Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So it looks like it's going

at 6:31 it says by you Bo is joining us online and then we have Commissioner White, Commissioner Matlock present, Commissioner Fitz present and Commissioner Seal. So, we'll move on to item two, the opportunity for public comment on non-aggenda items. We don't have anyone here in person, but we do have someone online if they if Miss Cooper, if you would like to have public comment for something not on the agenda tonight. Good. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So, we will close the public hear. We'll open and close the public hearing at 6:32 and move on to agenda item number three, the approval of minutes from February 4th, 2026. Are there any questions or looking for motion? I had no cor no corrections. So, I move to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 4th, 2026. Okay. Do a second. Samurai were there but it looks like but um I will second. And all in favor I

I and none opposed. Um we move on to item number four. This is the election of chair and vice chair for 2026. So we'll turn it over to staff to Yeah. So that's really up to you guys. Hannah's been doing a fantastic job serving each year at this time. We want to turn it over to the commission again. uh opportunity for reappointments or continuation of service. So, it's really up to you guys to nominate and then ultimately to uh approve with a motion the chair and vice chair. And I think I'm happy to keep doing it, but I also want to give anybody else an opportunity to

I'm happy to continue doing it, but we have people who might want to try it out. Unfortunately, Chris is not here. I was hoping he would uh express interest. I not saying I don't love being what I'm doing, but he's new and he might want can speak, but he's not here. So, I also I say run it back. Yeah. So, catch what he said. Yeah, you didn't catch that. Can you say that again? No, I just said let's run it back and do the same thing as we did before.

Yeah. So I move to nominate Commissioner Keel says all in favor or any oppos

and I move to Commissioner Matlock as vice chair and I'll second and all in favor I posted That makes it easy for somebody. I know. I feel like we have a really good group that we just don't have a whole lot of drama, but hopefully everybody knows like speak up if you're wanting.

So, given that, if I could ask a question, which I will hope it's a part of the agenda. When will the city council meeting be where we have to go and be uh your reappoints in May? Okay. Yeah. So, um, I've asked Susie to send an email to you guys on that that you don't have to do anything. It's really I don't even need to go because it's just reappoint. They probably appreciate it if you go just Okay. I I I will be out of town during that time going to my my first grandson's baby shower. I'll be in New York City sometime in May, but probably not on that Tuesday.

It's exciting. Okay. Okay. Well, we will move on to item number five, the sign regulation amendments. Uh there is not a public hearing scheduled for this. So, we will turn it over to staff to explain the content neutrality memo.

Yes. So, long awaited. I finally had the time to work with our legal team and put together a general content neutrality memo with regard to sign code amendments. Um this was requested at the January 21st planning commission meeting. Um, overall the memo recaps key legal cases with to content neutrality, defines content neutrality, identifies limitations and unresolved issues with regard to the topic, and discusses potential legal consequences. Um, not included in the manual, but something that I do have available for viewing is a few examples of how our current code currently has some questionable aspects with regard to content neutrality. Um, so tonight I'm just here to hear any questions you may have on the memo. Um, I also did want to provide a brief update on the sign regulation amendments. Um, the CED committee has requested a hold to be placed on the project. So, it sounds like we may be revisiting it probably towards the end of summer, early fall. Um, as of right now, I am wrapping up comments that were received at the last planning commission meeting, comments that I've gotten from legal still. Um, there were quite a few things to work through, but um, it sounds like we will be putting a pause on it for right now.

May I ask why? It was really just a a matter of prioritization of the planning commission work plan. So, the committee reviewed that they wanted this us to focus on things that were really statemandated. at this point. Okay. So, even if those deadlines are further out, I think the direction was let's do that first and then do things that are not very timesensitive after that. Thank you. We definitely want to come back to it. Yeah, you're so nice. Thank you for that question. Yes, I think we all had that buzzing in our head. Yeah. Are there any other thoughts, questions from commissioners?

I have a question. What was the point of this memo? Does it serve any sort of legal purpose? I mean, uh, I guess I don't understand why you share this with us. Sure. So, it was advisory. It was a request at the January 21st meeting to put a summary memo together that was a little bit more specific. Uh, there were some details that were included in like a briefing memo back in I want to say August of last year. Um, and that's just kind of was digging a little bit deeper into the topic. set the context of why we're doing this. Yeah.

