Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

bringing the neighbor. I know. It's actually perfect. Sorry, I'm just checking to see if anybody's waiting. Doesn't look like it. You guys often have public uh comments, right? Or not necessarily comments, but just people that want to attend the meeting remotely. Look at this. This is our new people can actually hear clearly. Amazing. Nice work. It's really nice to be able to hear who is speaking and what they are saying from anywhere in the room. Huge improvement.

It's funny that like we're in Washington which is so tech heavy that it feels like all tech and all internet shouldn't have any problem. this down.

Then even after several years of COVID and adaption, just even getting on to a Zoom meeting sometimes poses all sorts of challenges. Totally. Well, I think part of it is that we have so many trees and so if everything was underground, it wouldn't be as big of a thing, but anybody else dressing up freshly? I will definitely dress up. Oh, do you have anything planned? I haven't figured out anything. All right. It's been a rocky couple of months, so I'm catching up, but something will happen. I have a couple in stock that I can fall back on. Nice. My daughter will dress me up.

So, will you do it as trick-or-treating or will like do you do like a friend party also? Oh, all of the above. Halloween is my favorite holiday. I'm a big fan of dressing up. Oh, nice. I may dress up the week. The whole week. All right. Just, you know, we'll see. Excellent. Any and all opportunities. Did you dress up? You said you like Halloween.

I My boyfriend and I are going to do a couple's costume. We're going to do Ted and Alexis from Ships Creek. My boyfriend looks a lot like Ted, so it works. Just need to get him the scrubs. A couple scoops are fine. I used to do them. Are we recording? Yeah, we I guess it starts auto recording. So, we are Okay, perfect. So, at 6:30 we'll call to order and roll calling commission. Um, Commissioner White, Commissioner Teal, Commissioner Boulders, present.

Commissioner Carrera, present. Commissioner Koulan. Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Matlock is walking in. All right. Perfect. All right. So, we'll move on to item number two. This is the opportunity for public comment on non-aggenda items. We do not have any here in person. Do we have anybody online? No.

Okay. Okay. So, we will open and close that public comment uh portion of our meeting at 6:30. And now we are on to item number three, the approval of minutes from September 17th, 2025. So, do commissioners have any questions or comments or we're looking for approval? Approve. All in favor? I none opposed. We move on to item number four. the sign regulations. This is the first review for prohibitions and exemptions and we'll turn it over to stack to present.

Um, yep. So, pretty self-explanatory tonight. We are not looking for a motion to pass anything. This is just to get some initial feedback on some critical sections of the code that will help me inform the more lengthy and detailed components that I will bring to you likely closer to the end of the year, maybe end of November, early December. Okay. So, would you like us to would you like to go through or do we just are you looking for comments or questions from plan commission? Looking for comments and questions at this time. If you do not have any at this time, please feel free to reach out over the next week or so if you would like some additional time to take a look at it. Um, when Brian emailed earlier today explaining he would not be able to make today's meeting, he said that he had no comments. and I should probably send you a copy of the definitions list just to catch you up. We're starting to work on the sign code. Um, we're doing an overall overhaul on it. Um, starting with some of the basic components like definitions, prohibitions, exemptions, and that will inform what needs to be included on the rest of it.

Kayn's also reached out to our business community to ask what's important.

Um, Mike is correct. We issued out a business survey to both solicit feedback on important things that the business community wants us to keep in mind when updating the sign code as well as how we are performing in terms of providing business support overall throughout the community. Um that went out two weeks almost two weeks ago and it will close next Wednesday end of day. Um I checked I think on Friday where we were at and we had about 10 responses halfway through. I am planning to send out an email to businesses that we do have contact information for to kind of nudge it. It has been posted in the Snowqualami Valley Reporter. Um Bri with our communications team posted it on social media as well. Um, and I believe the Chamber of Commerce has also been informed about it as well as the Downtown Foundation.

When was the last time it was updated? Uh, there were some updates in like 2016, but largely most of it was developed in the 2000s. So, it is not up to current standards. There's a lot of different types of signs. I can send you the PowerPoint introducing the topic that I prepared a couple months ago. That's kind of a good orientation, educational piece to all of this. I'll make a note to send that over to you after this meeting. Appreciate that.

