Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

In 5.16 electrical Thursday, August 26th Commission meeting order the Stanford pledge allegiance.

The promotion to

Adopt the agenda and memorandum.

I'll make that motion to adopt the agenda and memorandum. I'll second it.

Okay, motion was made by Susie, seconded by Keith. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion is carried. Okay, I'm looking for a motion to review and approve July 23rd, 2026 planning commission minutes as read in your packet.

I'll make that motion. I'll second it.

Motion was made by Jason, seconded by Susie. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion's carried. Okay. Number four, public comment. Public comment.

This is where you guys want to talk. Public comment. So if you want to talk, come on up to that microphone right there and state your name. Your address, you have three minutes.

Okay, I am Matthew Larson. I am here on behalf of FML Discount Grocery at 1817 North Shaw Street. I'm here to address the sign ordinance to the question for tonight. I guess I just want to give a little information on some of the pros about the perforated vinyl that we had proposed and got the approval to put on our building. This is one of the products that I just pulled out of our store on the way here. You can see front to back the difference in it. That is from the sun baking it. I run a grocery store. I cannot have my product being baked in the sun like that. The perforated vinyl would give me shade and help with cooling costs. It would help with heating, everything. It looks nice. There is nothing in any of the ordinances saying that I cannot put up some blinds and just cover everything. So the argument of law enforcement or anybody needs to be able to see into our building is just somebody throwing stuff at the wall that opens up sticks. There is no ordinances saying that I even have to have windows on my commercial building. At nighttime, we do have a security light on the inside that is on 24 hours a day. At night, from the parking lot, you'll be able to see in no problems. During the day, it is a little tougher to see in, but you can still see in through it when you get up close. We are not blocking any of the glass on our doors. All that will be removed. Yeah. Yeah, and from the inside of our building, you can see out just like you can in the building, like these windows here. I'm the kind of guy that I hate being inside all day. I love being able to look out in the parking lot and see what's going on, you know, see cars come and going. Maybe there's an older lady out there that needs help, and I can go outside and assist her. I can see all of that going on from inside my store. I think it looks really nice, really neat and clean. Like I said, there's other things out there. There's other options. We can go from there. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Go ahead. OK. My name is I am the owner of Grocery at 1817 Northstown Street, Wisconsin. So I know that there's been some talk about how did we get to this point. So I'm here to have many copies for you guys. We're here tonight asking for one thing, the ability to move forward with the window project we believe had the approval to purchase. So this window product, the business itself didn't have the money. got a loan, sought a loan to get this going because it was a large amount of money. Obviously, six months ago, you guys seen that we had our cold storage collapse and it's still not taken down because the flood happened right after. We told our contractors, take care of them, come take our building down later on. So on July 28th, our facade grant was approved, not once, but twice. We went from a five by 10 banner to a five by 20. Our landlord also approved the signage. So there was a lot of back and forth emails, communication there. We received communication that our banner was approved and that we did not need a window permit for the window vinyl. The window vinyl is placed on the outside. So anything safety, if there was an event that occurred, any type of EMT fire department, they can rip them down if they have to. That is why their placement is on the outside. Jennifer. July 29th, the banner size was discussed and changed. That same day, Austin contacted us with additional questions. You also will see an email. We answered those questions on July 30th. There was no response to that. We figured he answered the questions. We answered the questions. He asked if they're see-through, all the things. So after we went through the process on August 5th, believing that everything is good to go because we have everything in writing, we paid Fox City Science a full $3,200. And then on August 7th, after we had paid, we were told that we could not move forward with it. We didn't install the windows first and ask permission later. We asked questions, sought approval, obtained our landlord's permission, worked through the grant and permit process and answered the city's questions and then spent the money. Had we have known before, we wouldn't have spent this money. We wouldn't have went to the bank. We wouldn't have done all this stuff. We're asking you to consider how this ordinance is being applied throughout London. There are numerous existing businesses with substantial window coverage. We're not asking for those businesses to be cited or forced to change their storefronts. We brought them forward for one reason, to demonstrate why we believe our project was successful and why consistent application of the ordinance matters. Our windows are also serve a practical purpose beyond that, which Matt had covered, obviously, with our nerve drums, things that we're using to block windows. So tonight I ask you to look into the documentation in front of you, grant the approvals and permit the emails, our landlord's approval, the dates, and the receipt showing that everything was paid for in full, and then consider one question. Based on everything we were told before August 5th, what reasonable step did we fail before spending the money?

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Katie Bauer. I am the landlord of the building at 19 or 1819 shop street. I'm just going to talk about like other things that I found out about like the buildings in whole because I would like to put final window coverings on some of my businesses, which I own two small businesses in this town. And One is we don't technically have to have a window on a commercial building. So there are four other buildings that I did look at that do not have a window. They just have a door, which most of the doors are covered. And I found some stuff about schools. Like a lot of schools are going to the vinyl coverings where you can see out from inside the schools. And It gives the public less access to look into schools and it saves on heating and cooling costs and it enhances like their business or well, their school and their vinyl. And then I was gonna talk about the vinyl is going on the outside of the windows in the ordinance. It really doesn't talk about any of that in the ordinance. It doesn't say why we limit 20%. I know one of my businesses in town, I have a lottery sign. and that covers 20% plus I have other signage there and it doesn't look terrible, but now I feel like I might be over that 20% and I think that the ordinance should be just like refreshed there. You guys are gonna see later when you talk about the sign ordinance, it lays out like five different options I seen in the packet. I looked at that and I think that option four and five are great opportunities for us to change something. Um, I suggest that looking at maybe 35% of total facade versus just like, what if somebody has one singular small window, we're taking away that whole thing because they can only put this much on the bottom. Well, for the screen, you can't see that. Um, so I'm thinking like a 35% would fix the problem that we're having with the, um, facade we're working on right now and maybe help our other ones that have done changes to their facades already. help them stay okay. And if they applied for these grants through the city, maybe they could still get them grants. And then I also like number five as well, you know, just eliminating the perforated vinyl as a whole. But I still think like if the building is 95% signs or windows, you don't want them to cover the whole thing. So having the 35% rule maybe hand in hand with that would be a great opportunity for change. And then I just have some examples too of like schools that are going to this. Like this is a bulldog, covers the whole school, creates privacy. And then we're saving on energy costs in our school systems. I have examples of what my building looked like before. It had 10 banners on it and window coverings and it did look pretty tacky. We're trying to clean that up, make it look more appropriate for the city. So I get where you're not wanting too much clutter. And I guess that's kind of where I'm at. Thanks for the time.

