:49 ↗ if there's any public still here um this

2:54:52 ↗ would be

2:54:53 ↗ an opportunity for them to comment on

2:54:55 ↗ the

2:54:56 ↗ discussion topics so i'm assumed i'm

2:54:59 ↗ assuming that

2:55:01 ↗ uh what i was getting at is it's your

2:55:03 ↗ presentation

2:55:04 ↗ and there's nothing else that you want

2:55:06 ↗ to come up with

2:55:07 ↗ so um with that i will ask if

2:55:11 ↗ uh there is anybody else who would like

2:55:13 ↗ to speak

2:55:14 ↗ on this topic

2:55:18 ↗ these five last questions or even the

2:55:20 ↗ first one if

2:55:22 ↗ if they so choose kristin is there

2:55:24 ↗ anybody signed up to speak

2:55:27 ↗ no they have all left the meeting

2:55:32 ↗ yes it is not normal to have a

2:55:35 ↗ three-hour

2:55:36 ↗ meeting the last time i think we did it

2:55:38 ↗ when we were doing the

2:55:39 ↗ central area plan which took a while

2:55:43 ↗ um so with that i'm going to ask kristen

2:55:46 ↗ is there any reports

2:55:47 ↗ that she wants to update us on did i

2:55:51 ↗ just add one um brief thing

2:55:54 ↗ is that these are the next steps that

2:55:56 ↗ are coming and so we returned for the

2:55:58 ↗ public hearing

2:55:59 ↗ on april 22nd and

2:56:03 ↗ assuming that it um the

2:56:06 ↗ commission ppc makes a recommendation

2:56:09 ↗ that night then we would move on to the

2:56:11 ↗ council phase

2:56:13 ↗ with a study session and tentative

2:56:15 ↗ adoption

2:56:16 ↗ and that concludes my presentation thank

2:56:19 ↗ you

2:56:24 ↗ kristen

2:56:26 ↗ hi this is kristen i

2:56:29 ↗ do not have any reports to provide

2:56:31 ↗ tonight i don't know

2:56:32 ↗ if deputy city administrator andrea

2:56:35 ↗ snyder

2:56:36 ↗ has any reports

2:56:41 ↗ is she still here

2:56:44 ↗ hi everybody this is andrea yes i'm

2:56:46 ↗ still here and no i do not have any

2:56:48 ↗ other reports other than i think

2:56:52 ↗ we wanted to make sure that we

2:56:54 ↗ introduced

2:56:55 ↗ mini dollywall our community planning

2:56:58 ↗ and development

2:56:59 ↗ director she started on monday today's

2:57:02 ↗ day four and it's amazing how

2:57:05 ↗ much she's already absorbed and the

2:57:08 ↗ great questions she's asking we're so

2:57:09 ↗ excited to have her as part of this team

2:57:11 ↗ and i know that

2:57:12 ↗ each of you are going to be working with

2:57:14 ↗ her in a different capacity especially

2:57:16 ↗ our ppc

2:57:17 ↗ members so minnie if you want to

2:57:20 ↗ give a little wave so you can stand out

2:57:23 ↗ to the crowd here and

2:57:26 ↗ minnie comes to us from tukwilla and

2:57:29 ↗ she was the deputy director there and

2:57:31 ↗ she served also the city of federal way

2:57:34 ↗ she's a very smart cookie and a very

2:57:37 ↗ fast study so

2:57:39 ↗ like i said we are so pleased to have

2:57:42 ↗ her here and i hope that you join me in

2:57:43 ↗ welcoming her to

2:57:44 ↗ our fine community in issaquah

2:57:49 ↗ would you like to say anything sure good

2:57:52 ↗ evening commissioners

2:57:53 ↗ uh i've been listening and you are all

2:57:56 ↗ have done your homework and have asked

2:57:58 ↗ all the right questions and given us the

2:58:00 ↗ right direction

2:58:02 ↗ i'm impressed by the your thoughtfulness

2:58:04 ↗ of you know figuring out all the

2:58:06 ↗ different options and then

2:58:08 ↗ sorting through that so we look forward

2:58:10 ↗ to bringing back to you

2:58:12 ↗ uh a good product after your input

2:58:14 ↗ tonight

2:58:15 ↗ uh as far as me i'm thrilled to be part

2:58:18 ↗ of this community

2:58:19 ↗ i'll be reaching out to some of you and

2:58:21 ↗ really trying to get

2:58:22 ↗ a sense of uh how to work through the

2:58:25 ↗ rest of the year

2:58:26 ↗ any any input you might have for us to

2:58:28 ↗ get through

2:58:30 ↗ some major updates coming your way as

2:58:32 ↗ well so hopefully we can

2:58:34 ↗ uh you know not have these three-hour

2:58:36 ↗ meetings and we'll try and get you the

2:58:37 ↗ right information

2:58:38 ↗ you know uh but these are tangent you

2:58:41 ↗ know these are things that

2:58:42 ↗ need some discussion and debate and in

2:58:45 ↗ the end

2:58:46 ↗ these these will have lasting impacts on

2:58:48 ↗ the community and

2:58:49 ↗ and the development that'll stay here

