All right.

Can everyone hear me?

Testing testing.

All right, welcome to planning commission.

On this lovely rainy day on April 2nd, 2026.

All the meeting to order.

And who's driving today?

Is it I don't know.

We'll uh we'll move into item two.

We'll move into item two, and I'm not sure who's presenting to us.

Okay.

Yeah, we have the special alarm.

Some of our kind of required against the guys are awesome.

Hey, uh find fragment and the options.

I didn't want it to I agree.

So I could tell.

Yeah, they're gonna present to us and let us know the uh you guys want to introduce yourself and then you can uh yeah uh we are the BYU group.

I'm Grace Gibson, um and I'm Kezia Tripp.

I'm a civil engineering master student.

Marcus Fisher.

And I'm Aaron Christensen, also a civil engineering master student.

So this is just um did you wanna okay great.

This is just a little overview of what we've been working on.

We've been working to model future growth using different land uses.

We're wanting to estimate build-out capacity under different development patterns and how those different development patterns might change fiscal impact, so how the revenue and expenditures are gonna fluctuate as those development patterns change, and then just be able to put this all into a report that we're writing, and we'll have to Mike in a couple of weeks.

So if you're interested in that, he can probably pass that along.

And it's just gonna help identify trade-offs in different batter development patterns and how that can inform planning decisions.

Um yeah.

And then this is just a brief community overview to kind of help you gauge where we're coming from that's been informing our decision making process, um, knowing that Lehigh is growing so fast and that this growth trajectory trajectory is expected to continue going into 2050, which is the year where we are kind of gauging our scenarios at.

Um yeah.

Um and then for our model assumptions, we are using a program called Community Viz, which is just an add-on into ArcGIS.

And that's what we've been using, and so these are kind of the assumptions that we've been putting into our model.

Okay.

Um so as far as land uses go, we did decide to consolidate some of the different land use types of the general plan.

Um we focused mostly on commercial, residential, and then um open spaces because they have different revenue and expenditures based on each of the land use types.

Um then we also decided to separate the commercial and then the retail commercial because of sales tax.

Uh as far as residential land uses go, we've just there's five that are on the general plan, but we decided to break them into three different categories so that it could be more understandable.

High medium and low density residential.

Um as you can see on this little chart, the high density has 12 units per acre, the medium density has five units per acre, and then low density has two units per acre.

Um as the density decreases the land or the square foot per unit increases and the value per unit also increases.

Um so then with mixed use and transit-oriented development, we chose different um splits for land uses.

So in mixed use, 75% residential and 25% retail, and within uh transit oriented developments, 50% residential, 25% commercial, 20% retail, and 5% open space or parks.

Yeah, and most of our assumptions were gathered from either a little bit of research that we've done or from what we've seen kind of in Lehigh about to be typical.

Um and then our kind of next list of assumptions, which is also not exhaustive of all the assumptions that we've made, those will all be in the report.

I'm sure we can provide you with a list if you're interested.

Um so we've got like our property tax using the portion of the property tax rate that um kind of comes to is not uh comes to like Lehigh city level as opposed to the state level, and then the sales tax count a lot of these were calculated using the fiscal 2026 fiscal year budget and then divided by whatever units that we had access to.

So for sales tax, the total amount of anticipated revenue for 2026 from sales tax divided by the numbers square feet of um retail buildings currently that are currently in use, and then for expenditures, once again using that budget and the expenses related to police and fire divided by an assumed kind of 30,000 existing housing units in Lehigh and a road cost per lane mile that was provided by the city, as well as a parks cost that was calculated from the budget divided by the assumed kind of 268 acres of parks that presumably exist currently in Lehigh, utility cost that was used by totaling the linear foot or linear feet of the culinary irrigation, sewer and storm utilities on GIS and dividing that from the budget once again, and then public facilities being kind of a flat rate of things like the library and other facilities that we assumed would be kind of collective.

