►
Description
Planning, Economic Development, and Land Use Committee meeting continuing the discussion of USDO amendments.
A
A
C
D
E
F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
D
D
D
E
We
have
our
staff,
danielle
city
clerk,
danielle
gillespie,
our
council,
john
raphael
piccardo
and
from
the
planning
department
we
have
luis
rildan
and
aaron
glennon
as
well
as
director,
brad
glass,
and
we
are
tonight.
We
are
continuing
our
discussion
on
proposed
amendments
to
the
unified,
sustainable
development
ordinance.
Also,
I
should
point
out
councilmember
judy
daucher
is
also
here.
Excuse
me,
I
I
forgot
council,
member
jack
flynn
and
and
council
corporation
council,
martha
mahoney.
E
So
what
we're
going
to
start
with
a
presentation
from
aaron
glenn
and
louise
realdone
and
you
want
to
take
it
off,
go
ahead.
Aaron.
Thank
you.
E
Hold
on
a
second
aaron,
I
think
we're
going
to
I'm
having
trouble
hearing.
So
I
imagine
others
are
as
well
so
danielle
if
you
wouldn't
mind
turning
off
the
air
conditioning,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure-
I
also
want
to
point
out
council
member
alfredo
ballerin
is
also
here
and
because
we
want
to
make
sure
we
can
in
here.
E
E
F
Ahead
so
as
we
discussed
under
article
two,
we
are
creating
the
new
preservation
standards
under
article
4..
They
are
incorporating
the
existing
building
and
streetscapes.
F
E
Aaron,
can
you
hold
on
a
second?
I
can't
see
read
this,
so
I
don't
know
you
know
anybody
else
have
a
thought.
Any
thoughts
on
this.
C
Are
we
are
we
showing
this
online
so
that
we
can
look
at
our.
C
C
E
C
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
F
F
The
so
currently
the
general
building
design
standards
are
kind
of
scattered
throughout.
As
part
of
the
current
revisions,
we
are
proposing
to
relocate
them
all
under
the
new
section
called
conservation
standards
under
section
402,
a
through
f.
F
This
will
make
it
easy
for
applicants
who
are
planning
projects
to
be
able
to
find
these
standards,
and
they
will
apply
to
all
existing
structures
within
the
city
of
albany.
We
are
looking
at
the
possibility
of
maybe
defining
these
standards
be
applicable
to
buildings
that
are
50
years
or
older,
but
we
are
currently
discussing
that
and
refining
that
information,
so
these
standards
are
applied
to
alterations
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
and
existing
materials.
F
F
F
F
F
D
F
And
that
does
thank
you,
council,
member
hoey,
because
that
does
bring
up.
One
of
the
things
we
have
we
did
discuss
and
we
are
working
on
is
possibly
creating
some
definitions
for
some
of
the
building
building,
terminologies,
that
you
know
the
general
public
may
not.
F
One
of
the
other
current
reviews
that
we're
doing
within
the
historic
resource
standards
is
going
through
and
revising,
where
criteria
may
say,
should
and
changing
it
to
shell.
This
is
based
on
guidance
that
either
myself
as
a
preservation,
planner
or
the
historic
resource
commission,
provides
to
applicants
for
either
retention
or
repair
of
materials.
F
Under
landscaping,
screening
and
buffering,
this
is
just
a
relocation
of
our
current
fence,
wall
fence
wall
and
accessory
structure
guidelines
where
it's
currently
just
under
the
general
standards
on
under
the
historic
resource
overlay
and
we're
proposing
to
relocate
it
with
all
the
other,
the
other
fence
and
buffering
guidelines.
F
Then
the
building
design
standards
we
are
proposing
to
relocate
the
historic
resource,
overlay,
new
construction
and
new
construction
in
or
adjacent
to
the
downtown,
albany
historic
district
again.
This
is
just
kind
of
clarifying
all
of
our
standards
and
combining
standards
that
apply
to
either
new
construction,
or
I
think
our
form-based
design
standards
are
also
being
incorporated
into
the
section
as
well.
F
F
D
F
G
G
I've
been
administrating
this
sign
for
enforcing
the
sign
ordinance
for
the
better
part
of
my
first
year
year
and
a
half
in
the
department,
and
one
of
the
things
that
this
this
presentation
is
going
to
go
over
is
going
to
be
and
clarifying
some
of
the
maybe
unintended
consequences
that
the
language
in
our
ordinance
has
some
of
the
impact
they
might
have
and
some
proposals
on
some
standards
that
could
be
applicable
to
better
meet
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
signage
ordinance,
and
also
to
consolidate
language
that
is
existing
in
other
sections
of
our
code.
G
G
So
currently,
the
purpose
of
our
our
ordinance
for
signage
is
a
little
too
broad.
I
broke
down
the
current
paragraph
that
we
have
on
the
purpose
of
for
the
signage
ordinance
and
it
kind
of
breaks
down
into
generally.
G
The
the
purpose
of
the
sign
ordinance
is
to
promote
and
protect
the
public,
health
and
welfare
and
safety,
and
it
breaks
it
down
by
the
seven
metrics
here:
protecting
property
values,
creating
more
attractive
economic
and
business
climate,
enhancing
and
protecting
the
physical
appearance
of
the
community,
preserving
the
scenic
and
natural
beauty,
reducing
sign
or
advertising
distractions,
reducing
hazards
that
may
be
caused
by
signs
over
over
overhanging
or
projecting
over
public
rights
of
way
and
curb
deterioration
of
communities,
appearance
and
attractiveness.
G
So
what
what
I
was
proposing
here
to
do
was
instead
of
having
these
very
specific
metrics
to
to
identify
what
protecting
public
health,
welfare
and
safety
means
to
further
kind
of
clarify
that
into
what
that
could
be.
So
the
proposed
change
here
would
be
to
kind
of
take
it
down
to
four
points,
and
that
would
be
to
encourage
the
effective
use
of
signs.
G
Listening
to
some
of
the
feedback
we
received
from
neighborhood
organizations
regarding
their
take
on
the
signage
ordinance
and
trying
to
take
it
all
into
consideration
when
we're
looking
at
identifying
a
purpose
and
intent.
This
helps
us
to
inform
how
we
enforce
and
how
we
review
signed
permits
coming
through,
and
it
kind
of
gives
us
a
more.
G
It
gives
us
a
way
to
be
that
we
can
quantify
and
make
sure
that
we're
we're
keeping
in
the
intent
of
the
signage
ordinance.
Whereas
previously
it
wasn't
clear
to
to
what
to
what
benefit
the
ordinance
would
have
been
for
so
in
a
sense
of
either
a
resid.
G
It
kind
of
it
was
pitting
residential
versus
commercial
uses,
whereas
it's
saying
that
one
should
be
more
than
the
other,
but
it
doesn't
come
out
and
clarify
how
that
should
be
so
we're
taking
the
feedback
that
there
should
be
a
clear
distinction
as
to
minimize
the
impact
on
residential
neighborhoods.
D
Louise,
yes-
and
you
made
me
think
of
stuff
when
I
was
reading
this,
when
we
talk
about
signs,
are
we
also
talking
about
like
lawn
signs
like
political
signs,
yeah.
G
So
the
thing
about
signs,
though,
is
that
when
we
talk
about
the
first
amendment,
we're
talking
about
the
the
rights
of
free
speech
and
how
and
whatever
forms
it
can
manifest
itself
in
so
technically.
Anything
that
you
say
is
a
sign
is
a
sign
and,
and
we
don't
regulate
the
content
of
the
sign,
so
whether
it's
a
sign
that's
advocating
for
a
political
candidate
or
whether
it's
a
sign
advertising
a
commercial
interest.
D
And
it's
interesting
because
I
do
have
a
situation
in
my
ward
and
that's
why
I
was
going
down
this
track
where
a
homeowner
feels
very
strongly
towards
a
certain
former
president
and
has
a
sign
up
there
with
a
person
putting
up
their
middle
fingers.
Saying
f,
senator
schumer.
So
but
I
guess
that's
free
speech,
right,
yeah.
