← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, April 22, 2021

6:30 PM · 3h 10m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Amendments to Sign Code AB 8140 3/7
Planning Policy Commission · Nov 12, 2020 Economic Vitality Commission · Mar 11, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Apr 22, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting · May 25, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 27, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 7, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 20, 2021
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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,…
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of Mar. 11, 2021
packet pp.5–9
Staff report:
MILLIGAN asked about the use of “shall” in “the provision of EVSE and EV-Ready in the project associated with defined affordable housing shall be cost-neutral.” She also asked for clarification of why reducing landscaping was proposed as a way to achieve cost-neutrality. Curtis-Murphy replied the thinking was that, particularly if reductions in parking requirements did not achieve cost neutrality, then other options, such as reducing landscaping, might be used. It was intended as a way of offering cost savings for developers in exchange for the costs to developers of providing EV facilities. Several Commissioners spoke about the desirability of landscaping requirements for affordable housing in terms of environmental impacts, equity, and aesthetics.
2b
Minutes of Mar. 25, 2021
packet pp.11–16
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 03-25-21 Planning Policy Commission/Economic Page [1] Vitality Commission Minutes—Special Meeting
2a
Sign Code Amendments
Action · Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.17–160
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
2. Background and Goals 3. Notes and Notable Changes in the April 15th Draft 4.
5. REPORTS
5a
Council Updates
Information · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner
7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
7a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.165
Staff report:
FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Cancelled 8/12/21 TBD 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  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Stations Land Use Element: Climate Change policies  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  CIP/TIP
0:02 okay
0:03 um ron it is 6 30 so if you are ready to
0:06 begin
0:07 um let me see something really quickly
0:15 okay yeah if you're if you're ready to
0:18 begin count to ten and then
0:19 uh tim will start okay so let's go ahead
0:22 and begin
0:23 and uh give it ten seconds
0:27 ten seconds
0:34 okay i'd like to call to the order um
0:37 april 22nd ppc meeting
0:39 for policy and planning commission at 6
0:43 and welcome and due to the virtual
0:45 format of today's meeting i'd like to
0:47 start by providing some guidelines
0:50 we have participants attending by
0:52 computer and others who may be attending
0:54 by phone
0:55 for all meeting attendees please speak
0:58 clearly and pause frequently
1:01 state your name each time before
1:03 speaking
1:05 mute your microphone when not speaking
1:08 having technical issues try joining the
1:10 meeting using a different device
1:12 smartphone or tablet
1:13 or use the call-in information the
1:16 meeting invite
1:18 to call into the meeting uh
1:21 i'll go ahead and for attendance
1:24 joan provola and janice carl both have
1:26 excused absences
1:28 richard zargoza will be serving as a
1:31 regular member and participating in
1:33 tonight's vote
1:35 and kristen will you go ahead and call
1:36 the vote i mean uh call the
1:38 roll yes i will um commissioner voice
1:44 here commissioner lewis
1:48 here commissioner monahan
1:52 here mr milligan
1:56 here commissioner zaragoza
2:01 here and commissioner fall here
2:06 six are present okay and now we'll go
2:09 into the approval of the minutes we have
2:11 two sets
2:12 uh are there any corrections to the
2:14 march 11 20 21 minutes provided in the
2:16 agenda packet
2:20 okay hearing none the minutes are
2:22 approved
2:25 are there any corrections to the march
2:27 25th 2021 minutes provided in the
2:30 meeting packet
2:33 okay hearing none minutes are approved
2:37 and tonight we have two topics
2:40 we have uh first a public hearing on the
2:43 proposed
2:44 electrical vehicle charging
2:46 infrastructure
2:49 that's not correct
2:52 it's actually all right
2:56 i want to be absolute you're right ron
3:00 it's a public hearing on the sign code
3:03 yeah
3:04 public hearing on the sign code
3:07 and we'll also be having a
3:11 public discussion on the draft capital
3:14 improvement plan
3:16 so first we're going to go and start off
3:18 with the sign code and before we begin
3:21 tonight's hearing
3:23 i'd like to go over the processes for
3:24 conducting the hearing
3:26 first the staff will present the
3:29 proposed amendment
3:31 then commissioners can ask questions of
3:33 the staff
3:35 i'll then open the public hearing
3:38 after we receive any public comments
3:41 we'll go ahead and
3:43 i'll ask for a motion to adopt the
3:45 findings of fact
3:47 and then we will debate the proposal and
3:50 deliberate it
3:51 if anyone would like to see the changes
3:53 to the recommendations and the findings
3:54 of fact
3:56 they can offer an amendment the
3:58 amendment should
3:59 offer specific warning to be included in
4:01 the findings
4:02 we will then vote on any amendments
4:05 followed by the vote on the main motion
4:07 adopting the findings of fact
4:10 i'd like to ask the land developer
4:12 manager lucy sloman
4:14 to go ahead and start with the
4:15 presentation on
4:17 the sign code
4:21 thank you chairperson fall i will
4:24 now share my screen
4:28 which i think i've got right this time
4:30 i'm sorry you guys got to see double
4:32 slides all last time in spite of my best
4:34 efforts
4:36 um are you seeing one
4:39 are you seeing it not yet okay
4:48 all good lucy okay thank you because i
4:51 can't tell
4:53 um good evening um lucy sloman land
4:57 development manager
4:58 for community planning and development
5:00 uh tonight is
5:01 um as chairperson paul mentioned is
5:05 our public hearing on the sign code um
5:08 last meeting in march 25th we had a
5:11 detailed review of a discussion draft
5:15 and um really talked in depth about the
5:19 kind of changes
5:21 um that staff had made
5:24 uh now we're going to focus on
5:27 some of the changes that were made since
5:30 then
5:31 uh answers to uh some of the questions
5:34 that
5:35 we asked of the commissioners and i'm
5:38 going to really focus at that higher
5:40 level
5:40 and then be open to respond to
5:43 commissioner comments
5:53 there we go so um we are requesting
5:57 um that the commission make a
5:59 recommendation to counsel tonight
6:02 um for uh comments and questions uh
6:06 i will as we go through each of the
6:09 notable changes
6:10 and the responses to um the questions
6:14 that we asked you last time
6:16 i will pause after each of those in case
6:19 the commissioners have questions or
6:22 comments on those specific topics
6:26 for the public there will be a comment
6:29 period
6:29 at the end of the meeting my email
6:33 appears on each slide and you're welcome
6:35 to email me comments
6:37 but i just want you to know that i won't
6:39 be responding to those
6:41 during the meeting that would just be
6:43 part of the packet of materials that
6:45 would be sent on to the council
6:48 so as a as a summary there are three big
6:52 things that we're trying to accomplish
6:54 with this sign code
6:56 update the first is that in 2015
7:00 the u.s supreme court issued a decision
7:04 um which the longer name of which is
7:08 reed versus the town of gilbert arizona
7:11 but you will sometimes hear us refer to
7:14 it as reid v
7:15 gilbert and basically that
7:19 limited our ability um to
7:22 regulate based on content and
7:25 this impacted sign codes across the
7:27 country
7:28 and so we um this is uh the city's
7:32 effort to come into compliance with that
7:34 decision
7:36 secondly uh we are taking
7:40 three sign codes that we have in the
7:42 city we have uh
7:44 the in the iskwa municipal code
7:47 chapter 1811 in the central
7:50 issaquah standards we have chapter nine
7:53 and those two sign codes cover most of
7:56 the city
7:57 we additionally have in the old town
8:00 design standards
8:01 three pages of sign design and so
8:06 our purpose is to consolidate these so
8:08 we have one sign code for the city
8:11 outside
8:12 of the urban villages that are covered
8:14 by development agreements
8:16 and get consistency across the city
8:19 except where there are unique provisions
8:22 that are important for
8:23 contributing to the neighborhood
8:26 and finally the council gave us
8:30 some goals and outcomes one of which
8:33 was to make the code easier for
8:36 businesses to use
8:38 and do it in a way that residents
8:40 wouldn't notice a significant change
8:42 and so we are streamlining the code
8:47 um and the process um
8:50 thinking about what should be regulated
8:52 and trying to take
8:54 various um different versions of the
8:57 same sign
8:58 that were scattered throughout the code
9:01 and consolidate them to make it easier
9:04 to understand what the actual
9:06 options are
9:09 so my agenda for my presentation is i
9:13 will first go through about six
9:15 notable changes and discuss
9:18 the administration's response to the
9:21 discussion topics from
9:23 our last meeting we have a new
9:26 discussion topic for this evening which
9:28 is the organization of the sign code
9:31 then you will have an opportunity for
9:33 general comments and questions that
9:35 aren't related to the
9:37 notable changes and discussion topics
9:40 and then as i mentioned the public will
9:42 have an opportunity to comment
9:45 if you have if you've found typos
9:48 grammatical areas
9:50 errors formatting problems please feel
9:52 free to email those to me
9:56 after the meeting so
9:59 notable change number one has to do with
10:01 temporary sign agreements
10:04 these were proposed to cover
10:07 temporary signs both commercial and
10:10 non-commercial
10:12 we had in our march 18th draft
10:16 required that all temporary commercial
10:18 signs
10:19 uh and temporary non-commercial signs in
10:22 the right of way have them
10:24 and the duration for an agreement was 60
10:26 days with two renewals
10:28 based on the comments that we heard we
10:31 changed that the agreements
10:33 are now proposed for only temporary
10:36 commercial
10:37 and they would follow the length of time
10:41 that that sign is allowed to be in place
10:44 are there any comments or questions
10:46 about this change
10:52 someone will have to tell me because i
10:53 can't see the chat box
10:59 no there are none okay thank you
11:05 notable change number two had to do with
11:07 adjacent property owner permission
11:10 in the march 18th draft we were
11:12 requiring signs in the right-of-way to
11:14 get the adjacent property owner's
11:16 permission
11:18 and in the current draft we're reviewing
11:20 that requirement
11:21 has been eliminated any comments or
11:26 questions
11:32 no thanks
11:36 um the next one has to do with
11:39 uh the front street banners we made some
11:44 organizational changes to the text but
11:46 the main change that we made
11:49 of some substance was the duration for
11:52 the front
11:53 street banners was unclear in the
11:55 previous draft
11:57 and we are proposing a three-week
11:59 duration
12:00 for them this is based on the schedule
12:04 that's in place uh currently for 2021.
12:08 in looking at that most banners were up
12:11 for 3 weeks
12:12 or less there was
12:15 maybe one that was proposed for almost a
12:19 month
12:20 but since we have to set a fixed
12:23 duration it seemed that three weeks
12:26 was the most appropriate to use
12:28 throughout the year
12:31 any comments or questions
12:36 i don't see any i'm not i'm not seeing
12:40 any but i would like to remind
12:42 all of you the commissioners that when
12:44 you do have comments to direct them to
12:45 all panelists now it used to be to
12:47 everyone
12:48 but just so that we can see it be sure
12:49 to do it all panelists thank you
12:56 the next change was regarding
12:59 signs that are exceptions from
13:02 permit requirements in the march 18th
13:06 draft there were a couple of signs
13:08 banners on light poles
13:10 and construction contractor signs
13:13 which were under temporary commercial
13:16 signs
13:17 meaning that in that draft and in the
13:20 april 15 draft they would require
13:23 temporary sign agreements
13:25 in looking back at our
13:29 existing codes those had been in
13:32 exceptions from sign agreements where no
13:35 agreement would be necessary
13:36 or exception from signed permits where
13:38 no agreements would be required
13:40 and so we moved them back there because
13:42 we didn't think it was necessary
13:44 to have them do this extra step of
13:48 getting a temporary sign agreement
13:51 any questions about those
13:58 i'm not seeing any thank you
14:02 um there are a bunch of changes under
14:06 permanent commercial signs but mostly
14:08 in response to the um
14:11 discussion topics so i'll wait and go
14:14 through those
14:15 but we spent more time on the monument
14:19 sign
14:20 completing it and making sure that we
14:23 had carried forward
14:25 all the versions or all the variations
14:28 that are in
14:28 existing codes and so as a result we
14:32 added a general regulation
14:34 section and the community facilities
14:37 electronic reader boards such as the
14:39 example on the right
14:41 which is at the high school and middle
14:43 school on 2nd avenue
14:46 i also want to note that i
14:49 received a comment from the parks
14:52 department
14:53 and asking us to clarify
14:57 that it could be up to two faces that a
15:00 monument sign
15:01 could be up to two faces right now uh
15:04 the text says
15:06 that no face can be more than 32 square
15:10 feet
15:10 which implies two faces um
15:13 but we it's important to be clear that
15:16 there is a maximum
15:17 of two faces so we'll be adding that um
15:21 in the draft that carries forward
15:22 assuming that it
15:24 is um recommended for approval
15:28 any questions or comments
15:35 no i'm not seeing any thank you
15:40 temporary commercial signs there were
15:43 two changes i would note there
15:46 in the march 18th draft outdoor
15:49 vendor signs were embedded into the
15:52 general regulations kind of as a
15:54 clarification
15:56 and um in studying that more we thought
15:58 it was important to actually pull it out
16:00 and make it its own sign type so
16:04 you will see that that's now present in
16:06 the draft
16:08 the other change that we thought was
16:10 worth noting
16:11 in the march 18th draft a-frames were
16:15 the text was neutral about locations
16:18 it could either be on private property
16:22 in the right of way but they there was
16:24 no sort of priority
16:26 whereas in the april 15th draft on-site
16:30 is prioritized
16:31 over right-of-way it doesn't mean that
16:34 it can't go in the right of way but
16:37 someone would need to demonstrate that
16:39 there was a reason that it can't be on
16:41 site
16:43 any questions or comments
16:52 i am not seeing any thank you
16:56 and then uh lastly um was variances
16:59 in the march 18th draft adjustments of
17:02 standards
17:05 it had adjustments of standards and the
17:07 decision maker was the development
17:09 mission in the april 15th draft we are
17:12 now relying on
17:13 variances which makes the hearing
17:16 examiner the
17:17 maker any questions or comments
17:28 lucy there are no questions or comments
17:30 okay thank you that is the end
17:32 of the notable changes and so now i'm
17:35 going to move on to
17:37 the discussion topics from our march
17:40 25th meeting um so the first two are the
17:45 big ones
17:46 um having to do with temporary
17:48 non-commercial signs
17:49 um understandably the commissioners both
17:53 um it was both planning policy
17:55 commission
17:56 and the economic vitality commission
18:00 all the commissioners had a lot of
18:01 discussion um
18:04 what uh i don't think that there was a
18:07 single
18:08 option that had a consensus there were
18:10 probably two options
18:12 staff spent a lot of time discussing
18:15 this
18:16 um in the end for private property
18:20 the administration proposal is
18:24 have allowing a total of 32 square feet
18:28 per property for all non-commercial
18:30 signs
18:31 and a big driver behind that was the
18:34 commission's
18:35 questions and desire for people to be
18:39 able to put up
18:40 non-governmental flags which we're
18:42 calling banners in this circumstance
18:46 the typical size of a
18:50 banner is three by five feet or 15
18:53 square feet
18:55 um and then there are the other kinds of
18:59 signs that might show up
19:00 there are political signs which are
19:04 four square feet per face um
19:07 and then there are lots of incidental
19:09 signs that we were talking about
19:11 such as the pesticide free zone i mean
19:13 that was um
19:15 an example but um you know people
19:18 uh staff were discussing um
19:21 you know who your home security system
19:24 is there's often a sign related to that
19:26 or signs related to as a notice
19:30 to fire departments if there are pets in
19:32 the house
19:33 and so in the end
19:37 we determined that or we recommended
19:41 that having a standard of 32 square feet
19:45 total per property with
19:49 a maximum size for each sign
19:52 type all four signs
19:56 are allowed and then with certain
20:00 heights as well seems the best way to
20:04 provide
20:04 options to property owners while
20:09 continuing sort of the aesthetic
20:11 expectations of the community
20:14 i do note that on the banners
20:19 for mixed-use and non-resolve
20:21 residential
20:22 um sign districts um
20:25 the uh phrase on building was
20:28 accidentally left in from the
20:32 previous draft and um banners could be
20:36 on polls they could be on buildings
20:39 or they could be free standing
20:43 any comments or questions on this one
20:52 yes uh jason commissioner voice has a
20:55 comment
20:59 thank you and thank you manager sloman
21:03 um so i want to thank staff for the
21:05 incredible amount of homework
21:08 you guys gave us that was wonderful it
21:12 gave me a lot of
21:13 evening reading so appreciate that uh
21:17 and i understand that most of what the
21:19 sign code
21:20 is trying to do is to consolidate
21:23 multiple different things and for the
21:24 most part
21:25 i think it's been great i think you guys
21:27 have done a great job
21:28 this is the one that kind of this one's
21:31 tough for me
21:32 um because the way i understand it and
21:34 tell me if i'm getting this wrong
21:36 manager sloman
21:37 so basically a piece of property can
21:40 have
21:41 four signs but they have to equal a
21:44 total of 32 square feet
21:47 right am i getting that right so that
21:48 you could have four four by
21:51 twos right so that'd be eight um
21:54 whatever it is so you could have
21:56 is that what i'm getting so you could
21:57 have right so um you're right there
22:00 would be a lot of permutations of this
22:02 so for instance if you put up a
22:05 political sign
22:06 that was four square feet per face or
22:09 eight square feet total
22:11 you could have four of those political
22:13 signs
22:14 in your front yard um you could only
22:17 have one
22:17 but the maximum that you could do would
22:19 be four
22:21 so if you were to mix it up and use you
22:23 know part of your
22:24 square feet for a banner then that would
22:28 cut you down on what you could do for
22:30 other temporary signs on your property
22:31 correct
22:32 correct okay so this is the one that i
22:35 i struggle with because to me
22:39 private property is like the greatest
22:41 one of the greatest expressions of
22:42 freedom of speech
22:43 and i know people are looking for a
22:45 creative solution i think you guys
22:48 have done a good job trying to be
22:49 creative i just
22:51 this one's a tough one for me because i
22:53 don't know if i necessarily agree with
22:56 to say that a town home would get the
22:58 same amount of square footage
22:59 as a larger house property and
23:02 whether it's front street or the
23:05 highlands
23:06 that doesn't seem quite right to me and
23:09 again it's
23:09 it's not an ethical thing i guess it's
23:11 more of a full philosophical thing
23:14 i know some people think that the equity
23:16 is and well they get the same amount of
23:17 square footage as i do
23:19 i personally have a problem with that
23:22 because i think the equity comes in the
23:24 ability to have
23:25 the opportunity to buy properties
23:27 without being discriminated against
23:29 but i don't see how a bigger property
23:33 can have the same cap as a smaller
23:35 property and again i might be the
23:36 minority here i might be
23:38 on the outside but for me this is a
23:40 tough one i
23:41 i personally don't think this is the
23:42 solution um i appreciate the creativity
23:46 but this one i i don't know if i can get
23:48 behind
23:50 as far as the rest of the the other