And then a couple of formulas that we used in our model, um, which are mostly just taking what we so we started for the most part with parcels and the general plan um GIS map, which gives us stuff in acres, and so just moving that kind of into dollars, a couple of those ideas, for example, with our property revenues kind of from property taxes, acres to then square feet, which is 43560 is that conversion, and then the floor area ratio to identify how much of that is the building times the valuation sort of parameter of like 200 per square foot, um, and then times the property tax and then proportionate whether it's retail or commercial, and then times 14% to represent what Lehigh gets total out of the property tax.

So these are some of our preliminary results.

We have been learning how to use this software.

So a lot of this isn't 100% accurate yet.

We've been getting a lot closer.

Our first results were like crazy numbers that we're like that can't be right.

But as we can see from our base scenario versus our build-out scenario, um, obviously when things are built out, there's gonna be more commercial retail to get more um revenue.

But within our totaling to revenue minus expenditures, we've been comparing it to the 2026 budget, and we've gotten down to 2 million, almost 3 million.

Um net profit, I guess, which obviously that should net zero, but that shows that our model is in the right direction, and so it is able to compare what we have modeled from our base scenario to our build-out.

Um, and it is worth noting that our build out is full build out.

So with our residential assumption of 12 housing units per acre, all of the housing that is zoned as high density residential is 12 units per acre.

And so that is a consideration that these assumptions are it is fully built out.

Um great, and then these are the three main points we're going to be working on in our final report, but just kind of a overview of what we're going to be looking at and analyzing is the projected long-term fiscal sustainability of this full build-out scenario.

Um, budget flexibility, depending on how that scenario changes and what development patterns we end up going with in different scenarios, and then just commercial properties and how that might impact um the budget, fiscal sustainability as commercial percentages might go up or down, depending on the scenarios.

Um, so speaking of future scenarios that might be we've we've been in discussion about what might be most useful to you, and this is kind of the feedback we were hoping to hear about what kind of scenarios feel like they are going to be of the most interest and use to you.

Um, but we were discussing maybe a medium build-out, low build out, um, a build out with different TOD splits, um, a scenario with more commercial, a scenario with more mixed use, more TOD, and what kind of numbers you might be looking for in those TODs mixed uses.

Great, thank you.

So, yeah.

I don't know if you guys have feedback on what kind of models would be useful, what kind of things you would hope to get out of this project as we are concluding with our final remarks and creating other models.

Question for your build out and your modeling, are you considering office as commercial?

Okay, and are you planning to split those in retail and office?

It sounded like you were.

Yeah, so so under commercial, so commercial, it's all like zoned as commercial, and we decided about 20% of the commercial was considered retail based on that's the current proportion of retail to within the commercial in Lehigh.

Based on that's the current proportion of retail to within the commercial in Lehigh.

So we maintained that so commercial we probably should use another word but if it's called commercial then it's just like office space the point being there's no sales tax revenue and then retail was technically a subsection of commercial but the parts of it that provide sales tax revenue.

No Ken no through my code we can say okay.

Yeah.

Yeah yet again I'm uh I'm in on a day Katie's out so if I can cover for Katie but um I was tasked I'm Ken Peterson by the way I know I've met most of you guys from the last time I covered a plan commission but I've been tasked with mapping out most of the pylon signs in Lehigh and pretty much giving context to the discussion that we'll have later it's fiery discussion I'm sure on pylon signs.

But anyway so first of all just to review real quick uh try to get some definition straight on what a pile and sign is as far as the code can code is concerned it's pretty much any freestanding design above fourteen feet and it usually includes an elevated sign cabinet that's over six feet and its main purpose is visibility from arterial roads and the standard limit is twenty five feet and two hundred square feet per signed base.

So sure do you I'm sure you guys know most of the stuff but one pylon sign is allowed for our arterial or collector street frontage on commercial lots of three art acres or larger but if they if the lot is less than three acres one pile and sign can still be granted if the lot is within three hundred feet of I 15 or within one thousand feet of an I fifteen interchange if the sign is oriented for freeway viewing which most are the sign is owned by a hotel gas station or restaurant or if the commercial lot has more than 300 feet of street frontage.