G
For
the
most
part,
we
try
not
to
get
into
the
content
of
it
specifically
on
that
point,
because
you
know
when
you
start
saying
that
one
is
okay,
when
this
one
is
not,
then
we're
kind
of
being
the
arbiters
of
free
speech
and
that
that
is
very
tricky,
difficult
and
not
impossible
to
enforce
under
our
current
ordinance.
C
Yeah
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
there
are
that
I
thought
in
some
places
the
language
we
had
previously
was
a
little
clearer
with
regard
to
something
like
to
reduce
hazards
that
may
be
caused
by
signs
overhanging
or
projecting.
So
is
that
going
to
be?
Is
that
kind
of
stuff
going
to
be
reflected
someplace
else
in
the
ordinance?
Some
of
the
these
specifics
about
that?
That's
number
one
and
and
number
two.
C
I
just
wanna
note
the
lawyer
in
me
when
it
comes
to
when
it
comes
to
us
regulating
something
that
then
potentially
butts
up
against
first
amendment
rights.
The
lawyer
in
me
knows
that
essentially
it's
kind
of
buzzwords
protect
the
health
safety
and
welfare
is
like
buzzwords
of
you
know
what
is
the
legal
domain
and
maybe
martha
wants
to.
C
You
know
chime
in
on
that,
but
there
there
was
it
in
in
my
mind
that
that's
a
general
rule
of
thumb
and
it's
and
and
that
you
need
to
measure
what
else
follows
up
against
that.
So
we
want
to
protect
first
amendment
rights,
but
we're
also
protecting
health
safety
and
welfare
and
those
those
are
sort
of
the
to
some
extent.
The
two
competing
interests
that
we
that
we
have
here.
G
Thank
you
so
just
to
respond
to
that
the
the
public,
health,
welfare
and
safety.
I
believe
we
can.
We,
I
think
it's
easy
enough
to
incorporate
into
the
proposed
change
and
as
generally
overall,
what
it,
what
its
intent
is.
Yeah.
G
I
think
the
clarification
was
more
to
kind
of
consolidate
the
seven
points
into
categories
that
don't
necessarily
compete
with
each
other
as
far
as
interests
go
when
we're
talking
about
protecting
property
values,
for
example
a
proponent
or
an
applicant
who's,
proposing
a
sign
could
say
that
the
sign
is
protecting
the
property
values
of
the
commercial
district,
whereas
a
neighboring
property
could
say
that
it's
detrimental
to
their
property
values,
so
it
would
create
a
situation
where
we
don't
have
the
tools
necessary
to
our
arbiter.
G
How
how
to
where,
where
the
in
our
sign
code
ordinance
specifically
to
say
which
one
is
the
the
more
you
know,
the
impactful
in
the
other
one,
which
one
is
the
one
that
needs
to
be
the
one
that
we
prevail,
that
prevails
in
this
situation.
So
it's
meant
more
for
that.
I
think
we
can
definitely
incorporate
the
the
the
same
language
as
far
as
public
health,
welfare
and
safety
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
ability
to
also
legislate
any
kind
of
or
enforce
any
kind
of
signs.
G
So
the
second
point
bolsters
standards
applicable
to
all
signs
to
respond
to
emerging
concerns.
This
one
is
just
going
through
and
looking
at
the
applications
that
we
have
received
and
the
way
that
our
ordinance
as
it
as
it
reads
now
doesn't
necessarily
speak
to
them.
So
this
update
is
meant
to
kind
of
address
those
and
also
common
issues
that
we're
getting
from
applicants
who
are
seeking
signs
and
also
individuals
who
are
asking
questions
about
signs
and
and
the
feedback
we're
getting
from
common
council
representatives
and
neighborhood
associations
as
well.
G
So
what
we're
looking
here
to
do
is
clarifying
positions
on
box
signs.
Specifically,
I
had
a
couple
pictures.
Unfortunately,
I
can't
pull
them
up
in
my
email,
but
if
I
can
describe
it
a
box
sign
it's
pretty
much
like
if
you're
looking
at
this
tv
here,
the
entire
screen
is
illuminated.
G
If
you
were
to
imagine
a
sign
that
had
a
logo,
both
the
logo
itself
and
the
background
that
it's
on
would
be
illuminated,
and
that
would
be
an
example
of
a
box
sign
where
the
entirety
of
the
canvas
is
illuminated,
regardless
of
whether
it's
just
a
logo
or
text
or
just
a
blank
background.
So
our
previous
language
kind
of
spoke
to
the
fact
that
you
shouldn't
illuminate
the
background,
just
just
the
just
the
content
itself.
G
But
it
doesn't
go
enough
to
say
that
box
signs
are
not
allowed.
If
you
had
a
material
that
blocked
all
light
from
going
through
and
only
lit
the
copy
or
the
content
of
the
sign,
then
that
would
technically
circumvent
the
the
ordinance
and
would
allow
a
box
sign,
even
though
the
intent
of
it
was
to
not
allow
box
signs.
So
that's
the
feedback
we
received
from
from
residents
that
they
should
not
be
allowed,
and
so
we
want
to
make
it
more
explicit
to
say
that,
specifically
box
signs
are
not
allowed
outright
so
also
reducing.
G
Yeah
so
generally,
there's
been
a
lot
of
feedback
from
the
community.
G
That
box
signs
in
itself
in
and
of
themselves
tend
to
detract
from
the
neighborhood
aesthetic
to
create
more
of
an
impact
visually
with
the
streetscape
than
other
types
of
signs
that
can
more
easily
incorporate
like
externally,
illuminated
signs
or,
for
example,
a
sign
that
might
be
etched
where
letters
might
be
etched
on
it
and
then
some
lamps
placed
outside
of
it
illuminating
it
from
the
exterior,
so
so
that
it's
not
being
illuminated
from
the
interior
onto
the
street,
but
rather
from
the
street
onto
the
sign.
G
It
creates
less
of
a
visual
impact
while
still
creating
you
know
signage
for
the
for
the
business.
It's
generally
seen
as
a
less
impactful
sign.
You
know,
vision,
wise
or
streetscape
wise,
so
it
seems
to
be
the
the
the
taste
that
we're
trying
to
we're
responding
to
from
the
community.
G
So
this
the
changes
that
we're
going
to
go
through
here
are
kind
of
a
way
to
try
to
craft
our
language
in
order
for
us
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
we're
elevating
the
aesthetic
of
the
streetscape
where
residents
are
requiring
it
to
be,
but
also,
at
the
same
time,
being
conscious
of
the
fact
that
areas
that
may
not
necessarily
have
the
highest
demand
for
commercial
turnover
have
the
ability
to
fill
those
vacant
storefronts
as
well
with
options
that
may
be
available
to
them.
G
Yeah,
so
I
wish
I
can,
I
could
exit
out
of
it.
G
G
A
E
C
Background,
can
I
ask
is,
for
example,
is:
is
like
your
classic
domino's
pizza
sign
a
back
a
box
sign
yes,
well,.
C
And
h,
r
block
is
another
one
that
comes
to
mind
to
my
mind
in
terms
of
something
that
is
a
box
sign
and
when
you
are
talking
about
a
box
sign
you're
you're,
not
talking
specifically
about
really
about
the
shape
you're
talking
about
about
something
that
is
back
lit,
because
you
can
have
something
that
kind
of
looks
like
a
box
that
comes
out
maybe
three
inches
from
the
wall
that
could
be
etched
and
have
gold
letters
and
be
attractive.
I
think
so.
G
If
you,
I
think
I
shared
the
screen
to
a
picture,
let
me
see
if
I
can
move
it
over
to
the
other
screen
too,
so
everyone
else
can
see
it.
G
G
Sorry
about
that,
so
if
you
can
see
that
sign
there,
you
see
that
there's
a
whole
canvas
in
there.
That
includes
both
the
logo,
the
text
and
also
a
white
background
on
that
example
there.
That
would
be
an
example
of
a
box
sign,
so
there's
an
entire
canvas.
That's
lit
internally,
so
the
light
indiscriminately
lights
up
everything
on
there.