23:51 topics that you guys are doing a
23:53 wonderful job but this one and again i
23:54 might be the lone commissioner out here
23:56 on the branch but
23:57 this one is tough for me so yeah really
24:00 more of a comment
24:04 air file also has a question
24:09 thank you now this is commissioner fall
24:13 merchant state chairperson phone uh uh
24:19 so i actually i like what jason just
24:21 said i hadn't thought about that
24:22 but now that i'm thinking about it i'm
24:24 kind of in line with jason i kind of
24:26 like where he was going with that
24:27 so um i would agree i do have a question
24:31 this is probably more for
24:38 if we during the holiday season a lot of
24:40 people put out christmas signs and
24:42 halloween signs and things like that in
24:44 the decor if someone wanted to write
24:46 merry christmas and christmas lights on
24:48 their roof
24:49 hypothetically i've seen actually seen
24:51 people do it
24:53 is that considered a sign and would that
24:56 under the same requirements because i
24:58 now i would be
25:00 not comfortable with that type of
25:02 regulation controlling that
25:04 um and then i've got another question
25:08 regarding yard signs but i think i'll
25:09 bring that up at a later time
25:12 um i i'd like to um i think i know the
25:16 answer that i'd like to
25:17 give daniel kenny uh from ogden murphy
25:20 wallace who is
25:21 our one of our city attorneys and
25:25 sign expert an opportunity to reply to
25:28 your question ron
25:32 great can you hear me yes perfect
25:35 good to see you all this evening thank
25:37 you for having me tonight
25:38 um yeah i mean that's a fantastic
25:41 question
25:42 and i was just trying to scroll into the
25:43 definitions because we have a definition
25:46 of sign that would be
25:47 uh applicable to that question and
25:51 let me just see if i can quickly get to
25:53 it um
25:55 got it here and so really it's anything
25:59 i i won't read it word for word that's
26:01 not the point but
26:02 um it's it's when you express a message
26:06 and it's using things like text symbols
26:09 graphics
26:10 um and so i i do think you know if you
26:13 were to use
26:14 lights to create a textual message um
26:18 it would be a sign um and so i think
26:21 there are some situations where
26:23 just merely the the decorations
26:25 themselves aren't assigned
26:27 but as soon as you start creating a
26:29 message i mean that's um
26:31 similar to some sort of um marquee sign
26:35 or something like that that uses light
26:36 bulbs to convey a message as well
26:41 okay thank you it i worry because if we
26:45 if a resident decides to put merry
26:47 christmas on the roof
26:49 and the
26:52 someone files a complaint and the city
26:56 comes out
26:56 and our city enforcement comes out and
26:58 tells the resident the resident that
27:00 they can't have that
27:02 that is going to create a huge stake
27:05 and i don't know that any one of our
27:07 city council people
27:09 want to be putting their name attached
27:12 to that
27:14 you just see that going in the wrong
27:16 direction pretty quickly
27:18 but you know we don't want people to
27:20 advertise
27:21 products or i guess
27:24 ongoing messages on their roofs but i
27:27 don't see that as
27:28 having ever been a problem so i don't
27:30 know that we
27:32 should include that can we exclude it or
27:35 are we stuck
27:39 um right now it says signs cannot be
27:41 above the roof line
27:42 um i did think about whether there's
27:46 how eaves for a sloped roof
27:49 whether it should be eaves or roof line
27:52 so that
27:52 is one question um
27:55 the other the other part of your
27:58 question
27:59 um chairperson fall is
28:02 maybe about size and and um
28:06 you know restricting uh people
28:09 and i think one of the challenges that's
28:11 going to come out of this
28:13 is um there are the signs that we like
28:18 and that we don't mind seeing a bunch of
28:21 big ones and then they're going to be
28:23 the signs that we don't like
28:25 or we think are garish
28:28 or you know distracting
28:32 and the challenge is we we can't make
28:35 exceptions
28:36 we have to be very consistent and
28:38 even-handed
28:39 and so i think that's the challenge that
28:42 we face in
28:44 trying to establish um
28:47 signs uh that are even handed across the
28:51 board
28:52 i understand
28:56 yeah okay i'm just sad to see this go in
29:00 that direction but i can see how that
29:01 could be abused
29:09 commissioner milligan has a question
29:12 thank you commissioner milligan here
29:14 thank you lucy uh
29:16 it's to your credit that we don't have
29:18 comments or questions until this point
29:20 so i think that is ease of your mind
29:23 i have sort of a two-part question one
29:26 is i see how
29:28 in not regulating based on content we've
29:32 removed
29:33 the stipulation that political signs are
29:35 different
29:36 uh and so that's great but how does
29:39 and it's not like this is the problem
29:41 the problem was the political signs or
29:43 the religious signs or the other things
29:45 in the
29:46 ruling but we are regulating based on
29:49 whether they're commercial or
29:50 non-commercial
29:51 and in some cases that might be fairly
29:54 fuzzy you know if you're a non-profit
29:56 and you're promoting a
29:57 an event is that commercial or
29:59 non-commercial anyway i just thought i'd
30:01 bring that up
30:02 looking for a little more clarification
30:04 um that's number one the other is
30:06 for me i am hearing what my fellow
30:10 commissioners are saying
30:11 about the uh limitations in finding some
30:16 equitable fashion between property
30:18 owners who have different
30:20 resources but i did think when i first
30:23 read this
30:24 that you had addressed the situation
30:28 of a person with a bigger property
30:30 having more opportunity
30:32 is 32 square feet the right one i don't
30:35 know
30:35 seemed like seemed okay to me at the
30:37 time
30:38 um i think that you're on the right
30:40 track and maybe there's just some
30:41 dialing in there
30:43 that's my opinion about how to handle
30:46 that
30:46 ability to promote more because you have
30:49 more land
30:50 that was my two comments thank you well
30:53 just speak to your first point uh you
30:55 know i think staff
30:56 have been learning a lot about this and
30:58 and having many of the same questions
31:01 that you have
31:02 um uh front street banner
31:05 is the example i would point to in terms
31:09 of this question and and then uh daniel
31:11 kenny may want to chime in
31:13 and fine-tune or readjust what i say if
31:16 i get it wrong
31:18 um which is that um
31:21 there are not the the you know the
31:24 village theater
31:26 um and cougar mountain zoo for instance
31:29 put up banners but is non-profits
31:32 they are able to do so um in a
31:36 as the banners would still be considered
31:40 non-commercial now i i know i'm speaking
31:44 in a very simplified way that there's
31:46 some nuance to this
31:48 um but i think in general um for
31:51 instance
31:51 we had a call the other day so that's
31:53 why i'm going to give this as an example
31:56 a church putting up signs to an easter
31:58 egg hunt
32:00 um so i i think that those would still
32:04 be non-commercial signs and would follow
32:08 those would have been in the right of
32:09 way which is our um
32:11 1b topic but um i think it does help
32:15 explain the question that you're asking
32:18 daniel um do you have more that you
32:19 would like to add
32:22 um no i think i think that was great you
32:24 know non-commercial is defined in the
32:26 code
32:28 and and that's everything uh public and
32:30 community events religious political
32:32 ideological philosophical messages
32:35 um and and those are these are the ones
32:37 that do not promote
32:39 commercial businesses um uh projects or
32:42 services and so
32:44 i think we would view non-profits and
32:46 whatnots
32:47 what not as non-commercial ventures
32:52 money might exchange hands by a
32:54 fundraising or selling
32:56 of a bake sale or whatever that might be
32:58 but that is
32:59 different um you know we talked about
33:01 this as a team and looking
33:03 in other areas of law and business how
33:06 that works and for example there's
33:08 different tax codes for them so so
33:10 they are not treated the same as
33:11 commercial businesses
33:13 and we are not going to do that here as
33:14 well so there is that differentiation
33:16 that we can find
33:24 commissioner monahan has a question
33:28 yeah hi uh excuse me matt monaghan and
33:30 my question has moved
33:31 uh into more of a comment which i wanted
33:34 to respond to
33:35 what jason and ron were talking about
33:37 which i totally appreciate where you're
33:38 coming from
33:40 uh however i think given that
33:43 the supreme court's opinion kind of
33:45 eliminated a lot of the nuance that we
33:47 could have otherwise relied upon
33:49 and it kind of restricted the way that
33:52 we can do this at all
33:53 and i think this is it's not the best
33:55 situation but it's the best compromise
33:57 given
33:58 the landscape that we're now having to
34:01 legislate against
34:02 so i would have preferred a little bit
34:04 more nuance i think that's what the
34:05 prior
34:06 code had but we're really restricted in
34:08 our abilities because we have to be
34:11 essentially 100 content neutral i get
34:14 we're making a distinction between
34:15 commercial and non-convertible i think
34:17 that's a reasonable
34:18 assumption to believe that the supreme
34:20 court would allow that to go forward i
34:22 hope they do because if they don't
34:23 that's
34:23 even more ham-fisted than what the
34:25 opinion is we're dealing with today
34:27 and so while i would like to give a
34:29 little bit more
34:30 play in the joints in these first
34:33 instance i don't think we're permitted
34:35 and so because we're not permitted to i
34:37 think this is the best
34:38 we're making the best of the situation
34:40 that's kind of outside of our control
34:42 so i really appreciate the work that
34:43 went into this
34:45 you know although i i don't necessarily
34:47 like it a hundred percent
34:48 i think it's the best we can do thank
34:51 you
35:00 mr zaragoza has a comment although i've
35:03 just realized too that we are supposed
35:06 um refrain from deliberation and most
35:09 comments until after we've heard from
35:10 the public so i think
35:12 unless there are any more um
35:16 that we should hold the comments for a
35:18 few minutes and
35:20 move on to public hearing public hearing
35:23 comments
35:24 so um
35:28 it's okay and it seems that
35:31 um commissioner lewis's is actually a
35:34 question
35:35 now so i will let her go
35:38 thank you commissioner joy lewis i will
35:40 say that um
35:41 matt did a better job saying my comment
35:43 than i would have so
35:44 um i i want to just give a vote
35:47 um for for what mad express my question
35:50 was for lucy
35:51 i kind of backed up to um the parks
35:54 department's question about
35:56 the um monument signs and by designating
35:59 the two
36:00 face are we designating that it needs to
36:02 be effectively a square or a rectangle
36:04 um are we limiting the actual um
36:09 you know spherical nature of a monument
36:12 by doing that
36:14 i'm gonna back up for a second um just
36:17 so that we are
36:18 um there so
36:21 um for me my understanding of two-face
36:25 is essentially um this little snippet
36:28 that's here
36:29 um that it's not that it doesn't have
36:32 three dim it's three-dimensional it may
36:35 have some depth to it but there are not
36:37 signs on more than two faces
36:41 i think what our concern was that in the
36:46 more ambiguous language that was put in
36:50 that someone might choose to do three or
36:53 four
36:54 faces with signs on each of those faces
36:59 because there was not a maximum
37:02 identified does that make
37:03 more sense yeah when i first read it to
37:05 me it was
37:06 it i i naturally went okay front and
37:08 back right is what it kind of said to me
37:10 you know front facing back facing
37:12 but as i was sitting here thinking about
37:14 it i kind of wondering if we were
37:15 actually restricting to
37:17 um the you know the actual
37:20 nature of what this line can be right is
37:23 it able to be more
37:24 um of a sphere is it able to be you know
37:27 all
37:27 these different shapes and things like
37:29 that right so um i was curious how by
37:31 defining it to be helpful we actually
37:34 could make it a little bit more um
37:36 restrictive in a way that we weren't
37:37 intending
37:38 so i just kind of wanted to raise that
37:40 um thank you for clarifying commissioner
37:43 lewis
37:43 i would say um that um
37:46 if someone was creative enough to do a
37:49 sphere
37:50 or let's say an oval which does have
37:52 sort of sides to it
37:55 i think that we would be looking at
37:59 how we define face because it would say
38:03 two faces so i think that you could get
38:05 some interesting shapes
38:06 we would just be for instance you could
38:09 have a cube
38:10 we would just limit how many sides of
38:13 that cube
38:14 um could have signs on them as opposed
38:18 art or um patterns or
38:21 texture or such and would that then end
38:25 up just falling out of the same way that
38:27 we handled
38:28 the you know big-ass flags i'm trying to
38:31 forget what the technical term is
38:35 effectively um
38:39 well i think that um for instance if you
38:42 did have a cube
38:43 um and you picked the two sides um that
38:46 you thought would be most useful for
38:48 your project
38:49 and you put art on um uh
38:53 other sides um that those are not signs
38:56 and so those are therefore would not be
38:58 faces that would need to be evaluated
39:00 against the sign
39:02 those would be exempt um so i don't
39:04 think that it means that we can't have
39:06 interesting shapes
39:08 or interesting uses on uh
39:11 certain sides i think we're simply
39:13 trying to
39:14 ensure that um by picking an interesting
39:18 shape you don't get more signs than
39:20 someone who picks
39:21 a more traditional shape um
39:25 that's a really interesting response um
39:27 because i think it
39:28 goes back to kind of uh the intent too
39:31 when we start thinking about um of
39:34 speech right do we
39:36 do we get to have more speech because we
39:38 pay more property taxes because we have
39:40 more sides to our side right
39:42 so i like the idea of there being a
39:43 consistency with the city saying
39:45 um this is our policy because this is
39:47 what we believe right this is where kind
39:49 of you know that we're putting our
39:51 um our policies um as a frontward
39:54 reflection of what we think is a
39:56 community right so having that
39:57 consistency throughout feels very nice
39:59 thanks lucy
40:07 i actually am seeing a little little
40:10 things flashing by so i think there may
40:12 be some
40:12 additional questions but i'm i'm relying
40:16 um christine delivered right and yes
40:19 commissioner
40:19 zaragoza has a question thank you
40:22 kristen uh richard sergosa so
40:24 my question is a follow-up on uh joy's
40:27 comment
40:28 if if let's say a situation where we
40:30 have a monumental sign in the middle of
40:33 a three-way circle or a four-way circle
40:35 and they wanted it to be able to kind of
40:37 be seeing from
40:38 all entries is this does this
40:42 basically make that not possible are we
40:44 regulating that out of existence or is
40:46 there some exception for
40:47 something some possible scenario in the
40:50 future where would be practical and not
40:52 uh negative well
40:55 um i'm doing this for memory but i
40:57 believe we do not i know that there's a
40:59 real limitation
41:00 on uh signs in medians and
41:04 round about the center of a roundabout
41:08 for instance i will point out though
41:10 that we
41:11 have clarified
41:15 that the wayfinding and gateway program
41:19 that the city um is currently working on
41:22 and undertaking is exempt from this
41:25 program
41:26 and so i think the city could um place
41:29 something
41:30 uh you know in one of those uh
41:34 central and um multi-directional
41:36 locations
41:37 let's say uh to serve that kind of
41:41 situation
41:42 uh but we would not have um
41:46 these um commercial signs um being able
41:49 to do so
41:51 thanks yeah
41:57 i am not saying any other question okay
42:06 commissioner fall would you like to open
42:08 that public
42:09 i'm not oh are you you're not done i
42:12 apologize
42:13 no that's okay um so this was
42:16 um temporary non-commercial signs on
42:20 private property
42:21 um temporary non-commercial signs in the
42:24 right-of-way
42:26 um again after a lot of discussion
42:31 amongst staff our recommendation
42:35 was to limit
42:38 the signs to the stake wireframe signs
42:43 um and uh we took out
42:46 all the other types um they are
42:49 continued to be
42:50 uh the sort of political sign size and
42:54 ended up not recommending a specific
42:58 spacing um you know we
43:01 the commissioners had lots of different
43:03 ideas and
43:04 opinions on that at our last meeting
43:07 um you know we we've been very
43:11 fortunate that our code enforcement
43:13 officer chris grabowski
43:15 has been working with us on this and he
43:18 says that he
43:19 has not seen real problems
43:24 with the the proliferation of
43:27 the uh temporary non-commercial signs
43:30 we also were unable to locate another
43:33 jurisdiction
43:34 that had used a spacing requirement and
43:38 given you know we don't always want to
43:40 be reactive
43:41 but as we couldn't find a good model to
43:44 see how it was going there where we had
43:47 not
43:47 seen um real pro big problems
43:51 in our city we just um
43:54 felt that it was more appropriate to
43:56 rely
43:57 on people wanting their signs to be seen
44:02 and spacing accordingly
44:08 any questions
44:16 i do not see any questions okay
44:23 um kristen should i go ahead and open
44:26 this up for a public hearing now
44:29 not yet lucy needs to finish her
44:31 presentation first oh i'm sorry lucy
44:34 that's okay i've got a few more slides
44:36 um just to
44:37 summarize the discussion topics and um
44:41 getting there um so uh with old town
44:45 um as i mentioned one of our goals was
44:47 consistency across the city
44:50 except where it would benefit preserving
44:52 the character
44:53 of a neighborhood and that was certainly
44:56 something that we heard
44:57 very strongly from both commissions
45:00 um that preserving the unique character
45:03 of the cbd
45:04 was important um also realized
45:08 as we asked for that guidance from you
45:12 last time that we really hadn't given
45:13 you the sign design
45:15 pages to to know what kinds of
45:18 provisions were in place
45:20 so uh we did a deeper dive
45:23 um provide a in the attachment c
45:27 we first of all provided the pages of
45:30 sign
45:30 design so you could see what was
45:32 actually there and then we did a more
45:34 detailed
45:35 uh analysis of each of the provisions
45:39 and were they covered by the sign code
45:42 already
45:45 were they more restrictive than the sign
45:47 code were they guidelines
45:49 um or were they standards and so as a
45:52 result
45:53 we made a recommendation for each of the
45:56 pages
45:57 for the first page integration with
45:59 architecture
46:01 we felt like that was less about signs
46:04 and more about the design of buildings
46:06 and so our
46:07 recommendation was to retain the page
46:10 um and place a cross-reference in the
46:14 sign
46:14 code to that provision
46:18 of sign design um so that
46:21 someone either designing or reviewing
46:24 would be aware of it but it would really
46:26 as much about the thing as it was about
46:29 science
46:30 for the second page building mounted
46:32 signs
46:33 we uh recommended deleting the page
46:36 and incorporating those specific
46:40 uh standards into the code um
46:43 there were restrictions on freestanding
46:46 signs with two exceptions
46:48 and so the restriction and those two
46:50 exceptions
46:51 are in your current draft
46:56 the third page whimsy and artistic
46:58 elements
46:59 we also recommended deleting the page
47:03 for a couple of reasons one many of the
47:06 provisions
47:07 are already in the sign code and are
47:09 very similar
47:10 uh to the ones that are there the rest
47:13 of the elements were
47:14 encouraged um they were just guidelines
47:18 and um we felt would not
47:22 uh you know didn't really do much to
47:25 help
47:25 guide sign design they were interesting
47:28 to know
47:29 um but we didn't feel that we could
47:31 really use those
47:32 in the review any questions
47:51 uh the next topic uh was the directional
47:55 and informational kia signs which i
47:57 think we're all relieved to know that
47:59 have been renamed
48:01 something different um we suggested
48:03 business directional kiosks because we
48:06 all keep calling them kiosks
48:10 and to achieve the
48:13 retention of the program that was
48:16 recommended by the commissions
48:19 we started with an existing program that
48:22 is in title 12 which is the streets chat
48:25 section streets title of the um
48:28 isquad municipal code um this these
48:31 provisions have been there
48:33 since 2005 and have been expanded to