Thank you, Katie.

Ready? Go for it, girl.

Hello. I am Crystal Sattler. My address is N4399 Oaks-Jerrinder Road, New London. I am a friend of everybody. I've also helped with things around and got to know them very well. They are very good people. and keeping business owners in a developing community, which is from what I take, what you want to try and achieve here, given the residential financial commitments that the city has made for the community. And with that being said, that means that the population is gonna grow. So we are gonna need stores such as FML Discount and The tanning salon, of course, because women like to tan. And so younger people are going to be coming in and the economy is hard. So being able to offer something of that nature, which is what Matt and Felicia are doing, is a good thing. So I understand there was probably a little bit of miscommunication between parties A, B, and C. that should be definitely cleared up and a review of the ordinance should definitely be taken into high consideration and possibly expedited given that the grant has a deadline. So from my knowledge, that was sometime in November, if I'm correct. So I know these things take time. There's a process that needs to be followed, but there also can be made exceptions, I believe, or you know what I mean. So Yeah, I just, I'm here to support. I always have, I'm always for the community, always will be. And I feel like the city of New London, which I believe everybody on this community, as well as the mayor, are for as well. And that's why you are where you are. You enjoy serving your community for a purpose. And it just gets a little messy sometimes. So if we can just support everyone, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, is there any more public comment?

Good evening, everybody. My name is Jill LaCour. I am part of a small business here in town, Werner Johnson and Hendrickson. I'm an attorney there. I'm not here to be an attorney. I'm not here. I did not review in detail the statutes. But I think the comment that I want to make is that we are a small town. and that we need to support each other. So whatever we can do to support each other, especially the small businesses, we don't want to chase small businesses out of our town. We want to welcome them and try to make it easier for people to come here, for people to open businesses. And so with that, I think we need to look at the ordinance and keep in mind the people here in New London and just support each other. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there any more public comment? Any more public comment on this matter? Any more public comment?

No. Good evening. My name is Steve Kent. I live at 840 Stephen Avenue, apartment number 7. I'm just coming here to support the local businesses. I don't have a direct hand in any of the businesses. I'm just a concerned citizen that's speaking up. I think we need to look at making rules and legislation or what have you, looking toward the future. As we're continually talking about carbon credits, reducing carbon emissions, So one of the things that these things do is they minimize the amount of heat sink or heat gain to a building through the windows by 68%. And as far as your summer cooling costs, it decreases your summer cooling costs by 15 to 22%. Doesn't do so much in the winter time, but it's a one to 5% gain or lessening of your heat bill in the winter time. As far as the schools and whatnot, putting them up, that's for, in the daytime, it's hard to see, but that's for security. This building here would benefit from having meetings during the day from your security and or anybody's security from the outside seeing in. But again, at night, because of the illumination from the inside, you'll definitely be able to see it. So it's no different than the glasses that you put on that have holes in them to actually help improve your eyesight or just find out the light pollution. I think they're a benefit. And I think a lot of, you probably save a lot of money in this topic. We would actually help people and encourage not try to demonize. Thank you. Thanks, Steve.

Hey is there any more public color. Any more public color. The last call for public color. Okay, so you know who are. You know, we're going for a public hearing for proposed rezoning parcel 33. 0, 1, 12, 9, from a culture to neighborhood mix use.

All right, thank you. Got a couple of visuals we'll pull up here real quick. This is a project we've looked at before a couple of times here. We've had the applicants here to talk about this development. Now we're on the step of rezoning. So the applicant's seeking a rezone of the subject property. They're outlined in pink. The proposed rezone is from agriculture to neighborhood mixed use to support a future residential and mixed use small scale commercial development. So as currently proposed, there's those 30 lots, and it'd be about 2.4-ish acres of commercial that'll be deeded back to the city. The neighborhood mixed-use designation supports both those land uses, single-family housing, and small-scale commercial.

So the proposed rezoning that they're looking to do fits the development proposal as well.

So city-wide zoning ordinance, this criteria must be evaluated when looking at a proposed map amendment or rezone. The criteria of staff findings was listed in the packets. Staff found that all the criteria was met associated with the proposed rezone and maintains the overall desired consistency of land uses, considering we have both residential and small-scale commercial development and direct proximity to this location. So with that being said, staff is recommending approval of the proposed rezoning to Eric or from agriculture to neighborhood mixed use. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Let's go to the public hearing. That's the item on the agenda right now, right? Correct. Yep. So let's do the public hearing and then you can have your discussion after that.

Okay. At this time, I'll close the public hearing.

You're opening the public hearing.

Oh. I'm open for public hearing. Is there any comment on this? Any public comment? Any public comment on the public hearing? One more time, is there any public comment on the public hearing? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing. And move on to number six, review and recommend Ordinance Resolving Parcel 3301-129.

Now you can ask questions to Austin.

Anybody have any questions for Austin?

No, I don't have any questions. I guess just a refresher that this is, and I had asked you this before the meeting, this is the property where they're looking to build 30 residential homes.

I think that

I think we've talked about it quite a bit, and so we probably are pretty familiar as to what Austin is asking for.

Thank you for bringing that up, Jeff.

Again, just for reference, Walmart is just slowly or shortly to the south of this and Partridge Drive. And then there's some mini storage here. And then this is the vacant lot just north of that. So it's just a little bit north of Walmart. This is in TID number seven. So TID number seven, yes.

I'll make the motion to approve from agriculture to neighborhood mixed use.

I'll second it.

Okay, I got a motion on table from Mark. Second like Susie is there any more discussion.

Can you refresh us in that it's 7 they're going to put in all the infrastructure correct and what was the pay go on that again.