G
So
that
would
be
an
example
of
a
box
sign
and
I
think,
judy
the
example
you're
really
looking
for
are
dominoes.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
the
new
sign.
That's
on
new
scotland
avenue
now
would
be
considered
a
channel
letter
sign
and
it
would
not
be
considered
a
box
sign
so
that
under
our
ordinance
would
be
allowed
as
channel
letter
signs
are
individually.
Sorry.
G
Letter
signs,
yes,
so
they're
they're,
individual
letters
that
are
mounted
on
a
track.
So
the
light
is
only
illuminating,
the
the
letters
itself-
and
there
is
no
background
to
be
illuminated
so
they're
individually,
lit
letters
or
a
logo
or
any
content
really,
since
we're
not
regulating
content,
it
would
be
whatever
the
content
is
individually
is
what
it
would
be.
What
would
be
illuminated
as
opposed
to
everything
indiscriminately
like
the
example
that
we're
showing
here.
G
If
you
look
on
the
corner
of
new
scotland
and
quails
there's
that
the
gas
station
there
would
be
a
box
sign
type
sign,
so
a
box
sign
could
be
a
wall
sign,
it
could
be
a
freestanding
sign,
it
could
be
an
awning,
you
know
overhanging
sign,
projecting
sign.
Rather
so
it
could
be
in
a
form
of
multiple
types,
but
under
the
proposed
ordinance,
all
of
those
types
would
be
no
longer
allowed.
G
Of
course,
this
would
be
after
the
enact
of
the
replacement
ordinance,
so
any
existing
signage
would
become
legally
non-conforming
and
they
would
be
allowed
to
continue
under
the
non-conformity
rules
of
the
sign
and
also
follow
any
kind
of
obsolescence
ordinances
that
would
follow
therein
as
well.
G
Would
be
yet
existing
signs
would
be
grandfathered
in
and
they
would
continue
to
enjoy
their
usage.
If
they
changed
tenants
and
there
was
no
period
of
vacancy,
then
they
would
not
qualify
under
the
obsolete
sign
ordinance
and
they
can
continue
to
maintain
that
sign
as
well,
but
the
at
that
point
after
there
is
a
vacancy
in
the
property.
G
The
current
language
now
would
call
for
that
sign
to
be
removed
once
there
is
no
longer
a
business
there
so,
but
we'll
be
getting
to
that
part
of
the
ordinance
in
a
minute,
but
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
So
we
all
know
what.
G
The
yeah,
so
the
input
that
we
received
was
mainly
from
responses
to
signed
permits
that
have
been
submitted.
We,
I
did
not
reach
out
to
specific
business,
improvement,
districts
or
the
chamber
of
commerce
to
elicit
their
feedback.
For
this,
it
was
mainly
from
feedback
we're
getting
from
applicants
who
are
applying
for
signs
feedback,
we're
getting
from
individuals
in
the
neighborhood
associations
and
common
council.
D
G
I
believe
box
signs
are
generally
more
cost
effective
than
channel
letter
type
science
because
they
require
less
complex,
mounting
mechanisms
track
letter
signs
would
be
first
individually
customized
for
each.
G
You
know
the
shape
of
the
content
and
then
mounted
on
a
rail
that
would
need
to
be
mounted
on
a
structure,
so
that
typically
manifests
as
a
wall
sign,
but
you
could
have
it
as
like
a
freestanding
sign
or
a
projecting
sign
as
well,
but
those
are
less
common.
Typically,
you
see
them
as
a
wall
type
sign.
But
yes,
those
are.
Those
are
generally
a
little
more
expensive.
G
B
Don't
we
all
we
have
limits
on
the
size
of
signs
that
people
can
put
up
in
their
businesses?
You
know,
like
the
saying
you
showed
up
that
probably
wouldn't
even
be
applicable
now
anyways,
because
it
might
be
bigger
than
what
we
already
have
for
allowance
of
just
regular
science.
Forget
lighting,
just
a
sign
you
want
to
put
across
the
top
of
your
building
to
let
people
know
your
new
business
is
opening
in
the
neighborhood.
G
Right,
I
will
say
that
we
did
I
this.
This
topic
requires
much
more
discussion
and
thought
on
what
allowances
to
provide
commercial
ventures
the
that
part.
I
did
not
speak
to
in
this
presentation,
because
the
the
allotment
needs
to
be
more
more
thoughtfully
considered.
G
I
think
one
of
the
proposed
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
thinking
proposing
was,
instead
of
instead
of
having
a
set
signage
allowance
per
district
having
it
be
more
based
on
linear
frontage
and
also
having
a
consideration
for
how
many
tenants
are
in
a
structure,
because
if
we
look
at
our
current
ordinance
and
we
apply
it
universally,
it
doesn't
consider
how
many
tenants
are
in
a
building
so
on
lark
street,
for
example,
where
you
have
maybe
two
or
three
tenants
to
a
structure.
G
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
one
of
the
unintended
consequences
of
the
way
this
sign
currently
is
is
written
and
something
that
we
need
to
address,
but
we
just
don't
have.
I
don't
think
we
have
the
sufficient
enough
information
to
make
a
determination
specifically
on
what
the
right
solution
is.
It
needs
to
be
a
little
more
thought
out
and
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
leaving
people
behind
having
people
fall
through
the
cracks
or
leaving
loopholes
to
allow
for
signage.
That
may
not
be
intended.
G
G
I
apologize
with
a
50
foot
height
requirement,
and
this
is
basically
just
allowed
anywhere
in
the
city
and
really
there's
no
limitation
on
how
many
you
can
have
so
you
can
have
as
many
25-foot
square
foot
flags
50
feet
high
anywhere
in
the
city
and
that
kind
of
obviously
would
create
an
impact
if
we
were
to
put
one
in
the
residential
district,
where
setbacks
might
be
closer,
they
might
even
in
impact
visibility
and
and
safety
in
that
sense,
so
was
a
proposed
to
reduce
the
flag
sizes
and
bring
them
into
scale
with
the
zoning
districts
that
they're
in
so
but
one
note
here
that
that
is
something
of
concern,
because
flags
are
in
our
signage
ordinance
at
all.
G
We
kind
of
consider
them.
It's
not
really
implied
that
they
are
signs,
but
it's
seeming
like
we
are,
so
we
might
want
to
think
about
not
having
flags
under
our
signage,
because
that
could
create
a
loophole
where
a
business
could
use
a
flag
and
circumvent
any
signage
requirements
and
because
of
the
number,
because
we
don't
have
any
limit
on
number
of
flags
you
can
have.
Instead
of
having
any
signs,
you
could
have
an
unlimited
number
of
flags
that
could
be
larger
than
whatever
signage
allowance
you
could
have
and
create
a
loophole
for
unintended
consequences.
G
So
this
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen.
We
haven't
had
an
instance
where
that
happened.
But
you
know
it's
it's
a
loophole
we
have
so
we
need
to
close
that
up
and
I
propose
that
we
might
want
to
think
about
having
the
flags
be
put
in
a
different
category
and
not
subject
to
the
same
standards
that
as
signs
specifically
but
there's
considerations
to
take
into
that,
because
it
could
also
be
you
know
a
free
speech
thing
as
well,
so
it's
tricky
and
science.
G
You
know
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
very
you
know
complex,
but
it's
it's
very
complex.
When
you
talk
about
you
know
making
sure
you
don't
impinge
on
people's
free
speech
rights.
So
that's
currently,
where
we're
at
they're
needing
to
do
more
research
on
how
to
approach
flags
in
general,
but
one
thing
that
we
can
do
is
reduce
their
sizes
to
bring
them
more
to
scale,
to
the
district
that
they're
being
put.
B
A
in
of
these
businesses
have
been
forced
to
use
signs
because
they
can't
get
the
signs
that
they're
trying
to
put
on
their
businesses
to
advertise.
So
they've
used
flags
as
a
means
to
try
to
let
people
know
this
abandoned
building
is
no
longer
abandoned.
It
now
has
a
new
business
that
we
want
to
keep
in
our
neighborhood
and
our
community.