48:36 other neighborhoods
48:38 what you see on screen are the maps of
48:41 the various
48:41 areas so um parts of front street
48:45 and some of the cross streets issaquah
48:48 highlands
48:49 all the way up um almost to the end of
48:53 park drive
48:54 but also in what they call the town
48:56 center
48:57 as well as the swedish area
49:01 a rally where it is adjacent to
49:04 um right-of-way as well as all of
49:07 central
49:07 issaquah is in this
49:10 uh sign sidewalk use district
49:14 and so anywhere in that district um
49:17 where there is a commercial area at
49:20 least 1300 feet long
49:23 um an hoa a business association or
49:27 a group of businesses could come
49:30 together
49:32 and propose to set up their own program
49:35 the program would need to include a
49:38 minimum of two kiosks
49:40 with six slots per kiosk um
49:44 in preparing this uh presentation this
49:46 evening
49:48 i realized that we should probably
49:49 clarify that it's six slots
49:52 per face of the kiosk so that it's not
49:55 just
49:55 three slots per side but six slots per
49:58 side
50:00 um thirteen hundred feet was based on
50:04 looking at several
50:05 uh different uh each of these areas so
50:09 on each i hope the color is visible but
50:11 the sort of orange extent
50:14 on each one of these represents about
50:17 1300 feet
50:19 that is not the maximum that's the
50:21 minimum so
50:22 if a larger area wanted to
50:26 propose that would be absolutely fine
50:28 but we thought that there needed to be a
50:30 certain
50:31 sort of critical mass a certain area
50:33 that was being served by the two
50:35 kiosks the city would review the master
50:39 application sort of setting up the
50:41 parameters and making sure they're
50:43 meeting the basic provisions
50:45 and then depending on the kiosk
50:48 we're assuming it would be a building
50:51 permit to construct it
50:53 and install it any questions
51:00 yes we have two questions the first is
51:02 from commissioner milligan
51:06 thank you commissioner milligan here
51:08 thank you lucy uh
51:10 i had questions about the minimums and
51:13 then also about the
51:14 sign replacement language that regulated
51:18 um uh some kind of sense of urgency or
51:21 to fill signs that are empty
51:23 and who gets first pick and that kind of
51:24 thing um
51:26 not sure i understood that uh thinking
51:29 and i wanted just us more details
51:31 thank you sure
51:34 um so anyone uh who's looking this
51:38 is um begins on page 52 of your packet
51:44 um so i think what we were were
51:48 aiming for uh was
51:51 um uh well in the first part that there
51:54 would be
51:55 as i said a certain critical mass so um
51:59 when when you were asking about the
52:02 minimums
52:03 commissioner milligan um
52:06 i tell me if are there minimums that i
52:09 didn't discuss or were the minimums i
52:12 discussed
52:16 insufficient
52:18 i was wondering where the six came from
52:21 and why isn't four okay and why isn't
52:23 three okay
52:25 for smaller i mean and then we've got of
52:27 course you've got the larger district
52:29 yeah i don't know
52:30 i'm trying to think ahead to uh
52:32 commercial blocks that may not have that
52:34 significance that is quite highlands and
52:36 and why do they have to be so big
52:40 so um you know uh they're good questions
52:44 and uh we're we're all making our best
52:47 shot
52:48 at this i think that there was a concern
52:50 that if we didn't have enough slots
52:53 um that it would become a very exclusive
52:58 uh opportunity as opposed to a
53:00 district-wide
53:01 opportunity uh in looking at
53:05 the um kiosks that are at issaquah
53:09 highlands
53:10 um i included this one um
53:13 i don't know if you can see my cursor
53:14 but this one on the
53:16 left is one of the last ones
53:20 that was added and it was instigated by
53:24 the businesses
53:25 in discovery heights
53:28 and um it has six slots and i just
53:32 thought
53:32 um in looking at some of the most of
53:34 them have
53:35 very um like the one on the right have
53:39 significantly more slots but in looking
53:42 at a six slot it really began to sort of
53:44 set
53:45 a a
53:49 constellation i'm not sure that's the
53:50 right word but it's the one that comes
53:52 to mind
53:52 a constellation of businesses
53:56 that were sufficient to actually
53:59 contribute to the sense of a district as
54:02 opposed to just a
54:04 a few businesses i think that was the
54:07 concern
54:08 we're certainly open to discussing um
54:11 changes but i i would be concerned if we
54:14 get too much below six
54:16 um that uh it might
54:20 um have that exclusivity that was not
54:23 our intent
54:27 any other minimums to discuss
54:32 okay and then your other question if i'm
54:35 remembering correctly had to do with the
54:37 replacement
54:40 um you know we really struggled with
54:42 this um
54:43 and again we are certainly open i think
54:45 the idea was
54:46 that if a kiosk does not continue
54:51 well i think there are a couple of
54:52 issues with um
54:54 with it one is if over time
54:58 uh the businesses do not continue to
55:01 support it
55:02 participate in it then again it either
55:05 becomes exclusive
55:07 or just street furniture um and
55:10 that in that case it should really be
55:12 removed it it isn't serving its
55:14 directional purpose
55:16 the second piece was to ensure that
55:20 there was
55:21 a fair opportunity to
55:24 um be represented on the kiosk
55:29 that for instance that
55:32 the businesses who started it weren't
55:34 trying to keep competitors
55:36 or um other their their frenemies
55:40 or off the uh kiosk
55:43 and that it should be uh because it's in
55:46 the public right-of-way
55:48 this is different than if it was on
55:50 private property
55:51 and that um in the right-of-way there
55:54 should be an
55:55 opportunity for anyone in the district
55:57 that has been uh
55:58 identified and who is willing to make um
56:02 the financial contribution that is
56:05 necessary to
56:07 both participate and keep it up um that
56:10 they would have an
56:10 opportunity to do so
56:17 commissioner lewis has a question
56:20 thank you commissioner joy lewis i'm
56:23 very happy to see the city um
56:25 embrace the kiosks um i
56:29 was also curious about the minimums when
56:31 i um
56:32 when i saw the 1300 square feet i kind
56:34 of started thinking about spaces
56:36 like gilman village right um and started
56:39 to kind of
56:40 try to figure out well i think i think
56:42 that's less than 1300 square feet
56:44 um but i mean it may be close um i
56:47 started to think about the work we've
56:48 done on the future planning of mall
56:50 street
56:51 right we're talking about creating
56:53 walkable spaces
56:55 that could be smaller than those 1300
56:58 square feet long
56:59 um and if that would create
57:02 a problem right when you have a sign i
57:04 think it's a good example of the picture
57:06 that we have in front of us of kind of a
57:07 six slot versus
57:08 a longer slot um when you're in a car
57:12 right versus when you're walking you
57:13 have a very different um
57:15 feel with these kiosks um and so i guess
57:18 i really wanted to kind of emphasize
57:20 that um how we use our kiosks can be
57:23 really different depending on the space
57:24 that we're in
57:26 um and i i appreciate
57:29 that there's a minimum amount of slots
57:30 and not a maximum for that reason
57:33 um i also um don't know how
57:36 you quite but i understand the city
57:38 going along this route right because the
57:40 city says
57:41 we don't really want to maintain these
57:43 we don't really want to be the arbiters
57:45 of who gets to be on the side we're kind
57:46 of hoping everybody plays nicely
57:49 um but in the event that we don't do we
57:51 kind of have a plan b
57:53 is their situation of saying well if we
57:56 find that this is becoming like you're
57:57 saying a more inclusive
57:59 club um you know where certain maybe
58:02 small mom and pops aren't being
58:04 represented compared to large chains or
58:06 things like that
58:07 is there um is there some sort of you
58:10 know
58:10 discussion being had about how we do
58:12 keep these um
58:14 more in the public sphere um even though
58:17 we're trying to kind of not have them be
58:18 administered by the city
58:22 well um
58:25 i think we this may end up being an
58:27 iterative process
58:28 um you know we may learn as we go and
58:32 have to evolve um
58:35 i'm not sure that there was a good model
58:37 for this
58:38 um and so uh
58:42 you know i think that we were incredibly
58:44 fortunate that
58:45 the ihca um at isco
58:48 highlands well the it was actually the
58:50 master developer
58:51 instigated this and that we got to kind
58:54 of learn from them
58:55 um and you know i do
58:59 think that um and you're really right in
59:01 terms
59:02 of um car
59:05 versus pedestrian and this was initially
59:08 really set up as a
59:09 as a pedestrian program but we
59:11 recognized
59:13 that on certain kinds of streets the um
59:17 that there was benefit to both um to
59:19 multiple
59:20 modes of travel um you know in looking
59:24 at gilman village and it's more most
59:26 sort of
59:27 generous uh take uh
59:31 so basically from juniper up to the
59:34 creek
59:34 it's about 1300 feet um so
59:38 i think that you you know again just to
59:40 use things that we all know
59:42 i'm doing a very quick and dirty um gis
59:45 measurement
59:46 but i do think that um again each of
59:49 those
59:49 indicates um that
59:54 you know i think there needs to be a
59:55 certain amount of length to justify it
59:57 we're not saying that the kiosks have to
59:59 be at the
1:00:00 ends i think they need to be at good
1:00:02 decision points
1:00:04 i think that the uh example that one of
1:00:07 the commissioners gave last time
1:00:09 of the kiosk by stan's barbecue on front
1:00:13 street is a good example
1:00:14 it doesn't mean that there aren't other
1:00:16 ways that directional signage
1:00:19 we certainly all know that the commons
1:00:22 has a very
1:00:23 robust directional signage program kiosk
1:00:26 program that they have done
1:00:28 internally citi is totally supportive of
1:00:31 we think that those are important for
1:00:33 helping people find their way
1:00:36 or branding for place making there's
1:00:39 just a lot of real benefits from that
1:00:41 but what when we're putting it in the
1:00:43 right of way i think that what we're
1:00:45 trying to do is establish
1:00:48 certain um rationale for having it
1:00:52 and a certain critical mass to uh
1:00:56 create the public benefit that makes it
1:00:58 worthwhile to have it in the right way
1:01:01 i appreciate that um and in in going off
1:01:04 of that when we think about the public
1:01:06 benefit
1:01:07 here in this commission um a couple
1:01:09 years ago we spent
1:01:10 a good click of time talking about
1:01:12 neighborhoods and defining those spaces
1:01:15 and helping the city to move along on a
1:01:17 plan of
1:01:18 being able to create these unique
1:01:19 characteristics in our different
1:01:21 neighborhoods
1:01:22 and there was a a suggestion from the
1:01:25 public
1:01:26 um and specifically i want to give a
1:01:27 shout out to connie marsh because this
1:01:28 was not my idea
1:01:30 um and she did say it would be nice if
1:01:31 neighborhoods had this
1:01:33 um and while i do recognize that this is
1:01:35 something that
1:01:36 the city does not want to become the
1:01:37 arbiter of um it is a nice idea to think
1:01:40 about
1:01:41 allowing each neighborhood to have a
1:01:43 place
1:01:44 um that is um you know that may we
1:01:47 we do put limitations on right there are
1:01:49 no political signs in it but when we
1:01:51 talk about things like
1:01:52 do i have enough signs for my garage
1:01:54 sale or you know being able to
1:01:57 um advertise the you know the
1:01:59 neighborhood barbecue all right
1:02:00 obviously most of these things are
1:02:01 happening in a digital forum but
1:02:03 when we think about them actually having
1:02:06 having a space i do think it's nice
1:02:08 um to be able to create that space for
1:02:11 you know we've had a lot of comments
1:02:12 about things like missing pets on you
1:02:15 know on polls right you know
1:02:17 it kind of solves some problems i see
1:02:20 that it creates more
1:02:21 okay so i want to acknowledge that but i
1:02:23 do want to say that i think that there
1:02:24 could be a space for this
1:02:26 um that aligns with our neighborhood
1:02:28 plan um and that
1:02:30 um with you know kiosks taking on the
1:02:32 characteristics of a neighborhood you
1:02:33 know and there is a way to limit it to
1:02:35 to say there is this one space um and
1:02:38 things like that into
1:02:39 um without neighborhoods having hoas
1:02:41 it's hard to say
1:02:42 who is who is deciding things but i do
1:02:45 want to say that when we think about
1:02:46 having that community benefit i think
1:02:48 that there is
1:02:49 possible space for it i understand if
1:02:50 it's not something we want to address
1:02:51 right now in our sign code
1:02:53 but it's definitely something i think is
1:02:54 worth a discussion thank you
1:02:56 thank you for this lucy this was a huge
1:02:58 part of um
1:02:59 the changes that we had since the last
1:03:01 draft and i really appreciate it
1:03:04 thank you uh commissioner lewis i i
1:03:06 think one of the points
1:03:07 um uh that might be a point
1:03:11 of comfort um is that these are
1:03:14 commercial
1:03:16 right um these are kiosks for businesses
1:03:19 i think um the question um which connie
1:03:23 marsh had raised in her letters and what
1:03:26 you're raising
1:03:27 in your comments is about non-commercial
1:03:31 communication and i think that that is a
1:03:33 separate
1:03:34 um uh discussion within the city
1:03:38 those are not necessarily signs um that
1:03:41 there could be some kind of bulletin
1:03:43 board or
1:03:44 kiosk that provides this
1:03:47 opportunity for pets
1:03:50 yard sales other forms of community
1:03:54 communication that may not occur or may
1:03:56 not be appropriate or solely appropriate
1:03:59 in a digital format
1:04:01 but i don't think that we have to enable
1:04:03 that through the sign code
1:04:06 which was why the bulletin boards which
1:04:09 were formerly
1:04:10 were previously or are in the existing
1:04:13 sign code were removed
1:04:15 because a bulletin board is not a sign
1:04:18 it may
1:04:18 be the structure on which certain kinds
1:04:23 written information are posted but in
1:04:25 and of its
1:04:26 in and of itself is not a sign so i
1:04:29 i think that is an opportunity to be
1:04:31 carried forward
1:04:32 but i'm not sure that we're eliminating
1:04:35 anything by not
1:04:36 including them in um the sign code
1:04:39 itself
1:04:44 lucy next we have commissioner voice
1:04:46 with a question
1:04:49 thank you senior planner lisa
1:04:53 to commissioner lewis's point i think
1:04:55 that's pretty interesting and it'd be
1:04:56 it would be i'd like to see the city do
1:04:59 a deeper dive to
1:05:00 explain different i mean it could be
1:05:01 everything from wayfindage to
1:05:04 historic information to lost pets
1:05:08 garage sales so very interesting
1:05:11 as far as the kiosks in the right of way
1:05:15 i also think it serves a great purpose
1:05:17 so i'm happy to see the city move this
1:05:18 way because
1:05:19 especially as we move into a multi-modal
1:05:21 transportation system where we're
1:05:23 encouraging different forms of
1:05:24 transportation i think it
1:05:25 i think it helps and i think it's great
1:05:28 my question is pretty simple
1:05:31 because it is a sign
1:05:34 only gets two faces correct it can't be
1:05:37 a triangular kiosk
1:05:38 if i'm reading that correctly
1:05:43 well that's an interesting that's a very
1:05:45 interesting question
1:05:47 um because some of the ones at isqua
1:05:49 highlands are four-sided
1:05:51 the signs the business signs
1:05:54 i believe are only on two sides a map
1:05:58 um or sometimes a
1:06:03 non-commercial you know drive slow for
1:06:07 your neighbors you know the
1:06:09 various kind of posters um have filled
1:06:12 they don't haven't they only have i
1:06:14 think two of those four-sided kiosks
1:06:18 and there's a photo of them um in the
1:06:22 that you can see with um
1:06:25 commercial on one side and map on the
1:06:27 other
1:06:28 um so i i don't the intent wasn't
1:06:32 to limit the size the number of sides a
1:06:35 kiosk could have
1:06:37 i think that there was an intent to
1:06:39 limit the number of sides
1:06:41 the signs the the commercial sign
1:06:43 information could be fun
1:06:45 sure it kind of goes back to the point
1:06:47 that you made with the monument signs i
1:06:49 mean it
1:06:50 what's constitute art i mean if you have
1:06:52 a picture of something from the village
1:06:53 theater that doesn't have
1:06:55 written content would that be art i
1:06:57 would think so
1:06:59 but the examples all show
1:07:01 two-dimensional
1:07:02 um kiosks so i wanted to ask about the
1:07:05 triangle
1:07:07 thank you you bet
1:07:10 next we have a question from
1:07:12 commissioner fall
1:07:16 thank you this is commissioner fall so
1:07:18 i'm going to
1:07:19 pick on stan's barbecue because actually
1:07:21 i can go to google maps
1:07:22 and look them up and i can see their
1:07:26 and i think the kiosk sign that you're
1:07:28 referring to is
1:07:29 triangular so it's three sides shows a
1:07:35 is would that be out of compliance based
1:07:38 this new proposed um amendments we're
1:07:42 moving forward with
1:07:43 and then secondly at stan's barbecue
1:07:46 they also have an a-frame out there um
1:07:49 advertising things like shots and bar
1:07:51 uh barbecue burgers and things like that
1:07:53 almost like a menu type thing
1:07:57 and it's in the right of way of the
1:07:58 sidewalk where they have
1:08:00 chairs and tables and things like that
1:08:01 as well so
1:08:03 would their sign their airframe sign be
1:08:06 out of compliance based on this new
1:08:08 logic moving forward
1:08:12 um okay so many questions
1:08:15 um let me see i'm trying to look up
1:08:17 stands at the same time no no
1:08:19 uh don't apologize at all um
1:08:22 i just wanted to be looking at the same
1:08:24 thing you're looking at
1:08:26 um so the um
1:08:30 their kiosk is
1:08:33 um on private property um
1:08:36 and when i look at it uh
1:08:39 [Music]
1:08:43 uh i am
1:08:46 sorry not driving as well while trying
1:08:49 to talk it's not my specialty
1:08:52 um it does appear
1:08:56 from what i can see
1:09:00 of the image that appears in
1:09:03 google that it may very well
1:09:07 be um sort of more like informational
1:09:09 posters
1:09:10 than um uh
1:09:14 commercial signage um now i can't read
1:09:17 all the details
1:09:18 um so i might be wrong um but second of
1:09:22 all this
1:09:22 is on private property so we the um
1:09:26 business directional kiosks are only in
1:09:29 the right of way
1:09:31 um so this this um
1:09:34 kiosk by stands would would not fall
1:09:37 under the provisions of that
1:09:39 um second you know if
1:09:42 some if we change rules and they are not
1:09:46 um a sign or
1:09:49 anything is no longer uh consistent with
1:09:53 those rules
1:09:55 the the item becomes legally
1:09:57 non-conforming
1:09:58 it doesn't mean that it has to be
1:10:00 removed uh
1:10:02 it just restricts how much change
1:10:05 can happen with that item um
1:10:09 in terms of the a frame uh as i think
1:10:12 i think stanz is a great example and i
1:10:15 can pull this onto the screen
1:10:17 if i need to but
1:10:21 the business is located right at the
1:10:24 property line
1:10:25 and so um this is a good example that
1:10:30 there would not be space between the
1:10:32 property line
1:10:34 and the right-of-way for them to place
1:10:36 their a-frame
1:10:37 so that's what i meant by providing
1:10:41 a first priority for an a-frame
1:10:44 is on your private property the second
1:10:48 option is in the right-of-way and
1:10:51 as their a-frame appears
1:10:54 on google street view it would be um
1:10:57 allowed
1:10:58 in that um by that second option
1:11:02 does that answer your question yeah
1:11:05 that's perfect
1:11:05 thank you next we have commissioner
1:11:09 lewis with a question
1:11:12 commissioner joey lewis sorry i know
1:11:14 this is too much discussion on
1:11:16 uh face signs but uh jason brings up a
1:11:19 good point when i read it
1:11:21 i didn't remember that we when we
1:11:23 specify the slots
1:11:24 we specify all these different things
1:11:25 but i don't remember us actually saying
1:11:27 that it needed to have
1:11:29 only two sides and the pictures that we
1:11:32 have in our packet
1:11:33 i mean one is a circular that shows a
1:11:35 face some are these ones hanging down
1:11:38 you presume that there's a back side to
1:11:40 as well um and especially like when we
1:11:42 talk about you know multimodal
1:11:44 viewing you know obviously when you're
1:11:46 behind the sign you're on foot versus
1:11:48 on the street maybe necessarily so is
1:11:51 there an actual
1:11:52 come down on shape face side
1:11:56 i didn't i don't remember seeing one i
1:11:57 thought it was purposely left ambiguous
1:11:59 because
1:11:59 as we're saying that these businesses
1:12:01 are creating them and maintaining them