Negotiate it's still negotiating they asked for 75 but we have not presented a developer's agreement to this to the. Okay, economic development committee itself up there asked was 75% of so.

Okay, thank you.

We're going on to the next.

Any more discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion is carried. Okay, moving on to number seven, discussion item, signage ordinance.

All right, thank you. I had a staff report that I wanted to discuss tonight with the committee. As we've heard from the public, there are some benefits to this technology, but essentially where this is coming from is we adopted a new zoning code back in February, 2026. That zoning code ratified much of our previous zoning code, added some clarifying language, added in some more criteria associated with that. and basically set forth baselines for zoning within the city. So the important thing to remember with a zoning ordinance is that it's what we call a living document. A living document can be amended, interpreted, changed over time. It can be changed. So a zoning ordinance is not always the end all be all. So discussions like tonight are important because we always have the opportunity to change as a ordinance. With that being said, too, we heard a couple of things from the public regarding this type of technology that we're seeing nowadays called perforated vinyl. And it's very common for a zoning ordinance to not always list the exact technologies, the exact land uses that you see. In this case, the current ordinance does not specifically list perforated vinyl. So in situations like that, we're required to make an interpretation of that use and find the closest listed use within the ordinance that it may fit. In this case, right off the bat, when I saw this material, I felt like having a discussion at the Planning Commission would have been a worthwhile thing to do, but I had to make an interpretation at that time, and the closest interpretation that I could make to the zoning ordinance was finding that this would be considered a window sign. So a window sign has criteria within the ordinance. It doesn't require a permit, but we do have max coverage standards. So within the current ordinance, there is a 20% window area coverage per window and a 20% window coverage per facade. So essentially what that means right now is each individual window has a max coverage of 20%. That coverage standard within the current ordinance does not differentiate between opaqueness, meaning whether you can see through it or not, It's essentially anywhere that that sign or design or advertising covers. And that does include the background for the definition of sign area within your audience. So with these new technologies that we may see, perforated vinyl, other things that may come along, we have opportunities to evaluate and adapt to growing trends that we see in the community. So tonight's discussion is to kind of talk about you know, the pros and cons of this material, what we want to see with the window signs in the community, and whether we want to adapt to a changing type of technology that's currently not listed in ordinance. So, within your packet, I did list a few pros and cons of window coverage and window signage, if you're able to view some of those. You know, with any proposal that we see, there are always pros and cons to it. You know, when evaluating a potential ordinance amendment, we have to evaluate whether it advances the purpose of that ordinance, protects the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and meets our needs as a community. As I mentioned, we do have the flexibility. We can change it over to any time. So any decisions that we make going forward, they can always be made ourselves. So I'll start off with a couple of potential benefits that I identified with perforated vinyl that we can see. We heard a few of them tonight as well, so some of them might be repeated, but I want to start with that. The first one, by allowing possibly additional window coverage through a technology like this, we offer greater flexibility for our businesses. Higher window coverage allowances are separate standards for technology such as perforated vinyl, provides those businesses with additional opportunities to advertise products, services, and promotional messages using existing storefront windows. The overall impact to buildings by adding these perforated vinyl things to the windows is minimal, when compared to if you were to do a larger mounted wall sign. So I think that's something worth considering. We have a lot of historic buildings in our community. So in terms of what we want to see in aesthetic value, I think it's worth understanding the impact that signs like this can have on a building. So benefits, again, to change the ordinance. As I mentioned, that current ordinance does not distinct between opaque and semi-transparent. It currently doesn't have a standard for if you can see through it 50% or if you can't see through it, it's an area that sign covers. So there's possibly an opportunity there to amend the ordinance to regulate a technology or material based on the actual visual impact it may have. So another opportunity that we can look at if you wanted to treat perforated vinyl differently than other opaque signs. And the last possible benefit that I identified was that economic development and business visibility. I touched on it a little bit, but storefront signage, especially for stores that are outside of our downtown district, maybe further off of our heavy traffic thoroughfares, that storefront signage is very important for them to be able to advertise their business. So when looking at options for signage, some businesses are limited by how much facade they have. So by allowing opportunities to possibly cover existing windows, you know, offers them additional flexibility to advertise their business, which they currently can't do outside of that 20% standard. So with those positives I listed, there are a couple of cons that I identified through my research. I heard a little bit about the potential for emergency services and law enforcement not being able to see through the door. I wanted to clarify, staff is fully aware that anyone can place interior blinds or shades that block that visibility. Those aren't regulated. They're not signs. But I feel like it's worth acknowledging, too, the potential benefit of transparency. The example we've talked about internally would be fire after business hours, right? A bystander walking by, if they're able to see through windows, there's a chance that emergency services could get there quicker. So again, not the sole reason why we want transparency in windows and want to regulate window signage, but something that I think is worth thinking about as we consider possibly allowing for additional coverage. Second potential concern is possible clutter associated with it, visual clutter. And what I mean by that is if we don't regulate signage, we could run into a scenario where we take away some of that aesthetic value that we have in the community. Excessive signage, taking away from the architectural values and historical nature of some of our buildings may not be what we wanna see. So if we are looking at increasing overall signage on a facade, we should keep in mind at what level is too much. So that'll be something we wanna consider going forward if we do want to add different standards for that per-grade vinyl or increase the signage overall. So other challenges that I identified and we heard a little bit about tonight, this technology is becoming more and more popular. You drive around communities and you see this technology, you see this material on windows. The challenge that we currently have with staff is there's currently not a permit required for these window signs. That makes it hard to track. That makes it hard for people to understand what's required and know currently what that coverage standard is. So the ability for staff to have conversations with business owners comes from, you know, a business owner looking at the ordinance and saying, okay, a permit's required. I had to come talk to staff. You know, that's going to potentially prevents a lot of nonconformities that are currently out there in the community that can help reduce some of those going forward by allowing the permit to track certain situations like that. As I mentioned, we have some of these signs in the community already. Some of them were there prior to February, 2026. Some of them were not. So I think it's important to acknowledge that this technology and material is out there in the community already and what we want to do for those businesses that already have them. So I think it's worth considering that as well. This is becoming a more popular material, and we have an opportunity as a city to adapt to that technology and support the growth of some herbicides by allowing for signage of this type. Within the packet, I include some potential ordinance amendment options. We don't have to make a decision based on any of these potential options tonight. They're meant to be a discussion. It could be something that's not listed up there tonight. But I want to identify some potential areas that we could go to potentially address the ordinance, make it more clear going forward, and possibly, you know, moving in some of the flexibility that I talked about for some purposes. So option one would be leaving the ordinance unchanged. You know, that 20% max coverage would stay. We wouldn't be adding, you know, clarity to our ordinance. We wouldn't be talking about where that sign can be placed. more interpretations would have to be had going forward. And with that too, some of those businesses that have those signs right now that may be not compliant, we would have to look at each of those businesses and determine whether they're legally non-conforming or just not performing altogether. And in cases like that, enforcement would need to be had because if they're not compliant, they can't have that certain sign. So option two, and I've talked about this a little bit, is establishing a separate standard for semi-transparent window materials. Now, what this looks like could be, you know, it could be something where if you have more than 50% window coverage, you know, maybe it's counted towards your entire facade a lot, right? If you have less than 50% coverage or less than 50% opaqueness, maybe it's treated differently because the visual impact is less. So we could have, you know, a separate standard altogether for materials that you can see through someone. So one option that we could look at We could also apply the coverage to words, numbers, and figures rather than the background of the sign. As it's currently written, we consider the entire area of the sign copy, so that's letters and background. So something else that we could look at to possibly, you know, add some flexibility with how we measure window coverage. Option three would be increasing that window coverage maximum and not distinguishing between material type. So this would be regardless of what material is flowing on the window. maybe we increase that percentage to 50%. So this could be perforated vinyl, this could be paper, it could be banners, it could be anything. This would be offering a lot of flexibility that we see for window coverage. So regardless of sign type and opacity, we could just increase that coverage standard. Option four, I touched on this a little bit, but regulating the signage for the facade as a whole. So this could be something where if you look at the vertical plane of a building, and you establish possibly a percentage or a per square foot requirement for signage for that building. So it could be something where we've heard the number 35% thrown out. If you look at a building, say it's 100 linear feet, by 100 linear feet, you get 35% of that for signage. We wouldn't necessarily regulate where that signage is or whether it's on windows, it's just signage on the facade. That is one option that we could look at or a combination of some of the options that I talked about. But then the last one would be exempting semi-transparent materials such as perforated vinyl altogether from window sign requirements. You know, this could be done citywide or only in certain zoning districts. If we wanted to see a different requirement downtown, we could probably do that as well. And really any of these options could be applied citywide or downtown or in certain districts, we have that option. So Really hoping for some good discussion tonight. We heard some great public comments, so thank you to those who showed up. And at the end of the day, staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss and evaluate what they envision for Science in the City. Next steps for this, Planning Commission would direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment with the recommended criteria that you guys come up with. From there, it would become public hearing formats. With the public hearing, we do have to publish it in the paper, so there are timelines with that. And at that point in time, we would review that proposed amendment through that public hearing process. And the planning commission could then recommend adoption of that amendment to the council. So with that, happy to answer any questions and open for some discussion.