I just had a couple questions. Uh, how does signage on food trucks and at the farmers market play into this stuff? Is that uh We don't regulate signs that are just a part of a vehicle. If they're parking the vehicle for the purpose of signs, we've got provisions in our sign code that regulate that. Okay. So, the food bank truck that's parked over there by Real Bravo would be considered a sign since it has the name of the business on it.

The bookmobile. Uh, yeah. So, that would fall into an exemption in the sense that it is an advertising sign, but it isn't going to be parked there for multiple days on end constantly. So, kind of think about um some other similar kinds of signs that you would see. Um I see a lot of cars that have signs for a business or a service that somebody provides as either an individual business or part of a larger enterprise that kind of travels around. So, like house cleaner cars that have a advertising sign on it. Um you see those mobile trucks that are like pet cleaners as well, kind of similar thing. So there's a general exemption carved out for those.

Okay. Well, and here you address it under number 16, but it's a little confusing because you start off by saying all the signs in the right of way of Interstate 90 or SR 202. Um, and then it's the next sentence, signs pertaining to or associated. So I think that all of those standards are great for, you know, the identification on vehicles. I guess my question is just whether those are only for Interstate 90 or 202 or if that is or

ah you're talking about the prohibited sign section. So that is mostly speaking to freestanding signage on state rights of way. Okay. So that is for 90 and 202.

Yeah. So, it wouldn't apply to cars because in the exemption section it talks about number 15, you talk about, you know, painted or fixed signs on parked vehicles. And I guess I would just ask, you know, where you're saying parked vehicles, is there somewhere that we define parked? So that food carts and mobile bookshops and all that really is exempt.

I think that could be more clearly described with a certain time limitation of 24 hours or more at a single time. If it's for a business that's for that you that vehicle and that vehicle's in use like the bookmobile, that's not something that this is prohibiting. It's more specifically when you're you see like those billboard signs in Seattle, right? Trucks in Seattle where they park it and it's suddenly like this mobile billboard. That's what this is trying to get to. Yeah. Which I think is fantastic. But yeah, if you add a time frame, then it just makes it clear. That's perfect. Sorry, I missed jumping in. No, that's Thanks.

Yeah, great comment. Thank you. a question or a comment on the print out that explains the exemptions here. Number two, flag poles erected for the purpose of displaying patriotic or corporate flags. Number one, is that saying that no two flag poles use permitted? And number two, um what about celebratory flags like a flag pole that wants to display when the Seahawks win or someone wants to celebrate Junth? Are those included under this patriotic and corporate?

I think that's the intention. Um, so this is in the exemption section and basically all that is specifying is that it's not really subject to the sign code in that sense. So we can add kind of an peripheral um section like other miscellaneous. It's not a I don't imagine someone would put up 37 flag ps. But there's no limit. You could have a flag for the the US flag, the state flag, the city flag, corporate flag. If you wanted to go to that link, we would not be regulating that. Yeah. And again, this is just kind of a broad exe prohibition on exemption or exemption. So say basically this shouldn't be advertising,

right? You know, advertising a business. Yeah. because in the prohibited sign section, it does have some language about limitations, but we do need to talk to legal about that. Um, I wanted to get people's feedback today, polish it up, and then send this first package over to legal for some initial feedback as well. Um, but there are limitations in the prohibition section. Like, ideally, we should have like a size limit on corporate flags. Um,

agreed. I don't think we want to see a 60 foot or 60 square foot flag advertising John Deere or something. Um, right. Your limitation under eight uh 82 flags exceeding 60 square ft.

We can specify that to corporate or business flags. six of the um section that would be the exemptions minor non-electrical resident signs that are signed on site or offsite signs. Uh does this potentially also include like neighborhooddevelopment entry signs like landing or something? Oh, those are those are regulated.