1:12:04 it's up to them is that incorrect
1:12:06 corrector
1:12:11 is there a specified shape and side
1:12:15 layout so i don't think that there is a
1:12:18 specified
1:12:19 shape um and at least in the
1:12:26 there i know this is it there is
1:12:30 something about sponsorships
1:12:32 and um if a kiosk is round
1:12:35 there is a description of how many
1:12:39 sponsorships you could put on there
1:12:40 because there's only
1:12:42 uh you could only have sponsorships on
1:12:44 two sides and if your
1:12:45 kiosk was round and still only have two
1:12:48 sponsorships
1:12:50 so i don't think the intent was to only
1:12:55 uh the version that i've got up on
1:12:57 screen
1:12:58 um which is just the two sides i think
1:13:01 it was there was though an
1:13:03 intent of limiting the number of sides
1:13:07 with commercial information
1:13:10 and that maps and other
1:13:13 pedestrian-oriented information
1:13:16 was welcome on those other sides um
1:13:19 i'm interested in um hearing from the
1:13:22 commissioners
1:13:23 uh about that but i think that in sort
1:13:26 springboarding from the isqua highlands
1:13:29 model
1:13:30 that was what we were carrying forward i
1:13:33 appreciate that
1:13:34 and i i like that because that's you
1:13:36 know the reason that we found so much
1:13:38 success with this
1:13:40 um so but i do think that there maybe
1:13:42 shouldn't be so much limitations
1:13:45 um and over design um of it
1:13:48 that if when these businesses are
1:13:49 putting it together you know
1:13:52 i don't know that they need to conform
1:13:53 to this side that side i think it might
1:13:56 end up being a little limited i thought
1:13:57 it was purposely left out for that
1:14:00 but um i would be for that thank you
1:14:03 right i i think um while ambiguity does
1:14:07 have that benefit
1:14:08 it also um does leave the door open
1:14:12 for abuse um and so i i think that would
1:14:16 be our hesitation
1:14:17 in being ambiguous um
1:14:20 that we could end up with something that
1:14:24 many sides many commercial many
1:14:27 commercial sides
1:14:28 that was
1:14:31 not really consistent with the intent
1:14:40 other questions
1:14:44 i'm not saying any other questions okay
1:14:52 okay so should i go ahead and open this
1:14:54 up to uh
1:14:55 i'm i'm still going i'm just slow
1:14:57 running
1:14:58 okay chairperson fall my apologies i'm
1:15:01 so eager to
1:15:01 move forward i know and we're get we're
1:15:03 very we're very close
1:15:05 um so um
1:15:09 the uh fourth topic of discussion was
1:15:11 flags
1:15:12 uh the commission's direction was to
1:15:16 an exception um for flags up to 25
1:15:21 square feet
1:15:22 that is what we carried forward
1:15:25 and then have a permitted size with an
1:15:28 established maximum because before it
1:15:31 some kind of amorphous uh performance
1:15:34 standard
1:15:36 after um looking uh online
1:15:40 there are these tables such as the one
1:15:43 that i
1:15:43 um have on the slide
1:15:46 and they're very consistent um in terms
1:15:49 of standard flag sizes
1:15:52 and in looking at the flag
1:15:56 sizes and the typical pole heights that
1:15:58 go with that
1:16:02 staff or the city administration is
1:16:05 recommending
1:16:06 uh 60 feet square feet as
1:16:10 the permitted size the exception size
1:16:14 would be allowed in all sign
1:16:17 districts because the typical pole
1:16:20 height
1:16:21 of 25 feet or a four by six flag
1:16:25 seemed consistent with any land use next
1:16:28 to a single family home
1:16:30 in a commercial district but the larger
1:16:34 flag size would typically be on a 35 to
1:16:37 40 foot bowl
1:16:39 and that seemed tall enough that it
1:16:41 could be inconsistent
1:16:44 with the scale of residential
1:16:46 neighborhoods and so
1:16:48 the proposal was for that permitted size
1:16:52 to only be allowed
1:16:53 in mixed use and non-residential
1:16:56 neighborhoods
1:17:00 the photos you see here are a selection
1:17:03 of flag poles from issaquah
1:17:06 um so the uh top one
1:17:10 i i don't know if you can see my um
1:17:14 i can get my cursor onto the screen um
1:17:17 the top one is uh
1:17:21 next to at the very top one is at city
1:17:24 hall northwest
1:17:25 in the parking lot um the second one the
1:17:28 middle one
1:17:29 is at the main city hall
1:17:34 the one below that in the middle of the
1:17:36 bottom row
1:17:37 is at the council chambers
1:17:42 the one to the right is next to the
1:17:44 issaquah in the corner
1:17:45 is next to the isqua highlands uh off
1:17:50 um that's probably the tallest i would
1:17:52 assume the biggest flag
1:17:54 um that was a guess that maybe that one
1:17:58 45 feet tall and then the
1:18:02 bottom left are a series of poles that
1:18:06 are installed along
1:18:07 um sixth avenue by
1:18:10 swedish's parking lot um
1:18:14 as a vertical element and those i
1:18:17 i could go back and look at the permit
1:18:19 and those are 20 feet tall
1:18:22 um and part of it is you're going you
1:18:24 know because we don't know exactly the
1:18:26 height of all these various poles
1:18:28 um it does um the cars are probably your
1:18:32 scale figure to give you a sense
1:18:34 of the um different scales of these
1:18:37 various flagpoles
1:18:39 and the last thing i would add
1:18:42 before asking for your questions is that
1:18:45 land use code and building codes do not
1:18:48 restrict
1:18:48 old heights the only constraint would be
1:18:52 that a tall flagpole would need to have
1:18:56 review
1:18:57 for wind and seismic loads but as long
1:19:00 as someone
1:19:01 could and would design it to meet those
1:19:04 requirements
1:19:05 they would be allowed to have as tall a
1:19:07 flagpole as they wanted
1:19:11 any questions
1:19:15 no i'm not seeing any questions okay
1:19:29 uh fifth topic was landmark signs
1:19:32 and the direction was to use a rolling
1:19:34 time frame
1:19:35 of 40 years and we
1:19:38 thought that was a great idea and that
1:19:40 is what is being proposed
1:19:42 all the specific examples that were
1:19:45 included were removed
1:19:47 there didn't seem to be a lot of
1:19:49 momentum in the
1:19:50 on the commission um to include specific
1:19:53 ones though of course they can be
1:19:55 proposed in the future
1:19:59 we also wanted to establish some clear
1:20:03 um we thought that the term that was in
1:20:06 place
1:20:06 was just too vague and relied on
1:20:11 um it wasn't a list of criteria but it
1:20:14 was their list of characteristics maybe
1:20:17 from the national park services
1:20:20 preservation brief
1:20:22 on historic signs and so
1:20:25 we've drafted criteria based on those
1:20:29 any questions
1:20:35 no i'm not seeing any questions
1:20:40 last item was not
1:20:43 one of your discussion items from last
1:20:45 time but it is a discussion item
1:20:47 from uh
1:20:53 the um packet for this time
1:20:56 which had to do with the organization of
1:21:00 the draft or of the sign code
1:21:04 the organization that's shown on the
1:21:06 left is the current organization
1:21:09 but we recognized in thinking back
1:21:12 over the public and
1:21:15 commissioner comments as well as some of
1:21:19 our own that potentially a different
1:21:22 organization by location of sign
1:21:26 rather than um sort of process
1:21:30 and type of sign might be easier to use
1:21:34 which was definitely one
1:21:35 of the requests that we were given
1:21:38 or directions that we were given from
1:21:40 council
1:21:43 i will say that the current organization
1:21:45 having looked at a bunch of sign codes
1:21:47 in the last few months i will say that
1:21:50 the current organization is probably the
1:21:53 most common
1:21:55 but it is certainly not the only one and
1:21:58 uh commissioners uh we'd just like to
1:22:01 hear from you all
1:22:02 to hear your thoughts about the
1:22:04 organization
1:22:05 we began to look at
1:22:09 organizing it by location um i think
1:22:12 that there would
1:22:13 probably need to be um i'm not sure that
1:22:17 we can have just
1:22:18 one general regulations that serve
1:22:21 right-of-way and another one that serves
1:22:23 private property
1:22:24 i think that a lot of the general
1:22:26 regulations
1:22:27 are very specific to the types of signs
1:22:30 that are listed
1:22:32 um but it is another organization
1:22:35 um that commissioners might find
1:22:39 more intuitive and
1:22:42 love to hear any questions or thoughts
1:22:49 i'm not seeing any questions okay
1:22:53 um and i just wanted to note that the
1:22:56 right-of-way
1:22:57 chart um that was provided in the pr
1:23:00 draft is actually missing a
1:23:04 sign type which we will add in the next
1:23:07 version
1:23:08 of the draft
1:23:21 um i didn't know if there were any
1:23:23 general um
1:23:25 questions that were unrelated to the
1:23:27 topics
1:23:28 um that we have discussed this evening
1:23:32 that commissioners wanted to
1:23:35 give before we opened it up for public
1:23:37 comment
1:23:47 lucy i'm not seeing any okay
1:23:50 and i believe chairperson fall you may
1:23:54 find i have finally gotten you to the
1:23:55 point where you
1:23:56 um have been eager to be i can't wait
1:24:01 i'm just kidding yeah great presentation
1:24:04 all right so i'm gonna go ahead and open
1:24:05 up the
1:24:06 public hearing part uh we'll now open
1:24:08 the public hearing
1:24:09 at 7 54 and kristen do we have anybody
1:24:13 on the phone
1:24:15 or any posted comments we do
1:24:18 i'm going to let randy banneker speak
1:24:21 first he
1:24:22 signed up to speak tonight mr banneker i
1:24:25 am going to make you a presenter
1:24:31 a panelist i mean
1:24:34 okay you are unmuted right can everybody
1:24:37 hear me
1:24:38 yes terrific mr chair
1:24:41 and members of the policy clinton policy
1:24:44 commission thanks so much for your time
1:24:46 this evening and the opportunity to
1:24:47 comment
1:24:48 on the amendments to the sign code i
1:24:50 also want to thank mrs
1:24:52 ms sloman she's been very helpful and
1:24:55 just generally responsive to questions
1:24:57 about the
1:24:58 draft code and as you know uh sign codes
1:25:02 extremely complicated and
1:25:03 all-encompassing and uh with
1:25:05 with just so many details so it's been
1:25:07 super helpful
1:25:08 um i am here on behalf of the seattle
1:25:10 king county realtors
1:25:12 i want to express our support for the
1:25:14 amendment package
1:25:15 got a couple of details i want to
1:25:16 highlight um
1:25:18 and i wanted to note as well
1:25:21 that we believe the the proposal meets
1:25:25 the community objectives
1:25:27 it's understandable it's practical and
1:25:30 most perhaps very importantly aligns
1:25:33 with the us supreme court
1:25:36 reid versus gilbert decision we concur
1:25:38 fully that greed versus skillful applies
1:25:40 to non-commercial speech exclusively
1:25:43 and does not apply to commercial sign
1:25:45 regulations
1:25:47 our members place a very high value on
1:25:49 the opportunity to work with home buyers
1:25:52 and sellers in the city of
1:25:53 issaquah and we view it as in our mutual
1:25:56 interest to support your efforts to
1:25:58 maintain a high quality of life
1:26:00 uh for issaquah residents to enjoy we
1:26:04 very much appreciate the allowance
1:26:05 within the code the proposed code to
1:26:08 post on-premises
1:26:09 temporary real estate signage that
1:26:12 advertises homes for
1:26:13 sale rent or lease as well as
1:26:15 off-premises
1:26:16 open house signage available during open
1:26:19 house hours
1:26:20 and just a few highlights um relating to
1:26:23 real estate signage
1:26:25 they remain critical uh to buyers and
1:26:28 sellers we find that 50
1:26:30 of home buyers learn about homes for
1:26:33 through the open house process and they
1:26:35 discover new
1:26:37 neighborhoods with that open house
1:26:39 signage experience
1:26:43 technology plays uh an important role
1:26:46 but it has not yet rendered signage
1:26:49 obsolete
1:26:50 again we find that people may find a
1:26:53 neighborhood or a community
1:26:55 um browsing the internet but they really
1:26:57 need to drive it to get a sense
1:26:59 of how it how it feels and and how they
1:27:03 how they react to it uh how it fits
1:27:05 their family's
1:27:06 needs i want to underscore that signs
1:27:10 an important role in fair housing and
1:27:13 anti-discrimination since signs cannot
1:27:15 discriminate a real estate sign invites
1:27:17 any person regardless of
1:27:19 race creed color sex orientation or
1:27:23 natural
1:27:23 national origin to locate and consider
1:27:26 the purchase or rental
1:27:28 of the property that's available if they
1:27:30 can afford it
1:27:31 real estate signs make it impossible for
1:27:34 any real estate broker
1:27:35 landlord owner or organization to deny
1:27:39 that that property is available and
1:27:41 hence make discrimination
1:27:43 substantially impossible
1:27:46 signs are important in communities like
1:27:48 issaquah where
1:27:49 addresses are not entirely intuitive
1:27:53 [Music]
1:27:54 and a couple additional items
1:27:58 the consistency of signed dimensions
1:28:01 around the region is important um
1:28:05 it it enables
1:28:08 compliance since a lot of
1:28:12 brokers work in multiple jurisdictions
1:28:14 particularly on the east side
1:28:16 and because inventory is so tight
1:28:19 some buyers do not have the luxury of
1:28:22 zeroing in on one specific city they may
1:28:24 looking for something that is reasonably
1:28:26 close to microsoft so there have their
1:28:28 catchment is a broader region
1:28:31 we our organization has a self-policing
1:28:34 program
1:28:34 on sign code compliance we have a
1:28:37 mechanism that
1:28:38 that if our members are in violation of
1:28:40 the signed code
1:28:42 we work with city code compliance to
1:28:44 correct that and correct that swiftly
1:28:46 doesn't happen a whole lot but it does
1:28:48 happen and we're able to
1:28:51 to alleviate the the challenge there are
1:28:54 a couple of amendments i'd ask you to
1:28:57 consider
1:28:58 one has been already included in the
1:29:00 draft and we
1:29:02 fully support that and that is just a
1:29:04 mechanism to guard against off-premises
1:29:07 open house signs being
1:29:08 being um displayed overnight and and
1:29:12 uh ms sloman had added language that
1:29:14 requires
1:29:16 uh a representative whether that's the
1:29:18 broker or the seller
1:29:19 uh to be at the property conducting an
1:29:22 open house
1:29:23 for those off-premises open house signs
1:29:25 to be out
1:29:28 a different one there's an allowance
1:29:31 for two off-premises
1:29:34 a board signs for that open house we'd
1:29:37 request
1:29:38 an additional two for a total of four
1:29:41 again because issaquah homes may be
1:29:44 difficult to find
1:29:45 by an address the allowance for just an
1:29:48 additional arrow pointing you in the
1:29:50 right direction can be very helpful
1:29:53 lastly and i'll close with this is
1:29:56 um on the uh
1:30:00 on premises so this is the for sale sign
1:30:03 that is in the private property in the
1:30:07 um there is a height limit in the
1:30:10 proposed code
1:30:11 of four feet um
1:30:14 and it's it's really i think it's a it's
1:30:17 maybe some
1:30:18 an additional allowance or some
1:30:20 clarification we're
1:30:21 seeking these
1:30:24 for sale signs on premises are typically
1:30:29 supported by a yard arm sign which looks
1:30:33 an upside down l and from that
1:30:36 from that structure is the live sign
1:30:39 which is conforms with the six square
1:30:43 um but that that structure uh well
1:30:46 exceeds four feet
1:30:48 the live sign area can be a couple
1:30:52 inches
1:30:52 over four feet and my question
1:30:55 to you is can the height allowance be
1:30:59 increased to accommodate the typical
1:31:02 yard arm sign installation
1:31:04 if measuring by the live sign area a
1:31:07 safe maximum
1:31:08 would be more like five feet two inches
1:31:11 and if measuring by the structure
1:31:13 a safe maximum would be six feet six
1:31:16 inches
1:31:17 for the most part i'm going to leave it
1:31:20 at that and i
1:31:20 thank you for your your time tonight
1:31:28 thank you mr banneker are there any
1:31:31 other
1:31:32 uh members of the public that want to
1:31:34 make a comment
1:31:36 we have two other uh people
1:31:39 online one is julian midlil
1:31:42 and another is a calling user i'm not
1:31:44 sure of the name um if you all would
1:31:46 like to speak
1:31:47 either please raise your
1:31:50 electronic hand or note it in the chat
1:31:54 and if you're a call-in user press star
1:31:56 three and i'll give you a minute to do
1:31:58 that if you'd like to speak
1:32:21 i'm not seeing any hands raised or any
1:32:23 comments that they would like to speak
1:32:26 um they do have comments they can always
1:32:29 email
1:32:30 lucy sloman later and those can be
1:32:32 addressed
1:32:34 and commissioner fall were there any
1:32:36 emails that were submitted that you
1:32:37 would like to
1:32:38 summarize this evening
1:32:44 thank you kristen uh yes there is uh so
1:32:46 this is commissioner fall
1:32:48 um i would like to summarize an email
1:32:51 uh connie marsh and who sent it on
1:32:54 april 17th 2021
1:32:58 and she had mentioned bullet email
1:33:01 up here
1:33:05 i'm just gonna summarize it um
1:33:08 in the introduction it does not provide
1:33:10 any information that talks about the
1:33:11 usage of signs for community
1:33:13 conversations or notifications
1:33:16 most signs that i look for are signs
1:33:19 from the community member to community
1:33:21 member
1:33:21 this is an important use of signs and
1:33:23 should be described in
1:33:25 in the introduction second bullet
1:33:29 i see no need to limit the size of signs
1:33:32 in non-commercial windows nor
1:33:34 non-commercial yards
1:33:37 this again is not a problem so why solve
1:33:41 bullet three garage sale signs are still
1:33:44 limited to
1:33:45 two which is an impossible thing try to
1:33:48 have a
1:33:49 sale on in forest rim with two garage
1:33:52 sale signs that's on the top of squawk
1:33:54 do not understand why the city wants to
1:33:57 force garage sale signs to
1:33:59 wire or wood stakes is there a problem
1:34:02 with a piece of cardboard
1:34:03 or a box or a hand painted garage sale
1:34:07 slash lemonade stand a frame
1:34:14 ramps and grandkids made
1:34:18 talk about charm and life truly an
1:34:21 awful lemonade that i always buy
1:34:26 let's see and number four
1:34:29 no signs on utility poles does the city
1:34:33 own the utility poles what's the problem
1:34:35 with signs on utility poles
1:34:40 if they are to take down the utilities
1:34:43 have rules
1:34:44 of no signs on their polls
1:34:48 and number five please allow
1:34:50 neighborhood kiosks
1:34:51 if the commercial areas can have them
1:34:53 why can't the neighborhood areas
1:34:56 this could be a go-to place for
1:34:58 neighborhoods info especially if the
1:35:00 electricity goes off for a few days or a
1:35:03 that is uh all the comments from carney
1:35:07 marsh
1:35:11 all right uh so uh planner christian are
1:35:15 there any other
1:35:16 comments from the public there are no
1:35:18 other comments
1:35:20 okay so
1:35:21 [Music]
1:35:27 i'm going to go ahead and close the
1:35:28 public comment here at
1:35:36 okay and now um
1:35:40 we're going to move the discussion into
1:35:42 deliberation
1:35:44 and the motion to recommend approval of
1:35:47 the proposed amendments regarding the
1:35:49 sign code as presented in the findings
1:35:51 of fact
1:35:51 can be moved to a second so do we have
1:35:54 a motion or do we have a second to the
1:35:57 motion to
1:35:58 recommend the proposed amendments
1:36:01 regarding
1:36:02 the sign code
1:36:09 okay uh and if you'd like to make
1:36:11 comments please
1:36:12 make a comment in the chat box and we'll
1:36:15 go ahead and start making
1:36:16 uh comments at this point
1:36:22 commissioner voice has a comment
1:36:28 thank you senior planner lisa and uh so
1:36:31 to go back to kind of
1:36:32 the original i think talking point that
1:36:34 kicked us all off
1:36:36 uh during manager sloman's excellent
1:36:39 presentation
1:36:40 was the part about basically
1:36:44 capping the amount of square footage
1:36:46 first
1:36:47 the temporary signs on private property
1:36:49 and again
1:36:51 i hear what commissioner monahan had
1:36:53 mentioned and i agree with you i think
1:36:55 that reid v gilbert
1:36:56 probably had a lot more unintended
1:36:58 consequences
1:37:00 than resolutions however having said
1:37:03 that it's really it's it's
1:37:05 again i don't think it's really an
1:37:06 ethical thing i don't think it's
1:37:08 i think it's just a philosophical thing
1:37:11 and this one is really hard for me to
1:37:13 get behind i'm pretty much behind the
1:37:14 rest of the code i think
1:37:17 what the city is trying to do i think is
1:37:19 appropriate trying to consolidate
1:37:22 all of these different items into a more
1:37:25 i don't know easy user-friendly pattern
1:37:27 i think is great
1:37:29 um and i don't disagree with
1:37:32 commissioner monahan that
1:37:34 there's gonna have to be a compromise
1:37:36 here i just don't know if that's
1:37:38 the particular creative solution
1:37:41 that i'm looking for and so i'm
1:37:44 interested to hear what my fellow