And the main thing is that it must be architecturally compatible with the development in the area and an electronic display can only use up to 50% of sign area as well as pole covers as you could see here on the right hand side JCW's and hand Hampton sign that's more of the old school single pole in nineties or so eighties or nines would be my guess and then on the left you can see the outlet sign it's more of the standard um more structural integrity looking at least as far as the yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah we'll leave any arterial road is open to yeah like a double check with Kim but that's what I that would be my guess but

would be my guess and then on the left you can see the outlet sign it's more of the standard uh more structural integrity looking at least as far as the yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I believe any arterial road is open to yeah like a double check with Kim but that's what I that would be my guess but yeah we need to go back yeah I know over here um however there are exceptions to the main um main pile and sign rules as we know and about half of the signs from what I studied has been granted exceptions and are over 25 feet and this includes like Mike said businesses next to structures that are blocking visibility of a sign lots within 300 feet of I-15 or a thousand feet of nine fifteen interchange and this has an absolute max height of 70 feet in this case and a sign face max of 600 feet however as you guys know there's some special exceptions to the 70 feet um rule or code as multi-tenant retail centers can apply for more sides up to planning commission's discretion and as with all pylon signs they will all have to go through planning commission to determine additional height beyond 25 beyond 70 in this case the outlet sign is a hundred feet tall just to give you guys give you guys some perspective on sign situation right now in Lehigh you can see down here in the red circle I'll show you a few signs in a sec but you can see a lot individual signs kind of bunched up together middle area and I'm sure when you go down high 15 you can see a bunch of old school pole signs in this area I kind of can't I can't unsee it now driving through just the sheer quantity of Shishka walls it's like says driving through this area and just to give you a little perspective most are between 60 and 75 feet as far as these poll signs go um including McDonald's and this windy sign a lot don't have as much city records so had to dive pretty deep into some handwritten engineering notes and stuff like that with Noreen's help which was which was interesting but yeah just to give you guys a little bit of perspective that that's kind of what we're looking at down there looking to the other side you also have Chuparama at 65 Holiday at 60 looking up towards Traverse mountain area and including the 2100 and SR92 intersections most of the signs that they are more updated and more multi-tenant focused less of the pole Shishkab type sign this sign 60 feet tall with the ridge this is at the corner digital drive and SR92 and this lone peak sign just north of Zuba's is 70 feet tall and it includes more multi-tenant options another important note to mention is I guess this would be a good example of including the architectural features and including making it cohesive with the site that was a big thing with the outlet sign was has to be consistent with the rest of the site in order for it to get planning commission approval and of course everything will go through um you guys yeah any uh any further questions or any specific signs you want me to look up is the thing yeah yeah it's the biggest one background here it's just interesting our code our code puts a limit of 25 feet but then it says specifically in the code that we can go up to 75 feet so everybody that comes in asks for 75 feet.

Where did we pull that up to 75 foot number out?

Why is that in our code?

Um what I I don't know the history exactly, but what I understand is I 15, those poll signs were in before there was much.

I mean the code's extremely robust now, but before there was definite rules, it seemed like those kind of set the standard for what we have now.

And those were around 60 to 70 feet.

So I I believe that's I'd assume that's where the number came from, Kim.

Something like that, but mostly in response to I-15, what I understand.

But that that's what I did find interesting is that you have a lot acts at 25, but over 50% have gotten exceptions to 25 feet.

Which is kind of surprising to me.

Have you done a any comparisons with other uh cities that are about our size?

Yeah, I've looked at a few in American work and they have a similar in their older area along I-15, and so they don't have as long of a stretch as Lehigh does.

And a lot of the um kind of like the Chukarama and Hampton N type sign from what I can do.

Do they have do they they have any outliers like the outlet sign that's just enormous?

I don't think so.

Is that is that the biggest sign south of the biggest sign?

Maybe West of the Mississippi.