Do we know how long those vinyl on the exterior last?

That's a great question.

I do not know.

So we actually paid for the upgraded vinyl. It has a three-year warrant. I guess my only concern- The regular normal vinyl is where you want. Okay.

Because I mean, I like the exterior vinyl. My only concern would be if a business exits and leaves the wrap on the outside and it starts to peel, we have no mechanism to have that. So I guess I have no problem allowing that, but I would like to see it be limited to maybe a timeframe because it feels

must be kept in good condition, replaced when it fades significantly.

And that's a common thing for when I've looked at other ordinances. Each of them have some sort of window requirement. Many of them don't cover perforated vinyl either, but a lot of the other ordinances do have clauses in there that call out that any signage must be kept in good shape and upkept and not peeling. That could be something that we look at adding to ours as well. If a business does leave, that signage has got to go away. So that's the option we can look at.

I would comment the current 20% rule is very, very low. I feel I have eight foot by eight foot windows. The ordinance is per window frame. That leaves me a three foot by four foot toaster on this ginormous window. And that puts me over 20%. I think it's excessively low. I would recommend perhaps something like 50% in the downtown area and perhaps exemptions for semi-transparent materials.

And looking at these options for me personally, one and three are out. Two, I think, gets us into needing more info and clarification. And I feel like it would be cumbersome to manage. I like option four probably the most. And I also like option five for exempting the semi-transparency through window signs. And maybe that's maybe the reason that I like them both is because I'm thinking about different areas of town. When I look at the downtown, I would not want to say that you get to cover 35% of your facade because those are really tall buildings. So that means that the bottom third of the building could be all signage. Or the top third could be all signs. I personally don't think it's my business what a business puts in their windows as long as it is non-offensive and not going to cause any of those kinds of issues in the community. Whether I like a sign or not is irrelevant to me. Because, for example, we've got all of these art murals all around town. Some of them I really, really like. Some of them are not my favorites, right? My favorite is definitely not the favorite of many people in town. So we all have different tastes. We all have different people that we're marketing to. And I think that it's not my business to tell a business how to market their business. I personally think that we need to take a look at a mix between option four and option five. And we need to take a look at a mix between the business areas in New London. Have a little bit more of a historic a little bit more handle on what happens downtown with our historic buildings versus what's happening just in our business districts and what's going to happen in the industrial part. I think we need to have, we need to look at this further. But I'm all for, I'm all for these windows. And I'm going to call out a business, maybe I shouldn't, but I'm going to call out one of the businesses downtown. who is currently non-compliant. And she came in for a facade grant and it sent us photography. She came in for a facade grant, was granted the facade grant, put up the signage covering 100% of her window. I personally like that signage. I personally understand why she wanted that signage. It's a photography studio. She wants some privacy for her clients. She wants some light control filter for the photography itself. I think it's a classy looking window sign and it promotes her business. I would hate to see us go after her and tell her, one, she's not getting the facade grant, 50% matching, and two, that she has to take it down now. I would, you'll hear from me if we go that direction. um it's just i don't that that can't be happening so that's my opinion um is that i feel that in order to vote in order to get this through me at council level um we need to do a mix between four and five and we need to look at the different business districts that we have in town as to how we're going to regulate it i like what you said belinda i'm uh

