![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xdyLmmqoeoM/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Board January 25, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
F
F
F
G
Okay,
then
I
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
december
14
2020..
Is
there
a
second.
C
C
G
D
Okay,
that
being
done,
I
guess
we
got
to
do
some
housekeeping,
for
I
guess
the
this
upcoming
year,
we're
going
to
have
to
elect
the
chair
and
a
vice
chair
of
the
board
and
then
from
the
floor.
I'd
like
to
see,
if
any
take
a
nomination
for
chair.
C
C
D
Thank
you,
okay,
going
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
that
we
are
quasi-judicial
board
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
turn
over
to
our
attorney.
Who
can
make
the
announcement
and
swear
on
any
speakers
that
we
have.
H
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
planning
and
zoning
board
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
out
of
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
effects
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
H
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competence,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
H
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
board
wishing
to
disclose
any
export,
take
communications
or
conflicts
of
interest
this
evening,
seeing
none
anyone
wishing
to
speak
this
evening,
any
applicants
or
anyone
giving
testimony?
D
B
B
B
B
There's
a
location
map
showing
the
lawn
it's
about
4000
square
feet
in
size.
It's
in
the
city's
special
area
plan
in
the
d4a
district,
and
I
I
won't
go
through
the
review
criteria
in
detail
just
to
kind
of
summarize
to
say.
B
You've
seen
these
before
the
especially
the
higher
residential
area
and
the
residential
plus
retail
office,
classify
single-family
homes
as
conditional
uses,
just
as
a
means
of
kind
of
not
really
discouraging
them,
but
kind
of
putting
everybody
on
notice
that
this
is
a
mixed
or
a
higher
residential
type
of
area,
including
the
applicant
and
the
surrounding
property,
so
that
a
single-family
home
is
appropriate
here.
But
it's
something
that
this
plan
wants,
the
planning
and
zoning
board
and
the
board
of
commissioners
to
look
at
make
sure
it's
compatible.
B
B
And
this
area,
this
block
is,
is
single
and
multi-family
uses
right
across
the
street
is
office
where
coca-cola's
construction
is
located
and
then
the
the
retail
and
office
complex
aaron
center
street
that
they
just
renovated.
So
it's
kind
of
a
mixed
area,
but
it
really
is
predominantly
residential
and
and
lower
level,
retail
and
office.
B
This
is
as
far
as
the
character
districts
of
the
special
area
plan.
This
is
right
on
the
border
between
the
downtown
and
the
uptown
districts,
so
this
is
just
within
the
downtown
district
and
staff
is
recommending.
Approval
of
the
conditional
use
and
the
applicant
will
need
to
pull
a
building
permit
within
one
year.
B
Some
another
thing
I
should
have
mentioned
the
standards
for
this
transect
district,
along
with
the
requirement
that
the
applicant
will
have
to
go
to
the
historic
preservation
board,
with
his
design
will
assist
in
achieving
compatibility
of
the
the
physical
you
know.
Building
and
physical
look
at
the
property.
D
I
do
have
one
question:
this
is
a
portion
of
lot
four
correct.
This.
B
D
D
Okay,
yeah
I'd
like
to
ask
yeah.
Well
would
we
get
to
that
because
I
think
it's
important
to
find
out.
You
know
where
you
have
non-conforming
lots
and
I
think
under
our
code,
if
you
acquired
a
non-conforming
lot,
then
we
really
have
been
pretty
good.
As
far
as
allowing
these
can
these
these
conditional
uses,
but
to
preclude
somebody
who
has
a
lot
and
then
spin
part
of
it
off
into
a
non-conforming
lot.
B
G
G
Okay,
can
I
ask
also,
what
are
the
setbacks
for
this?
This
residential
home,
that's
being
built,
are
going
to
be
built.
B
If
memory
serves
the-
and
I
can
look
that
up
too
the
side,
setbacks
are
five
feet.
There
is
no
alley
behind
this
slot,
so
the
rear
setback
is
going
to
be,
I
believe,
five
or
ten
feet.
The
front
setback
is
probably
a
0
to
10
or
15,
but
I
can
get
you.
Those
numbers.