Yeah, maybe not in Vegas though, but um, I know we talk about the monopole as kind of antiquated, kind of an older design.

I agree that it is an older design.

It's something we've seen for decades.

However, it is less offensive, right?

To the environment because it's you can't put as big of a sign on it as far as square footage of the frontage of the sign for the face.

And it's it's it's kind of like that catch 22 where people come in and with the cell phone towers or or things like that that say, oh, let's turn it into a tree or turn it into something else for stealth.

And then it just makes it more of an eyesore when a monopole with a cell phone tower on top of it almost disappears into your mind, right?

Because anyway.

So yes, I see these big these newer signs.

They are there's more engineering that goes into them, and they are prettier per se.

But they cover up more square footage, they block the views of the natural beauty that we have around us.

Did you know that I don't like signs?

Oh yeah.

Of course.

I just oh square footage of signs.

Um like I said, usually it's 200 feet, but as you guys sure know it's usually usually asked for more if they are going above 25 feet because as you said, kind of want to max it out for advertising and how to scale.

Kim says a lot of the older signs don't have uh much data on square feet, like that McDonald's sign, can't get anything on the McDonald's sign or the KFC sign, and that's more of a 3D sign.

But yeah, I believe the traverse is also stretching that definitely above the 600 as well.

And that was kind of like uh exception in the code to decline and commission some leeway in that sense as far as multi-tenant goes.

And kind of what you're saying, Tyson, it seems like there's kind of it's kind of a catch 22 for the trade-off.

It seems like they come in and say, Listen, we have this sign, but it's gonna cover multiple tenants, and that that will be the main thing.

And I guess that's the difference between Main Street and Traverse Mountain right now.

It's less signs, more tenants, but bigger signs as opposed to single monopoles, more monopoles.

But signs.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But definitely does block that view attempt coming down high lifting for sure.

Um go ahead.

Yeah, well we take this into I mean the the statistics are are valuable to inform the conversation.

Uh I'd love for us to get more to the actual regulation piece of my years on the commission.

It has been my impression that uh we do not have good justifications for what our what our regulations are.

They feel um very arbitrary.

Now that is not while I do not, I mean, no one can achieve the great loathing for signs that's heights and it's it's a singular accomplishment.

We respect and appreciate him for for that commitment to such such loathing.

Uh it's admirable.

Uh nonetheless, I take the man's point, right?

Uh now signs can in fact also be an absolute work of art.

I am not aware of any in the city of Lehigh, to be frank.

Um, to be fair, my my background, I used to when I was young, I worked for Yesco, young electric sign company.

I have seen signs that truly are just they're majestic, and I'm not aware of any in the city of Lehigh with zero offense to our our current signs.

But all that said, um, there's never been a real in-depth explanation as to why we're capping at what feet.

There's been a few nods at times about well, moving at certain miles per hour, being able to see it, okay.

But I've not heard anyone, and this isn't a you know, I'm not trying to throw barbs at be it staff, other commissioners, you know, what whatever.

I don't have the answers, but I would like to know, you know, what where are we getting these numbers from?

Why should we cap it at X?

Um, what should we be considering if we're looking at uh giving some sort of allowance or making an exception?

Uh it feels like people come in and we do cave pretty quickly, in part because we don't have a good justification for why we had the rules in the first place.

So it's kind of hard to then say, but you really need to stick by this because we can't defend it.

So that's where I'd like to take things.

Yeah, totally.

And sorry, I don't want to sound like or anything like that.

Definitely not, but um yeah, after reading through a lot of the minutes planning commission report like that back in like 10, 2015, 2000s, a lot of times we come in the same thing where they come in, planning commission say no way, happening, come back two months later, maybe planning commission members have changed.

Goes right through.

So it's fine.

And they didn't even use the sign, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Same sign, so same same size and everything.

I I agree on that.

I I kind of feel like we're we should be getting away from the tall signs because if I'm traveling, if I'm in an unfamiliar city, I'm Google mapping it.