very up to date of social media, of the constituents, business owners, and what we currently have out there. And I thought back a little while ago that we had some variances on material that we use downtown for siting. And we brought that back and we looked at that and we changed it for updated modern technology and materials. To capitalize off of what you said, as far as option four and option five of kind of mixing those together. Kind of what I pre-thought about was, you know, I am all for the window signage. I like it. Some of them don't look good, like you said. Some look great. What I don't want to get our community involved in is when you drive down the highway and you see Uncle Tom's Cabin selling fireworks, right? We're a nice city. We want to be inviting to other businesses, other residents, and grow within our city that we are. I mean, we're expanding like crazy. So we want to look at this new technology, right? And it does look good. It can be a compliment to our downtown district. It can be a compliment to everything. So with that, mixing the two together, I came up with the 51% or more I'd like to see of the facade be considered for... What do I want to say? Come in and get the billing permit.

Yeah. So one of the things we talked about was if you're covering more than 51% of that window, that's something that could be counted towards the overall signage for the facade. If you're under 50% of your window, it doesn't count towards your total facade line. Because then in theory, the rest of your window is free and open. So it offers a compromise there. But if you're over that 51%, get a permit because the visual impact of that sign on the window, you know, something we could look at counting towards that overall facade percentage or requirements to make sure we're allowing flexibility for advertising, but also making sure it doesn't get to be too much and that we enter into that visual clutter stage.

So that's where I thought that happy medium was, and I was glad that you kind of brought that up as well. That's given the opportunity for business owners to do what they want. But if they want to do more, 51% or more, get a building permit, come in, let's regulate so we don't have that whole facade like what was discussed earlier. I don't know what that looks like, but that was kind of what my thought was.

That's why. The one thing I don't think we've touched on is businesses in a strip mall are so far set back from the road. They really need much larger signage than I do in my shop over on North Water Street. You know, for instance, even the FML, they're way off the road. If they don't have large signage, how can they possibly get anyone's attention in like a Walmart parking lot? So I don't feel that the current ordinance affecting everyone equally makes sense because we're trying to protect our downtown image. They're not part of downtown.

100%. Richie, it's your floor, however you want to take public comment yet or not.

as long as you don't get carried away.

So what Keith was saying, I have zero public street fromage. I am 100% blocked by car washes, oil change places, and that from the highway.

Okay. So we're going to, again, I don't care.

They can do what they want at their building. My problem is our ordinance also says it cannot be on the outside of a window. Are we going to fix that?

That would be one area that would need to be clarified because technically it doesn't allow it on the outside right now. So we have to make an interpretation.

Just a thought. Is everybody in favor of working towards that goal?

Allowing the end of signage? Definitely allowing the end of signage.

I feel it should be on the inside. I don't like limiting private property rights at all.

That's good. I just wanted to get the feeling of if that's a proper discussion, if that's something that we're moving towards.

But to Jay's point, if it's on the inside and it wears off, if it's on the outside in an emergency, we can rip it down.

And if, like you said, a business becomes lighted and empty.

Whose liabilities are replaced if the city starts ripping these signs off? That's on the inside.

It would only be if the business was out of business, for instance.

That would still be out of the property.

If it's your building, put up what you want, then we can fine them for being non-compliant at that point if we have, you know, keeping it up to keep, for instance.

It should be on the inside.

That's fine, but I think the technology is intended to be on the outside because I've been talking to some other ones and I think it's supposed to be in the outside. So I'm not saying they disagree, but I think the technology is what I've seen with the vinyl though.

They want to cover the entire window. They want a completely different look. So would that be just something we want to exempt?

I think that the semi transparent material, if you can see through them at night, I think the safety concerns are largely addressed.

I would like to bring up the glass doors as well.

I don't see any restrictions with those either because you can have a solid door. So in my aspect, if we're talking about windows, glass doors are also included in windows.

I would like to point out that every bar in this town has vinyl window coverings, UV covers, you name it, every single one, everyone. And we can't, make an ordinance that would limit businesses but when it comes to schools we can say oh it's for their safety that you can't see through it intruders can't see through it but we're telling a business we need to be able to see through it that's nepotism we can't do that that's favoritism we can't do that i'm all for number five exempt them people are using light guide films to light up this whole room with one light bulb what are we going to do tell people they can't use a certain kind of light bulb or to save energy As long as it looks decent, put something in the ordinance that says if enough city complaints and put a number on it. If 7 to 10 complaints are received about a non-conforming window or how it's obscene, how it's offensive, how it's not being maintained, bring it to a vote. Bring some current pictures of it. Bring it to a vote whether we want to do something about it or not. Let businesses do what they want.

In that case, I don't think that would be possible because in the ordinance we have to have guidelines and regulations that Austin can look at enforcing. Otherwise, it would have to be a conditional grant scenario. And as you guys remember, the state really restricted on what you can do with conditional grants. Also, to Brenda's comment about the content, we also cannot regulate content. So depending on whatever the sign is, they can do what they want. The only thing you can regulate is size. You could regulate materials if you want. but the only thing you can really regulate is size and that's where this all comes down to so you know looking at number four and looking at the scenarios that the mayor was talking about to try to you know come up with a happy medium of you know allowing this technology and also you know if it's over 50% then maybe it's you know since since it's over 50% that hypothetically that that's adding on signage of the building that maybe in that case we consider the over 50% as a relationship to other signage on the building, where if it's under 50%, you do what you want, whatever it is. But if it's over 50%, then we think it's a little bit more, for lack of better terms, gaudy or more, that we want to make sure that it's permitted and regulated. But again, we can't regulate content. We can only regulate size and maybe materials and some things like that.

Size, opacity, things we talked about, yeah.