G
B
B
B
It
zooms
in
a
little
bit
so
it
looks
like
there
are
structures
on
all
the
lots
immediately
surrounding
these
two
vacant:
lots
that
you
can
see
the
little
hand
go
back
and
forth.
Those
are
other
lots
that
the
current
applicant
built
homes
on
this
aerial
is
a
little
older.
B
So
those
are
two
houses
on
orange
street
one
on
each
of
those
lot
that
lots
that
were
built
by
this
same
applicant.
I
don't
know
what
what
ownership
they
are.
He
could
answer
that
if
you
have
that
question
everything
else
surrounding
is
built.
Some
of
these,
like
the
one
to
the
north
is,
is
ace.
It's
got
multiple
single
family
on
it,
maybe
two
or
three
single
family
on
it.
There
are
apartments
to
the
west.
B
D
H
D
C
F
C
Since
you
took
the
time
to
come,
I've
got
a
question
for
you.
The
planner
suggested
that
there
were
two
homes
that
have
been
built
on
the
two
lots
that
aren't
shown
in
the
in
this
gis
view
and
and
then
your
parcel
butts
up
against
that
right.
Yes,
okay
and
did
you
build
those
houses?
I.
I
C
I
C
I
C
H
D
Okay,
that
being.
C
D
C
C
Could
could
we
have?
Is
there
any
discussion
that
could
be
had
before?
Okay
sure
sure
would
that
be
a
normal
time?
For
that?
Yes,
I
did
want
to
discuss
the
conditional
use
overall.
Is
that
obviously
I
made
the
motion
for,
and
I
have
seen
the
property
and
they
are
fine
houses,
but
I
am
concerned
that.
C
Homes
to
be
built
in
an
area
that
is
obviously
commercial
in
nature
and
is
obviously
encouraging
something
else,
and
although
nothing
else
is
being
built
and
he's
asking
for
it,
I
I
do
have
that
concern
that
we're
not
necessarily
encouraging
it,
but
we're
approving
new
homes
in
an
area
that
I
don't
think
that's
the
intent
of
our
over
overall
land
use
design.
I
don't
know
what
to
do
about
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
that
concern
out
there.
D
I
I
I
understand
that,
and-
and
you
know
on
the
same
token,
what
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
I
had
asked
earlier
is:
when
somebody
has
a
a
lot,
okay
and
and
other
areas
of
town,
you
can't
separate
your
lot
to
a
non-conforming
lot,
sell
it
to
somebody.
Let
them
put
a
house,
you
know
and
and
therefore
that's
problematic,
but
you
know
you
know.
The
thing
is
that's
because
unless
they
change
that
there's
not
much,
we
can
do.
C
D
C
C
D
B
B
Okay,
yes,
what
what
we
have
brought
for
you
to
look
at
are
two
ordinances
that,
as
you
might
well
remember,
we
went
through
quite
a
bit
of
work
to
update
the
sign
code,
the
city
sign
code
in
the
course
of
that
the
board
of
commissioners
asked
staff
to
come
back
after
adoption
of
that.
That
update
to
come
back
with
some
design
elements
to
update
the
code
with.
B
B
So
actually
your
agenda
has
the
ordinance
number
2020-40
first,
and
that
has
to
do
with
parking
lot
and
subdivision
signage
and
lighting,
and
just
a
quick
summary-
and
this
next
couple
slides
will
show
where
this
is
going.
The
city
has
standards
for
its
downtown
signage
in
the
community
redevelopment
area,
and
basically
it
reflects
these.
These
types
of
signs,
the
powder-coated
poles,
some
type
of
decorative,
a
pole
with
a
fluted
kind
of
base
and
a
backing
on
on
the
sign,
almost
like
a
frame
of
black
in
in
color.
B
So
that's
kind
of
what
is
being
required
here
for
all
of
the
properties,
commercial
properties
in
the
city,
except
for
those
with
industrial
uses.
B
Same
with
light
posts,
as
you
know,
we
require
or
we
we
encourage
shielded
lighting,
and
these
are
some
of
the
fixtures
types
of
fixtures
that
would
be
encouraged
and
again,
powder
coated
poles
with
like
a
decorative
or
fluted
base,
and
again
industrial
properties
would
be
exempt
from
this.
If
they're
outside
the
special
area
plant
and
then
the
second
ordinance
has
to
do
with
sign
design
requirements,
and
we
can
you
know,
however,
you
want
to
do
this,
I
can
go
back.