And um this will be public record. Um so I do recommend um adding in the details of where our current code is um lacking the Yeah. So I Yeah.

Yeah. So this meeting is being recorded which is also public record. So I'm happy to display some of the examples. Um I put together three different examples that I can show. Maybe I'll just do it like this. Okay. So, we have a section in prohibited signs that talks about posters not associated with movies, plays, theaters, or public performances scheduled or playing at the time of display. So, this is an issue with content neutrality because you have to know what's on the sign to be able to regulate something like that, which is pretty specifically not in line with what uh case law would support. Um, so this would be seen as um regulating language, which is a first amendment issue.

So, with that example, before you go any further, and maybe you'll be talking about this. So, some signs are obviously outdate. The political candidate signs up since November. Does this then apply to that same condition that those signs can't be taken down because of their content?

Election signs have a little bit of a mixed case law behind it. Um, there is some support for regulating things that have an end date associated with it, like an election. Um where it gets a little bit iffy is regulating the actual language of the sign um rather than the type of sign. So we can say a lot of political signs are wire stake signs. So we can say you know things about wire stake signs and how long they are allowed to be up as like a temporary sign. But calling out political signs

is the I see. I see. Yeah. something that's said to be temporary would then be likely regulable. Yes, it would it would be a stronger uh regulation than saying something that's hyper specific like this. So if we said posters that are posted in public places that are not weather resistant, those are things that we could regulate, but saying performance posters is where the issue comes from. Thank you very much. Generally, we're free to regulate anything that's within the context of time, place, or manner, or form.

So, if it's not about the language on the sign itself, but how about how you're displaying that sign, about what that sign's made of, about how long that sign can stay up, those are free for jurisdictions.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the information. So our code also has uh it's generally organized by use based standards. So we have a table in the sign code that regulates things for very specific uses even if it's the same type of sign. Um this also becomes a little bit it it's kind of a similar issue to the last one which is we're regulating it based on the content of the sign and not the sign itself. Um, so examples on the screen, subdivision signs, elderly home signs, multif family signs. They have regular relatively similar standards for the type of sign, but they have different standards associated with allowed uh areas of the sign and that's within the same exact zone. So that becomes an issue because we're regulating different allowances for different uses in the same exact zone even though they're all generally residential uses.

I'm curious with like home occupation um do we currently have a sign code for home occupations? We do. We do. And that's that can be in the same zone but it's different because it's associated with home occupation. Is that correct or is that going to get into content?

I think that gets a little bit into content. So I think the recommended approach would be to have a baseline standard that applies to any use in a residential zone for a specific type of sign. So we can say residential zones allow these types of signs and they could be up to this area based on these factors. So for a multif family complex, we can say you have a you have a wall sign and it's allowed to be this big based on how large your frontage is along the roadway and we could apply that same standard in an equitable way to a home business that has a smaller frontage generally speaking. So it would be it would still be proportional, but it it gets problematic when we're regulating it based on the use and not the type of sign.

Right. So to follow up on Commissioner Thiel's comment there, if the area is zoned differently, can zoning affect what signs okay can be allowed? It was you said time, place, manner, and zones also can play a role in that. So we can have different regulations for a commercial zone that are a lot more generous than a residential zone, which better fits the character of those areas. Anyway, Mhm.

So, the last example that I put together is with reference to franchise signs. We have special allowances for franchise signs that basically have a blanket allowance for them to use their standard corporate signage, logos, etc. Even if they don't necessarily meet size, they still need to meet certain sizing regulations, but they are basically given a blanket allowance for maintaining their traditional national standards for design. Um, and that's again a bit problematic because you have to know what the Sorry, I just noticed that spelled wrong. Um, you have to know what the sign is saying and representing to be able to regulate something like that. Yeah, I mean I think these are great contextual examples to to have available for people that are interested in why are we even doing this? Does it makes a lot of sense? So with that said, if the McDonald sign is 90 ft tall because it's a corporate requirement, we can push back on that because

that's manner. Manor. Okay. Yeah. the manner of which it's placed and the size. So like you can do this logo without lang colors and screaming whatever it is but as long as it fits within our sign requirements for size essentially and placement you know construction whatever it's allowable.