1:37:45 commissioners have to say
1:37:46 i mean i am more than open to hear
1:37:50 some ideas i'm more than willing to hear
1:37:53 some i don't know i guess different
1:37:57 perspectives about it but at this point
1:38:00 that is the one area
1:38:02 where i i don't think i can put my name
1:38:04 to that particular piece
1:38:06 and again it's just it's i understand
1:38:09 the city has been giving a
1:38:10 given a gordian knot and everyone's
1:38:13 trying to solve it in a creative fashion
1:38:16 that kind of
1:38:17 complements everything i just that one's
1:38:19 really tough for me again
1:38:20 i see the equity being in basically what
1:38:24 what mr banneker had to say which is you
1:38:26 get the equity by the ability to
1:38:29 purchase the home but how is it that a
1:38:32 house on two acres has to have the same
1:38:34 32 square feet of signage as a town home
1:38:38 they don't pay the same property taxes
1:38:40 so i have a very
1:38:41 very difficult time with that one piece
1:38:44 the rest of it like i said i feel pretty
1:38:45 comfortable with
1:38:47 i want to thank staff for providing such
1:38:49 a a very thorough manual for me to read
1:38:52 for the last few days
1:38:53 and again i'm behind quite a bit of it
1:38:55 that particular piece i have a very very
1:38:58 philosophical problem with and i don't
1:38:59 think i'm gonna
1:39:00 i personally don't know if i'm gonna be
1:39:01 able to get over that one so
1:39:03 i wanna hear what my fellow
1:39:05 commissioners have to say
1:39:07 and hopefully you guys can change my
1:39:09 mind and if not
1:39:10 i'll probably ask to make an amendment
1:39:12 for at least myself and maybe take a
1:39:14 vote on it
1:39:15 thank you
1:39:18 commissioner lewis has a comment
1:39:23 thank you commissioner joy lewis um i
1:39:25 want to thank
1:39:26 staff for working so hard on this um one
1:39:28 thing that we love
1:39:29 about being able to revisit things is
1:39:31 being able to see that evolution with
1:39:32 the drafts
1:39:33 um and this was a heavy lift that we can
1:39:36 send you can so we can see you guys
1:39:37 continue
1:39:38 to keep lifting it it keeps getting
1:39:39 better and i really appreciate that with
1:39:41 this document
1:39:42 i really appreciate commissioner voice
1:39:45 bringing this topic up because for me
1:39:48 um i think it really goes to the heart
1:39:49 of our community
1:39:51 i love being able to advise the council
1:39:54 and this is one of those things where
1:39:55 i'm excited to step back and see where
1:39:57 they lie right i think that it's a very
1:39:59 clear indication right now to say
1:40:01 are we going to as a community say that
1:40:04 money
1:40:05 is speech right i pay this amount of
1:40:07 property taxes i have this amount of
1:40:09 square foot
1:40:10 um and therefore i'm entitled to this
1:40:12 versus
1:40:13 somebody who maybe is in our community
1:40:15 and isn't able to own
1:40:17 right we um we got a housing report from
1:40:19 christian recently
1:40:20 so we have these numbers on our mind of
1:40:22 the kind of community that we are
1:40:24 and the kind of community that we want
1:40:26 to be so i guess
1:40:27 what without saying that i think that
1:40:30 there's one right way or wrong way i
1:40:31 think that it's very important as
1:40:33 community to say
1:40:34 do we want to have equity in speech
1:40:36 versus having it aligned directly to
1:40:39 directly to the amount of money that we
1:40:40 have right what kind of community do we
1:40:42 want to be and do we want to have these
1:40:44 values be reflected
1:40:45 through our policy um is something that
1:40:48 i would i would i would challenge
1:40:49 everybody
1:40:50 i would love to hear from everyone else
1:40:52 my um comment
1:40:53 um that i had was actually where lucy
1:40:56 was about
1:40:57 art right last time we had big
1:40:58 discussions um about
1:41:00 what is art right um while we don't
1:41:03 expect you to tackle his question
1:41:06 um you know to me i did see you know we
1:41:09 had brought up you know what is that
1:41:10 difference of
1:41:11 a mural when it does cross that line
1:41:13 overage commercial
1:41:14 it sounds like in some ways we've solved
1:41:16 that with that kind of rolling 40 year
1:41:19 most of the things in our community that
1:41:21 i think we could dabble with
1:41:22 cross over to that threshold are kind of
1:41:24 going to be grandfathered in
1:41:26 um again i don't know exactly when we
1:41:28 look at a mural when was it painted
1:41:30 how far does it go but i do want to hear
1:41:32 from staff a little bit to say
1:41:34 um from the discussions we had last time
1:41:36 how um
1:41:37 how have you guys felt that you've been
1:41:39 able to iron out this question
1:41:41 of art burst signage
1:41:52 wow that's big um
1:41:58 well i i i think i guess
1:42:02 i'll start someplace you can tell me if
1:42:04 i'm getting anywhere near
1:42:05 uh what you're asking um i think the
1:42:09 first thing
1:42:09 is that art is exempt um
1:42:14 signs are not exempt um
1:42:17 and so i think that will be um
1:42:20 where we'll probably be checking in with
1:42:22 daniel more than we might
1:42:23 um have in the past to confirm uh when
1:42:28 something crosses over i think
1:42:30 where it has no words and is not
1:42:33 directly tried to a product
1:42:35 or something um related to that
1:42:39 particular business
1:42:40 um then art is free
1:42:44 to be as creative as it wants to be
1:42:48 when it begins to um represent
1:42:52 [Music]
1:42:54 a business um then it begins to
1:42:58 cross into that um the example
1:43:02 would be uh top pot i may have given
1:43:04 this one last time i know we've talked
1:43:06 about this one
1:43:07 i've talked about this one a lot so i
1:43:09 apologize if i'm repeating myself
1:43:12 um but top pot doughnuts wanted to put a
1:43:14 doughnut on the roof
1:43:16 so first of all they sell donuts i think
1:43:18 we would all say that was a sign
1:43:22 we also don't allow signs on roofs um as
1:43:25 cool and as perfect as it was for that
1:43:27 building because it was very consistent
1:43:29 with its architecture
1:43:31 um we just could never get past the
1:43:34 restrictions in the sign code that were
1:43:36 there for
1:43:37 very good reasons um
1:43:40 you know the uh other kinds of art
1:43:44 i think uh chairperson fall brought
1:43:47 you know up uh certain holiday
1:43:49 decorations when are those going to
1:43:51 cross over
1:43:54 um i i think that his comment was
1:43:58 um insightful because it's really going
1:44:01 to be on a complaint based
1:44:02 basis um kris krabowski
1:44:06 our code enforcement officer who's been
1:44:08 kind enough to stay on this call
1:44:09 in case you had questions um
1:44:13 uh you know he is not out looking for
1:44:16 things to keep himself busy
1:44:18 um there there will be a certain amount
1:44:22 um additional enforcement that once we
1:44:26 have a new sign code and we get past the
1:44:28 pandemic
1:44:30 and we're back into sort of whatever the
1:44:32 new normal
1:44:33 becomes uh there will be some
1:44:36 enforcement
1:44:37 um but in general a lot of the things
1:44:40 that you're talking about
1:44:42 are not going he is not out looking for
1:44:45 those things
1:44:46 um he is going to wait till he hears
1:44:48 from someone
1:44:49 um so you know it may it may be
1:44:53 where we have the um most egregious
1:44:57 examples but we also know
1:44:59 that neighbors can be spiteful sometimes
1:45:02 um i i'm i'm not really sure how else
1:45:05 um i i've wandered all over the map
1:45:09 i don't know if i've helped at all
1:45:16 commissioner zaragoza has a comment
1:45:20 thank you richard zergosa so i wanted to
1:45:23 talk to uh
1:45:24 the point about equity um
1:45:28 the way it's written because because we
1:45:31 we can't take content into consideration
1:45:33 it's it's really about the
1:45:35 the the the loudness of the signs right
1:45:38 is 32 feet enough to get your point
1:45:41 across it's that's a lot of speech right
1:45:43 that's a
1:45:43 definitely enough uh space to get your
1:45:46 point across
1:45:47 anything more than that becomes i think
1:45:49 a nuisance and i think that was
1:45:51 essentially the point to this rule we
1:45:53 don't want
1:45:54 a street corner with 85 signs packed to
1:45:57 the gills where it becomes a public
1:45:59 nuisance
1:46:00 so it's really about loudness
1:46:03 and how many signs we want to be pushing
1:46:05 into one given area no matter how large
1:46:07 that is
1:46:08 but i also think that paying higher
1:46:12 property tax
1:46:13 should not buy you greater a greater
1:46:16 right to speech
1:46:18 um it should not give you a louder voice
1:46:20 than anyone else simply because you pay
1:46:22 more property taxes so i hope we go
1:46:24 in that direction equity might be the
1:46:27 result
1:46:28 of the rule um but i think it's a happy
1:46:32 a happy ending because we don't want
1:46:34 this nuisance of
1:46:36 dozens and dozens of signs on a small
1:46:38 area but if equity is the outcome i
1:46:40 think that's a good thing
1:46:45 commissioner fall has a comment
1:46:51 thank you planner kristen so
1:46:54 i have a couple of questions or a couple
1:46:57 comments here
1:46:59 and to connie's point um yard sale signs
1:47:03 i really
1:47:05 i'm troubled with seeing only two
1:47:07 because living here on squawk mountain
1:47:09 we have three different access points
1:47:11 and some streets are attached to other
1:47:15 streets which are attached to other
1:47:16 streets before you get to the main
1:47:17 street so
1:47:19 in theory you could use five or six
1:47:22 garage sale signs just to get from one
1:47:24 entry point
1:47:25 to find your house so i don't know that
1:47:28 we should put a limit on garage sale
1:47:30 signs i think that's kind of nitpicking
1:47:33 i'd like to see that struck from the
1:47:38 from the code people aren't going to
1:47:39 make any more garage sale signs on them
1:47:41 do they need and i think that's
1:47:45 that's being kind of petty here um
1:47:49 as far as real estate signage can you uh
1:47:51 lucy can you please
1:47:53 bring uh randy's uh presentation his
1:47:56 um illustration up because that
1:48:00 i even though randy had said it's uh
1:48:03 i think six square feet oftentimes i see
1:48:09 writers on the top of the sign that
1:48:11 might advertise
1:48:12 the a real estate agent's name or
1:48:15 advertise the house as pending or sold
1:48:17 and then
1:48:18 the same thing can also be below the
1:48:20 sign so
1:48:21 if we go with the specification that he
1:48:24 outlined here
1:48:25 a real estate agent wouldn't be able to
1:48:27 put their name on top of the sign or
1:48:29 below the sign or identify whether or
1:48:30 not the sign
1:48:31 is pending or sold so that might be
1:48:35 language we want to add into
1:48:38 this verbage here and maybe add that
1:48:41 into the
1:48:46 or add it as a an amendment to the
1:48:48 proposal tonight
1:48:50 um because that's real those are real
1:48:53 cases
1:48:54 and having been a real estate agent i
1:48:55 know that so
1:48:57 um thanks for showing that uh lucy
1:49:00 and then my second question is
1:49:04 we haven't talked about uh a limit on
1:49:08 lumens
1:49:09 or a illuminated sign so
1:49:12 i want to find out if there is a limit
1:49:15 on the
1:49:19 on lumens for led signs
1:49:22 if you're going down highway 5 and
1:49:25 you're going past
1:49:27 emerald greens casino their sign is
1:49:31 super super bright and highly
1:49:32 distractive and
1:49:35 that is not something i think the people
1:49:38 in issaquah want to see
1:49:41 but going past the elementary school
1:49:44 here off of newport also has an led sign
1:49:48 which is rather on the bright side but
1:49:51 it's more tolerable so
1:49:53 do we want to have that conversation
1:49:55 about putting
1:49:56 limits on lumens and that is
1:49:59 all my comments here
1:50:03 may i respond about the lighting
1:50:07 you're right that we haven't set a
1:50:09 specific
1:50:10 uh lighting level there used to be some
1:50:13 things
1:50:14 that were very old school that were
1:50:16 wattage limits
1:50:17 um which isn't um so last century
1:50:21 and um i i there are some performance
1:50:25 standards
1:50:26 in the code right now um i think that we
1:50:29 would like to get to something more
1:50:30 specific
1:50:32 um and uh
1:50:35 in response to some of the questions
1:50:37 that had come up
1:50:39 i have made notes to add that we are
1:50:43 lighting will be one of the things that
1:50:45 we're taking on with title 18
1:50:48 and i i think our recommendation
1:50:52 is to um include that
1:50:57 or take that under advisement as part of
1:51:00 our work with our lighting consultant
1:51:02 for title 18
1:51:04 because i don't feel qualified to
1:51:07 make that kind of specification um
1:51:10 there may be commissioners that know
1:51:12 that but i think given the wide range of
1:51:15 signs
1:51:16 it would be difficult um maybe to
1:51:19 establish that
1:51:20 at this time
1:51:25 okay thanks lucy and i i'm sorry i do
1:51:27 have one other uh
1:51:28 more of a question here if we
1:51:32 do not approve this tonight what is the
1:51:35 fallback plan what impact does that
1:51:39 have for this um proposal
1:51:44 um so uh
1:51:47 our next step um and thanks for asking
1:51:50 that commissioner
1:51:52 uh fall i didn't do our next steps uh
1:51:55 slide
1:51:56 so um the two next steps that we
1:51:59 have laid out at this point is
1:52:03 a may i believe 25th
1:52:06 study session with council and then a
1:52:10 tentative adoption date of june 21st
1:52:14 um i will say that um
1:52:18 uh study dates are very challenging to
1:52:21 get with the council
1:52:23 um so our preference would be
1:52:26 to um be able to meet that date
1:52:30 um however um it is entirely the
1:52:34 commission's decision
1:52:35 um if you make a recommendation this
1:52:38 evening
1:52:39 or if you identify uh additional items
1:52:44 we need to bring back to you
1:52:49 okay thank you lucy chris grabowski
1:52:53 would like to jump in with a comment
1:52:57 uh this is chris grabowski code
1:53:00 enforcement officer
1:53:01 uh chairperson fall i just wanted to
1:53:04 address
1:53:05 your uh comment about lumens
1:53:09 um from an enforcement standpoint um
1:53:14 it it it places a burden on the city to
1:53:18 become
1:53:19 an expert witness
1:53:22 in other words right now you know if
1:53:25 somebody has a noise complaint
1:53:27 uh i have a certification from rutgers
1:53:30 university
1:53:31 to take noise measurement readings which
1:53:36 are a little more complicated than just
1:53:38 holding a decibel meter you have to
1:53:40 take into account a lot of different
1:53:41 parameters and there's a
1:53:43 mathematical formula that applies and
1:53:46 etc etc
1:53:48 my point being that currently
1:53:52 nobody on staff is qualified
1:53:56 to use the equipment and
1:54:00 nobody has the training to measure
1:54:02 lumens
1:54:03 so that if a case came down to a court
1:54:05 case we would have to hire
1:54:07 outside experts to come in and
1:54:12 do those measurements in lieu of staff
1:54:15 having that
1:54:16 expertise just as just for information
1:54:24 mr milligan has a comment
1:54:30 thank you nina milligan here i'll um if
1:54:32 i can just put a few comments in this
1:54:36 turn uh come because there have been so
1:54:38 many topics that we've covered so far
1:54:41 i have three main topics one is
1:54:44 the table of contents nobody's said
1:54:46 anything so far
1:54:47 but i would like to voice a um
1:54:51 a vote for the existing one
1:54:54 i as a user as a sign creator as a
1:54:57 communications person
1:54:59 i think my first mental step is is this
1:55:02 a commercial sign or not a commercial
1:55:04 sign and that helps me go down that path
1:55:07 uh where those table of contents lead
1:55:09 you that
1:55:10 i feel that the existing organization
1:55:13 based on your chart
1:55:14 is and if you want to bring that up lucy
1:55:16 that's fine by me
1:55:18 is simpler to follow as a sign creator
1:55:23 so that's my vote on that one then i i
1:55:26 want to say a few more things about the
1:55:28 what are now called the business
1:55:30 directional kiosks
1:55:33 i thought of a new name business
1:55:36 district kiosk
1:55:37 since they seem to be limited to a
1:55:40 district
1:55:42 and then also because our um so fine
1:55:46 example in issaquah highlands is not
1:55:48 just directional but also informational
1:55:51 maps and community posters
1:55:54 um that's another thing that keeps it
1:55:57 from being
1:55:58 limited in its use and intent for being
1:56:00 just directional but also having four
1:56:02 sides
1:56:02 and having these other things the only
1:56:04 concern i have about
1:56:06 the code is find the way it is unless
1:56:10 it has some tacit limitation
1:56:14 on whether it's commercial or
1:56:15 non-commercial in the poster usage
1:56:17 because
1:56:18 um business districts such as issaquah
1:56:21 highlands i can see this in gilman
1:56:23 village i could see it in
1:56:26 old town uh might want to promote a
1:56:28 commercial
1:56:29 event you know like the the wine events
1:56:33 that are district-wide
1:56:35 um and they're you know get your tickets
1:56:38 whatever you know i would say that's a
1:56:39 commercial event even though it's a
1:56:41 chamber of commerce which is non-profit
1:56:43 is that still a commercial event and
1:56:45 wouldn't we wouldn't that wouldn't be
1:56:46 commercial
1:56:47 okay so then i um
1:56:50 i think it might be fine i just wanted
1:56:52 to bring that that part up to make sure
1:56:54 that those
1:56:54 posters are still allowed and the
1:56:57 last thing that i um oh i'm sorry
1:57:01 for so um
1:57:05 um commissioner milligan do you want to
1:57:07 hear from daniel kennedy about the
1:57:10 commercial non-commercial mixture on the
1:57:12 kiosks
1:57:15 all i am concerned is is there any
1:57:18 language that restricts that kind of
1:57:22 promotion
1:57:25 is there anything that restricts that
1:57:27 kind of poster promotion for a business
1:57:29 district to promote their business event
1:57:32 when it's a you know they're having
1:57:34 their
1:57:35 you know gilman village does them um and
1:57:38 if it's not easter
1:57:39 it's just because they want to get a
1:57:41 bunch of people down there on a saturday
1:57:42 night
1:57:43 is it commercial you know um and it's
1:57:46 not commercial because it's easter
1:57:47 uh what what's the difference so i guess
1:57:53 so if i'm tracking right you're talking
1:57:56 about not
1:57:57 not the nameplates but the other side
1:58:02 well so that's a good question i want to
1:58:03 pull up the language in front of me i
1:58:06 my understanding of it was essentially
1:58:08 that it was for
1:58:10 virtually a city use i understand that
1:58:13 might not always be the case but it was
1:58:16 going to be
1:58:17 maps and informational and
1:58:18 community-based things but it
1:58:20 would not be for a
1:58:24 the benefit of a non-commercial entity
1:58:28 it would be the benefit of the community
1:58:30 and so
1:58:31 and i um i'm just trying to see if i can
1:58:35 quickly grab that language
1:58:37 [Music]
1:58:57 i'm not seeing it super quickly so i
1:59:00 apologize
1:59:04 i'm wondering if that um there is the
1:59:08 option
1:59:08 for the civic uh nameplates but
1:59:12 it's no longer a requirement um
1:59:15 but i have a feeling that we were so
1:59:17 focused on the commercial
1:59:18 aspect that the um map
1:59:22 and some of those other requirements may
1:59:24 not have been clear
1:59:25 so i think it would be great to have
1:59:27 direction for us
1:59:28 to complete
1:59:34 but i think i think that the distinction
1:59:38 um other than the name plates
1:59:42 the other sides were as uh
1:59:45 daniel was describing maps
1:59:48 um general stuff but not um
1:59:51 come to our wine tasting um yeah so
1:59:55 and so the language that's there now
1:59:56 sorry it took me a second to find it i
1:59:58 apologize
1:59:58 it says that each business directional
2:00:02 kiosk may include space for civic
2:00:05 directional signs such as recreation
2:00:07 parks plazas trails
2:00:09 government educational and similar
2:00:11 facilities
2:00:12 and so i as i understood it that
2:00:15 that that's the fill in beyond the
2:00:18 nameplates
2:00:19 these kiosks are not intended to be a
2:00:22 um an additional like like
2:00:26 you'd see like a banner or or uh posters
2:00:29 or anything like that
2:00:30 this is a limited opportunity as a
2:00:33 directional kiosk
2:00:35 and one of the reasons for that is um
2:00:38 there
2:00:38 are and if you if you kind of think to
2:00:40 the code and
2:00:41 into the right of way very limited
2:00:43 opportunities for permanent commercial
2:00:45 signage in the right of way
2:00:47 really very limited opportunities for
2:00:49 permanent signs in the right-of-way
2:00:51 and so this is a limited opportunity to
2:00:54 have a very defined
2:00:56 um communication and that is a
2:01:00 directional with you know defined um
2:01:05 banners for businesses and so it's it's
2:01:08 it's intended to be
2:01:10 pretty limited in scope
2:01:17 back to me yeah the uh
2:01:20 okay then i think that we are exposing
2:01:23 uh a limitation that would be
2:01:26 uh felt by the isoqua highlands