We
can
take
these
one
at
a
time
for
discussion,
I'd.
B
Okay,
so
the
first
one
which
is
actually
ordinance
2020-40,
has
to
do
with
the
parking
lot
and
subdivision
standards.
D
I
I
do.
First
of
all,
I
I
like
the
idea,
but
the
question
that
I
have.
I
have
a
couple
parking
lots
and
currently
the
sign
the
the
street.
The
parking
lot
lighting
is
done
by
duke
energy,
yes,
okay,
so
how?
If
how?
How
does
that
impact?
Somebody
who
has
a
parking
lot
and-
and
I
would
probably
be
certain
to
guess
that
duke
energy
may
or
may
not
have-
may
not
have
these
type
of
sign
lights
for
parking
lots.
B
We
did
have
a
recent
subdivision
who
was
had
a
plan
drafted
up
by
duke
energy
and
they
did
come
up
with
some
lighting
that
met
the
standards
of
this
proposed
code.
So
while
we
have
not
researched
every
type
of
design
that
they
may
have
available,
I
know
they
do
have
some
powder
coated
lighting
designs
available.
D
Okay,
do
you
do
you
know
if
you
can
get
an
elevation
on
those
signs,
because
you
know
when
you
look
at
the
ordinance
they
provide
examples
and
and
when,
when
this
goes
to
to
the
city,
for
approval
of
of
sign
or
signs
and
and
and
parking
lot
lighting,
you
know
to
some
degree,
it's
a
subjective
standard.
B
B
D
Okay
and
when,
when
we
adopt
this
or
if
we
adopt
this
and
and
you
look
at
the
the
visuals
that
are
provided
by
the
city,
is
there
a
provision
in
this
that
says
these
are
for
illustration
purposes
only
because
I
I
don't
want
somebody
looking
at
these
these
visuals
and
say:
okay,
your
your
proposal
really
doesn't
match
or
is
not
consistent
with,
what's
being
shown
as
an
example,
and-
and
so
I
think
it's
important
that,
because
you
know
this,
this
may
come
up
when
we're
not
all
here.
H
A
D
Else
is
ends
up,
you
know
filling
seats
in
the
city
or
staff,
and
I
I
just
don't
want
them
to
just
rely
on
the
photographs
that
are
that
are
shown.
B
Yes,
I
would
say
just
taking
each
by
itself
the
signs
we
actually
have
specifications
for
those
signs
that
we've
provided
to
different
developers
who
have
incorporated
those
signs
into
their
development.
B
B
D
Correct
and
there
may
be
other
other
designs
that
meet
the
standards
that
aren't
within
the
box
of
designs
that
we
have
shown,
and
I
just
again
you
know
two
years
from
now,
there
could
be
other
people
sitting
at
the
at
the
city,
making
these
determinations
and
and
they
look
at
the
visuals
that
we
provided,
and
I
just
don't
want
to
lock
them
in,
and
so
just
just
for
clarity
that
that
these
these
are
just
illustrations.
Only.
H
Well
and
if
I
could
interject
the
code
specifically
states
that
they
shall
be,
as
shown
in
the
figures
as
depicted
so
what
I'm
hearing
from
you-
and
I
don't
know
if
the
entire
board
feels
that
way.
H
Obviously,
we
would
need
a
consensus
before
any
recommendation
is
moved
to
the
board
of
commissioners,
but
if
the
entirety
of
the
board
feels
that
way,
might
I
suggest
that,
instead
of
saying
the
design
for
parking
lot,
lighting
shall
be,
as
shown
in
figure
two,
the
design
for
parking
lot
lighting
so
either
you
could
put
shall
substantially
be
or
as
by
way
of
example,
or
something
like
that.
H
That
is
going
to
put
a
lot
more
subjectivity
into
the
design
criteria
likely
there
will
need
to
be
another
provision
that
has
you
know
what
you
don't
want
to
get
yourself
into.
Is
one
person
in
the
city
being
able
to
say
I
don't
like
that
sign
and
therefore
I
know
it
kind
of
looks
like
those,
but
I
don't
like
it
so
we're.