And the thing is with opacity, too, That's going to be hard for Austin to regulate. I mean, if you put a number on it, I don't even want him. So, you know, I would, and in the point of the signage during the day, it looks like regular signage. So why, why would we differentiate between semi-transparent and solid signage from the outside? I mean, it is what it is. So. You know, but, you know, allowing people to do what they want, maybe look at the mayor's options or something that we only look at it at 50%. And at that point, we look at the overall facade, make sure it's not encompassing too much of the overall facade. That might be your happy medium.

If it gets to be a problem. go back here.

And it's not that they only last three years. That's when they're warrantied.

If they're spending that much money on vinyl, we shouldn't have to stick them with a permit fee as well. They're already going to spend a lot of money to look at that building.

But it's no different than general signage. If you're putting signage on, everything's not cheap today. And that's why we have these grants to help support businesses in those aspects.

I mean, if you look at, Austin has a slide here of the other surrounding communities. The most I see is 50%. 50% of accommodations are the door and window. I see Wawiga was 30%, Fox Crossing was 50%, Greenville was 25%, Hortonville was 25%, we were 20%, and then Appleton and Packett were 50%.

and you drive around those communities and you see the same thing we have here.

Yeah. I think the important thing we want to do here is make sure we have something that's clarified, something that can be enforced, something that Um, you know, when you drive down the street and you see something and then you read the ordinance and it doesn't match, that's not what we want. We don't want to be creating non-conformities. We want to be something that's easily identifiable within an ordinance. Um, someone should be able to, um, determine what they need reading the ordinance and saying, okay, I can do that. You know, we want it to be user-friendly as much as we can. And at the same time, we've talked about a little bit, um, it's gotta be enforceable. Staff has gotta be able to enforce this. And if things go to the higher levels, we don't wanna be setting ourselves up to fail as enforcement officers. So we have an opportunity here to adapt. I've mentioned that a couple of times, adapt to that new technology and really clarify a lot of things in our ordinance and be flexible for our businesses.

Just one thing that kind of bothers me about this whole process is, We brought to the attention that there was two instances that did not follow the permitting requirements. This clearly stated on the application that you have to have it permitted first. So we addressed that. We got to have a meeting. But then everything blows up. We didn't have a chance to have a meeting. You have to give us a chance to have a meeting and talk about stuff. That's what it boils down to. You can't just drop everything tomorrow and have a meeting on something. We have scheduled meetings per month. And that's what we're doing tonight. You can obviously see nobody's against it. We were portrayed as being very bad people, which is, it's ridiculous. You know, follow the chain of command. When the meeting comes, we talked about it. There's nobody in here that's really against anything. It's just got to make sense. It's got to be regulated properly.

So with that being said, what direction do we want to move forward?

I think you're right, Mayor, with a combination of four and five and what you had said about it. I think it's a good way to go and allow sometimes conditional use. Like there's going to be businesses that face east and west versus north and south. They're going to have different needs. A business that clearly demonstrates they need full window covering for a reason such as theirs, grant it.

If I may, the difficulty with making things conditional uses is that if we're going to deny them for Act 76 or 67, we have to find substantial evidence to deny them. So by listing something as a conditional use, it makes it very difficult to find criteria to not allow something if you allow someone else to do it. So my recommendation is, you know, if we like option four and five, I can draft multiple versions. I can give you guys different options to look at, essentially do what I did here, but just condense them based on the two we liked. I can present those at a later meeting and we can talk about potentially adopting something like that.

Yes, please. I think it's important too that Austin has the opportunity to have something that he can enforce. Because we may all have our own opinion about it, but if he can't enforce it, And then it's a free-for-all for everybody. So I do think that we have to take his expertise and his professionalism and respect that.

Thank you.

I think it almost has to be the same for everybody. My opinion is I don't think we should separate downtown versus strip mall because then you get into another...

right you could open up another can of worms yeah that's going to be something that we'll have to evaluate you know if we want a different standard for downtown because we want to maintain a certain aesthetic in that area um then we can have a different standard but to your guys's point you know why is it any different than you know our corridor mix use that's still our businesses are important up there too you know so um again i can draft multiple versions um i can present them to you guys see what you guys think um And the next step is going to be having that public hearing and move towards adoption if that's what we want to do.

So I think the next step, though, is for you to bring those to us at the next planning commission, which would be a month from now.

Yeah, it's currently scheduled. Depending on people's schedules, we could always have a special planning commission meeting. I know some of the people in the audience today have timelines. So if we wanted to make an effort to respect some of those timelines, we could always have a special planning commission meeting if it works in everyone's schedule.

Chad, what is this? Cutoff date for grant something? What is that?

So that is to outside this situation, if everything was normal, that is to try to get everything in this year's budget. So I get the reimbursement request back. So when we do the facade grant award, I send out an award saying you've been approved. The applicant does their thing and if everything's good, they give me back the invoices and the actual payments. Not that they're They said it was going to be $2,000 and it ended up being $1,500. They gave me back the information. So we truly reimbursed on 50% of the grant. And then I've got a timeline in the grant award letter saying, please give me that information by November 1st so I can process it and then use it in this year's budget. I have November 1st because there's a lot of times I have to follow up with people.

That's arbitrary. We can move that out. We can move that out.

As long as the check is cut by the end of December.

For this situation, because it's special, we can work with them. Okay. But beyond that, in general, we'd like to keep it in this year's budget. We don't like to have it cross over into a different budget. Yeah, I hear you.

You want all your stuff done, but in this situation, we're going to obviously come back and make sure everything's okay.

Yeah, because November 1st would be a push.

Yes.

We can talk about economic development. Yeah. Yeah. I think everybody hears nodding their head so but we can officially get the so it's always on the same page.

Since Austin brought up the potential for a special us a special planning Commission meeting. I just wanted to clarify with you that if we did something like that and that cost for that meeting with go on whoever was requesting a special meeting, correct?

Well, right now it wouldn't be requested because- It's not requested right now. As a committee, we can set a date currently to have a special meeting because it's not necessarily for one person. Right now it's as an ordinance look. Okay. It'd be different than somebody saying, like we had- For the economic development.