Those are regulated. Okay. Just wasn't sure. Yeah, there that would be considered like a permanent residential sign introducing a neighborhood to people that are passing by or looking to drop their kids off for a playd date trying to find the right neighborhood. Thanks. Awesome. Uh so with the with these exemptions in general, is there a place where this isn't identifying temporary signs? Temporary signs will be regulated separately, right? So if a if a prohibi if a signs falls within this prohibited signs but is temporary, it would fall under wait under the prohibited section.

So if it's a prohibited sign but it's of a temporary nature. Is there is it still prohibited or is temporary? Is there something you're thinking of that? Well, so a couple different things. Uh so this is more of a personal level. The flags are seated 60 square feet. Like Tanner has a big American flag we we hang from between the trucks way bigger than 60 feet, but it's up for a day. I think

I think for that one I want to adjust the language to be specific to business advertising flags that exceed 60 square feet would be prohibited. I don't want to raise any concerns around the federal flag code or first amendment rights. Um that's not the intention of that. It's really just to limit commercial usage of flags. Mhm. And then the other one for utilities again um under your prohibitions there's a looks like 26 utility or public street feature. kind of speak to some utility stuff, but there are water columns, electric would have signs on the poles

that wouldn't I don't see an exemption form from this being frozen signs. I think we put that kind of thing under the same exemption of utility or public street feature signs are exempted. Okay. So, if you have some added language on I'm just thinking more for like if you want for utilities, it' be for employees, not for public. Mhm. That would be easy, you know, like that up. You know, I think util all utilities wouldn't want to you wouldn't want corporate signage or public signage, but utilities tend to put on poll numbers, things like that that could fall under some of this. Mhm.

Yeah. So, we can make it clear that it's targeting any commercial or residential sign that's placed on a utility or public street feature. That's what the intent of that is. We don't want someone to stick 100 balloons on a stop sign and block the stop sign and cause an accident to advertise a birthday party when it kind to that point be separated more straightforward or put all together.

Yeah, I can make it in like a like for example but not limited to I have a couple of things. So on 20 where it says reader boards except for those allowed by code such as movie theater signs and marquee signs. Um and you mentioned in your comment that there's already some in the city which are probably historic and grandfathered in and I'm fine with that. It's just confusing where it says reader boards except for those allowed by code and I'm just wondering what code or like

to be created with the sign code amendments. So when I was doing some research into the old sign code, I think the reader boards that are referenced in the old sign code are referencing a very type different type of reader board than we would see today. So I'm sure you've seen the reader board across the street. The gym has one. Um there's a church in downtown Northbend that also has one. I think it's referring to those kinds of signs that are a little bit more freestanding um rather than things that are more like a monument sign where it's affixed to the ground. It's a little bit more well-designed and attractive. The one across the street at the gym is um less sightly plasticky um kind of vinyl material almost. And I think that was the intention of that regulation originally. So reader boards in a different sense will be allowed. Um there's like digital reader boards that a lot of m municipal organizations use these days. Um marquee signs and movie theater signs are kind of different than readerboard signs but kind of brothers in a sense.

Yeah. So I guess when when we get the code then then that will be cited. That's what you're saying. Okay. And then kind of the same idea 253 any sign placed in such a manner that obscures the vision of a motor as determined by the city engineer. Um, so does the city engineer just get to choose that or is it a clear sight triangle or like are there standards around that or it's just like whatever whatever he's is that city engineer or city in like rightway inspector? We don't have a rightway inspector.

I mean it could also be brought into city engineer or code enforcement. I mean really the intent is just to make sure that there's no traffic hazards as a result of sign placement. Um I don't think that there's like a specific standard that's associated with that. It's more just like is the sign blocking or partially blocking, right? So maybe like for you know traffic safety as determined by the city engineer or something because the way it's read it seems like whatever whatever the city engineer feels like it could just go for. made a similar comment for there's a couple places referencing the director has a final say

and I think where we can we should try to be as specific as possible in the code because obviously the director shouldn't have to rely on their just judgment they should be referencing something specific when they make a decision and it should also ideally be clear to the public beforehand like what is so like if we can specify and be like this is the decision they're reaching me for this what section was that it Yeah, that's a good question. I um there were a couple of spots. The first be number four in the first part. Uh A4,

sorry, page three. Oh, yes. 18.20.30B. 030B and then in the enforcement section director typically has authority to interpret in these division. So I was just saying anywhere we have a reference right now to director we should see if there's a way to clarify it. such an obvious.