H
D
D
D
H
Then,
even
again,
as
long
as
the
board
has
a
consensus
and
everyone
feels
the
same
way
or
a
majority,
you
know
maybe
some
verbage
within
the
code
saying
you
know
like
these
or
otherwise
meeting
the
criteria,
which
I
think
that
verbiage
is
it
says
and
otherwise
meeting
the
criteria,
but
maybe
something
that
says
or
otherwise,
meeting
the
criteria
and
that
might
that
might
show.
By
way
of
example,
it
needs
to
look
like
these
or
otherwise
meet
the
criteria.
That's
in
the
code.
G
I
I
also
agree
with
that,
because
you
know
you
lay
you're
laying
subject
to
this
way.
I
mean:
there's,
there's
obviously
a
little
open
field
for
just
a
slight
diversity
you
know
and
and
where
they
can
meet
that
criteria,
but
not
be
limited
to
a
specific
type.
B
B
The
board
of
commissioners
on
some
of
those
that
have
been
approved
but
have
not
yet
started
development,
and
I
can't
swear
to
list
each
one,
but
we
they
have
been
asking
that
these
types
of
standards
be
added
as
conditions
of
approval.
So
we
have,
I
can
think,
of
at
least
three
that
agreed
to
the
conditions,
and
then
we
also
have
some
commercial
sites
same
thing,
that
the
board
put
those
conditions
and
the
applicant
accepted
them.
C
I
I
do
have
a
question
I
I
was
doing
my
best
to
follow
the
conversation
chairperson
and
I
did
hear
clearly
and
understand
council's
suggestion
that
an
adjustment
in
verbiage
might
be
the
acceptable
path
there,
and
I
agree
with
that.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
did
we
come
to
a
consensus
on.
H
Well,
I
think
if
you
make
the
motion,
mr
vessy
and
then
the
board
seconds
it
and
approves
it,
then
we'll
have
a
we'll
have
an
idea
of
if
you
guys
want
to
move
that
way
or
not.
So
I
would
just
suggest
if
you
agree
with
that,
to
make
the
motion
the
affirmative,
with
the
suggested
change
in
the
verbiage,
to
say
like
the
figures
in
the
ordinance
or
otherwise
meeting
the
criterias
as
listed
in
the
code
or
something
to
that
effect.
C
C
B
C
C
D
D
What
I
want
to
declare
all
right
so
now,
we'll
move
on
to
land
development
code,
amendment
to
ordinance,
2020-39
I'll
turn
it
over
to
staff.
At
this
point,.
B
All
right
and
this
one
is
the
changes
to
the
sign,
ordinance
and
basically
kind
of
in
a
nutshell.
What
this
does
is
provide
for,
I
guess
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
creative
signing
signage
and
trying
to
encourage
creative
signs
or.
B
This
also
allows
a
couple
of
science
types
that
were
missed
well,
one
in
particular,
roof
mounted
signs
and
it
also
provides
for
what
are
called
landmark
signs.
So
this
would
be
for
older
signs
or
sign
components
that
are
really
non-conforming
or
don't
fit
the
code,
but
they're
historic
or
they're,
culturally.
B
I
guess
you
know
important
to
the
city,
so
that
allows
for
a
landmark
sign,
designation,
basically
just
to
give
you
kind
of
an
overview.
B
These
there
there
are
incentives
presented
to
encourage
these
creative
signs
and
just
going
through
the
graphics,
you
can
see
the
different
sign
types
on
the
on
the
top,
the
pylon,
the
pole
with
cladding
monument
monolith.
Those
would
be
desirable
over
a
pole
sign
which
is
shown
on
the
bottom.
B
The
code
will
also
have
some
illustrations
to
kind
of
help
illustrate
what
the
different
sign
types
are.
Can
canopy
awning
projecting
wall
signs
those
types
of
things
on
the
left
on
this
illustration,
you
can
see
some
different
roof
signs
and
awning
signs
that
would
be
allowed
and
on
the
right,
especially
the
lower
right
you'll,
see
the
signed,
roof
sign
type
that
is
not
allowed
and
that
that's
that's
true
of
the
code
today,
and
that
would
continue
to
be
true.
B
Those
types
of
signs
that
kind
of
project
above
the
roof
line,
are
still
not
allowed.