You know, I'm not I'm not just gonna go back on the freeway and look around for the sign to you know, a grocery store or or a McDonald's.

I might see McDonald's.

And um just because that's so so familiar.

But you should we be considering what the world is like now versus 2003 or whatever when we needed to be able to see, should I get off now?

Um because people are if they need it, they're going to punch it into their phone and find it.

Yeah, totally.

I guess a lot of times you seem to be competing with signs already in place that can't come down.

But if if I'm a small business owner, I'm gonna remind you that um people aren't maybe thinking that they want to eat at McDonald's, but they see those golden arches every day, and now they're thinking I want McDonald's tonight because they saw it on Tuesday and they saw it on Sunday, and that's an important part of their advertising.

So uh not taken away from from your point, but I I just think that would get countered quickly by um pretty much in any business would want to push back on that.

Doesn't mean there's there's no validity, but there's no side to back point, that's all right, sure.

In an ideal world, no signs at all scape would be great for me.

Yeah.

I was just gonna say to uh kind of your earlier thing, like the 70-foot limitation was the you know, reasoning behind that.

I don't know if they're us Kim knows something different.

I don't know if there's any strong reasoning as to why that was set.

That was my impression.

It's probably a little bit arbitrary.

The only thing I would say is zoning standards, as long as they don't infringe on the fundamental rights, they have to just be based on a rational basis test.

So writing a policy or something like the council have to say, but look, we're making this policy because it's doing this, and as long as it's rational, it's rational sense, you can typically uphold the zoning standard in court or whatever happens if it gets challenged.

Like for the signage, I think the I mean it's all over the place.

But in the past, and we want to minimize signage and the visual clutter it makes, especially with our view of our mountains.

The idea is we're gonna cap the sign height at 25 and go higher.

The applicants should provide good justification based on look, we've got a free overpass, we just want a certain amount of visibility.

The idea is you know, you minimize the sign height, you only bring it up to the height that you still get that visibility that you're looking for that a business would want on a highway.

One time Kim and I were at a conference down in Atlanta and we're driving on one of the freeways right out of the town.

Those darn signs were so tall, you have to let you window like this.

Why are they so tall?

It's I don't know if you go too tall, that actually might even be harder to see than as close to reasonable eye level as possible.

So anyway, just a little bit I appreciate that.

Uh and Mike, uh while uh defending a uh defending the code on the basis of it's not insane, right?

It's rational.

I can understand that that might be uh legally justifiable, but what I'm saying is if we're gonna have a conversation about what our regulations are, let's not do what happens to be rationally justifiable.

Let's do what's optimal.

I we do sound studies, parking studies.

We there is a study for everything.

I can't imagine that there aren't uh means, and I say this not as a professional staffer, right?

So I could be wrong here.

I just can't fathom that that there aren't a number of studies already done, or that we aren't capable of doing one that would really give us a good indicator that you know what 75 isn't actually the the magic ticket at 60, there's no need to go higher, people are gonna see what they need, and we're seeing more of the mountains.

It is scientifically proven that those other 15 feet do nothing.

We should now lower the standard and hold to it.

Or you know, it is it even the inverse.

Are we genuinely somehow costing uh Lehigh businesses five percent of what they would otherwise be earning per year because our signs are five feet too low?

I mean, uh am I making some sort of sense here?

I was gonna say I makes total sense, and I'm not saying that we should just make code wheelie-nilly, just like I feared it might come that way.

I didn't need that.

But you know, there's a big difference between this is rational and this is you know, I've studied it, and this is the right number.

And I would just prefer we're we're in that camp.

That second camp.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

No, and we we would want to, and I can't say we've done that kind of research on this yet or other cities.

Uh double why don't we do that and then let's and then code accordingly.

That to me is is the thing to do.

Yeah, yeah.

Ultimately, it'll be kind of your mission is planning commission, the council, the policy makers to say what they feel the important thing here is it more on the side of business, is it more inside of observing the views, and that would be up to them.