Yeah, that that specific change was just amending some of the language because originally it said in the discretion of the community services director, which there is no community services director. So, it was more like a correction to align with current city staffing and departments. Um, we also the recreation fields one is a little bit of a odd duck because it's not truly managed by the city. it's done something that's done by the little league that benefits the little league. That it's just kind of a focus park. Um but the conditions could be something to keep it in appropriate time place manner and not turn it into something that

Yeah. I mean the law that I'm used to it's a zoning administrator would be given the opportunity to decide but that was written into the state code to allow that power to the zoning administrator. So if the city engineer or if the director has you know already some of that designation then then maybe we don't have to spell it out because it's already there in another code but it would be helpful for clarity.

Yeah, I would say it's kind of in like kind of some other discretionary decisions that are made at the directoral level like landscape modification or administrative interpretation or Yeah. I I think the conditions in that sense would mostly mean that staff have discretion in terms of stipulating what would be allowed, time periods, sizing, etc. But we can expand it to specify what we really mean by conditions. I think it's helpful.

Yeah. Again, reference. I'm sure Washington state probably has this address somewhere. So, reference existing code. I think we could just say something as something about as appropriate to address public health and safety visibility things like that gets to just get a little worried when it's relying on common sense.

Yeah. We don't want it to seem arbitrary and like there could be room for any kind of favoritism between organizations. Well, let's say if someone challenges the decision, right? They're really unhappy with the decision made. They have people argue with well code is up to that and they decided and to that actually just at the beginning, you know, we referenced um the sign regulations like uh A through 4. Um will there be a link to those? Is there, you know, can we do a link or where can if the public wanted to find these, would they be able to?

Um, we actually recently noticed that our historic design guidelines were not on our website. So, that is something we can absolutely add a link to. Yeah, I think we could easily create just a sign application page that directs people through the process of what they need to do for submitting.

Yeah. But in terms of like the Northbend factory stores tenant sign criteria and Mountain Valley Shopping Center plan sign program, I am not sure if that's something that we would have copies of. It would be something that the master developer that owns the overall property and manages it would implement. So, what this is exemption is saying is that the factory stores um at the outlet mall and then the Mountain Valley Shopping Center, they have to submit to us for a sign permit. But in terms of like the design of it and the sizing of it, that would fall under those programs that would be administered by the developer. We're just checking to make sure that it meets lighting standards and that it's being attached properly to meet safety and building standards. got a couple of questions. Uh I think you mentioned you legal hasn't looked at this yet.

No, that's going to be my next step for initial draft. Um maybe I could just submit some questions for them when they review uh couple I just you know initially reading through it my first thoughts were like constitutional compliance with first amendment stuff. Uh the first one and the reason I asked for the time I actually did a little research. It looks like there was a Supreme Court decision in 2015. Yes. Reed verse town of Gilbert. Yeah.

Which is uh promoting content neutral stuff. So in section 1827A the prohibitions number 17 poster not associated with movies, plays, theaters performances. I think this is probably in violation of that meaning our our code has to be content neutral. So, I would be I would be wondering if this is in compliance. Yeah.

Uh there's a couple others. Let's see. There's one also. Number 14 in prohibitions. Real estate agent signs. Advertised properties are not located within the city of New North Bend. Also content based discrimination. That's not content though because that is also about um place. So, not located within the city of North Bend. So, if it were just real estate signs, period, that I think would be a content violation, but okay. Another one I had was number 23, signs of fixed defenses with the exception of construction contractor coming soon. Curious that may also have some content based distinctions allowing commercial messages, but not I think we can instead put that under a temporary signs. Yeah, I think the intent with 20 periods are unsightly. They don't perpetuate a a message or an aesthetic that I think the north city of North Bend really wants in its city limits. Um, unless they do.