B
So
what
this
does
is
to
encourage
these
sign
types
is
to
provide
an
increase
in
height,
available
increase
in
height
of
25
and
an
available
increase
in
sign
area
of
25
percent.
To
encourage
these
freestanding
signs
that
are
not
pole,
signs,
that's
kind
of
the
intent
of
this
again.
There
is
an
appeal
process
for
this.
That
goes,
if
it's
in
the
historic
district,
it
goes
through
the
historic
preservation
board
and
then
to
the
board,
and
if
it's
not,
it
goes
straight
to
the
board
of
commissioners.
B
The
landmark
signs
are
identified
as
signs
for
a
use
and
which
has
been
in
place
for
over
30
years,
and
then
there
is
a
description
there
of
some
of
the
characteristics
that
a
landmark
sign
would
have
one
of
the
examples
that
people
give
was
the
century
and
soldier
down
at
hilas.
B
Some
of
the
neon
banding,
for
example,
at
least
indesign
code
is
well
actually
in
the
historic
guidelines
is
prohibited
in
the
historic
district,
so
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
designated
as
a
landmark
if
it
were
actually
historically
significant.
So
those
types
of
sign
designs
for
the
older
signs
are
what
is
considered
for
landmark.
D
I
see-
and
this
is
on
the
prior
ordinance,
where
you
actually
have
provision
in
here
that
graphic
that
depictions
of
signs
are
provided
as
illustrative
examples.
Only
and
that's
that's
the
question
that
I
have
when
you
look
at
the
monuments
or
the
signs
themselves
is
when
you
look
at
square
footage
of
signage,
that
they
calculate
how
big
your
sign
can
be.
Is
the
monument
itself
part
of
that
calculation.
B
B
Yes,
so
currently
people
either
use
wall
signs
or
free
standing
out
in
front
of
the
store
or
both.
So
it
would
go
say
above
the
door.
B
B
C
C
The
question
is
part
statement
is
I
hope
that
the
board
is
also
preparing
an
allowance
for
the
enforcement
of
said
new
code
because,
as
I
understand,
and
as
the
past
code
enforcement
board,
chairperson
for
a
few
years,
the
sign
ordinance
before
it
was
rewritten
was
challenging
to
understand
and
enforce,
and
now
with
a
wholesale
revision,
it
could
easily
occupy
three
full-time
people
for
the
even-handed
enforcement
of
the
sign
code,
with
just
a
couple
examples:
for
example,
there's
a
whole
new
list
of
signs
that
will
no
longer
be
conforming
within
60
days
of
passing
will
have
to
be
removed.
C
So
a
question:
is
there
discussion
of
providing
for
someone
to
even-handedly
enforce
the
sign
rules
that
has
appears
to
take
almost
two
years
to
write
this?
It
certainly
could
take
as
long
to
understand
it
and
enforce
it.
Okay,
that
was
a
long,
rambling
question.
We
gonna
get
a
sign
enforcement
person
and
who's
gonna.
Certainly
we're
not
gonna.
Have
a
police
officer
walk
around
and
enforce
this
code,
go
ahead.
B
Yeah
and
to
your
point
in
my
experiences
sign
codes
are
always
an
enforcement
challenge
and
yeah
the
amount
of
of
work
is
potentially
pretty
great.
Now
the
board
did
have
a
workshop
on
this.
This
proposal,
where
they
provided
staff
direction.
B
I
was
not
at
that
workshop,
so
I
don't
know
if
that
was
discussed.
If
this
board
has
a
concern
that
could
certainly
be
expressed,
if
that's
the
consensus
of
the
board,
to
express
you,
know
the
code
enforcement
burden
of
of
sign
code
in
general
and
of
this
additional
material.
I
will
say
that
this.
This
is
really
a
oh,
an
incentive
based
kind
of
code
change,
but
to
your
point
to
enforce.
Does
it
do
these
signs,
meet
the
regulations
and
signs
that
fall
into
disrepair
and
abandoned
signs?
B
D
If,
if
I
remember
correctly,
we
extended
the
time
of
when,
when
a
when
the
property
is
vacant,
and
then
does
you
have
a
non-conforming
sign,
I
think
we
extended
the
time
within
which
the
owner
of
the
property
can
get
somebody
in
there
and
even
though
it's
a
non-conforming
sign,
it
would
still
be
grandfathered
in.