2:01:28 community for one and i
2:01:29 i don't think they're unique in that uh
2:01:32 promoting
2:01:33 the activities with a business
2:01:36 application is for the structure
2:01:38 and then and there's this
2:01:40 semi-permanence of these
2:01:42 um directional things because these
2:01:44 places don't move
2:01:45 although the businesses change and then
2:01:46 we have the language about
2:01:48 how you can replace a business
2:01:50 directional sign but the
2:01:52 additional sides are quite dynamic in
2:01:55 issaquah highlands and highly valued by
2:01:56 the community
2:01:57 to communicate not only community value
2:02:01 but the businesses in the district
2:02:04 the valuable things that they're
2:02:06 providing so
2:02:08 either
2:02:12 i i'm getting the impression that it
2:02:14 might need to be
2:02:15 opened up a little bit more
2:02:18 i see your point about uh limiting it
2:02:22 because it's in the public right away
2:02:23 and all of
2:02:24 and all of that but it is a business
2:02:25 district and they're in the business
2:02:27 of being in business so um i don't know
2:02:30 why we're limiting their ability to
2:02:31 promote events
2:02:33 in a poster in sign
2:02:36 i think the concern might be that
2:02:40 then you have to open it up to any
2:02:42 business
2:02:43 in the district
2:02:47 um to uh uh
2:02:53 have access daniel that that that's why
2:02:57 originally raised my hand but then i'll
2:02:58 just kind of build on that and
2:03:00 if it's a non-commercial message
2:03:03 then it has to be a content neutral
2:03:06 opportune
2:03:06 opportunity and so while we all think of
2:03:10 the kind of community values community
2:03:13 building messages that
2:03:14 would likely be put out there it would
2:03:16 need to be an opportunity
2:03:18 as well for messages that somebody else
2:03:21 might want to put out there
2:03:22 and so um having a clear understanding
2:03:25 of how those are going to be used and
2:03:27 limited in the way that it is in the
2:03:29 eliminates the opportunities um for
2:03:32 um conflict on a non-commercial uh
2:03:35 message
2:03:36 and then uh like lucy said if it is a
2:03:38 commercial message
2:03:40 how are people gonna get on and off that
2:03:42 that side
2:03:43 whereas with the the six panels there's
2:03:45 a kind of a thoughtful progression on
2:03:47 how that would get used
2:03:49 um so it it can get a little tricky
2:03:56 and and thank you for the discussion
2:03:58 about it i didn't have an answer i only
2:04:01 a possible um
2:04:05 conflict or problem and then we get a
2:04:07 non-compliant use
2:04:08 or an opportunity that is
2:04:12 not fully considered so thank you for
2:04:14 that conversation i don't know if i have
2:04:16 an answer for that
2:04:17 so then my fourth is about the garage
2:04:20 sales
2:04:22 if commissioner fall had an amendment
2:04:25 i would listen to it i do
2:04:29 think that the number of signs is really
2:04:31 where you were headed and then the other
2:04:33 comments about what kind of signs why
2:04:36 can't you put a box
2:04:37 with a handmade sign on it i think and
2:04:40 lucy clarified this for me the reason
2:04:41 for going with a
2:04:43 wireframe sign is that it's affixed and
2:04:45 it doesn't blow down the road and create
2:04:46 a hazard
2:04:48 if it's so i don't think i can go as far
2:04:51 as the
2:04:52 um as connie marsh had recommended but i
2:04:55 think the number of signs is something
2:04:56 that we could consider
2:04:57 expanding on so i'm looking for an
2:04:59 amendment on that
2:05:00 and and then just as a final comment i
2:05:02 would say that i think that
2:05:04 i'm hearing from our commissioners and
2:05:05 we're certainly not done
2:05:07 that this is not so far from being
2:05:10 something that we could
2:05:11 recommend approval identifying
2:05:14 the issues you know like the 32 feet or
2:05:18 square feet or the four-sided kiosks or
2:05:21 the garage sale signs
2:05:23 i think that we're pretty close to
2:05:25 finding a way to recommend
2:05:26 approval to the council
2:05:30 with changes or with flags
2:05:33 of things that need to be tended to and
2:05:36 that's it thank you
2:05:40 um there is one more commissioner with
2:05:42 comments but i want to remind you all
2:05:43 that if you want to make any amendments
2:05:45 to the existing motion which is to
2:05:47 approve
2:05:48 the sign code amendments as presented
2:05:51 tonight that a new motion would be
2:05:53 need to be made and that you all would
2:05:55 need to vote
2:05:56 on that um the next speaker is
2:05:58 commissioner lewis
2:06:02 thank you commissioner joy lewis i want
2:06:04 to thank ron for bringing up the
2:06:06 question about lumens
2:06:07 and i want to thank officer gabrowski
2:06:09 for speaking to the co-enforcement of
2:06:11 um many years ago i had a conversation
2:06:14 with lucy
2:06:16 um regarding the ubdc and um something
2:06:19 called
2:06:20 operation like dark sky which is
2:06:22 basically
2:06:23 um a program which directs cities to be
2:06:26 able to control their light pollution
2:06:28 rather than having spotlights up lights
2:06:30 that reflect up
2:06:31 um being able to have a consistent
2:06:34 lighting code throughout our city
2:06:36 at that time it was a little bit
2:06:37 piecemail and it was something that lucy
2:06:39 communicated to me that we were working
2:06:40 on having
2:06:41 um dark skies um having an ordinance
2:06:44 that really helped direct that
2:06:46 so um i don't know if ron's lumen point
2:06:49 was more towards um
2:06:50 it being more of a hazard when you're
2:06:52 driving and something's bright and
2:06:53 distracting
2:06:54 um but i think it's an interesting point
2:06:56 when we start talking about
2:06:58 um these lit signs and just making sure
2:07:01 that they conform to
2:07:03 our lighting desires to be able to
2:07:05 include all members
2:07:06 of our community those that are
2:07:08 non-voting and sometimes those are
2:07:10 nighttime pollinators as well
2:07:12 when we think about um lighting so i
2:07:13 just wanted to think that was a good
2:07:15 opportunity to bring that up so thank
2:07:16 you ron and thank you lucy and thank you
2:07:17 officer gabrowski
2:07:18 and to nina's point um lucy asked us a
2:07:22 question we haven't addressed yet
2:07:24 so i would um very much uh like to voice
2:07:27 my support for uh what nina said as far
2:07:30 as the original uh layout i think it
2:07:31 makes perfect sense to me
2:07:33 um so um i had no problem with that
2:07:35 organization
2:07:36 um and while we're tallying votes i
2:07:40 would be
2:07:40 a fan of doubling the amount from two to
2:07:44 for um for garage signs um i think the
2:07:47 intent right too is to not have
2:07:49 clutter like we said things that don't
2:07:51 get picked up and get left around
2:07:52 so i don't know that we need to go
2:07:53 beyond much more but um it's a valid
2:07:56 point you know squawk tends to have some
2:07:58 twists and turns and being able to
2:07:59 accommodate
2:08:00 our neighborhoods um for these
2:08:02 short-term signs i would be
2:08:03 in favor of if somebody wanted to make
2:08:05 that move so thanks very much
2:08:11 you have a question from commissioner
2:08:14 thank you uh leonard cressen so joy
2:08:18 you had said to re um
2:08:21 up the limit from two to four are you
2:08:24 talking about
2:08:24 garage sale signs or real estate signs i
2:08:28 was talking about
2:08:28 specifically the uh garage sale signs
2:08:38 i see no other questions or comments at
2:08:40 this time
2:08:42 okay so uh i have a procedural question
2:08:46 uh plantar christian at this point do we
2:08:52 put forth the uh
2:08:56 vote on the proposed sign
2:09:00 code and then write it with an amendment
2:09:03 because we've you know joy's mentioned
2:09:05 something
2:09:06 and um jason's also mentioned that
2:09:10 he would be willing to put forth an
2:09:11 amendment so
2:09:13 how do we incorporate those amendments
2:09:17 excuse me um the current motion on the
2:09:20 table that i think
2:09:22 has been made and seconded i hope um
2:09:25 was to recommend approval of the
2:09:26 proposed sign code amendments as
2:09:28 presented
2:09:29 if anyone would like to make an
2:09:31 amendment to that motion
2:09:33 then someone needs
2:09:36 so i am reading that it was not ever
2:09:38 made so the first motion would be to be
2:09:41 um and seconded and voted on
2:09:44 and then if someone wanted to amend that
2:09:47 someone needs to make a motion to amend
2:09:49 it needs to be seconded and it needs to
2:09:51 be voted on
2:09:52 and then if it passes then
2:09:56 it's that's an amendment i am so happy i
2:09:59 daniel pikini here with us tonight um
2:10:02 but that that's the way it would go
2:10:04 um so i just wanted to say that there
2:10:07 have been
2:10:09 seven topics that have come up three
2:10:11 were in my presentation
2:10:14 i could start listing these in the chat
2:10:17 if that would be useful to the
2:10:19 commissioners
2:10:20 to be able to formul use as the basis
2:10:23 for formulating
2:10:25 any amendments if you choose to do so
2:10:29 would that be a useful i think that
2:10:32 would be very useful
2:10:33 okay lucy you if you'll do that really
2:10:35 quickly i also want to mention and i
2:10:36 know that daniel would like to talk as
2:10:38 um that commissioner fall brought up
2:10:42 potentially not taking action tonight um
2:10:45 if that were to be the case
2:10:47 uh we've already closed the public
2:10:49 comment period we i believe would need
2:10:51 to re-advertise
2:10:53 a public hearing and it would need to be
2:10:56 at our next
2:10:56 meeting on may 13th at which time we
2:10:59 would have a new commissioner
2:11:01 um but that would still give time for
2:11:04 uh lucy sloman to get that to the
2:11:08 council study session um
2:11:11 probably not our first choice if you all
2:11:13 can figure it out tonight
2:11:14 um but i will hand it over to danielle
2:11:17 kenny
2:11:19 yeah so i just wanted to make just a
2:11:20 quick comment on the just kind of next
2:11:22 steps so it's a
2:11:24 a motion on what's being proposed with a
2:11:26 second
2:11:27 at that point you can deliberate on the
2:11:29 underlying motion
2:11:31 make amendments to that motion so you
2:11:33 could amend for real estate you can
2:11:35 whatever you want to do
2:11:36 the amendment gets voted on either yey
2:11:39 or nay so it's incorporated into the
2:11:41 underlying motion or not
2:11:43 and then once amendments are done there
2:11:45 would be a vote on the underlying
2:11:47 motion that may have been amended may
2:11:50 not have been
2:11:53 i do thank you very much i am and
2:11:57 luckily for all of us on may 13th we
2:11:59 will be having a training session on
2:12:01 this sort of thing
2:12:02 um but i we do have a comment from
2:12:05 commissioner voice
2:12:10 thank you senior planner lisa so i am
2:12:14 ready to make a motion for the proposed
2:12:16 amendments but i guess i'm
2:12:18 really quickly two things is
2:12:21 i have no problem with two to four
2:12:23 garage signs that
2:12:24 doesn't concern me and i agree with
2:12:26 commissioner lewis and commissioner
2:12:28 milligan
2:12:29 about the structure so i like continuity
2:12:32 i think our community likes continuity
2:12:34 so if the table of contents as far as
2:12:36 how it looks continues to look the same
2:12:39 as before i'm okay with that
2:12:41 but i guess this is the one thing that's
2:12:43 obviously
2:12:44 stuck with me this evening so it would
2:12:46 anybody be open to
2:12:48 at least asking the city to provide
2:12:50 maybe two other possible
2:12:54 options to their 32 square foot
2:12:57 rule because i just again like i said
2:13:00 this one's tough for me so i'll offer an
2:13:02 amendment and if it fails it fails but
2:13:04 at least i'm on record being a
2:13:06 problematic with it that'll make me
2:13:07 sleep easier tonight um but i guess
2:13:09 a better way to do that rather than
2:13:11 being so selfish is
2:13:13 what if the city were to possibly what
2:13:16 if i was to ask for an amendment
2:13:17 to have the city come up with two more
2:13:19 options that at least the council would
2:13:21 be able to look at
2:13:23 instead of just having this
2:13:24 one-size-fits-all that obviously i have
2:13:26 a problem with how do my fellow
2:13:29 commissioners feel about that
2:13:39 i can't tell i'm gonna jump in here um
2:13:41 uncalled on i know lucy's working hard
2:13:43 give us information in the chat but you
2:13:45 know she's i would love to hear
2:13:47 discussions of how the city landed on
2:13:49 this i think um
2:13:51 that may also help jason to hear right
2:13:53 like obviously there were options at
2:13:54 some point it got narrowed down to one
2:13:56 um and so before asking you know there
2:13:59 may already be some that
2:14:01 they were ruled out or that are worth
2:14:03 discussion so if lucy wants to
2:14:05 comment on that it would be great
2:14:15 i don't think lucy's listening i'm i am
2:14:17 totally listening i'm sorry i'm just
2:14:19 trying to finish this one sentence and
2:14:21 and then i'll be able i think to focus
2:14:25 no worries no rush
2:14:32 okay um other things that we considered
2:14:44 well um
2:14:47 last time i
2:14:50 i i'm the first to admit that you know
2:14:52 this is something that um
2:14:54 i think we've all struggled and we've
2:14:56 struggled together on
2:14:57 um trying to propose something and
2:15:00 initially our proposal um
2:15:04 that we discussed at the march 25th
2:15:06 meeting
2:15:07 was kind of jumbled together between
2:15:10 things in the right-of-way
2:15:12 and sizes
2:15:19 overall the um
2:15:25 some of the some of this um
2:15:27 [Music]
2:15:28 four single-family homes we have seen
2:15:32 a size maximum
2:15:36 but no number
2:15:39 limit um
2:15:42 now that would not have accommodated the
2:15:45 typical banner size
2:15:48 um i think the one that we may have had
2:15:51 in last time was 10 square feet
2:15:53 with no limits um
2:15:57 and uh
2:15:59 [Music]
2:16:01 the challenge with that is it does um
2:16:04 respond to commissioner voice's concern
2:16:07 that different sized properties um
2:16:10 uh should be able to
2:16:14 you know take advantage of their
2:16:15 different sizes
2:16:17 the converse of that might be
2:16:21 that a acre
2:16:24 property might choose to put up 10 signs
2:16:27 and a townhouse might choose to put up
2:16:30 10 signs
2:16:31 and they would all have the same maximum
2:16:35 i i don't think we've seen a good model
2:16:38 for um a number
2:16:42 of signs based on the size
2:16:46 um we have seen a number
2:16:51 limit uh
2:16:55 for the number of signs per frontage
2:16:58 but again that is not based on size that
2:17:01 is just based on frontage
2:17:04 i um so i think that there are some
2:17:07 alternatives out there but i think
2:17:09 unfortunately
2:17:11 um for the commission uh the question
2:17:14 really
2:17:15 becomes uh comes down to
2:17:18 our uh the policy question
2:17:21 of are we trying to scale
2:17:24 the number of signs uh based
2:17:28 on the property size or are we trying to
2:17:32 equal voice for property
2:17:36 [Music]
2:17:42 without that guidance it's pretty hard
2:17:44 to come back
2:17:45 uh with options um because it's kind of
2:17:48 infinite um i think with
2:17:57 i think that staff pursued the equal
2:17:59 voice
2:18:01 which is clearly not a consensus among
2:18:04 uh the commissioners and
2:18:08 uh if we
2:18:12 need to come up with another alternative
2:18:14 it would be good to know that that
2:18:16 is the consensus
2:18:19 um and that then we know which problem
2:18:21 we're trying to solve
2:18:22 and can do more research toward that
2:18:27 question
2:18:30 so i oh uh director diwali
2:18:35 dolly wall sorry yeah if i may add to
2:18:39 that i think
2:18:40 if the commission desires to look for
2:18:42 another more options
2:18:44 or pros and cons of each option i think
2:18:47 through zoning we're trying to regulate
2:18:49 clutter or not necessarily people's
2:18:51 ability to
2:18:52 for freedom you know for speech so
2:18:55 whether you have a large property or you
2:18:57 have a small property
2:18:58 isn't necessarily the filter that staff
2:19:01 was really
2:19:02 thinking of it was more in terms of how
2:19:05 do we
2:19:06 make sure that there aren't like too
2:19:08 many of these signs or
2:19:09 or how do we make it fair so so in
2:19:12 though for those
2:19:13 reasons what are we trying to regulate
2:19:15 if the conversation
2:19:16 really needs to be are we trying to
2:19:18 regulate clutter along the street
2:19:20 frontage
2:19:21 then you could tie it to how many signs
2:19:25 per linear feet
2:19:28 you know those are options for for
2:19:30 commission or council to consider
2:19:33 it was just easier to administer and
2:19:36 easier for people to understand
2:19:40 32 square feet there's not a number
2:19:42 limit
2:19:43 so if there is two you know four
2:19:46 candidates running
2:19:47 or someone has wants to express their
2:19:49 freedom of speech
2:19:50 in an other form if there's two items on
2:19:53 the levy
2:19:53 that you have you know you have there's
2:19:55 plenty of options the 32 square feet
2:19:58 you could split it up in any way fashion
2:20:00 that you want
2:20:01 but you still are going to not create
2:20:04 too much litany of
2:20:06 of signs that'll create a visual clutter
2:20:08 i think that's
2:20:09 sort of the the reasoning behind some of
2:20:12 these regulations
2:20:14 but for options if you want to consider
2:20:16 an amendment
2:20:18 could be time get tying you know
2:20:19 limiting the number
2:20:21 limit tying it to the the linear field
2:20:23 of street frontage
2:20:24 uh so that will at least be not so much
2:20:27 in terms of how much property you want
2:20:29 but it's
2:20:30 it's a legitimate reason for regulating
2:20:33 um the spacing again it it could become
2:20:36 really problematic from enforcement
2:20:38 standpoint
2:20:39 you know is it four feet is it four feet
2:20:41 four inches how far apart are these so
2:20:44 those were some of the considerations i
2:20:46 think that went into
2:20:47 where we've landed on this
2:20:51 with that i'll yield my time
2:20:57 i'm not sure where we are on this one
2:20:58 but i do want to note that we still have
2:21:00 um commissioners milligan followed by
2:21:02 commissioner monahan who still have
2:21:04 comments
2:21:09 i think mine were already taken care of
2:21:11 i'm ready for the process it was
2:21:14 cleared up earlier thank you
2:21:20 mr monahan yeah so real
2:21:24 briefly uh my comment and then a
2:21:26 procedural question um the comment
2:21:28 on uh is on the policy choice and yeah i
2:21:30 think there is a disagreement and i
2:21:32 think
2:21:32 um i understand both sides i i come down
2:21:34 pretty
2:21:35 firmly i think where the staff came out
2:21:37 here which is
2:21:39 equal access is kind of the the guiding
2:21:41 principle versus
2:21:42 you're doing something related to how
2:21:44 big the property is so i think a
2:21:46 one-size-fits-all
2:21:47 matches up with my the way i'm viewing
2:21:49 this from a policy perspective
2:21:51 and so i would not be inclined to to
2:21:53 amend that particular section
2:21:55 um and then my procedural question and i
2:21:57 guess this can be for daniel or kristin
2:21:59 um i believe a motion was made can i
2:22:01 second it now or does the motion have to
2:22:04 remade which i'm happy to do now and
2:22:06 then someone can second it so we can get
2:22:08 on with the amendment process
2:22:11 so i'll just quickly jump in as i heard
2:22:13 the chair
2:22:14 identified that there was an underlying
2:22:17 motion but i didn't actually hear
2:22:18 anybody make the underlying motion and
2:22:20 second it
2:22:20 so um if if anybody heard differently
2:22:23 then then
2:22:24 by all means correct me but i think
2:22:26 somebody should just
2:22:27 move to and i i don't have the agenda
2:22:30 bill open directly in front of me but
2:22:31 make the underlying motion
2:22:32 get a second and then can go through
2:22:36 any sort of amendments that that are in
2:22:38 the chat or whatever you have
2:22:40 okay so then i i will move to recommend
2:22:42 approval of the proposed proposed sign
2:22:44 code amendments as presented
2:22:46 right here a second i second it
2:22:53 any questions comments
2:22:58 all in favor say oh wait a minute we
2:23:00 need to have the role
2:23:02 um you don't need to vote yet
2:23:05 oh okay right usually you do that and
2:23:07 then you follow it with discussion and
2:23:09 if there are amendments someone can make
2:23:10 a motion to amend
2:23:18 milligan i'll go ahead and break the ice
2:23:21 with an an amendment i think this one's
2:23:23 easier than the others i
2:23:25 amend that i would like to amend the
2:23:29 motion
2:23:30 to adopt the real estate on-premise sign
2:23:36 to adjust it to the permit to permit
2:23:39 sign structure as shown in mr benneker's
2:23:44 email
2:23:48 i'll second that motion
2:23:54 lucy are you able to articulate
2:23:58 a little better what that means rather
2:24:00 than what was shown in the email
2:24:03 we need to be able to put it it write it
2:24:06 correctly
2:24:10 um uh
2:24:15 okay um uh
2:24:18 amend the real estate on-premises sign
2:24:22 uh language uh
2:24:25 to allow a
2:24:28 yard arm approximately