Yeah. So for the McDonald's example so it's in the interchange commercial zone. So, if we had a blanket requirement that said we prohibit any red signs, that would be allowable in the sense that it would apply to any business or any sign that's placed in that area. They would all have to meet it. It would all be equitable. But because we have this regulation that says franchises can do whatever they want with design, we would have to allow it. So in this current age when people are driving they often use things like Google maps to locate restaurants specifically but other places like gas stations and such. Do we think that our sign code should reflect that to reduce the visibility of signs from the freeway?

So we have certain regulations in place that discourage and prohibit signs that are oriented towards the freeway. Um, signs like this monument sign for McDonald's are pretty large. And so, and honestly, with the business survey that we did for sign code amendments, you know, visibility from the roadway was a huge factor for a lot of businesses. And while we didn't keep a record of where the businesses were located, I can assume that a lot of these are smaller businesses that are looking for um more visibility in a landscape with a lot of large corporate entities right by the so I

I think it's a difficult topic because you're trying to weigh many aspects here. One is light pollution. Yeah. be environmentally friend friendly. The other was business environment. We want to be business friendly because we need the tax base. Um we want to be aesthetically pleasing and not be cluttered like what is it? Breezewood in Pennsylvania where the two not quite meet and there's that one street that is just chalk full of science. So I I appreciate you trying to balance all those and I appreciate you having data and information to balance that.

Thank you very much. uh with these amendments, you know, we do want to be very mindful to businesses especially since they are impacted the most and it truly is bit a bit of a tight road with regard to it. But I am hoping that the outcome of these amendments is to make things easier and more accessible for our businesses to understand what the regulations are um but also make them more equitable and fair and reflecting the character of our community. So even with the sign code amendments, you know, a lot of these signs aren't going to change overnight. It's going to take big projects, redevelopment to see more conformance to that version of the that future version. That makes sense.

Yeah, I appreciate this so much because as we're thinking about our sense of place and like what our community is, you know, and I'm not saying that we need to be, you know, a ski resort town. I don't know that that's necessarily exactly who we are, but but you do see in OSP resorts, it's like there's still the logos, but they're tiny, right? You know, in some places I've been to in California, all of the restaurant signs like McDonald's are on the ground, low little bars with the restaurant name on it, right? Which as a traveler is very frustrating because you you literally cannot see it until you get near the site. So, I I'm not arguing for that as well. I think that's a little too reserved.

Well, I appreciate what you're doing because it's it is finding that balance and what what's best. Yes. And I I really like I say I really appreciate you're using data and information to do this. Um that's an important part of a design process I think is that we we stick facts. Yeah. So I just want to share what we're trying to also avoid. So this is my wife's parents live in Colona, BC. And this is the approach to the city. And that actually blocks like the view of the skyline coming into town and that's all you see is this huge row of billboards. Yeah, sure a little bit.

But you know the ultimate takeaway from this memo is that ultimately this effort is not just to support things like character and business. It's also to protect the city from any kinds of concerns about first amendment rights. Correct. Good. I appreciate that. I think we want to keep the city looking attractive. Um if and working with business businesses to say you're here because of the location. People come to this location because of what it is and we don't want to clutter that location with signs and destroy what this is.

So businesses need to work with the city in balancing the various needs. So, and if they all if everybody is on the same page as sort of size and all of that then nobody's taking the spotlight. Nobody gets an exception of this right huge disproportionate. Perfect. Thank you. Are there other comments, questions? That's it. We'll move on to item number six, the discussion of the PC approved work plan.