Yes. I just wanted to- I just wanted to clarify that if it's requested, then that cost for that meeting is on the requester.

Correct. Typically.

Yeah.

How many other businesses in town have been informed that they're not in compliance with this ordinance?

At this point, we've determined that there's been several that are out of that compliance, whether they're legal non-conforming or just non-conforming. We would have to do some more research to establish what status they have.

No. Can you stop me and have you defined what you just said? Yep. Conforming and nonconforming?

Yep. So legal nonconforming would mean that something was legally established before the current ordinance. So February, 2026, we established this ordinance. If something was put up before that and was legally established, then they can remain. Essentially grandfathering is what people refer to it as. It has been put up since February. We talked about some of the reasons why sometimes that can happen. You know, no permits required, people not understanding the regulations because no permit was required. There's a long list of reasons why things like that can happen. That's why it's important to have a strong, readable, user-friendly ordinance that can hopefully remove some of those nonconformities going forward. So with that being said too, no enforcement has been taken because I knew we wanted to have a conversation tonight. You know, if the conversation would have gone differently tonight saying, nope, we like the ordinance as is, then it would have been my job to reach out to those businesses that were not in compliance and inform them of what their status is.

We did have that discussion internally and thought that was really the best way to go instead of going out there and contacting.

What's that Ralph?

Yeah, right. You know, for something that may not even need to happen.

So.

Yeah, but from the beginning when to start out, you know, identified right away. This is something we need to discuss. So, you know, I'm glad I'm happy we had some discussion. Looking forward to moving closer towards a resolution here.

I have one quick question bouncing off Mayor Mark's idea. If we went with the 51% rule of the overall facade, does requiring a building permit give us more flexibility in regulations, or are we still limited by what Chad had said of the limitations on material size, et cetera?

Well, my envision on that would be to, if we were going to go that direction, take the windows right out of that equation, because they can fill them up there 100%, correct? So now we're just talking about the brick and mortar portion of it. The whole facade. Not the whole facade, because you're taking the windows out. You're talking about the facade of the brick and mortar itself. And use that as code. Like I said, I don't know what that looks like. It wasn't a thought that I just wanted to bring forth.

Does that give us any more flexibility in enforcement, though?

Yeah, I mean, my thought process with that is, you know, we'll look at both options, whether you want to include the entire window area in the total facade area, or if you want to exempt it. You know, that's where we talk about that 50% coverage, you know, or 51 greater than. The thought process there was that, you know, visual impact is going to be higher if that window covering is more than 50%, right? If it's less than 50%, that visual impact is lower. So maybe you don't need to include it in the overall facade. If it's higher, maybe it should. So those are some of the options that I'm going to be researching. And it'll be my job to draft something for you guys to look at in the future and see what works for us.

And I'll bring up the street how I got there. Simply driving around and looking at what we have out there in the community. We have some great big signs on buildings. And if you go ahead and put that, cover the whole 100% of that window, to me, looks pretty good. You know, and I'm fine if that's as collectively as we go the direction that we want to go. I'm fine with that. That's just my personal opinion that then we look at that a little bit differently. Now there's other signs that are huge, but they're different. And if you were to, and by huge, okay. So there's big block signs and then there's signs that are cut out with the letters. Okay. So that would take away from how big that sign is. Looks way different to, than a big square block sign. And that's all that I was bringing forward. There's different looks, there's different ways that you could go about that, and I wanted to put those options out there.

And that's where our calculation of sign coverage differs depending on whether there's a background associated with it. You'll see those perforated vinyl coverings that don't have a background. and they do look very nice, I would calculate the area of that differently because the visual impact is less. You can see through it a little more than something that, well, maybe perforated vinyl that you can still see through, but the visual impact is more because of that background associated with it. So you can look at things differently, but I think the important thing to analyze is the true visual impact of the sign that's put on the facade.

My opinion, I'd like to see the vinyl exempted because if they can put up a shade with the exact same picture on it and we have no recourse. What's the point here? So they can just pull a shade down and it'd be the exact same thing.

And that's from the exterior within three feet of the window though.

Yeah, it does. It would not, that would not be exempted.

Yeah, it's considered a sign if it's on the interior within three feet of the window itself as it's currently written.

And I would like to see that.

Yep, so that's something we can look at as well.

I want less restrictions, generally speaking.

Yeah, and you said it right there. The less restrictions you have, the less problems you're going to have with an ordinance. The more restrictive the ordinance is, the more noncompliance you're going to have, and it's going to be a situation. And as I mentioned at the beginning of my whole spiel, we can try this if it doesn't work.

we can amend the ordinance again. Zoning ordinances are living. We can change them, we can modify them as we see fit. So making an ordinance going forward here does not require us to have that ordinance forever. We can try it out, see how it works. Technology materials are gonna change going forward too. We're gonna be coming back potentially to this table and talk about other things in the zoning ordinance because of changing things in the community, they don't make sense anymore. So ordinances are living, they change. So don't feel like a decision that we make in the next couple months here on this is going to be like that forever or if it needs to be like that forever. So.

So with everything's good.

What does this do with what we have sitting back there now? Have they bought that vinyl? What can they do with that vinyl if we

Well, actually, in actuality, that is not what's under discussion. We're just discussing the ordinance. If this gets changed and then there's a petition, absolutely we can talk about that.

I just want to say one more thing. I would just ask the public to please let us have a meeting. We are reasonable people. We don't need to slam the city of London on Facebook. We don't need to say it's unfair. We don't need to do all this stuff because we are reasonable people. I mean, first I heard of this, I said, this is dumb. Obviously with a brand new ordinance and brand new book, we're going to have issues like this come up. I just ask that you allow us to have a meeting, you know, and if it doesn't go your way after the meeting, have at it, but just let us have a meeting first. As you can see, We're all pretty much in agreement that this is tough. We just got to nail all the little things in it. But just let us do what you elected us to do first.

I think we knew when we approved the zoning code that we said there were going to be things that would come up that we would have to alter. And there's a process to that. And that's what I always say. Trust the process. Because it will... It will work itself out.