2:24:32 six and a half feet tall
2:24:38 how's that
2:24:43 daniel looks like he has some thoughts
2:24:45 well i would just maybe say take out
2:24:47 approximately
2:24:48 just so that we don't have somebody that
2:24:50 yeah no fair
2:24:52 thank you there was a an expansion of
2:24:55 the surface area
2:24:57 too in the oh yes
2:25:00 so that was not in mr banneker's email
2:25:02 that was
2:25:03 in chairperson falls comments
2:25:06 um um uh
2:25:10 one option would be um
2:25:15 to provide um
2:25:18 an extra square foot of area
2:25:22 um an extra square foot of
2:25:25 area for incidental signs such as
2:25:29 um you know pending sold
2:25:33 agent's name um the other option would
2:25:37 to um say that the
2:25:40 area could be of six square feet could
2:25:44 broken into pieces to accommodate that
2:25:48 so riders i think are about one and a
2:25:50 half square feet
2:25:52 so we could have riders that equal two
2:25:55 up to two riders that equal one and a
2:25:56 half square foot
2:25:57 each i think that's standard
2:26:01 because i just looked it up on the
2:26:03 internet with writers
2:26:05 the size of writers and what most people
2:26:06 are printing
2:26:09 so that narrows it down to
2:26:14 mr kenny's point can i jump in
2:26:17 from the email i'm looking at the email
2:26:19 itself it said
2:26:20 can height allowance be increased and
2:26:22 then the other is
2:26:24 measuring live sign area
2:26:28 could the measuring the sign structure a
2:26:30 safe maximum be expanded to six
2:26:32 feet six inches
2:26:37 that's what i was going on the live sign
2:26:40 area is six square feet
2:26:44 now and i don't think he was asking to
2:26:48 amend that
2:26:49 i think it was the height of four feet
2:26:51 that was the concern
2:26:53 because the yard arm placed the six
2:26:56 square feet
2:26:58 higher than the
2:27:01 allowed height
2:27:06 so if we move forward with randy's
2:27:09 specifications real estate signs
2:27:13 will be out of compliance if they have
2:27:16 writers above or below them
2:27:19 because the sign at the active sign
2:27:23 foot or the square footage of the active
2:27:26 is the real estate sign itself so you
2:27:28 can't
2:27:29 what we're saying that moving forward is
2:27:31 we're not going to allow you to put
2:27:33 a writer above or below the sign that
2:27:35 identifies the real estate agent or a
2:27:37 pending or sold house
2:27:42 so i i would just point out that mr
2:27:44 banneker has not
2:27:45 identified that as a concern i i
2:27:49 do understand what you're saying um i
2:27:52 think that um that is certainly
2:27:59 do we want to go back to him and ask him
2:28:02 clarify and have a go just make a
2:28:05 general
2:28:06 we would have to reopen the hearing
2:28:09 can we amend the amendment with the
2:28:12 additional
2:28:13 can ron amend the amendment with the
2:28:14 additional considerations so that we
2:28:16 have mr bennicker's con
2:28:20 suggestions plus ron falls and let that
2:28:23 roll up
2:28:26 so i i don't think the amendment's done
2:28:27 yet nor seconded so
2:28:30 we can fine tune you you can fine tune
2:28:32 your amendment and then get a second on
2:28:35 thank you that's where i was going yeah
2:28:37 let's do that okay
2:28:38 i'm gonna do that i'm going to amend
2:28:42 the motion to include
2:28:46 changes identified in mr benneker's
2:28:49 email to the real estate on-premise sign
2:28:52 structure plus
2:28:57 additional signage allowed
2:29:00 as per commissioner false definitions
2:29:05 of information regarding
2:29:09 home warranty who's the realtor has it
2:29:12 been sold is it pending
2:29:16 that sort of thing
2:29:19 that's the amendment
2:29:23 can you work with that lucy
2:29:27 well i know what it means i i i would
2:29:30 ask my fine colleague kristen leeson if
2:29:32 she's comfortable because she'll be
2:29:34 producing this
2:29:37 no i'm not okay so
2:29:40 um what i understand that we are doing
2:29:44 is is revising the on-premises
2:29:48 real estate sign to
2:29:51 allow yard arms up to six and a half
2:29:56 feet in height and
2:30:00 up to two riders
2:30:03 of one and a half square feet each
2:30:09 if uh commissioner fall is good with
2:30:13 that is my amendment because chairs
2:30:16 can't make amendments right
2:30:21 first can make amendments we still need
2:30:22 a second to this amendment though and
2:30:24 what lucy just said makes sense
2:30:26 yeah i'm agreeing with lucy she has
2:30:28 captured the intent of my amendment
2:30:30 looking for a second gee i thought this
2:30:32 was the easy one
2:30:34 second
2:30:39 okay and now do we take vote on that
2:30:41 yeah we take a vote so i'll call
2:30:42 um i'll do roll call commissioner voice
2:30:47 can't hear you
2:30:54 commissioner lewis hi
2:30:59 mr zaragoza hi
2:31:02 mr monahan hi
2:31:06 uh commissioner milligan hi
2:31:09 and commissioner fall hi the amendment
2:31:12 passes
2:31:13 uh unanimously six zero
2:31:25 i apologize i dropped the ball um next
2:31:27 we have
2:31:29 commissioner lewis who has a proposed
2:31:30 amendment
2:31:32 thank you commissioner joy lewis i'd
2:31:34 like to propose an
2:31:35 amendment that would rename uh
2:31:39 our uh i'm sorry i have to scroll up in
2:31:42 the chat we've had so many comments that
2:31:43 come up
2:31:44 um to rename uh our business directional
2:31:47 signs
2:31:48 to now be business to district kiosks
2:31:52 i would and additionally the garage sale
2:31:55 signs are stipulated
2:31:56 to now increase to four signs
2:32:02 second
2:32:05 okay and kristen uh you want to take
2:32:08 roll yes so commissioner boyce
2:32:11 hi mr lewis oh
2:32:16 hi mr monahan
2:32:19 hi commissioner zaragoza aye
2:32:23 mr milligan i and commissioner fall
2:32:27 all right the vote passes unanimously
2:32:29 six to zero
2:32:31 uh the next one is uh commissioner voice
2:32:34 has a proposed amendment
2:32:38 thank you senior planner lisa let me see
2:32:40 if i can get through this
2:32:42 i'd like to make an amendment to the
2:32:44 proposed motion
2:32:46 to ask for two more options to the
2:32:48 temporary non-commercial signage on
2:32:50 private property property
2:32:53 than currently presented
2:32:58 so i think that's not an amendment
2:33:01 you are looking for other options to
2:33:04 correct the sign and this could go into
2:33:07 an agenda bill
2:33:08 okay order okay and that would go into
2:33:12 the agenda bill and the council could
2:33:13 discuss it at their study session
2:33:15 perfect so i need to make a motion for
2:33:17 that or
2:33:19 yeah yes let's just say you do because
2:33:22 we want consensus on it
2:33:23 all right okay so you're gonna have to
2:33:26 walk me through that that took me five
2:33:28 minutes in your planner lisa
2:33:32 let's try this again i'd like to
2:33:36 so it's not an amendment so i'd like to
2:33:39 put an addendum
2:33:41 i think you're directing staff to
2:33:44 include
2:33:46 two alternative or two
2:33:49 more options for temporary commercial
2:33:52 signs on private property i'd like to
2:33:55 direct staff to present two more options
2:33:58 to the temporary
2:33:59 non-commercial signage on private
2:34:02 property
2:34:08 do i hear a second
2:34:16 very none
2:34:20 i just say it's dead so i just want to
2:34:23 come i just want to confirm um
2:34:26 let's see if let's see i'm just going to
2:34:28 go through and sort of take an informal
2:34:30 um and i'll just say do you agree yes or
2:34:34 so we're going to start with
2:34:36 commissioner lewis
2:34:40 no okay uh commissioner monahan
2:34:44 no mr milligan
2:34:48 no i was okay with the original language
2:34:52 um i'm gonna do one more commissioner
2:34:54 zaragoza
2:34:56 no okay so there was no consensus so the
2:34:58 staff was
2:34:59 not going to do that
2:35:04 i didn't wait i do
2:35:07 not i believe perhaps there is one more
2:35:10 amendment um
2:35:12 commissioner fall cheerful
2:35:16 okay uh see the
2:35:19 last amendment here i think we covered
2:35:22 them all
2:35:24 the garage sale sign the real estate
2:35:27 signs
2:35:32 we're going to have a amendment about
2:35:34 commercial faces
2:35:35 of kiosks
2:35:40 there was an amendment to change
2:35:42 business district signs to business
2:35:44 district kiosks
2:35:48 what about faces because we had a
2:35:49 discussion about the faces
2:35:51 of the kiosks are limited to two sites
2:35:57 we have not had that discussion okay
2:36:00 so i take it there's no amendment for no
2:36:03 one's proposing an amendment to change
2:36:04 that then
2:36:07 okay uh there was monument signs limited
2:36:11 to two faces i i would like to interrupt
2:36:15 we have a call for a point of order
2:36:19 from commissioner lewis hi commissioner
2:36:21 joy lewis
2:36:22 pointing order i think that the
2:36:23 remaining items that lucy put into the
2:36:26 um are items that are existing right now
2:36:28 in code so if no one's making an
2:36:29 amendment to change them
2:36:31 then they would pass with the original
2:36:34 amendment
2:36:36 well there were i think there were three
2:36:38 things
2:36:39 that i had identified in my presentation
2:36:42 and i'm i'm looking for
2:36:44 um no one commented
2:36:47 well we had a lot of discussion on the
2:36:49 monument signs
2:36:50 and the number of faces and um
2:36:55 what i am not clear on
2:36:58 is because it is not actually in the
2:37:01 it was in the presentation um
2:37:06 which was the two faces for monument
2:37:08 signs
2:37:09 and six slots per
2:37:13 business district kiosks
2:37:16 whether uh the commissioners uh were
2:37:21 wanting uh uh
2:37:25 to leave those unchanged or not
2:37:30 i'm sorry so as since there have been no
2:37:32 amendments they would be
2:37:34 unchanged and left with the original
2:37:36 document
2:37:42 okay so with that uh we
2:37:46 are going to i think there was
2:37:48 discussion about
2:37:49 the lighting did you did was there
2:37:51 consensus on
2:37:53 do we want to discuss the lighting
2:37:57 issue it's a valid point to bring up
2:38:01 uh city can a city is not able to
2:38:06 um regulate i get not regulate but
2:38:09 enforce
2:38:11 is that correct you're not able to or
2:38:13 have the resources to enforce
2:38:16 uh lumen regulations
2:38:21 i don't know if we should worry about
2:38:23 that so much because if we decide that
2:38:25 how do we decide if something's too
2:38:27 bright
2:38:30 yeah you know a lot of times the
2:38:32 discussion on the lighting
2:38:34 um comes up with the animated signs so
2:38:36 the examples you you all were talking
2:38:38 about were the ones that move and
2:38:40 and all that so so a lot of uh
2:38:43 jurisdictions will have a regulation
2:38:45 on controlling the elimination for those
2:38:48 and those can
2:38:49 get bright and it's a valid point that
2:38:52 can be
2:38:53 for those the sa you know the
2:38:54 regulations he proposed here
2:38:56 limit those kind of rewards in only a
2:38:58 couple of situations for community
2:39:00 facilities and such so
2:39:02 for schools and other you know where
2:39:03 there is a need for that so
2:39:05 those are already limited in terms of
2:39:07 where they can go
2:39:09 um because it's very easy to switch the
2:39:12 um the lighting of those but if you want
2:39:14 staff to
2:39:16 do more research and include some
2:39:20 additional options we can certainly look
2:39:22 into the lighting level
2:39:23 requirement but i i don't know if there
2:39:26 was a closure on where
2:39:28 the commission had landed on the
2:39:29 lighting option that was my
2:39:30 clarification question
2:39:33 can i ask the question if because right
2:39:35 now we don't have a problem
2:39:37 if we run into a problem can we do
2:39:39 something
2:39:41 retroactively reactive to it or
2:39:44 are we best to set down uh guidelines
2:39:47 before we have that problem because i
2:39:50 can see that as
2:39:51 as sign technology advances
2:39:54 we may very well see more led displays
2:39:57 and of course
2:39:58 everyone's the thought is if it's
2:40:01 brighter people are going to
2:40:02 more people are going to see it and so
2:40:04 everyone's going to try to
2:40:07 do the the next person uh
2:40:15 is it the commission's thought that we
2:40:17 need to worry about that right now or do
2:40:18 you think we should not worry about that
2:40:20 now and just move forward
2:40:24 it's a valid point if there is you know
2:40:27 down the road if there is a really
2:40:29 bright sign that everyone gets concerned
2:40:31 about
2:40:31 then you know this is our opportunity to
2:40:33 kind of look at
2:40:36 it do we want to regulate uh lighting
2:40:38 and if so what those lighting levels
2:40:40 should be
2:40:41 um so we can do addition you know you
2:40:46 put it in the agenda bill that staff do
2:40:48 additional research
2:40:49 on lighting level then we can include
2:40:51 that information in the council packet
2:40:54 okay so i can't make an amendment right
2:40:58 because i'm a chair you can propose an
2:41:01 amendment
2:41:02 okay i would like to propose uh an
2:41:05 amendment to
2:41:06 the sign code that uh this will be
2:41:10 the topic of lumens will be further
2:41:13 evaluated and researched by the city
2:41:15 and presented to the city works session
2:41:19 i'll second okay
2:41:22 and uh christian can you please take a
2:41:25 yes uh but to be clear this isn't
2:41:28 exactly an amendment this is again
2:41:30 adding options to an agenda bill for
2:41:33 discussion for city council but i would
2:41:34 still like to make sure we have
2:41:35 consensus on this
2:41:38 um commissioner voice aye
2:41:42 mr lewis aye
2:41:45 mr monaghan aye mr milligan
2:41:50 aye mr zeracosa aye
2:41:54 and commissioner fall hi okay so that
2:41:57 will be included
2:41:58 in the staff report to city council as
2:42:00 part of the council study session
2:42:03 okay uh is there any other further uh
2:42:05 discussion on this or are
2:42:07 we ready to go ahead and move forward to
2:42:09 the next topic kristin
2:42:11 uh you uh daniel please
2:42:14 correct me if i'm wrong um but there
2:42:16 does need to be a final
2:42:18 does there need to be a final vote or
2:42:20 are they good with the
2:42:21 i believe there does um yeah definitely
2:42:25 so it's a motion to amend
2:42:28 i'm going to let you i'm going to let
2:42:29 you complete the sentence please thank
2:42:32 well so if all the amendments are done
2:42:35 it would just be the vote
2:42:37 on the underlying motion which is to
2:42:39 move this forward
2:42:41 as amended and so the amendments that
2:42:43 have passed would be incorporated into
2:42:46 so your vote is on that amended package
2:42:52 to be clear the two amendments that i
2:42:53 have that you all agreed on that you all
2:42:55 voted on
2:42:56 amendment one uh regarding real estate
2:42:59 science real estate on-premise signs
2:43:00 with yard arms to
2:43:02 go up to six and a half feet plus up to
2:43:05 two riders of one and a half square feet
2:43:07 and amendment two is to change amendment
2:43:09 district signs to business district
2:43:11 kiosks
2:43:13 and garage sale uh signs to four
2:43:17 thank you
2:43:26 so are we waiting for a waiting for a
2:43:29 motion
2:43:30 to approve the uh motions
2:43:33 so the emotions already been made the
2:43:35 amendments are done so if there's no
2:43:37 more discussion or amendments it's just
2:43:39 a roll call vote okay christian please
2:43:42 take the roll call vote
2:43:43 alrighty um commissioner voice
2:43:47 hi mr lewis
2:43:50 hi commissioner monahan
2:43:57 mr monaghan all right
2:44:02 mr milligan hi
2:44:05 commissioner zaragoza hi
2:44:09 and chair fall
2:44:12 right the vote passes unanimously
2:44:15 thank you lucy sloman
2:44:19 good evening have a lovely evening hope
2:44:22 we've set you up for
2:44:23 uh the next item successfully
2:44:28 and thank you daniel kenny for being
2:44:29 here as well and chris gabriel good
2:44:32 night
2:44:33 good night so this is not my meeting but
2:44:35 i am i'm going to do this anyway i am
2:44:37 going to ask we still do have one more
2:44:39 topic and you
2:44:40 may say do we really have to do this
2:44:41 tonight and we do
2:44:43 so um you all may want to take a
2:44:46 five-minute break let me know
2:44:49 are you ready just move on i think we're
2:44:52 ready to move on
2:44:53 all right let's move on thank you i'm
2:44:55 gonna share my screen with you it's my
2:45:10 there we go you all can see this
2:45:19 you all can see this okay yes
2:45:23 all right thank you thank you
2:45:30 that was funny all of you all
2:45:31 disappeared for a minute so um
2:45:33 we are going to have a discussion
2:45:35 regarding the capital improvement plan
2:45:37 and draft capital improvement plan
2:45:39 tonight
2:45:41 so you may recall that on monday night
2:45:43 the city council invited you
2:45:45 and three other boards to participate in
2:45:47 their meeting in a joint meeting
2:45:49 um you all received the draft capital
2:45:51 improvement plan
2:45:53 just before the meeting so um hopefully
2:45:55 you have had a chance to look at it
2:45:56 since then
2:45:57 um the council has asked you to provide
2:45:59 feedback regarding that plan
2:46:01 and since then they have also asked for
2:46:03 some feedback uh regarding monday
2:46:05 night's meeting
2:46:06 and format and if you like being
2:46:08 included if that's the thing you'd like
2:46:09 to continue to do
2:46:11 during this meeting i actually changed
2:46:13 the order and i put next steps first to
2:46:15 explain why we need to discuss this
2:46:17 tonight
2:46:18 so on april 27th the council is going to
2:46:21 have a study session
2:46:22 on may 3rd they're going to have a
2:46:24 public hearing
2:46:26 they need our comments by may 6th
2:46:30 um so that they can take deliberate
2:46:32 consider those and take
2:46:33 council action on may 17th and we do not
2:46:36 have another meeting before then
2:46:38 um or before may 6 so that is why we are
2:46:40 doing this tonight so thank you for
2:46:42 participating um so what is the capital
2:46:46 improvement plan
2:46:47 and i'd like to thank um
2:46:50 susie munson for sharing her powerpoint
2:46:52 with me um you may have seen this before
2:46:54 but we're going to go over it again
2:46:55 really quickly
2:46:56 not all of it uh the capital improvement
2:46:58 plan isn't is not it is a planning
2:47:00 document much like our comprehensive
2:47:02 plan documented as a
2:47:04 high level this is what we would like to
2:47:05 see it is not a budget
2:47:08 um it is a six year plan that is amended
2:47:10 every two years
2:47:12 it is as you know an element in our
2:47:14 comprehensive plan
2:47:16 it informs the annual transportation
2:47:18 improvement program that's updated
2:47:20 every year it allows projects to use
2:47:22 certain
2:47:23 uh restricted revenue sources and it is
2:47:25 subject to change
2:47:27 unlike our comprehensive plan it is also
2:47:30 um it is not a budget doc or a
2:47:33 commitment
2:47:34 it estimates how much money will be
2:47:35 needed but it's not say this is how much
2:47:37 money will be spent
2:47:38 and uh while i'm doing this commissioner
2:47:42 i cannot see comments right now so if
2:47:45 anyone has one
2:47:46 please if you would let me know that
2:47:48 would be great thank you i'll let you
2:47:50 thank you there are as i mentioned in
2:47:53 the memo
2:47:54 six categories that are included capital
2:47:57 equipment
2:47:58 technology and systems municipal
2:48:00 facilities parks and recreation
2:48:02 trails and transportation but what
2:48:04 informs these different topics
2:48:07 as you can see the reason you are here
2:48:09 is because the comprehensive plan
2:48:11 encompasses all of this the capital
2:48:14 improvement plan falls within that and
2:48:15 the transportation improvement program
2:48:17 falls within that
2:48:18 and the capital improvement plan is
2:48:21 informed by our park strategic plan
2:48:23 our mobility master plan our old town
2:48:26 traffic study
2:48:27 community engagement whatever we hear
2:48:28 from the public
2:48:32 um each project that's proposed in this
2:48:35 includes a summary
2:48:36 an estimated cost over the six year
2:48:38 period an anticipated revenue source
2:48:41 where's that money going to come from
2:48:43 estimated ongoing operational costs for
2:48:46 each project
2:48:46 and any strategic plan goal or objective
2:48:49 that it might have
2:48:50 be implementing
2:48:53 the selection criteria for each project
2:48:57 is it a community priority does it
2:48:59 replace
2:49:00 or repair existing infrastructure
2:49:03 does it have an identified funding
2:49:05 source
2:49:06 is there an environmental a positive
2:49:09 environmental impact
2:49:10 to it does it conform or implement these
2:49:13 strategic plan goals and objectives
2:49:16 and does it address life and safety
2:49:18 concerns
2:49:21 here's what council um is looking for
2:49:24 what the mayor asked for
2:49:25 at the monday night meeting does it meet
2:49:28 the selection criteria
2:49:30 that i just showed above what could have
2:49:32 been left out are there
2:49:33 other projects that don't make sense
2:49:35 they don't implement the comprehensive
2:49:37 are there projects that should have been
2:49:38 included that do um
2:49:40 implement the comprehensive plan and
2:49:42 overall does it implement the
2:49:44 comprehensive plan
2:49:46 um so that that's all i have it's very