Yeah. So, I came out this morning but uh very long. This is the approved version for um and Hannah did an absolutely fantastic job last night presenting 2025 accomplishments from everything that you guys did last year and some of the highlights from this work plan. So this um went through committee uh it's the community and economic development council committee that's a subset of the full council um for two consecutive meetings. they had a lot of things to say about it. Um, and that's where we made a few amendments in there and I just wanted to highlight those for you. But this from here forward what we're going to be following for the the rest of the year. Um I guess the first thing is you'll see that the climate element is not on there now. And that's because we did not receive a grant that we were um that we had applied for that was um it's it's a competitive grant only in the sense that this legislature only has so much within each bienium to offer. But we still have those funds to be able to use on our climate. We just have to apply next round which will be in 2027. So, we'll be putting our climate element onto our 2027 work plan. Um, some other things, uh, we've added a lot of dates on here. That was one of the things that the committee really wanted to see was when are the mandated deadlines for some of these items. And so, that's where they said, "Okay, you need to repriize this to address things that are coming up sooner and uh, pushing things that are not deadline specific back." Um the first one there, the municipal code amendments evaluating impacts and efficiency that you guys have made your recommendation on. That's going to go to council on on March 17th. So glad to have that one through the process. Uh the second one is new and it's overdue.

So this is uh we we discovered this recently just reviewing some um state legislation and some some project timelines. Uh so the state enacted uh Senate Bill 5290 which took effect January 1st of this year or of last year actually creating some deadlines uh new deadlines uh for various types of permits. So what we need to do is actually bring our code into conformance with that. There's a number of things that it did. It went from uh that it used to be just 120 days for just about everything. So, it shrunk that time frame up for simple projects that don't require public hearing or notice uh things like building permits and uh kind more kind of your more basic stuff. Uh shrunk that down to I think it was 50 days. It it lengthened the time frame for other things. So, things that require a hearing before hearing examiner um and then various other things. It actually extended it from 120 days to 170 days. So, we're bringing our code into conformance with that. that'll come to you guys at your very next meeting and uh bring that through soon as possible. Uh the next couple things um are just as you saw them previously. So unit lot subdivisions, lot splitting, those are things important to the state to make uh subdivision and housing easier to do. Site plan regulations you guys have made your recommendation on already going to council March 17th. Um the parking regulation added several deadlines there. There's a number of different provisions from different portions of state legislation. Some of them are actually overdue, but not really a high-risisk issue. Other things coming up this year, June 30th, that we need to address. So, that's one of the ones that we're prioritizing. We've moved it up just a little bit to uh take action on that. Um the impact fees, transportation, and park impact fee regulations, um that'll

be continuing on uh implementing some other things we're doing parks element. And then also for the sake of collecting those impact fees, we're having a consultant prepare a study right now about how those uh impact fees relate to our capital facilities plan. Um and uh overall lens of service standards that'll be coming to you later in the year. Um pretty much everything else on here is as you saw previously. um the sign regulations we've shifted back but other than that that's about it still a very very busy year.

Yes, your your days are full. I'm curious with the permitting. So the state changed it and of course you need to come up with the code with them. Is there a reason why they allowed more time for the hearing examiner? I think just realistic that with the amount of stuff that goes into a hearing and um the the time frame to address public comment and see the process and so forth wasn't really reasonable within 120 days. It's great.

Yeah, I think it makes sense. And I'm just thinking about development and how that affects, you know, as we've talked as even as a state, you know, about development projects being able to go through faster. This seems counterintuitive to again what the state had spent in the past. That's interesting. Most of the permits um the simpler permits it's quite a bit shrinking the time frame. Okay. Uh we've done just some very preliminary analysis of where we're at with regard to all that. We feel like generally we are consistent. It's more often than not in the developers court than in our court. Um it's easy to blame the city.

Yeah. Yeah. like I submitted these permits, but when there's like 50 things wrong, then yeah, for reference, I did a analysis for my of one of my land use projects from last year and it took me I believe 52 days to process, notify, review and issue a decision on a site plan review application. Wow. And that was just like the time spent inhouse. There was additional time spent by the applicant addressing comments, putting things together, addressing missing items from the initial submitt package. Based Sorry, I'm going to go ahead.