But I do think it would be nice to understand here's some standard practice for visibility of signs, and at least have that to based off of sure that this is included.

You say studies thank you, studies revolving.

I'm also thinking there's got to be a study that tracks the actual like yeah, so signs based off of how fast.

Yeah, so I mean, taking all that into account.

I guess I'm I'm sure there's studies out there that we could be able to tap into.

I have heard reference to some of those because some of the good sign companies that came for some of those previous signs said, hey, at this speed on the freeway and this height, this is the size we need.

So there is some calculation.

And at the same time, as much as uh you know, I worked in an industry.

The last person I want to get all my info from is my former employer, right?

Come on.

Uh but yeah, they came in the right way, right?

That and as I we're thinking of the same uh moment.

Oh, we granted an exception on on that pylon that you're talking about.

It was on uh Timpanogas Highway, right?

Yeah, and because they came with science, and we were sitting there going, it's rational.

But you can't argue when you haven't done the homework that they have.

And I feel like that is the thing we see over and over again.

I don't like telling a business that they can't do what they want to do with their sign when I don't have a legitimate reason for it.

Right.

I want to know that I'm making these decisions with really meaningful information not shooting from the hip.

Yeah because I mean of this we've got 28 are below 25 25 feet below 32 are above 32 exceptions of those exception based off of and how many of those 25 footers need an exception.

Yeah let me so can and polo we're seeing your comments thank you I was wondering where what some of you guys were thinking square foot as as I mentioned like a lot of older holy which sign is that that's the big one yeah four times and yes I know I have some strong opinions about these and I acknowledge they are opinions they are I'm not saying that our code is broken although I kind of am but I wish that our sign ordinance was more around wayfaring helping people find their way at a human scale rather than geared towards traffic um like uh like our commissioner said sh most people are using some type of a assistance to get to where they're going right I do understand the golden arches as the example as well you know you see that out of the corner of your eye three days from now you're like oh I want that I get that and I know that businesses have a right to advertise or to like display where they are right I think that we over the decades have lost sight that that was crucial at one point for a business to succeed I feel like that critical nature of that level of advertising has diminished with technology with other resources and I feel like our code could probably use a update to reflect that as well not to eliminate their opportunity to sell or to advertise where they are but I would want to see it geared more towards a human scale rather than that fly by scale and that those are again my opinions on this I do appreciate all the work that you put into this though.

It is very interesting um data wise and and every time these come up I hold my breath because we don't have a good reason to say no other than I hate it right and that doesn't go over well on the record right I I think of the EV auto sign which I don't know if it was on here was it the auto yeah it should be speaking of works of art I appreciate that that one is something other than just a pole with a sign on it right it's it looks like something it's it does it does.

You know what yeah I'll I'll give it I'll give halfway on that okay yeah and is right five to see yeah I think that's why you gave that exception for the 40 feet no I remember that one yeah yeah okay and we had long conversations about how it illuminated the angle of the neighbors yeah and I know that one went back and forth I think part of the illumination got denied and then they had to come back and there's an appeal but you guys were okay with the hype for the reasons that they gave yeah yeah that was a well discussed and sorry I was gonna say the Tyson's point a lot of policies sometimes are somewhat pinion based when you think about it because you just you know council members and planning commissioners decide what do we want LeI to be in the future that's what a lot of our design codes are so I would trying to be more of a walkable city or more city and stuff like this kind of adds up to that whole big picture.

A lot of policies sometimes are somewhat pinion-based when you think about it, because you just you know, city council members and planning commissioners decide what do we want Lei to be in the future?

That's what a lot of our design codes are.

So I would trying to be more of a walkable city, or we have more bar city and stuff like this kind of adds up to that whole big picture.

So there is some if it's important that we want to make sure people can see signs from cars in the freeway, then make sure it's legible and everything, but that's not important to the policies of the city, then that's a different story.

So a lot of my opinions on this stem from uh time that I spent in Rio de Janeiro.