Yeah. So I I think again that would be the good legal question like if we can regulate things without and remain in compliance with the first amendment. Um two others I had uh and these were less but it's number 13 section Absene signs including signs that bear contain statements words or pictures are obscene. Sorry. I have to come back to that. And I think I think the main thing was can we reference the RCW statutes when we talk about prevailing statutes? Let me just make a reference to

Sorry, what number was that? Number 13, section A under the prohibit. Let's see. Yeah, number 13.

Yeah, I can add a second.

You made a comment on number 18. just if this sign type is allowed in certain areas, I think they should be removed from prohibitions list and we simply state in the standards themselves that all sides are only allowed in certain areas. I think that's great. Personally, I don't know how the rest of the commission feels, but I think it's a good idea. Uh I did have one more on 1820 Bravo.6 Six, other lowquality, non-durable, or inappropriate materials that are not suitable for climate and long-term outdoor placement. Uh, the word inappropriate seemed like it could be up to interpretation, vague, and subjective. Um I also was curious from an engineering maybe I don't know it's engineering there looks like we don't like aluminum on signs and I was curious if there was a specific reason for that

composite aluminum composite the very end here uh section Bangla sign materials are prohibited aluminum of composite material. Sorry, which one number is that? SJ2 very very all the way down. Keep going.

Maybe there's more to it than that. Um, so, so ACM or aluminum composite material is a versatile lightweight panel made of two thin sheets of aluminum bonded to a non-aluminum core. Um, it's sometimes used for signage. It's sometimes used for architectural facades or interior appliances. I believe the intent with the prohibition is that it's a flimsier material that is not as resistant to weather typically. Um, and we just want to discourage those kinds of signs because they get a lot of wear and tear. They're wasted materials. They might require you to replace them often. Um, as opposed to something that is at least sealed.

Okay. And then I guess similar question on glass. Does that come out of a dur durability concern or I'm thinking within the historic district, neon is specifically encouraged and that relies on glass. you. I guess my main question was maybe uh just to double look at these to see if they should warrant still being excluded. Also, these are outdoor sign materials and I think most neon signs are indoor signs. Uh not not in our historic district. So like the Northbend theater and tweets and

but that would be exempt under the exemption section because it's in the historic sign district. Yeah. I just don't want something to so we can write this would trump glass outside of the historic sign district. Glass except for neon. We're into neon. Did this come from another like another jurisdiction?

Okay. And preferred to be indoor. So like you know the open signs are usually inside not outside. You don't want a bad actor to walk by your business, smash it, and leave glass and chemicals all over the ground. Okay.

Uh there was the one I missed. Uh again, not super critical, but we have uh 1827A. So, prohibited signs 25 signs with advertising that copy imitate traffic signs. I think that sounds great. Uh it's used for them. We specify specific words that cannot be used. Stop, look, danger, caution, warnings, or go slow. wondering if specifying the exact words and prohibiting those words is necessary or just too specific this. So we could use any example but not limited to

or maybe even I mean I almost wonder if just signs that advertise in a copy or imitate official traffic signs or signals should be not allowed and not need to specify the X rule. I don't know if like maybe you could play like a sign saying stop for coffee, you know, depending on how it looks. That I don't know. Well, I think if it looked like a stop sign, that would be the intention there. Like stop coffee.

That could confuse someone driving at a glance. And maybe a better way to phrase it would be signs that imitate traffic signs or no, that that's what it's written. It says signals of effect or use such words as it doesn't limit it and we can include like etc at the very end or or other similar words on traffic signage.

Yeah, I think my recommendation is almost going the other way. Like I don't know if we need to specify there. I think it it seems very self-explanatory to me to say no signs in advertising that copy or imitate official traffic or signs or signal. Seemed like it would be enough. If others support that, I can remove it. Just do the rest of the commissioners. So, sorry. If the sign has a red octagon on it but doesn't contain the word stop, would that be allowed? Because it says advertising copy. I would say that still imitates the initial product.