2:49:48 very brief i didn't want to make it long
2:49:50 um and i can open up the capital
2:49:53 improvement plan if you all would like
2:49:54 to see it
2:49:55 hopefully you had a chance to look at it
2:49:59 so i'm gonna i'll stop sharing my screen
2:50:04 um there we go
2:50:08 yeah so any who wants to kick this off
2:50:10 any thoughts
2:50:15 it's a big topic i know and i hope that
2:50:17 you had time to look at it
2:50:20 so let's let's start with let me just
2:50:22 start with an easier one um
2:50:24 what did you think uh they would like
2:50:26 your feedback on the process
2:50:28 and including the boards and commissions
2:50:30 and how the meeting went on monday night
2:50:32 what were your thoughts on that one
2:50:40 crickets are not allowed commissioner
2:50:43 milligan
2:50:46 actually i'm going to point to
2:50:48 commissioner lewis because she's first
2:50:49 in the chat line do you want to go
2:50:51 first to commissioner lewis oh that's
2:50:53 sweet of you thank you commissioner joy
2:50:55 lewis here
2:50:56 um i'm going to start by saying
2:50:59 how much i appreciated being included in
2:51:01 the discussion i thought it was
2:51:02 fantastic um when we think about the two
2:51:04 years
2:51:05 review of the sif i really hope that uh
2:51:08 staff continues
2:51:09 um you know it was at the direction of
2:51:10 the mayor so i hope that staff continues
2:51:12 to do that i think it was a fantastic
2:51:14 to invite the boards um and i hope that
2:51:18 in the future as um city administrator
2:51:20 popkowicz pointed out that we have
2:51:22 more time with this document um versus
2:51:24 this year
2:51:25 um i've looked at it several times to
2:51:27 also answer your other question kristen
2:51:29 um so so yes it was um it's a fantastic
2:51:33 document i love that you guys want
2:51:35 feedback from all the relevant boards i
2:51:37 love that we're a part of that
2:51:38 um and i think that uh at least i felt
2:51:41 that it was appropriate for me to be
2:51:43 able to
2:51:44 get the information and the presentation
2:51:47 um and
2:51:48 digest it especially since we hadn't
2:51:49 really necessarily seen the full
2:51:51 document
2:51:51 um but it doesn't wasn't the forum for
2:51:53 me to be able to necessarily give
2:51:55 comments so i also appreciate us having
2:51:57 this time to be able to then
2:51:58 reflect and give that feedback back
2:52:04 and um commissioner milligan
2:52:07 all right now i'll take my turn uh thank
2:52:09 you and uh
2:52:11 to the process uh plus one on
2:52:14 engaging all the commissions uh really
2:52:16 great to bring us in
2:52:18 early this is the first time i've seen
2:52:19 that happen and really appreciate that
2:52:20 from the
2:52:21 the administration and a very good
2:52:23 turnout at that meeting so it was
2:52:25 affirming that
2:52:26 we were all very interested one of the
2:52:28 things that popped up in my mind and i
2:52:30 remember just a little bit of a
2:52:31 conversation was
2:52:33 finding the selection criteria helpful
2:52:36 but not very transparent to me
2:52:38 because it didn't tell me how much
2:52:42 each of those things mattered and
2:52:45 how that you know kind of a scoring sort
2:52:47 of thing what's what's behind that
2:52:49 selection criteria
2:52:50 was still somewhat mysterious so that
2:52:53 was one of my
2:52:54 my thoughts and looking at the process
2:52:57 right
2:53:01 anyone else process
2:53:05 okay and minor is zero
2:53:10 okay and commissioner voice
2:53:16 thank you sir foul uh get a second my
2:53:19 colleagues here
2:53:20 commissioner lewis and commissioner
2:53:22 milligan um thought it was wonderful to
2:53:24 be invited
2:53:25 everybody likes to get invited to the
2:53:26 dance and it was a sweet dance and like
2:53:29 i said i think the
2:53:30 council did a good job i think i
2:53:32 appreciate the mayor
2:53:33 and the administration inviting us to
2:53:35 basically take part
2:53:37 part in it and i thought the actual
2:53:40 the presentation was really done really
2:53:42 well and
2:53:43 one thing that i noticed is in the
2:53:45 strategic plan there's two charts and
2:53:47 i'm looking at them right now
2:53:49 and it seems like the city's basically
2:53:51 like the project count the project cost
2:53:53 i thought that was pretty interesting
2:53:54 that those pretty much
2:53:56 well line up so looking at some of the
2:53:58 percentages
2:54:00 i didn't really see like they didn't
2:54:02 seem to be out of balance
2:54:04 they had mentioned that infrastructure
2:54:06 is obviously a big part of where we're
2:54:07 going to be spending a lot of money
2:54:09 and it is a big part of also the project
2:54:11 account i mean they're almost similar
2:54:13 and i thought that was pretty intriguing
2:54:15 to look at
2:54:16 you could almost overlap those two
2:54:18 graphs
2:54:19 so it seems like the city has some seems
2:54:22 like their priorities appear to be in
2:54:23 the right
2:54:24 place i mean haven't had enough time to
2:54:26 actually go through project by project
2:54:28 as far as just the percentage of what's
2:54:30 being cut up and how it's being
2:54:32 addressed seems to line up pretty well
2:54:35 so at this point um that's
2:54:39 my thinking
2:54:47 okay um any thoughts on
2:54:50 the plan itself actually commissioner
2:54:53 ford's just had one but any other
2:54:54 thoughts on the plan itself
2:54:57 um do you feel like it implements what
2:54:58 the comprehensive plan
2:55:01 divisions and the goals policies
2:55:05 i see a question from commissioner lewis
2:55:10 thank you commissioner joy lewis here uh
2:55:12 before
2:55:13 i dive into comments i do want to hear
2:55:15 from some other
2:55:17 members but they did have a question
2:55:20 about
2:55:20 why the projected revenue for the school
2:55:22 zone safety fund
2:55:24 is the same every year there's a fixed
2:55:27 amount
2:55:28 um and i'm not looking at right now it's
2:55:29 like 650 or 800 150 hundred thousand
2:55:31 dollars
2:55:32 um but it's being accrued from tickets
2:55:35 being issued
2:55:36 in you know um in this speed zone and
2:55:39 funds should fluctuate
2:55:41 and in theory as the community
2:55:44 lives and breeds and works i was like
2:55:46 hey i'm tired of getting these tickets
2:55:47 right revenues should also be declining
2:55:49 as well
2:55:50 um and then i'm curious because our
2:55:52 chart begins in 2022
2:55:54 but there should be very little funding
2:55:56 in 2020 right there was no school zones
2:55:59 in effect for the majority of the year
2:56:00 therefore there would be very little
2:56:02 revenue collected so how did the fund
2:56:04 stay so high um i i know that's i i know
2:56:08 that we're looking at this from um
2:56:10 from a a macro and not a micro but i
2:56:14 couldn't help but notice
2:56:15 that that was um seemed it seemed a
2:56:17 little strange to me
2:56:20 i'll include that in the questions
2:56:26 anything else
2:56:30 commissioner milligan i think wait yes
2:56:33 mr millington okay thanks uh yeah
2:56:36 it's such a big document oh my god you
2:56:38 know what i'm trying to um
2:56:40 go to all the places where the i-90
2:56:44 crossing is and trying to evaluate
2:56:47 whether it has
2:56:48 its due priority uh and and that goes
2:56:51 back to the
2:56:52 the criteria you know are each of those
2:56:55 columns
2:56:56 do they each equal or is a community
2:56:59 priority a community priority
2:57:01 and the timeliness of the crossing
2:57:03 especially as it pertains to
2:57:05 mass transit and sound transit plans to
2:57:08 get ahead of that
2:57:10 for it to fall in as a check
2:57:13 when that check is a big fat check um
2:57:17 i you know i just don't know how that
2:57:18 plays out in making sure that it gets
2:57:20 prioritized when it comes to budgeting
2:57:23 so that's the 10th 12th avenue
2:57:28 overcrossing uh and then i just want to
2:57:31 sneak in one more little comment here
2:57:32 i'm not sure how
2:57:33 you're going to ask about this one but i
2:57:35 i want to make sure i
2:57:36 um plus one to council member ray
2:57:40 who brought up the
2:57:43 observation that there was no bonding
2:57:46 involved in the funding of the
2:57:48 short term the near term projects
2:57:52 and that it was a very welcome
2:57:56 characteristic in the cip
2:58:07 thank you uh commissioner voice
2:58:12 this is in response to commissioner
2:58:14 lewis i'm pretty sure how i i
2:58:15 know how they're doing the safety school
2:58:18 funding it's because they keep picking
2:58:19 on me
2:58:20 and um i i've got a lot of questions
2:58:24 about how these cameras work because
2:58:27 yeah anyway i know we're on camera so
2:58:29 this is funny but uh
2:58:31 i don't understand how people are not in
2:58:33 school and i'm picking up these
2:58:34 these tickets so i've got more questions
2:58:37 right now than answers about that
2:58:38 particular part so
2:58:40 anyway for what it's worth
2:58:50 mr monahan yeah sorry to kind of zoom in
2:58:54 here but one thing that did
2:58:56 jump out at me was um the dog park
2:58:58 completion year is all the way out in
2:59:01 i'm just curious why it feels like
2:59:03 there's been a dog park coming for a
2:59:05 very long time
2:59:06 and pushing it another two years i know
2:59:08 i think there was a temporary dog park
2:59:11 by the farmers market earlier on i
2:59:14 thought i saw it there last year but now
2:59:16 the last time i drove by it it's down
2:59:18 i'm gonna call them test sites they were
2:59:21 moving and moving
2:59:22 it around i think they had three
2:59:24 different sites that they were testing
2:59:25 and finally decided on one
2:59:27 so now that if the site has been decided
2:59:29 it needs to be planned and then
2:59:32 you know funding identified and so two
2:59:34 years is typical for that i just
2:59:36 yes if we can pull that to the left at
2:59:38 all it'd be great but
2:59:39 okay all right
2:59:45 i like that pull it to the left uh
2:59:47 commissioner
2:59:48 lewis yeah sorry boeing speak there
2:59:53 mr lewis thank you commissioner joy
2:59:56 lewis
2:59:56 since we're i think we're going to do
2:59:58 this in reverse since we're kind of
2:59:59 talking about micro projects i didn't
3:00:00 want to mention
3:00:01 um i'm confused how we have so many
3:00:04 items for storm water utility
3:00:06 when we don't have our stormwater master
3:00:08 plan implementation even in front of us
3:00:11 so it seemed a little chicken and eggy
3:00:13 to me unless
3:00:14 you guys have been squirreling something
3:00:15 away but like we're just not going to
3:00:17 give it to you yet
3:00:18 so i was i was a little confused on we
3:00:20 had so many specific work items one of
3:00:22 them being
3:00:23 the master plan implementation and i'm
3:00:26 like okay well we could kind of use the
3:00:29 so i had a little it was hard for me to
3:00:30 be able to um and i started to evaluate
3:00:33 the projects right because you look at
3:00:35 these things and you're like yes now
3:00:37 please right you know but it's hard for
3:00:40 me to be able to make any comments on
3:00:42 that particular
3:00:43 uh slice of it because we haven't seen
3:00:45 the plan
3:00:47 but if we are cherry-picking projects
3:00:49 the laughing jacobs creek
3:00:51 channel enhancement support i would love
3:00:53 to see that moved up
3:00:54 um you know when we talk about
3:00:55 timetables there's nothing on 2022
3:00:58 and it doesn't look like completion
3:00:59 until 2025.
3:01:01 we recently had gotten those stats
3:01:04 in the monday meeting about uh the
3:01:06 company run
3:01:08 increasing right it's a value in our
3:01:10 community that we want to place
3:01:12 i know there's been a lot of discussion
3:01:13 about the laughing jacobs creek when we
3:01:15 did the school
3:01:17 project for the double school that's
3:01:18 going in um
3:01:20 next to providence point um i think it's
3:01:22 a high priority and so if we're
3:01:24 voicing um again not wanting to take too
3:01:27 much of a micro view
3:01:28 um to say that i think that this looks
3:01:30 like one that needs to be um
3:01:32 addressed as quickly as possible um i am
3:01:35 going to jump in for the sake
3:01:36 of expediting things my
3:01:39 my big takeaway from this is that what i
3:01:42 would like to see
3:01:43 is that the sip reflect the values of
3:01:45 our community
3:01:47 i think one of the biggest things that
3:01:48 we've been talking about coming off of
3:01:51 charging the creation of environmental
3:01:53 board is to really have us
3:01:55 put effectively our budget where our
3:01:56 values are right
3:01:58 and to say that if we believe that we
3:02:01 are a community that holds these
3:02:02 particular values how are we spending
3:02:04 our money
3:02:05 so i think a good example of that might
3:02:07 be um
3:02:08 you know the investment in some of the
3:02:10 city's infrastructure we have capital
3:02:12 equipment needs that are called out
3:02:13 obviously some things are like pump
3:02:15 equipment that may be the pump equipment
3:02:17 that they are
3:02:18 but if we're investing in fleet vehicles
3:02:20 um if we're investing in
3:02:22 i believe one of them was maintenance
3:02:24 crews need to be able to have more
3:02:25 vehicles to do their job
3:02:27 these should all be clean running
3:02:29 vehicles they should all be all electric
3:02:31 right if we
3:02:32 hold these values for others in our
3:02:34 community we need to be the front face
3:02:36 of that
3:02:37 um in addition to that what i didn't see
3:02:39 was any kind of plan for retrofitting
3:02:41 all of our community buildings
3:02:44 we know that there's going to be
3:02:45 unprecedented amounts
3:02:47 of funding from the federal government
3:02:50 green technologies or for green
3:02:52 infrastructure and i would like our city
3:02:54 to be ready and that doesn't mean just
3:02:55 ready to be able to apply for these
3:02:57 grants as the money starts to come
3:02:58 available
3:02:59 we need an actual plan right this isn't
3:03:01 something where you can just say oh yeah
3:03:03 it needs to happen right so we had a
3:03:04 couple of work items that were things
3:03:07 updating flooring right we had a couple
3:03:08 things like hey we need to be able to
3:03:10 update the hvac systems right and i
3:03:12 would assume that whoever is doing that
3:03:14 is going to be putting in
3:03:15 the most efficient things possible but
3:03:17 retrofitting our buildings
3:03:19 um away from gas towards electric
3:03:22 is a much bigger plan and i would have
3:03:24 liked to see a work item that reflected
3:03:26 these uh green infrastructure priorities
3:03:30 that we hold as a community
3:03:32 throughout the sip so that was that's
3:03:33 kind of my big
3:03:35 thirty thousand feet take away is to say
3:03:37 how can we make
3:03:38 these projects align more closely to
3:03:41 what we know
3:03:42 are very pressing deadlines for climate
3:03:52 um i will say commissioner lewis as far
3:03:56 as the storm water items the number of
3:03:58 items that were there because
3:04:00 um gary schneck is coming to our next
3:04:02 meeting to talk schmeck is coming to our
3:04:04 next meeting to talk about the storm
3:04:05 water and
3:04:06 storm and surface water plan you can ask
3:04:09 him some of those questions then
3:04:11 very timely any other comments from you
3:04:20 you didn't have much time slime
3:04:21 impressed yeah
3:04:24 all right
3:04:28 commissioner fall okay so
3:04:31 with that we are going to move to the
3:04:35 next item which is reports
3:04:41 so i've been i have been um relaxed all
3:04:44 night and introduced myself kristen
3:04:45 leason senior player i apologize
3:04:48 um so reports i don't have much i sent
3:04:50 you all
3:04:51 um the minutes and the video from the
3:04:55 april 5th meeting
3:04:56 when city council approved with changes
3:04:59 the electric vehicle charging stations
3:05:02 so if you haven't had a chance to take a
3:05:04 at that you might want to do so also at
3:05:06 our next meeting
3:05:07 um i should let you know that we will
3:05:08 have a new commissioner sarah bader will
3:05:10 be joining us she is an architect and
3:05:11 was a
3:05:12 town planner in um europe over in
3:05:15 england
3:05:16 and now work she uh i wish i could have
3:05:19 pulled up her
3:05:20 resume tonight but i couldn't pull it up
3:05:21 but um it's sort of an equity
3:05:24 group um finding ways to do equity so
3:05:26 she's got
3:05:27 you know very well-rounded background
3:05:29 that she'll be bringing
3:05:30 um to our group um
3:05:33 as i mentioned at the next meeting we
3:05:36 will a few things we will be doing
3:05:37 elections
3:05:38 for chair and vice chair um joan
3:05:42 and janice will no longer be with us we
3:05:43 will be doing those elections first
3:05:45 followed by training
3:05:47 we will have tina eggers our city clerk
3:05:49 will be here as well as jim haney our
3:05:51 city attorney
3:05:52 will be here as well to discuss our
3:05:54 bylaws which i will send you and process
3:05:56 and procedure
3:05:57 and all sorts of good stuff that we
3:05:59 clearly need a little um
3:06:00 brushing up on and after that we have
3:06:03 gary schmeck coming
3:06:04 to talk about the storm and
3:06:07 uh i keep messing it up i'm just gonna
3:06:10 call it wastewater plant it's a storm
3:06:11 storm water management plan um he'll be
3:06:13 coming to talk about that
3:06:15 so those are my reports that's all i
3:06:18 okay thanks kristen uh connor carson
3:06:21 uh so we're gonna go ahead and open it
3:06:24 up to
3:06:25 public comments uh christian has anyone
3:06:27 signed up for public comments
3:06:40 can't hear you
3:06:45 all right thank you i forgot i muted
3:06:46 myself we have one uh
3:06:48 person still remaining it's julian
3:06:50 middle if you'd like to
3:06:51 speak would you please raise your hand
3:06:54 or make a note in the comments
3:07:05 i'll give you another second if you'd
3:07:06 like to do that
3:07:13 i'm not seeing any no more comments
3:07:17 okay thanks uh planner christian so
3:07:19 we're gonna go ahead and close this out
3:07:20 and uh is there any other business or
3:07:22 announcements you would like to make
3:07:29 better christian no i'm sorry it's okay
3:07:34 does anyone else have any questions or
3:07:36 regarding uh the upcoming schedule
3:07:41 we haven't talked about the schedule yet
3:07:42 uh i do have one
3:07:44 brief comment uh our uh
3:07:47 director minnie dollywall and i were
3:07:49 talking about it earlier and there are
3:07:51 several spaces in there where it says
3:07:53 and i don't want you to think that we're
3:07:55 not going to have anything to do
3:07:56 um title 18 is coming and those will all
3:07:58 be filled with title 18
3:08:00 topics we just haven't figured out
3:08:02 exactly which ones will be coming first
3:08:04 so those those will be on our schedule
3:08:06 as well yeah on that this is mini dolly
3:08:09 well um
3:08:10 council approved on monday night uh the
3:08:13 the contract
3:08:14 for uh some of the consultants and and
3:08:17 overall consultant so we're going to get
3:08:20 that uh started um and for this team
3:08:23 that means a lot of reading
3:08:25 um so we're going to try and break it
3:08:29 pieces that will that are logical and
3:08:32 can you know spread spread out uh the
3:08:35 amount of
3:08:35 effort that's going to be needed for
3:08:37 from this group
3:08:38 so um yeah we'll we'll try our best if
3:08:42 you have any feedback you know reach out
3:08:43 to kristin or me and let me know
3:08:46 um your preference um we're trying to
3:08:50 uh put it into buckets so that we can
3:08:52 kind of move it along but also not
3:08:54 inundate you with a lot of uh
3:08:56 code nuances and maybe possibly break it
3:08:59 into policy questions first
3:09:01 per topic so that we get some guidance
3:09:03 on that and then craft the code language
3:09:06 more more information to come but
3:09:07 there'll be a lot of a lot of time
3:09:09 and a lot of meetings spent on on that
3:09:11 overhaul
3:09:15 okay thank you very much uh mini doll uh
3:09:18 so the next meeting will be may 13th
3:09:21 followed by
3:09:21 may 27th and with that i will go ahead
3:09:25 and bring the meeting to adjournment
3:09:27 and i think your commissioner foul
3:09:30 yes there seems to be a a point a good
3:09:33 of the order
3:09:34 from commissioner lewis oh
3:09:37 oh go to the order okay sorry i didn't
3:09:39 see it
3:09:40 thank you commissioner joy lewis here um
3:09:42 i wanted to say that since we last met
3:09:44 uh the city announced a partnership uh
3:09:47 with this uh with the tribe
3:09:48 of snoqualmie as well as the city of
3:09:51 sammamish and
3:09:52 uh with eastside fire and rescue and i
3:09:54 wanted to say thank you
3:09:55 to all the people who worked on that i
3:09:58 second that
3:10:00 all in favor hi
3:10:04 excellent okay with that we are now
3:10:06 we're going to adjourn
3:10:08 time is 9 40 p.m
3:10:14 thanks everybody for putting up with me

Attendance

Council / Members (9)
Administration/Staff/Others: Ron Faul
Christen Leeson
Senior Planner Joy Lewis Lucy Sloman
Land Dev. Manager Nina Milligan Minnie Dhaliwal
CP&D Director Matt Monahan Daniel Kenny
Ogden Murphy Wallace Jason Voiss Chris Grabowski
Code Enforcement Richard Zaragoza
Alternate (voting) Officer Commissioners Not Present: Joan Probala
(Excused) Janice Carle (Excused)