B
So
I
think
we
have
to
be
very,
very
careful
when
we
create
all
these
regulations
to
make
sure
we
also
have
flexibility
so
that
new
business
can
come
in
and
we
want
new
businesses
to
come
in,
especially
in
communities
that
have
been
empty
for
years,
and
we
want
them
to
advertise
that
there's
something
there.
B
So
I
I
I
look
forward
to
seeing
what
the
limitations
are,
that
we're
looking
to
do
and
and
how
we're
looking
to
do
them,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
being
fair
to
those
who
we're
trying
to
attract
to
our
neighborhoods
to
start
those
businesses
and
give
them
an
opportunity
to
actively
promote
the
that
they're.
Here.
G
G
G
This
is
derived
from
a
lot
of
home
occupation
applications
that
we've
been
getting,
and
these
home
occupations
being
limited
to
one
square
feet
for
signage.
It
could
be
difficult
for
any,
even
if
you
were
walking
down
the
street
to
be
able
to
see
a
sign
to
to
locate
the
business
so
increasing
it
to
four
square
feet
for
a
non-permitted
sign,
but
also
limiting
it.
Limiting
it
to
home
occupation
use
only
would
would
balance
the
the
increased
methods
and
people
that
people
have.
G
C
I'm
not
sure
I
agree
with
that
particular
change
in
in
residential
areas.
You
could
you
know
on
ramsey
place,
I
know
of
probably
15
home
occupations.
C
Photographers
graphic
artists,
accountants,
lawyers,
crafters,
bakers
and,
and
some
people,
you
know,
having
a
you,
know,
a
side
business.
We
also
have
a
an
issue
with
essentially
a
street
a
driveway
ceiling
kind
of
business
that
already
is
not
complying
with
the
code
and
the
idea
of
them.
Putting
up
a
you
know,
four
foot
square
sign
in
a
residential
area.
C
Seems
seems
to
me
to
be
problematic,
and
I
know
that
for
the
home
occupations,
I
think
it
was
wasn't.
It
also
limited
to
a
wall
sign
in
the
past
have
have
we
done
that?
Are
we
keeping
it
at
that.
G
I'd
have
to
check
the
use
specific
standards
on
that,
but
as
far
as
the
signage
goes,
I
don't
think
the
signage
our
our
current
sign
code
limits,
temporary
signage
or
non-permitted
signage
to
wall
type,
so
it
would
be
just
a
it
just
says
sign,
so
it
doesn't
reference
whether
it's
wall
projecting
or
freestanding,
or
anything
like
that.
C
Right
and
and-
and
I
I
think
you
know
I
mean
think
about
essentially
a
you
know,
four
foot
square
sign,
essentially
being
you
know
more
than
the
equivalent
of
every
you
know
of
a
house
having
a
for
sale,
sign
up
front,
and
if
you
were
to
have
you
know,
15
or
you
know,
like
every
third
household.
C
Having
that
I
I
think
that
that
really
significantly
changes
the
aesthetics
of
the
neighborhood.
E
Louise,
when
you
I
don't
know
who
makes
that
is
suggesting
that
it
be
that
size
I
mean,
are
you
looking
at
other
other
communities
when
you
come
up
with
these
numbers
or
just
curious.
G
If
the
circumstances
are
a
little
unique
in
the
sense
that
this
is
more
of
considering
the
increased
number
of
home
occupations,
you
know
in
the
past
year
or
so,
but
the
so,
it
wasn't
really
based
on
what
other
communities
are
doing
more
so
as
a
way
to
respond
to
the
the
alternative
ways
to
to
that
people
have
been
trying
to.
D
G
That's
look,
maybe
I
would
say
maybe
that's
a
15
square
foot.
If
you
were
going
to
equate
that
to
like
a
wall
sign,
it
looks
like
me
about
15
square
feet.
I
would
say
maybe
five
feet
by
three
feet.
So
I
would
say:
that's
a
roughly
about
15
square
feet
so.
G
D
G
That's
that's
definitely
something
that
we
can
review
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're,
maybe
providing
more
examples
of
other
places
that
can
that
have
implemented
that
and
what
their
impacts
may
have
been
in
residential
areas.
Thank
you.
G
You
know
structural
types
of
advertising
without
investing
into
larger
signage
or
more
elaborate
signage,
so
our
current
code
is
only
allowing
windows
signs,
the
the
any
square,
any
area
of
an
existing
window,
no
more
than
15
percent
of
that
to
be
used
for
windows
signs
and
overall,
no
more
than
10
of
the
total
windows
on
that
floor
to
be
covered
with
window
signs.
G
So
the
it
generally
is
difficult
to
even
calculate
that
and
it's
still
under
a
non-permitted
signage.
So
it's
not
clear
what
happens
if
you
don't,
if
you
have
more
than
that,
it
would
be
assumed
that
it's
just
not
allowed
period,
and
it's
not
clear
whether
or
not
you
would
have
a
standing
for
like
a
variance
on
that,
because
it's
just
a
non-permitted
type
of
sign.
So
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
non-clear
language
on
what
happens
with
windows
signs
if
they
doesn't
comply.
G
G
But
if
we
were
able
to
pull
them
into
a
sign
a
permitting
process,
it
might
be
easier
to
make
sure
that
there's
the
window
signs
where
that
that
they're,
the
display
of
window
signs,
are
more
in
line
with
what
our
ordinance
is
intending.
D
Yeah
luis
on
one
of
the
things
what
pops
in
my
head
is,
you
know
there
used
to
be
a
little
grocery
store
growing
up,
and
if
we
had
a
school
function
or
selling
raffle
tickets,
we
would
put
like
a
poster.
D
Would
this
impact
that
I
you
know
say
a
store
owner?
Had
several
people
want
to
put
up
different
things,
I'd
hate
to
see
that
type
of
community
work
you
know,
get
regulated
out.
G
Yeah
I
mean
currently
under
our
current
ordinance.
It
already
is
so
I
think
this
is
more
trying
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
that
to
avoid
that,
while
also
you
know
trying
to
meet
the
intent,
you
know
if
we
find
that
window
signs
really
don't
have
any
impact.
You
know
beyond
the
to
what
might
be
required
for
maintaining
visibility.
G
For
you
know
health
and
safety,
then
it
might
be
worth
considering
whether
or
not
we
need
that
still
because
right
now,
we
currently
don't
really
enforce
that
sign
ordinance
at
all,
because
it's
too
difficult,
there's
too
many
windows
storefronts
to
calculate
10
percent.
You
know
what
that
looks
like
so
it's
kind
of
it's
difficult
to
enforce.
So
if
we
don't
really
see
an
impact
generally,
we
haven't
had
any
complaints
on
it
and
we
haven't
had
any
code
violations
that
I
know
of.
G
Regarding
that,
so
you
know
it
just
generally
seems
to
be
that
people
are
content
with
that
absence,
any
complaints
so
yeah.
This
is
more
just
to
kind
of
both
bring
it
into
compliance.
Assuming
that
it's
a
priority
that
the
windows
should
be
maintained,
clear
visibility
of
you
know
within
reason
for
signage.
G
But
if
there
is
not
really
much
of
a
concern,
then
you
know
we
can
also
consider
whether
we
still
need
that
part
of
the
ordinance
or
at
least
whether
it
might
be
worth
just
having
more
relaxed
ordinance
while
pulling
it
into
a
permitting
process,
so
that
at
least
we
do
have
a
way
of
being
able
to
control.
For
that.
G
G
That's
actually
going
to
be
more
a
little
further
down,
but
this
is
really
just
is
more
in
line
with
what
some
of
some
of
you
were
saying
about
signs
that
are
placed
out
on
lawns
or
for
events
or
related
to
you
know,
maybe
periods
of
activity,
those
that
are
put
out
temporary
signs
those
nature
instead
right
now.
Currently
our
ordinance
would
say
that
you
can't
have
them
for
more
than
I
believe
30
days,
but
it
doesn't
really
speak
to
the
consecutive
nature
of
it.
So
it
just
kind
of
it's.
G
You
could
technically
take
it
down
on
the
30th
day
for
a
day
or
an
hour
or
a
minute.