So that's why you say the overuses such words as Yeah, for me I could go either way. I some of this is going to be subject to interpretation. It's kind of depend on the context. So, if it's located on a business wall, people aren't going to think that's a stop sign. But if it's like something that's advertising some event that they put it out on the rightway, and that's a little bit of a stronger context that we need to consider those types of criteria.

You said this this has to go by legal, right? Mhm. So maybe signs within the right of way or located offsite can't have these components to it could be a better way to phrase it. It does help that you start it's 25 traffic hazard or public nuisances created by signs and then it includes. So I mean for me I feel like it doesn't matter if you have the words listed or not. I feel like it's the same. I don't mind them but I don't mind not having them either.

Yeah, we can simplify it. I think that's a I mean that's a core guiding principle of this exercise is simplifying it. So if we feel that we can interpret this consistently as a sign that looks like an official traffic sign or signal doesn't matter what the words are. If it imitates a sign that looks like a government sign that's supposed to regulate traffic and safety then that is a problem. Period. Right? So let's just simplify it. Yeah. Number two, you have signs that in a confused motives or detract from any illegal traffic to other places. So that's, you know, that's right there as well. Okay.

What's a cabinet sign? Cabinet sign is a a box-like sign that hangs off of a structure. So, you say you have a building and you have a box structure like hanging off of the building that has a sign inside it with a plastic vinyl see-through sheet over it. Huh? Like a marquee? No, cuz with a marquee those you can like easily remove the letters and they don't have like a box component to it. It's more Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, we have a handout sheet that has photos of all the different kinds of signs that we'll talk about and it'll be so helpful to have that.

I promise. I appreciate you breaking this up into I don't think that there's any other way to do this without all of this going crosseyed. I think it would be really hard to try and tackle this all at once, which is what C CED has communicated that they would prefer right now. Um they want to see large swaths of proposal to come through before in the hearing phing commission hearing is complete on them. Um which maybe at that point is appropriate.

Yeah. So, I think we're overall expecting full adoption probably in Marchish, maybe April. We'll see. I got other thoughts, comments. Just a question just back to the last page, the the glass, you know, the sign the barber shop outside. Is it a glass? I'm not sure. I was actually just there earlier today. So, I was thinking about you know the sign the barber shop like a like a tube like a barber pole. Yeah, I don't know if glass then.

I think it is probably glass but you did specify barber poles in here right thinking. This talks about materials, right? Yeah. So which one which one trumps it? I think you get to make the call. Yeah, I would think the materials would trump it. It's an allowed sign, but it's still subject to sign material standards. Mhm.

So, it would probably be considered an existing non-conforming sign where they're allowed to do maintenance and repairs on it, but they wouldn't necessarily be able to replace it um unless it was a material that fell in line with what is permitted. And again, that would just be like a preventative safety component. You know, again, we don't want a bad actor to come up, smash it, leave glass all over the ground that someone could cut their themselves on.

Any more on this one? I am just curious. I mean, this might not be the right place to ask. I'd be curious to talk to just how does the city regulate signage on I think some of this is appropriate to city prop or public private property like business that how legally how's the city able to regulate what is posted on a private property.

So we are allowed to create sign standards based on placement and sign type. And so what we have been talking about in previous planning commissions is dividing things up between different kinds of uses and signs that are most associated with those kinds of uses. So commercial, residential, um government, agency, kind of like an other catchall institutional category. Um, but it has an aesthetic component that people I mean if you post a sign on your property, it the intent of that sign is for people that aren't in your home or in your business already to see those signs. Um,

I just don't know how clearly it's in code. There must be a way. So, I'm curious general police powers afforded to government. So, it's an aesthetic issue. It's a public safety issue. It's a um I guess community character issue interested on my board. I'm going have to look more into that. It's curious that that doesn't somehow conflict with the first amendment in terms of like being able Well, that's where the content with the Gilbert case come the Gilbert. Yeah. But uh and that's regulating the time, place and manner are afforded to jurisdictions regulate and then those would usually be in regards to public spaces, right?