In Rio de Janeiro, there was an enormous amount of signage, not just billboards and things, but they were signs that were bolted to the sides of buildings that covered up windows and made the buildings look terrible.

And while I was there, I spent a year away from the city and came back to it.

And during that time, they passed an ordinance through the city that removed forced them to not just stop building signs, but to remove the signage that was on, and it was a night and day difference of how much more beautiful the city became because they stopped covering it up with trash, right?

With this advertisement that was just noise, and it took away from the beauty of the area.

Now, there are still signs in that city, right?

There are still signs, but they are scaled down at a human level.

They're no longer on the top of these high-rise buildings that are covering the entire city.

And it did make an impact on my impression of how needed is this noise that we're putting in our city and what it distracts from what we have around us that is so beautiful.

People come from around the country that drive through this corridor of I-15, and their mouths hit the floor because they see these things that they don't see everywhere in the country.

We have something amazing, and I hate that we cover it up.

I hate it for our people, I hate it for our visitors.

I wish that we were more protective of the visual sites, sight lines of what we have naturally around us.

That is all.

Tyson, I'm glad to know your origin story.

Now Brazil.

Is it okay if I jump in with something?

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I would also agree with you.

Our sign chapter is in desperate need of an update.

The sign companies tell us that, you tell us that the city council tells us that.

Pretty much everyone tells us that.

So we are working on some changes in it in addition to what you've been telling us.

I think a lot of this actually ties back to the conditional use issue that we've had in the past.

I think Caden mentioned this.

All pylon signs right now are conditional uses.

You can meet the 25 foot height requirement, the square footage requirement, and you still have to go to planning commission.

One of the things we are wanting to update with the comprehensive change is if you meet that 25 foot height requirement, the square footage, then it just becomes a staff approval item.

There's that incentive to keep it smaller, not ask for exceptions, not ask for more electronic display.

And I think that might result in starting to lower and getting less of those requests at planning commission.

Because I think I mean, if you're gonna have to go to planning commission anyways, why not go bigger, right?

Shoot for the star or shoot for the moon and hit the stars, right?

So I think that's something that's on our on our radar.

We're working on it, but there's also so many other things in the chapter that are outdated and need to be updated.

So I'm going to lovingly swing a two by four here and just say study.

We need real data.

With the I I want that to make decisions.

I understand and appreciate aesthetic.

Yeah.

I value aesthetic.

Uh I I still remember my my favorite sign when I worked at Yes Cohen.

It was this gorgeous, uh, it was actually Ghiradelli's chocolate in San Diego.

Um ever been there?

Been there.

Not to that one.

Um, the marquee sign was it was absolute just you know, art nouveau, um, neon, tasteful and colors, everything.

Yeah, that that was art masquerading as a sign.

Um but our beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you can't make policy off of that basis.

So we really do need a study that can dial us in and making I think you're already on to a great start with keep it under 25, you don't have to talk to us.

Yeah.

Well, I think, yeah, and it's interesting if you look at our sign code now under what's permitted uses, what's conditional uses marquees?

It's a conditional use.

Should they be a conditional use if we have guidelines that are in place to help with the heights and the sizes?

Probably not, right?

Right.

You meet the code, you get approved.

do you need a study that can dial us in and making it I think you're already on to a great start with keep it under 25 you don't have to talk to us yeah well I think yeah and it's interesting if you look at our signed code now under what's permitted uses what's conditional uses marquees it's a conditional use should they be a conditional use if we have guidelines that are in place to help with the heights and the sizes probably not right you meet the code you get approved you're not asking for exceptions but I think you know should we decent people making those sorts of signs because yeah you know they got I do agree I think some studies and some research should be done into okay are these numbers in the right direction you know is there studies that show that this is what we want but I do think then holding to that incentivizing not asking for the exception we'll get better better signs right yeah shorter signs other things also I think we will have a greater incentive right at this point I I think the the the commission I'm just thinking out loud here but I think we feel like the lax parent who's just caved so many times to the spoiled kid we're just like oh gosh whatever fine when signs come in we have it's the same rigmarole where we don't really have good reason if they give a decent answer we we feel both in terms of um you know consistency what have we done with previous applicants and a lack of real explanation as to why our rules even there in the first place we cave I want a rule that I feel I can enforce and that I know is in the best interest of the city.