It's
not
really
clear
and
then
put
it
back
up,
and
then
you
can
start
the
clock
over
again
and
you
can
have
that
just
taken
away
forever.
So
this
kind
of
tries
to
limit
that
so
that
we
have
a
a
way
to
control
overall
how
the
the
temporaries
of
signs
are
being
used
in
a
way.
That's
actually
temporary
and
not
a
way
to
circumvent
the
sign
ordinance.
B
How
does
that
affect
the
first
amendment
issues
like
what
mr
holy
said?
If
someone
wants
to
put
a
sign
on
the
on
their
lawn
saying,
I
hate
alfredo
allen.
Well,
that's
still
right.
You
know
to
to
do
so.
It's
freedom
of
speech,
especially
if
you're
talking
about
an
elected
official
or
you
know,
a
policy
that
they
may
not
support
or
policy
that
they
do
support
you.
G
Know
some
of
those
you
can
regulate
if
they're
based
to
based
on
an
event.
So
if
you're
saying
on
election
day
vote
for
so
and
so
then
that
would
be
a
sign.
That's
based
on
an
event
and
yeah.
G
G
So
those
types
of
science,
if
they're
related
to
an
event,
would
have
that
cooling
off
period
before
they're
required
to
be
removed.
But
to
your
point
it
doesn't
cover
an
ongoing,
say,
sign
that
says
generally
I
don't
like
so,
and
so
you
know
if
it
doesn't
really
speak
to
the
day
of
a
voting
or
a
period.
You
know
like
that.
G
Then
it's
not
necessarily
considered
in
the
same
way,
so
that
that's
another
loophole,
but
I
don't
know
if
we,
if
we
have
an
immediate
solution
to
that,
it's
just
it's
one
of
those
things
where
it's
just
hard
to
to
regulate
what
someone
puts
on.
As
far
as
free
speech
we
can.
A
E
Yes,
going
back
to
the
second
bullet,
increasing
the
window
signs
from
15
to
25.
E
I
understand
that
it's
difficult
to
enforce,
as
it
is
now
and
it'll
be
difficult
to
enforce
unless
we
make
it
a
permitted
process,
but
I'm
thinking
of
the
situations
I
mean
one
of
the
reasons
you
you
don't
want
too
much
of
the
window
covered
is
you
know
in
case
there's
a
legal
activity
going
on
in
some
businesses,
so
by
allowing
a
larger
percent,
I
mean
in
some
situations,
say
it's
a
bad
situation
in
that
particular
store
to
have
that's
when
you
could
apply
the
ordinance,
and
so,
if
you're,
allowing
an
even
greater
amount,
I
mean
people
always
are
going
to
put
more
if
they're
allowed
15
they're
going
to
put
25
they're
allowed
25
they're
going
to
make.
G
So
the
the
current
one,
the
current
signage
right
now
is
not
being
complied
with
at
all.
If
you.
E
See
this,
doesn't
it
give
police
that
opportunity
to
go
in
and
say
you've
got
to
reduce
the
amount
you
know
take
some
of
these
signs
down
in
here.
G
Yeah
I
mean
you
could
that's
one
we
generally
we'd
have
to
do
that
for
on
either
on
a
complaint
basis
or
on
on
whatever
basis.
It
is
right,
if
you're,
assuming
that
you
know,
there's
an
issue
with
safety.
You'd
want
to
have
that
kind
of
that
be
taken
care
of
by
the
people
that
are
enforcing
the
code
in
general,
so
that
that
there's
two
ways
you
can
handle
it.
You
know
I
think
you
can
either
enforce
what
we
have
now.
G
You
know
and
kind
of
play
like
that
that
whack-a-mole
game
fighting
is
seeing
someone
who
has
signage
as
over
10
guessing
whether
or
not
that
signage
is
over
10
percent,
going
in
and
citing
that
and
and
having
them
go
into
compliance
with
something
that
we
don't
require
a
permit
for
which
is
kind
of
difficult
to
do,
or
we
can
try
to
pull
them
into
the
process
of
permitting
regulate
that
from
the
start,
so
that
when
people
are
applying
or
going
to
put
window
signs
up,
they
have
an
ability.
G
G
D
G
So
the
next
one
would
be
further
define
seasonal
and
holiday
decorations
and
lighting
to
limit
potential
impact
to
pedestrian
and
traffic
safety.
Currently
we
just
allow
seasonal
and
holiday
decorations
period
as
non-permitted
signs.
We
classify
them
as
signs
and
we
just
don't
have
we
don't
require
a
permit
or
put
any
limits
on
that.
G
So
you
know
this
does
have
a
potential
of
becoming
either
either
unsafe
for
traffic
reasons
or
what
have
you
so
just
including
some
language.
It
says
that
seasonal
lighting
is
allowed
as
long
as
it
doesn't
impact
pedestrian
and
traffic
safety
in
that
area,
where
the
sign
is
being.
G
Right
now,
we
don't
really
have
any
way
of
classifying
if,
if
a
museum
or
cultural
facility
say,
for
example,
tembrock
mansion
wanted
to
put
in
a
kiosk
that
just
had
some
brochures
about
the
the
property
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
to
place
that
on
their
property
without
having
it
be
classified
as
either
a
freestanding
sign,
posted
panel
or
things
of
that
nature,
when
it
may
not
necessarily
be
the
intent
to
classify
that
as
a
structural
kind
of
or
a
commercial
sign.
G
You
know
if
they're,
just
handing
out
brochures
at
an
information
type
kiosk
that
might
be
you
know
or
if
there's
a
sign
kind
of
in
front
of
a
garden
and
kind
of
explaining
or
interpreting
that
that
space
outdoors
there's
no
way
to
classify
that.
So
we,
if
there
was
a
limit
for
one
sign
for
frontage,
then
they
would
only
be
able
to
have
one
interpretive
sign
and
nothing
else
so
that
might
limit
their
ability
to
to
have
those
kinds
of
uses.
G
So
this
kind
of
just
allows
for
memorial
and
interpretive
markers
for
cultural
facilities,
and
this
should
also
be
you
know,
like
a
smaller
number,
something
limited.
It's
like
four
square
feet,
or
something
like
that
to
to
limit
that.
The
impact
on
other
properties
as
well.
G
No,
they
wouldn't
fall
under
that
if,
unless
they,
unless
they,
this,
the
property
was
run
and
managed
by
you
know
state
or
federal
authority,
in
which
case
they
we
wouldn't.
Our
ordinance
typically
does
not
apply
for
signage
to
those
so
that
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
apply
to
those
anyway,
but
we're
talking
about,
like
you
know,
locally
run
museums
like
you
know,
maybe
the
underground
railroad,
museum
or
things
of
that
nature.
What.
D
F
D
F
But
like
what
I'm
thinking
of
are
the
plaques
that
are.
F
From
historic,
albany
foundation
that
are
generally
on
our
buildings
that
are
either
that
are
historically
significant
and
as
long
as
they're
under
a
certain
square
footage,
those
do
not
require
permit
or
review
okay.
G
And
those
are
those
those
signs
you're
referring
to
also
are
on
a
public
right-of-way.
So
if
it's
on
a
right-of-way
there,
that's
also
not
falling
under
our
ordinance.
The
ordinance
typically
applies
to
private
property
and
not
the
public
right-of-way.
That's.
C
C
C
So
those
are
memorials,
so
I
think
you
have
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
there
again
in
crafting
it
in
a
way
that
also
complies
with
the
constitution.
G
Thank
you,
as
as
it
was
in
the
proposal,
it
was
supposed
to
be
intended
for
those
who
have
a
use
of
cultural
facility
which
is
classified
in
our
ordinance,
but
we
can
make
sure
that
that
usage
is
also
compliant
with
first
amendment
rights
as
well.
G
So
the
next
one
would
be
for
real
estate
signs
specifically
and
then
adding
an
allowance
for
them.
So
currently,
if
you're,
considering
the
temporary
signs
real
estate
signs
currently
just
classify
under
temporary
signs,
which
are
limited
generally
by
either
a
residential
or
mixed
use
district,
and
I
believe
that
the
difficulty
that
we
have
in
considering
suggestions
from
constituents
on
modifications
to
our
temporary
signage
to
accommodate
for
real
estate
signs
is
that
we
may
end
up
regulating
all
temporary
signage
based
on
one
intended
use.