2:58:51 ↗ for years so appreciate everyone's time

2:58:53 ↗ uh i don't have anything more to add

2:58:56 ↗ well thank you and very welcome we're

2:58:57 ↗ excited to have you

2:59:00 ↗ um i'm going to call on kristen to give

2:59:02 ↗ us an update on the schedule

2:59:05 ↗ thank you um i don't i apologize i don't

2:59:09 ↗ have it right in front of me we are

2:59:10 ↗ canceling the april 8th meeting however

2:59:12 ↗ um they're going to be too many of us

2:59:14 ↗ out of town

2:59:15 ↗ to give a presentation uh which leads us

2:59:18 ↗ to april 25th which will be the public

2:59:20 ↗ hearing on signs

2:59:21 ↗ the first meeting in may we will be

2:59:23 ↗ welcoming new members we did in

2:59:25 ↗ interviews tonight we will be welcoming

2:59:27 ↗ some new members and we will do election

2:59:29 ↗ of officers that night as well

2:59:31 ↗ and you all have been asking to have

2:59:33 ↗ discussions about these storm water plan

2:59:35 ↗ updates so gary schneck our new

2:59:37 ↗ utilities engineer will be coming

2:59:39 ↗ and doing an introduction on the

2:59:41 ↗ stormwater

2:59:42 ↗ up plan update for you all uh that day

2:59:46 ↗ um that's all i have as far as the

2:59:47 ↗ schedule goes i would like to note

2:59:50 ↗ um that tonight is joan propolis last

2:59:52 ↗ night with ppc

2:59:54 ↗ she has been here for many many years um

2:59:57 ↗ has served as chair

2:59:59 ↗ several times and she's just done a

3:00:02 ↗ fabulous job has so much insight

3:00:05 ↗ she works here she lives here she's

3:00:08 ↗ involved in

3:00:09 ↗ the chamber and it's just we're just

3:00:12 ↗ gonna miss you joan

3:00:13 ↗ we really are you've done a fabulous job

3:00:15 ↗ and economic vitality commission

3:00:18 ↗ you have somebody really good coming

3:00:19 ↗ your way um take advantage of her

3:00:21 ↗ knowledge

3:00:22 ↗ and um her humor and just ah we're

3:00:25 ↗ jealous

3:00:26 ↗ so joan thank you for everything well i

3:00:28 ↗ think it goes i think it goes

3:00:30 ↗ thank you i think it goes both ways i

3:00:32 ↗ mean i i've learned a lot and

3:00:34 ↗ appreciated my time here

3:00:36 ↗ but i also want to uh give a shout out

3:00:39 ↗ to

3:00:39 ↗ the the staff that has uh

3:00:43 ↗ answered uh the questions that have been

3:00:45 ↗ forthright especially christian

3:00:48 ↗ um christian uh

3:00:51 ↗ she has done a fantastic job so it's

3:00:53 ↗ kind of a

3:00:54 ↗ love love between the two of us and i i

3:00:57 ↗ hope that uh

3:00:58 ↗ ppc uses her and uh keeps her on her

3:01:01 ↗ toes

3:01:02 ↗ and uh enjoys her

3:01:05 ↗ updates and knowledge so thank you and

3:01:10 ↗ with that i'm also going to miss

3:01:13 ↗ all the people that i met on pbc

3:01:17 ↗ so uh not going anywhere i will see you

3:01:21 ↗ so um i'm going to close the meeting

3:01:24 ↗ thank goodness at 9 35 9 34

3:01:29 ↗ and wish you all a i guess easter's

3:01:32 ↗ coming up i hope you have a

3:01:34 ↗ wonderful time with family and enjoy

3:01:36 ↗ yourself so

3:01:38 ↗ thank you and the meetings adjourned

3:01:40 ↗ good night everyone

3:01:41 ↗ good night wonderful asset to ppc

3:01:45 ↗ and i think it's been a blessing having

3:01:48 ↗ you on and

3:01:50 ↗ um whoever's gonna fall on your shoes uh

3:01:53 ↗ you're gonna have

3:01:54 ↗ some big shoes to fill well this is my

3:01:57 ↗ last meeting

3:02:04 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (16)

Ron Faul, Vice Chair Therese Garcia

Janice Carle Christopher Beaudoin

Joy Lewis Thomas Brown

Nina Milligan Corby Casler

Matt Monahan Jon Edwards

Jason Voiss Kathy McCorry

Richard Zaragoza, Alternate Ashwin Muthuvenkataraman

Joan Probala (serving as PPC Chair)

Administration/Staff: Art Freas

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Chris Reichley

Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Dev. Mgr. Anjali Remme

Lucy Sloman, Land Dev. Manager

Benton Coblenz, Econ. Dev. Coordinator Tom Rogers

Daniel Kenny, Ogden Murphy Wallace

Chris Grabowski, Code Compliance

Minnie Dhaliwal, CD&P Director

Audience commenters (1)

Discussion PROBALA

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

She asked staff to address any concerns not answered tonight in the staff memo in advance of the public hearing.