Yeah. Any I don't want to detract from the meeting. That's fascinating. I'd love to hear more about it. Uh the last one I have is do you guys already know maybe across town are there any signs that exist today that would be affected by these?

No. So those would be considered non-conforming signs, legal non-conforming. And if you have an existing non-conforming use, whe regardless whether it's a sign or a building or any other type of thing that doesn't meet current code, you can continue to have that. You just are limited in terms of um expanding it, replacing it, things like that. So when it comes time to replace it, um there's often provisions that require you to come into compliance with the current standards.

Do we know any that might be not in these proposed standards? Assuming the gym here is probably their sign. Is that going to be going away when they have to replace it? I think mostly right. There's also the fence sign that's over on the um oh gosh, what is it? the green tractor business. It's on a John Deere. It's You're talking about Sunundell Ret.

Yes, I am. Yeah. So, Sun Valley loves to put signs on fences. Um, which in a short-term sense could be permissible, but not in a perpetual long term. So, we have another business in town that has a banner sign and they aren't allowed to have a banner sign for more more than 30 days at a time, but it's been up for about seven or eight months now. Um, and they refuse to put in a fixed sign on or only use like movable like sandwich board type signs. So, here's an example. So, right across the street. So,

this is a non-conforming sign. it's mounted on the roof. Um, it's a box sign. It would exceed the size limits. So, that would not be allowed by the parent code. And we have non-conforming use regulations. Let's say if you've abandoned a non-conforming use for more than a year, which includes signs, you then lose that non-conforming status. So, because it does not have any sign in it, they've lost that non-conforming status and they can't just put up a new sign board. that one. I'm curious what the old business was. Did they do like masonry like Yeah, there was some sort of flooring and um yeah, masonry. Yeah, it looks like some sort of

Yeah. display. I thought it was an antique store. I saw an old wood chair in there when we were at some point, too. Does this have effects on like political science? No. Political signs cannot be regulated whatsoever other than we can regulate where you place them in the sense that we for the sense of public safety. That's a strong limitation. So you could put up like a 10 foot by 20 foot sign because it would be out of compliance with size.

So we can regulate the types of signs that are allowed. So let's say you have a 10 x 20 foot political billboard. If we prohibit billboards throughout town, which I believe is in the prohibition list, then you can't have a political sign. That's a billboard. We do allow other kinds of signs though throughout the town that you could do political signage on and that would be okay. It's more about type rather than content. Okay. So, for example, there's a sign that usually goes up in that vacant lot near Park Street in 202. That's fine because the sign itself fits in the size. or is it function of the size?

Under what we are proposing in the sign code, it would be considered an existing non-conforming sign, which they're allowed to maintain. They're allowed to change the face, but if they do repairs that exceed a certain amount of money or more on it, then it would not be allowed anymore. going on. My other thoughts on science. Good work on this. Very helpful.

Yeah, really appreciate the feedback. It gives me a bigger perspective of things. Always appreciate the questions. Please reach out with anything else. I will try and bring something to you at the November meeting. Signs are a challenging topic, too. There's always a lot of interest in it. they they are tricky to regulate. I opinions both ways. I will also make sure that at the next meeting I give you highle summary of what the sign business sign code survey what the results of that were in the back end. Yes. Yes. I will be here. So I'll be here.

That's in a month, right? Our next in a month because the 5th Okay, I misread the number on it. All right, I'll be here. What's the progression? So, we've got this is the initial look. It sounds like legal will look at it. You'll get feedback from community. Will we look at again on the 5th for the new draft?

Um, so what I would anticipate at this time for the 5th, I would expect definitions, prohibitions, and exemptions to come back with legal feedback and all of your feedback that I've received so far incorporated into it. You may also get a first touch on more administrative and enforcement standards. Still also highle things. Once we feel good about that and I get second round of feedback, then I'm going to start diving into more specific design standards. So size, um, type per zone, per use, where you're allowed to place them. Um those kinds of standards will come after that but they will also be broken up into smaller finer pieces so that nobody is overwhelmed and we stay focused on a specific component of it as we go through it.

Perfect. And nothing else we will adjourn at 7:15. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you. And forgive.