G
You
know
with
residential
areas
in
general,
who,
who
are
you,
know
more
prone
to
be
impacted
by
them,
but
the
that
they're
separating
them
from
temporary
signs
altogether.
So
that
we're
not
you
know
putting
creating
adverse
impacts
or
desperate
impacts
in
other
neighborhoods,
where
they
may
not
necessarily
have
those
priorities
for
for
real
estate
signs.
C
C
Because
of
then
we
are
regulating
based
upon
content,
and
I
you
know,
would
I've
always
been
a
little
skeptical
that
just
didn't
make
a
lot
of
sense,
but
I
do
think
that
we
do.
It
would
be
helpful
to
look
at
the
legality
of
that.
If
there's
any.
You
know
case
law
on
this
and
and
be
careful
of
our
conclusions
that
we're
reaching
there.
But
I
favor
recognizing
that
as
a
different
category.
H
G
Question
would
be
more
along
the
lines
of
whether
the
the
con,
the
use
of
the
sign,
is
not
necessarily
in
relation
to
whether
or
not
it
can
be
prohibited,
but
whether
or
not
you
can
even
use
that
as
a
reason
to
regulate
the
size
of
a
sign.
In
addition
to
whether
or
not
it's
it's
allowed
at
all
right.
G
So
I
think
your
concern
just
that
I
can
make
sure
that
I
address
it
correctly
was.
Was
that
whether
or
not
regulating
based
on
content
such
as
real
estate
signs,
not
necessarily
whether
to
prohibit
or
not,
but
in
addition
to
regulating
the
size
of
the
type
of
sign,
if
that
is
legally,
if
there's
any
legal
trouble
with
that
is.
That
is
that,
where
your
concern
was
okay,.
D
Luis
on
that,
you
talked
about
you'll,
look
at
later
the
size
which
is
important,
but
I'd
like
to
go
a
little
further,
that
we
look
at
the
construction.
D
D
G
D
G
Basically,
we
have
sign
language
and,
as
aaron
had
previously
presented
in
the
historic
standards,
but
also
in
the
operating
and
maintenance
part
of
our
code
and
the
which
is
375
410
and
the
pre-existing
development
and
non-conformities
part
of
our
code,
which
is
375
506,
and
the
proposal
is
just
to
consolidate
those
two
into
the
375
409
part
of
our
code
for
signs
just
for
clarity,
because
these
do
have
important
mechanical
ordinance
languages
that
pertain
to
pre-existing
signs
signs
as
they
carry
over
from
business
to
business
tenant
to
tenant
and
what
qualifies
as
like
a
grandfathered
sign
or
a
legally
non-conforming
sign.
G
So
that
that's
a
common
concern
among
applicants
for
science,
and
so
it's.
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
consolidate
them
into
the
general
sign
code
so
that
it's
clear
both
the
size
and
also
what
the
expectation
is
in
operating
and
maintaining
a
sign
as
council
member
was,
was
pointing
out
there
and
also
the
pre-existing
development
and
unconformities
to
make
it
clear.
G
What
qualifies
for
someone
to
keep
a
sign
and
when
they
must
replace
that
sign,
so
that
just
is
a
consolidating
language
that
it's
clearer
to
follow
all
of
what
our
language
is
relating
to
signs
in
general,
and
if
I
could
just
one
more
before
we
get
to
the
end
of
here,
the
the
website
to
review
all
the
documents,
including
this
powerpoint,
are
going
to
be
put
on
a
link
here
on
this
presentation
and
also
just
as
an
aside
here,
the
the
formal
proposals
or
the
recommendations
that
we're
having
are
going
to
be
more
unlike
the
a
blue
line
added
to
the
to
the
ordinance
and
that
we're
hoping
to
have
up
there
soon
as
well
the.
G
But
what
we
wanted
to
also.
What
I
wanted
also
just
expressed
is
that
going
through
the
ordinance,
there's
also
a
different
kind
of
perspective,
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
looking
at
the
the
ordinance
through
and
that's
an
equitable
lens.
We
one
of
the
things
that
became
apparent
in
in
doing
the
processing
for
the
permit
applications.
Is
that
our
ordinance,
if
you
applied
it
universally
equally
across
all
neighborhoods
and
all
the
the
areas?
Might
not
might
create
disparate
impacts
in
in
lower
income
areas
and
traditionally
redlined
neighborhoods.
G
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
when
we're
reviewing
this
ordinance,
we're
taking
that
into
account
and
trying
to
avoid
you
know
and
make
corrections
for
if
we,
if
we
do
create
disparate
impacts,
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
you
know
inadvertently
creating
more
obstacles
in
areas
that
are
more
economically
depressed
than
there
needs
to
be.
C
Did
you
skip
a
slide.
G
Did
I
I
think
I
did
this
one
yeah?
No,
I
think
I
did
this
one
we
went
through.
You
know
having
more
explicit
language
to
disallow
box
signs.
Maybe
I
didn't
go
through
this
one
I'll
go
through
it
again.
I
can't
remember,
but
also
disallowing
pole
signs,
so
pulse
signs
right
now
generally
are
not
used
in
the
city,
except
for
very
specific
zoning
ordinance
zoning
districts
and
because
we
have
our
non-conforming
use
category
already
in
place.
The
existing
pulse
signs
generally
are
for
businesses
that
have
had
them.
G
We
don't
really
see
many
new
pole
signs
so
and
generally,
these
are
more
distracting
and
we're
talking
about
preserving
the
the
aesthetic
and
streetscape
of
neighborhoods
pole
signs
generally
a
little
bit
more
distracting.
They
command
attention,
they
create
conditions
that
can
be
distracting
and
so
generally
to
to
be
able
to
maintain
a
balance
between
signs
that
are
in
more
higher
trafficked
areas
and
also
creating
a
an
environment.
That's
more
pedestrian
friendly
as
well,
allowing
the
disallowing
the
continued
use
of
pole
signs
to
and
and
restrict
them
to
existing
pole.
G
Think
about
the
the
effect
that
that
would
have
on
other
neighborhoods
as
well,
post
and
post
and
panels
type
signs
are
generally
more
cost
effective
and
that
might
pose
impose
some
challenges
and
barriers
for
existing
businesses
and
other
neighborhoods
that
you
know
that
would
require
to
have
otherwise
more
cost
prohibitive
signs
installed
by
as
an
obstacle
to
opening
a
business.
G
These
modifying
allowances
would
be
for
all
districts,
so
disallowing
box
signs
in
all
districts,
disallowing
poll
signs
in
all
districts
and
and
considering
whether
or
not
you
know
if
post
and
panel
signs
are
within
what
the
the
city
is
is
is
within
the
aesthetic
of
of
the
streetscape.
E
If
it
changes
hands,
if
these
businesses
change
hands,
then
they
would
be
forced
to
put
up
a
different
type
of
sign.
I'm
just
curious
how
that
ends
up.
G
Under
our
current
ordinance,
the
legal
non-conformity
and
up
the
obsoletion
clause
of
our
ordinance
doesn't
really
hit
in
until
the
property
is
vacant.
So
if,
if
you're,
if
you're
going
from
owner
to
owner
but
for
example,
westgate
plaza
or
westgate
diner,
if
the
if
the
diner
is
remaining
but
you're,
simply
changing
the
owner,
the
the
business
is
still
running
so
so.
G
That's
that
the
the
obsolescent,
I
think.
E
Is
it
a
year
it.
C
We
extended
non-conforming
uses
to
a
year,
but
I
forget
we
might.
G
Use
something
like
six
months
with
signs.
It
was
180
days
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
with
with
signs.
It
was
180
days
specifically
yeah
and
that's
part
of
like
the
the
yeah
six
months,
but
that's
the
confusion
that
that's
created
when
we
have
the
sign
non-conforming
clauses
and
the
non-conforming
section,
and
not
the
sign
section,
because
that
you
know
the
business
owners
who
are
looking
to
apply
for
signs,
don't
see
that
and
they
get
confused
and
that
that's
definitely
something
we
want
to
try
to
avoid.