I think the other nice thing will be if we change it from this conditional use situation to an exception Craig if he was here would give you the whole monologue about how it's conditional use you have to approve it unless there's you know all the things about why you have to you can't if there's a studies or why you could deny it if it's a just an exception then it gives you more I think flexibility in this situation.

So I do think that's a big reason why we need to shore it up for sure so that was something we're looking at and we could do it in a small chunk and just start pushing that through or we could do the whole thing in one big swoop it that's kind of what we're trying to figure out.

To your point as well sorry oh yeah Ken's question how did the city come up with the current sign code oh yeah we super talk about that come on Ken keep up keep up we love you Ken yes say to your point Greg though uh I think we'd be good just to at least have that research as a baseline like you know what does that even recommend because we already allow much higher than what that even would recommend because that would be a basis of saying we don't well so I I mean I I think that's it like that's the next step but let's get a study and let's have this conversation again.

Yeah basis for discussion and yeah there's always the uh the policy I would even say get get the study put together uh your suggested uh to the code on on that basis and let's just dive right in that point we can make some suggested alterations and let's send that on to council Kidden you got some work to do if you want to help them okay Kenneth Roberts is typing oh I know he is I'm looking forward to it's one of the swimming is that you I was gonna say I I assume it was probably based off of planning best practices from around the country but I again I wasn't here back in the um yeah and by planning best practices I mean other cities code right yeah which again if you could trace that back to this lobbying for what so no I get the impression it was very much shooting from the hip I mean it well intended but look I also I understand the shoot from the hip a hundred years ago 50 years ago even into the you know to the 90s but we're past that it is so let's let's let's data this up all right anything else thank you are you done sorry I didn't if you're not done I'd love to hear more thank you I was gonna say thanks for all your back to other nate this uh for the study about research from staff are you wanting us to try and dig up money and talk to city council for like a consultant okay with our yeah what do you want um say where do you want this source to come from let's just see what's already out there yeah see what staff can do okay we can't be the only city that hates science yeah okay that's and not that we hate science

ago 50 years ago even into the you know to the 90s but we're past that it is so let's let's let's data this up all right anything else thank you are you done sorry i didn't if you're not done i'd love to hear more thank you i was gonna say thanks for all your activities the other night this uh for the study uh research from staff are you wanting us to try and dig up money and talk to city council for like a consultant okay with our yeah what do you want uh say where do you want this source to come from let's just start see what's already out there yeah see what staff can do okay we can't be the only city that hates signs yeah okay that's and not that we hate signs i get it signs are important right i get it but we can't be the only city where there's a time company businesses are pushing the limit and trying to be yeah get bigger and bigger absolutely just wanted to clarify how much do this versus someone else my my suggestion would be start with seeing what's out there and if it feels like there isn't sufficient then we can't it can't hurt to ask I did read in the news that the city council did not approve thirty three thousand dollars for studying the ice rink so I wonder if we can earmark that for signs I'm joking that's sarcasm let's not do that kind of sarcasm just kidding it's sarcastic unless this goes over well in which case it's no longer sarcasm we don't have city business on here but was there any city business that needed to be discussed meeting so there's just the meeting city hall yeah sorry okay we are not meeting on the 20th did you hear that polo kenneth and lyn uh lindsey we do not have a meeting next week polo is typing though uh did you say 28th yeah 23rd yeah okay oh yeah and the next meeting on the 23rd will be in the the new temple i mean the uh the new city building um that's excellent polo okay i mean there's something to look into right there look into some Hawaiian legislation see if we have something in value there um 23rd i will be in st george lindsay you're up on the 23rd if you're available she's typing she'll be there all right thank you lindsay all right motion to adjourn all in favor aye aye any post