If
I
remember
craig
you
might
you
remember,
I.
C
Signs
make
or
break
science
make
or
break
some
businesses,
and
it's
an
incredibly
important
topic
for
some
and
we
were
struggling
over
sandwich
boards
with
chalk
for
a
while
yeah
much
less
some
of
the
and
and
they
also
have
huge
dollar
investments.
As
someone
that
puts
in
signs,
they
can
be
wildly
expensive
to
produce
engineer
and
get
approval
for.
C
I
just
would
think
that,
with
all
the
effort
that
the
city
has
put
into
designing
a
new
standard
that
there
needs
to
be
a
shadow
enforcement
side,
enforcement's,
probably
too
strong
as
a
guideline
side.
Otherwise
it's
just
a
big
pile
of
paper
and
it's
just
going
to
be
a
problem
for
everyone.
So
I
guess
this
board.
Member
would
like
to
encourage
that
those
concerns
about
even-handed
and
consistent
enforcement
of
that
new
sign,
ordinance.
G
I'm
also
looking
at
the
the
opposite
side
of
that,
where,
if
they
were
cited
for
that
signage
problem-
and
they
were
told
to
remove
that
sign
because
it
wasn't
conforming,
what
kind
of
recourse
do
they
have
rather
than
losing
say
several
thousands
of
dollars
that
they
put
into
this
sign
that
they've
had
for
x
amount
of
years.
G
You
know
an
x
amount
of
dollars
invested.
What
kind
of
recourse
would
these
people
have?
Well,
you
know:
is
there
an
alternate
solution
that
they
can
fall
back
on?
Is
there
any
guidance
that
the
city
can
offer
them
as
a
as
a
as
an
offset
to
the
you
know,
to
meeting
that
criteria.
D
So
I
think
that's
the
way
the
sign
code
reads
but
to
to
single-handedly
be
able
to
tell
somebody
who's
got
a
non-conforming
sign.
Now
you
have
to
remove
it.
It's
I
don't
think
within
the
the
the
ordinance
at
all.
Am
I
correct
in
that.
B
B
Is
that
if
the
signed
face,
for
example,
the
business
is
gone,
but
the
business
name
is
still
there
if
the
signed
face
is
is
still
there
and
I
forget
the
time
frame,
it's
I
think,
180
days,
then
the
sign
face
needs
to
be
removed
as
far
as
the
structures.
B
If
the
structures
are
not
conforming,
but
in
good
repair,
they
they
don't
have
to
immediately
be
removed.
We
had
a
couple
that
were
obviously
not
in
good
repair
and
falling
down
and
were
non-conforming.
Those
owners
were
or
contacted.
But
if
it's,
if
it's
a
structure,
that's
in
good
repair,
it's
not
requi.
It's
not
considered
to
be
abandoned
for
purposes
of
the
structure,
so
the
way
this
was
was
updated
seems
to
be
working
well.
I
think.
F
And
185.02
says
as
far
as
termination
of
non-conforming
signs,
but
if
you
don't,
if
you're
not
modifying
it
substantially,
then
you
can
continue
to
use
it.
Yeah.
C
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that.
D
C
If
I
may
just
add
on
184.00
certain
signs
to
be
removed,
a
with
exceptions
of
grandfathered
non-conforming
signs
addressed
in
this
section,
so
that's
consistent
with
you
said
pretty
much.
If
you
got
it,
you
got
to
keep
it.
If
you
don't
change
it
and
you
don't
let
it
fall
on
the
ground,
you're
good.
So
it's
just
everybody
moving
forward.
C
D
He's
the
guy
coming
down-
it's
just
probably.
Actually
I
had
this
issue
up
in
my
other
office
where
I
had
a
today.
It's
a
non-conforming
sign
and
it
needed
some
well.
I
was
going
to
replace
it,
but
the
sign
people
said
you
better,
not
and
and
so
it
was
a
lesson
learned
so
there's
there's
there
was
a
motion
in
a
second.
F
B
C
H
C
D
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
I
guess
we
move
on
to
staff
comments.
B
No
comments:
I
will
be
sending
you
a
2021
calendar
of
meeting
dates
for
all
the
city
boards
by
email.