If
we
can.
C
So,
post
and
panel
signs,
saint
peter's,
has
some
sort
of
infectious
disease
clinic
now
on
new
scotland
avenue
they
just
put
up
a
new
sign.
That
is
that
a
post
and
panel
sign.
G
Could
be
yes
if
it's
a
post
and
panel
is
different
from
a
monument
sign,
so
I
know
if
st
peters
has
monument
signs,
but
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
what
you're
referring
to
is
a
post
and
panel,
but
I
can
describe
what
a
post
and
panel
is
so
a
post
in
panel
typically
is
like.
If
you
have
two,
if
you
can
imagine
two
two
by
fours
and
then
a
sign
mounted
and
like
between
those
two
by
fours,
so
it's
got
two
two
legs
and
a
sign
on
it.
G
That
would
be
like
a
post
and
panel
type
sign
if
it
only
has
like
one
leg
in
the
center.
That's
considered
more,
like
a
pole
sign,
so
those
are.
C
C
G
Yeah,
so
the
typical
requirement
would
be
then
monument
signs,
it's
currently
what
the
the
our
current
sign
ordinance
encourages
over
post
and
panel
and
poll
signs
already,
so
it
a
monument
sign
is,
instead
of
there
being
like
two
poles,
the
sign
on
top
or
a
pole,
in
the
middle
of
the
sign.
On
top,
you
have
like
a
a
decorative
masonry
or
some
kind
of
facade
that
is
on
the
floor
to
which,
on
which
a
sign
is
mounted,
I
seem
to
recall,
like
stewards,
has
a
lot
of
those
types
of
signs.
G
They
have
monument
signs
where
they
place
their
their
signage
on
it,
but
you
know,
there's
other
organizations
who
have
that
I
think
crosstalk
common
specifically
also
has
a
monument
type
sign
for
their
that
faces
washington,
avenue
extension
that
has
all
the
businesses
on
it.
As
you
enter
washington
from
washington
avenue
extension
onto
their
their
campus,
so
those
signs
will
still
be
allowed
and
those
businesses
will
still
be
accommodated
to
have
you
know
multiple
tenants
be
displayed
on
a
sign
and
they'll
still
have
the
same
allowances.
G
D
D
A
suggestion,
and
for
you
and
brad
and
everybody
the
thing
it'd
be
nice.
You
said
you
were
going
to
come
up
with
a
glossary
of
terms.
It
would
also
be
nice
to
have
an
example.
Like
you
know,
what
a
pole
sign
looks
like
what
you
know.
The
box
sign
looks
like
to
have
a
visual,
so
any
anybody
can
just
look
at
it
and
understand
what
it
means.
Thank
you.
C
C
In
some
cases,
the
the
art
studio,
you
know,
has
a
sign
that
is
post
and
panel.
C
E
How
it's
the
aesthetics
of
it,
because
you
it
seems
to
me
you
could
have
a
very
attractive
sign
with
the
post
as
well
and
in
some
ways
it's
preferable,
because
there's
it's
more
a
little
more
transparent
at
on
the
bottom.
It
depends
on
how
it's
done.
I
think,
but
I
don't
know
another.
That
would
be
tough
too.
G
Yeah
we
can
look
into
seeing
if
the
materials
are
a
way
that
we
can
consider
aesthetically
as
opposed
to
the
type
yeah.
If
there
is
a
an
aesthetically
pleasing
pole,
sign
or
post
and
panel
type
sign,
we
can
try
to
find
examples
of
what
that
might
be
and
maybe
compare
it
to
you
and
see
if,
if
one
of
them
is
more
aesthetically
pleasing
than
the
other
or
whether
or
not
disallowing
them
all
together
or
you
know,
putting
stricter
restrictions
on
the
materials
used.
G
H
G
B
I
think
we
really
want
to
make
sure
we
also
be
cautious,
because
some
of
these
regulations
affect
certain
neighborhoods
a
lot
harder
than
others.
When
you
have
certain
businesses
that
may
have
gone
defunct
for
a
year
or
two,
and
then
you
try
to
bring
new
investment
and
new
businesses
back,
but
then
they
can't
have
the
same
signage
that
a
previous
business
had.
It
creates
a
disadvantage
for
those
for
those
those
you
know
small
businesses
in
in
our
community.
D
C
I
would
be
interested
in
because
we're
all
going
to
be
looking
at
signs
you're
sharing.
Maybe
if
you
know
if
you're
willing
to
share
some
of
those
locations,
I
I
think
that
there's
a
balance
between
signs
needing
to
you
know
scream
at
us
and
say:
hey
I'm
here,
you
know
for
business
versus
helping
people
way
find
and
you
know
find
a
particular
business
in
a
particular
location.
C
You
know
a
lot
of
home
occupations
really
don't
need.
You
know
people
people
are
going
to
that
particular
location.
What
they
need
is
the
you
know
the
address.
They
don't
necessarily
you
know:
you're,
not
traveling
down
the
street,
saying
oh
well,
now
I'm
going
to
go
use
this
particular
account
versus
or
that
photographer
or
whatever
you
know
and
there's
other
ways
for
people
to
find.
C
You
know
certain
kinds
of
of
businesses
etc.
So
you
know,
I
think,
that
it's
and
this
whole
business
of
signs
really
can
either
help
make
a
a
community
more
attractive
and
potentially
facilitate
economic
investment.
If
it's
done
well-
and
it
looks
nice
as
much
as
you
know,
the
kinds
of,
and
potentially
more
so
than
the
kinds
of
signs
that
scream
out
at
you,
you
know
we
used
to
when
I
was
growing
up.
C
We
used
to
have
all
these
highway
signs
that
were
very
you
know,
obnoxious
and-
and
you
know,
I
you
know
eyesores,
and
so
I
I
think
that
you
can
advertise
your
business
and
especially,
if
you're
doing
a
sign
tastefully
you
might
be
bringing
in
more
business
than
by
that,
as
opposed
to
simply
looking
at
the
size.
So
I
you
know,
I
think
that
we
all
need
to
be
looking
at
examples
so
that
we
understand
the
issues
better.
I.
E
I
agree
with
the
point
you're
making
alfredo
and
you
too
judy.
I
I
can't
help
but
think
maybe
there's
a
role
here
for
capitalize
albany
I
mean
they
do
have
that
facade
program.
Why?
Why
can't
they
have
some
kind
of
offer
some
kind
of
assistance
for
businesses
that
you
know
would
would
like
to
put
on
a
a
better
face.
You
know
to
the
public,
so
maybe.
E
B
The
businesses
I'm
talking
about
were
one
was
non-aluminum
sign,
which
is
a
regular
sign
that
was
across
the
building
that
they
were
trying
to
get
changed
and
they
tried
to
get
a
permit.
They
had
the
sign
stand
was
there
and
it
still
was
there,
but
they
weren't
able
to
get
the
sign
put
up
because
it
the.
E
B
No,
not
because
of
the
cost
they
were
willing
to
take
the
cost.
It
was
because
of
the
change
of
the
regulations
of
what
a
sign
was
allowed
there,
even
though
the
stance
was
still
there
once
they
took
out
the
old
name
of
the
old
company,
they
couldn't
put
the
new
name
of
the
new
company,
even
though
it
was
going
to
be
on
the
same
stance.
B
It
wasn't
going
to
be
lighted,
it
was
just
a
flat
sign
and
then
they
ended
up
using
flags
to
try
to
bring
in
new
customers,
which
is
why,
when
we're
talking
about
eliminating
or
limiting
flags,
I
want
us
to
have
a
conversation
about
that,
because
you
know
we
want
to
encourage
businesses
to
come
back
and
we
don't
want
to
have
these
empty
empty
businesses,
and
I
will
reach
out
to
those
businesses
to
see
if
they
want
to
come
in
and
speak
about
their
experiences.
To
give
more
information.