Well, and to that point as well, the process takes time. This is not something that's going to change. Obviously, it's not changing right here, right now. We're looking at changing it. We intend to change it, but it's a process and it takes time. And we're already concerned about having it done in time to cover the facade grants that we issued and get those payments to those people by the end of this year. So just giving you an idea of what the timeline for a process takes here. It just takes some time.

So with that said, I encourage anybody that does have a facade grant out there that does need to be addressed because of the sign ordinance to reach out to Chad and have that discussion before the deadline date. And also with that, Austin, do you have enough marching orders committee, do you feel comfortable with Austin going back and doing his research and coming back to the committee?

Absolutely. Yeah, we can't go for it.

We threw a lot at him.

And to your point, I think there's only two that are in this situation, obviously FML and they're involved with our conversation tonight. And then the other one that I'm aware of, I've had conversations with them as well. Regarding facade plans.

All right. Okay. Is there any more discussion on this matter? Okay. Moving on. Review upcoming agenda items.

Well, I would say the big one is going to be what we talked about tonight. You know, depending on, you know, when the next meeting is, I guess that's to be determined. But at minimum, we'll have one on the 24th. So I would say that should give me plenty of time to have something ready by the 24th. If there's a potential for me earlier than that, you know, I can be flexible with that. So other agenda items that I'm aware of, next meeting will probably have a CSM to review and a site plan review. So, and then with that too, we've got some developments in the works here too. So depending on applicant timelines, we could have more.

Okay. Next meeting is September 24th at 5.15. Next item on the agenda is- If you want to have another meeting. Yeah, that's- Possibly another one. before that, right?

Yeah, we could have, we could schedule a meeting in between a special meeting.

But right now the tentative order is September 24th.

Are we able to do like just a week earlier? And that counts as our monthly meeting?

Well, we've got a couple options. So I think I heard from most of you that we want to have a meeting in between the actual public hearing to kind of discuss our options first, right? So if we want to do that, you know, we need two weeks to publish notice for a public hearing. So if we want to have our original meeting on the 24th, you know, and we had a discussion on the 10th, I got to have two weeks to be able to publish it. Typically publish the notice and the paper the Monday before it goes out on that Thursday. So we could potentially have a discussion on the 10th. It's getting tight.

It's tight and the 10th is the holiday week. Okay.

And you still have to wait for the following month to get it to council anyway. Yep.

So you guys would have to come up, you know, if he has five options at the next meeting, you have to pick an option and then we have to advertise and get everything ready for public hearing for that option. So to that point, you know, there's timelines we have to get here.

I definitely would like to see if we can do it a week earlier.

As I'm looking at the next council meeting, is it until the 20th of October? So if we did it at our normal September 24th, we would be able to have the two-week timeline in October for the public hearing, correct?

But Austin, isn't it in the new code that the public hearing happens at planned commission? Yes. Okay, so the public hearing for zoning codes happens at planned commission now with the new code.

So it still gets approved by council because it's an ordinance. You only have a first or second reading at council, but the actual public hearing that we notice goes out for a planning commission.

So then the planning commission meeting in October is scheduled for the 22nd. We could have it on the 15th and council meeting on the 20th.

Yes, potentially.

That gives Austin plenty of time. That allows the holiday in there. It allows for all the timeframes and we get it to council by the end of October.

There's a finance meeting that day.

The 20th of October.

Yeah.

But we would just be looking at it on.

There's a tentative finance meeting that day and I believe it is for.

That's the council meeting.

That's the council meeting, the 20th.

As well. In October?

Yeah.

Yeah. We're doing budget workshop before the council meeting on the 20th. But you're still gonna have your council meeting on the 20th.

Then Austin, they'll actually, To Susie's point, there'll be a first reading and second reading, so it'll be two council meetings to get through to get it. Correct.

So just for people who are starting this process, this is possible. I don't want to wait another month. Because we're pushing everything back on chat through all this stuff, too. I mean, it's not just for them. It's got to get grants and all that stuff. I'd rather just have a meeting on time for that, but I can't see before that.

holiday week in September.

The 17th is after the council meeting in September.

Who can't make it if it's on a holiday week?

I think with this being you know, such a

issue that I think has a citywide impact. We want to have the most people we can here. So I would have some concerns of being a holiday week as well. Not that it affects me, but we want to make sure we have everyone has a seat at the table. So I get back on the sixth.

So as long as my plane lands safe, I can be here on the eighth. The eighth and ninth for me are tentative for ribbon cutting. They're hammering. They have those two dates available right now at five o'clock. So that's my priority is right there. I'm already committed.

Could we do a... So if we kept it at the 24th, move the planning commission to October 15th, did the first reading at council on the 20th, can we do a special council meeting following one of The other meetings to do the second reading, can we do that the following week after economic development, do the second reading in October since we're all going to be here anyway?

Potentially. Let's look at that with the zoning.

Some things you can, but we just want to.

make sure the attorney, but yes, we can definitely, we can also, we don't have to solidify that right now. We can get some of our docs in a row and talk to the chairman and we can move forward that direction as well.

Yeah. We want to tentatively do Belinda's idea. Let's put that down on paper for now. We can always change it. So normal plan commission on September 24th. special on October 15th?

Well, we would move the planning commission from the 22nd to the 15th to get it in time for the council meeting in October.

And first reading council will be at on the 20th.

And if we only need one, then that's it. If we need to have a special council meeting after that, however much time we need for that one, schedule that. Okay.

Let's double check because Adam's got open book scheduled for 14, 15. So I don't know if he goes that late with open book for this room. For open book is for the assessment re-evaluation process. Are you all that's not that's not board review. Open book is for the assessor. I might be able to move the next door so let's continue on your plan will find the scenes.

It's clear I got normally things are 24th moving the act over me meeting to the 15th. And then we're at Council first reading on October 20.

We'll find out if we can do it one really.

Okay. Any more days we move. Next item on the agenda is for adjournment.

I'll make that motion to adjourn.

Second. Okay. Motion to be made by Susan, seconded by Mark. All in favor signify by saying aye.