Based upon that, did you make any recommendations for ways to cut the time that's involved with that? It's challenging because public noticing requirements. We don't have every reviewer in house because we also use consultants. We have a bit of a bottleneck with our engineer um on the CED team. There's only one of him and there are however many projects that we're working on, working on closing out, doing construction inspections on and field changes for um

in my perspective, the very biggest thing is to reduce unnecessary regulation because every one of those regulations we need to review to ensure conformance, right? So for every one of those that's a step with a consultant that went up back and forth. That's expensive to save money. Yeah. It also takes time putting these materials together and coordinating reviews. I mean I think it took me probably a day a day's work to put together just the staff report and this was for a fairly simple project. Mhm. I think that given most small town budgets, that's probably true across the state,

that there's a struggle to fit the needs of business and economy with the realities of making sure that towns are developed properly. So, appreciate that that you are working diligently. You guys really do have so much on your plate. I think one of the interesting things about most cities is that the population does not realize just how much work is going on behind the scenes to make the laws work. Mhm. Yeah. Well, the biggest thing is if you pass a law, it's our obligation to follow that, right? Yeah. Just ignore it and say, "Oh, you're good to go." That that would be disrespectful to the public. So,

yeah. I think there's a opportunity which I would suggest to pass along to the citizens academy to maybe make that more explicit about this is why the city does these things and this is why things take time. Um no no fingerpointing like this academy doesn't do a good thing. But I think that's something that I find most people that I meet in the city who have no idea that it takes time because there's things that have to be done. Right. So, and I appreciate that you spent that time 52 days. Wow. It it varies considerably though. Yeah, I can imagine. Probably

and the tracking is very difficult because it's very often the case that it's not just a singular submitt and a singular resubmittal. It's bits and pieces that kind of come in and go. I admire that the skill you have in the training. Mike and Hannah, can I interject a thought on what you're all talking about? Because I agree most residents don't know. And Mike, you know that I got involved whether I wanted to be or not back in 2016.

We really do want to hear from you, but it's not a public hearing. So, unless there's a way that we can because we already closed the public hearing, but right, I don't know that it's up to the discretion of the commission. Okay. I'm you have a good lesson. I'd like to hear what

I've wondered. I don't know what it would take to organize, but some town halls I mean citizens academy is one thing, but I hear citizens come well after the fact and be upset with a commissioner or with a planning agent or with council. So, some of the topics have to be pretty obvious right now to have some town halls. Like the mayor has her coffee. Maybe there's some town halls that can be hosted. And I don't know that you have anything to lose, but I would like to see it be less antagonistic of all of you who do understand all the layering. So, thank you for giving me the floor.

Yeah. Well, thanks for that comment. And honestly, I feel like that probably resonates with all of us. We are a small town and that does that does seem like it could have a good fit for our city. There's a lot of passionate people in town who do want to contribute but don't have a way to do it. So, that would be a great idea to consider.

Kind of along the lines, we're deviating a lot from talking about, but uh kind of related to the citizens academy thing. I I had had an idea that I talked to the mayor about maybe at the last appreciation thing potentially having like an open house day or days where city hall like sort of close like employees don't have to do their actual jobs but distance can come and like have coffee and they'll have snacks and maybe set up like some booze out in the parking lot and everyone can come by and meet the people that actually work here and talk to them in person and ask questions about what they do and why does it take want to do whatever it is that you do, Mike. You know, like and then Yeah. then it's a casual environment. You guys don't have to like work.

Yeah. But that work won't go away. I know. I know. It's pushed, you know, a day later. But yeah, why is that permit ready? Well, you know. Yeah, I know. Open house. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Even that Yeah. Yeah. There's no there's no bad ideas in rangeing, but we're also not supposed to be brainstorming. So I do like the idea of getting rid of the us and them sort of mental. That's that's an important thing to understand. Right. Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any other um thoughts on the work plan or or other thoughts before

I want to say I appreciate as a visual person I vis I appreciate the icons. It really helped me to go through and spot what I was interested in. So, thank you for doing that little extra bit of work. Yeah, I still think it's a very strong plan. So, even with the shifts and the removal the climate, I think this is great. So, let's get started. I can still guarantee you that we're not going to get all the time. Hey, you don't have anything else? We're done. Yep. I think we'll go to item seven which which is adjournment at 703. Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you. And sorry, Mr. Gomes, I just adjourned that. Did you have anything there? No, no, I was listening. You can't catch up. We're not recording. All right. Have a good evening, James. See you. Thank you. Bye, everyone.