G
Thank
you
so
just
to
to
finish
up
this
post
that
I
think
I
skipped
over
previously,
so
so
electronically
and
manual
changeable
copy,
currently
only
allowed
in
mixed-use
campus
institutional,
mixed
use,
downtown
or
actually
expanding
their
use
into
the
campus
institutional
zoning
district
and
downtown
districts.
Currently
they're
only
allowed
in
the
mixed-use
neighborhood
center
and
mixed-use
community
urban
and
allowing
or
having
more
restrictions
on
that.
Currently,
our
signage
is
really.
G
G
I
think
general
guidance
on
brightness
for
signs
is
no
more
than
2500,
so
twice
that
at
five
thousand
it's
is
probably
going
to
create
an
impact
anywhere
in
the
city,
even
in
the
downtown
district,
so
reducing
that
from
5000
to
2500,
which
is
generally
the
maximum
that
you,
the
guidance
indicates,
you
should
have
for
full-time
daylight
usage
even
facing
directly
into
the
sun,
from
dawn
to
dusk,
and
reducing
the
illumination
brightness
from
dusk,
to
dawn
from
500
nits
to
300
should
be
nits.
G
It
says
notes
so
that
that
basically
brings
it
more
in
line
to
what
general
guidance
is
for
the
brightness
of
of
of
signs
and
nits
is
the
measure
by
which
brightness
is
measured.
This
calculation
of,
like
lumens,
which
is
like
candlelight
to
to
converting
it
to
brightness
so
that
you
can
quantify
that,
but
but
reducing
it
generally
will
reduce
the
impact
that
signs
can
have.
G
I
don't
think
any
sign
out
there
right
now
has
anywhere
near
the
5000
or
the
three
500
nits
for
daytime
or
nighttime
usage,
but
this
will
just
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
any
signs
that
might
be.
Potentially
you
know
blinding
someone
as
they're
driving
down
the
street.
G
Another
potential
proposal
here
would
be
to
expand
the
special
assign
program
we
have
now
to
all
zoning
districts
and
then
change
it
from
a
minor
development
plan
review
to
just
a
permitting
review
process.
So
for
those
who
aren't
familiar,
their
special
assign
program
is
a
sign
program.
We
have
that
you
can
use
if
you
have
more
than
one
frontage
or
if
you
have
maybe
a
larger
frontage
like
250,
linear
feet
or
more
frontage,
and
you
could
take
the
you
could
have.
G
You
can
enjoy
a
bonus
of
signage
allowed
if
you
have
a
larger
frontage
and
you
can
use
that
along
with
any
increased
number
of
signs,
you
have,
according
to
your
frontages,
which
is
the
number
of
sides
of
a
building
you
have
facing
the
street.
So
if
you're
on
a
corner
lot,
you
would
have
two
frontages.
G
So
one
of
the
prominent
applicants
that
I
worked
with
with
this
was
the
armory
dealership
on
central
avenue
who,
through
previous
this
zoning
ordinances,
was
able
to
have,
I
think,
maybe
like
20
or
so
signs
or
30
signs
on
a
property
you
know
and
currently,
if,
if
they
under
the
current
review,
if
they
wanted
to
even
change
a
sign,
they'd
have
to
you
know,
lose
all
of
them
and
comply
with
the
requirement
of
having
like
one
sign.
G
You
know
per
frontage
per
lot
that
they
have
so
the
special
sign
program
allowed
them
to
take
all
of
their
consecutive
lots
because
they
have
like
10
lots
that
make
up
their
their
their
site.
They
could
take
those
10
lots
and
all
the
allowances
they
had
on
those
10
lots
and
then
put
them
together
to
say
a
a
certain
amount,
maybe
like
800
square
feet
or
so
of
signage
that
they
would
get
cumulative
through
all
those
lots
and
then
divide
them.
G
You
know,
however,
they
see
fit
on
the
property
as
long
as
the
total
totality
of
the
signs
was
within
what
they
would
be
allowed.
Communal
communal
literally
total
in
totality.
So
that's
that
that
sign
was
pretty
helpful
for
them.
That
way
they
didn't
have
to
take
down.
You
know
all
30
of
their
signs
and
they
could
still
accommodate
their
expansion
on
that
site.
It
would
also
be
helpful
for
other.
G
You
know
other
larger
sites
that
don't
necessarily
fall
on
a
mixed-use
community
highway,
but
might
have
larger
frontages
so
that
you
know
more
smaller
signs
dispersed
across
the
site
might
be
overall
less
impactful
than
having
them
all.
You
know
a
large
sign
allotted
in
the
front.
You
know
towards
the
the
street,
the
frontage
of
the
street
that
might
be
more
distracting
and
commanding
more
of
attention
than
you.
We
would
probably
want
in
a
streetscape.
G
So
that's
just
expanding
that
program
across
the
zoning
districts
there
wouldn't
be.
These
would
be
more
for
larger
type
structures
that
would
be
accommodating,
maybe
multiple
tenants
or
multiple
uses
anyway,
where
they
would
probably
it
would
make
sense
to
see
a
couple
of
more
signs
on
there
to
delineate
between
their
different
uses,
different
sections
different
tenants.
G
So
this
would
kind
of
more
allow
them
the
ability
to
to
to
to
reasonably
advertise
without
creating
too
much
of
an
impact
by
by
forcing
them
to
clump
all
their
signs
together
in
one
spot
and
changing
that
from
a
minor
development
plan
review
to
a
permanent
review.
Just
because
the
the
the
criteria
for
the
special
assign
program
is
already
pretty
stringent
and
so
just
having
that
go
through
a
permanent
review
process.
G
So
it
doesn't
because
the
minor
development
plan
review
may
not
necessarily
pertain
to
like
a
geotechnical
report
or
the
water
department,
if
they're,
just
a
culmination
of
signs
and
having
that
just
go
through
a
permit
review
process
might
create
less
of
an
impact
on
on
tenants,
looking
to
expand
the
use
or
larger
structures
that
are
having
multiple
use
or
maybe
already
have
existing
signs
that
are
non-conforming,
but
they
want
to.
G
And
then
the
last
one
is
just
increasing
signage
allowances
for
industrial
districts
again,
not
necessarily
prescribing
a
specified
amount,
but
just
in
general
right
now
we
kind
of
lump
industrial
districts
together
with
conservation
areas
and
that
that
kind
of
reduces
overall,
how
much
signage
an
industrial
district
would
have
which
is
kind
of
an
unintended
consequence.
Typically,
industrial
districts
are
less
populated
and
less
especially
well,
not
necessarily
for
the
light
industrial,
but
for
the
general
industrial
might
not
necessarily
have
immediate.
G
E
Okay,
well,
thank
you.
That
was
very
good.
Thank
you
very
much
both
of
you.
I
was
wondering
if
somebody
wants
to
speak
to
because
we're
going
to
be
presenting
what
the
work
that's
been
done
so
far
tomorrow,
night
at
the
common
council
caucus
did
brad.
Would
you
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that?
What
you
tend
to
present
tomorrow
night.
H
Yeah,
yes,
tomorrow,
we'll
be
presenting
sort
of
a
cumulative
account
of
the
changes
that
we've
discussed
so
far
for
articles
one
through
four.
We
still
have
work
yet
to
be
done
and
we'll
clarify
what
that
is
going
through
articles
five
through
seven
happy
to
hear
any
suggestions.
H
There's
there's
a
number
of
conversations
we've
had
that
we,
I
think
we
agreed
upon
content
and
there's
some
other
issues
that
are
still
open-ended,
that
I
don't
know
that
we've
reached
the
solution,
so
I
think
the
goal
tomorrow
night
is
to
make
all
the
other
council
members
aware
of
what
we've
discussed
of
you
know
some
of
the
issues
where
maybe
have
a
different
opinion
or
finding
challenges
on
and
get
the
public's
feedback
as
well
as
to
what
direction
we
should
move
on
those
particular
issues,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
on
anything
particular,
but
I'm
I'm
confident
I
got.
E
Okay,
any
comments,
questions
by
committee
members
and
so
we'll
be
meeting
again
in
the
full
council
in
here
in
the
council
chambers,
and
will
you
need
the
be
able
to
present
some?
You
have
something
to
present
as
well.