[00:00:01]
WELCOME TO THE, UH, SEA OF LEAGUE CITY ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BUILDING THE STANDARDS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING, UH, FOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 9TH, 2025.
UM, FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL, CALL TO ORDER.
SO YOU HEAR YOUR NAME SAY HERE.
I THINK WE NEED TO ACTIVATE DAVE SINCE HE'S, OR WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO ACTIVATE HIM.
WE HAVE THE FULL FIVE STANDING MEMBERS.
SO SINCE WE DON'T NEED TO ACTIVATE HIM, I MEAN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY UP HERE AND, UH, I GUESS HE CAN PROVIDE COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
WE'LL JUST HAVE THE VOTE FOR THE FIVE SITTING MEMBERS, SO, OKAY.
[2. Approval of September 5, 2024, minutes]
OKAY.UH, APPROVAL OF, UH, THIS SEPTEMBER 5TH, 20, 24 MINUTES.
UM, IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER, UM, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE? NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? A MOTION TO APPROVE, HEAR.
MR. KLEIN HAS THE, UH, MADE THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE PASSES UNANIMOUS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WAS IT MR. KLEIN OR MR. RUSSELL? OH, SORRY.
UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED TO GIVE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME LASTING NOT LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
[4A. Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, VA-24-0011, (601 East FM 646), two variance requests to increase the maximum height of a pylon sign from 20 feet to 30 feet and increase the maximum sign area of a pylon sign from 100 square feet to 182 square feet in area in accordance with Table #3 of Article 8, entitled Signs in the League City Unified Development Code (Chapter 125 of the League City Code of Ordinances), generally located along the north side of East Farm to Market Road (FM) 646, east of Dickinson Avenue and west of Ohio Avenue with the address of 601 East FM 646 in League City, Texas.]
SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS. ITEM A, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.APPLICATION VA 24, UH, DASH 0 0 1 6 0 1 EAST FM 6 46.
TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A PYLON SIGN FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA ON A PYLON SIGN FROM 100 SQUARE FEET TO 182 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE NUMBER THREE OF ARTICLE EIGHT SIGN ENTITLED SIGNS IN THE LEAGUE CITY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE LEAGUE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST FARM TO MARKET ROAD FM 6 46, EAST OF DICKINSON AVENUE AND WEST OF OHIO AVENUE WITH THE ADDRESS OF 6 0 1 EAST FM 6 46 IN LEAGUE CITY OF TEXAS STAFF
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MARK LINE SCHMIDT.
I'M THE PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS FOR TWO VARIANCES.
ONE IS TO A VARIANCE FOR, TO THE HEIGHT OF A PYLON SIGN FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET.
AND THE OTHER IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA FROM MAXIMUM OF A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET TO 182 SQUARE FEET.
THE, UH, TRACT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FM 6 46.
JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND, THE, THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS REQUEST IS A RESULT OF TDOT'S EXPANSION.
UH, PREVIOUSLY TDOT HAS COME THROUGH AND ACQUIRED, THEY APPRO ACQUIRED APPROXIMATELY 7,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT PROPERTY THAT WAS ACQUIRED INCLUDED WHERE THEIR MONUMENT SIGN WAS.
SO AS A RESULT, THEY'RE REQUIRED OR THEY'RE TO WANTING TO RELOCATE A SIGN.
UM, IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE CHANGING IT FROM A MONUMENT PINE TO A PYLON SIGN, UH, TO ADDRESS THE ONCOMING, UH, ACQUISITION.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EXPANSION PROJECT BEFORE YOU, WHAT IS UNIQUE TO THE 6 46 CORRIDOR WITH RESPECT TO THE TX DOTS DESIGN AS THEY'RE CREATING A BRIDGE, IT IS UNIQUE TO THIS CORRIDOR, BUT IT IS NOT UNIQUE TO LEAGUE CITY FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE.
UM, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SIMILAR REQUESTS RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT ALONG THE FIVE, UH, I 45 CORRIDOR.
UM, BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY, UH, REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA ALONG THE CORRIDOR, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN.
UM, LUCKILY WHERE THE SECTION BB IS, IS ACTUALLY, THAT SECTION IS ACTUALLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHERE THE BRIDGE IS RELATED TO THE THROUGH, THROUGH LANES, AS WELL AS THE FRONTAGE LANES THAT WILL FRONT, DIRECTLY FRONT AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A, UH, SET PROFILE SECTION OF THE SIDE, UH, TO GIVE AN IDEA OF THE SIGN WITH A CLOSEUP OF IDENTIFYING WHERE THE, UH, RAMPS WILL FALL IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED SIGNS, SHOULD IT BE MEET THE, THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT IS BEING
[00:05:01]
PROPOSED.UM, AGAIN, UH, THIS IS JUST A, A SHOWING ON THE, UH, SLIDES BEFORE YOU THAT THE REQUEST IS THE, WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN IS RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST.
AND THEN THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE SIGN ITSELF.
UM, STAFF'S FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE DOES EXCEED IN BOTH CASES.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE HEIGHT SIGNAGE, THE REQUEST IS 50%, UH, BEYOND THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AND THE SIGN AREA IS AN 82% INCREASE.
UM, AGAIN, JUST AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE LAND ACQUISITION AS A RESULT OF THE TDOT EXPANSION, UH, WHICH NECESSITATES THE RED RELOCATION OF THE SIGN, THE PROPOSED BID WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE SIGN.
HOWEVER, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE PROVIDED FROM THE THROUGH LANES TO THE BRIDGE.
THEY WILL BE PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO THE FRONTAGE LANES.
UM, SIMILAR CONDITIONS WILL EXIST FOR SEVERAL PROPERTIES.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS EXAMPLE HERE, UH, THE AREA KIND OF IDENTIFIED IN THE ORANGE AREA WILL BE, UH, SUCH THAT, UM, THOSE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS NEW DESIGN, UH, AGAIN, SPECIFIC TO THIS 6 46 CORRIDOR.
AND THEN TO DATE, NO OTHER SIGNS, UH, NO OTHER REQUESTS HAVE COME BEFORE ANY, UH, BOARDS OR HAVE COME BEFORE FROM ANY OTHER PROPERTIES.
SO I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
AND ALSO, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A, THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THIS.
UM, DID THE APPLICANT WANNA COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS AT ALL? YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, UH, MY, MY THOUGHTS ARE IF YOU CAN SPEAK UP HERE SURE.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN WE'LL PUT YOUR NAME.
MY NAME IS MAUREEN, UH, MAUREEN SILICON.
I'M WITH FOUR D SIGN WORKS, UM, ON BEHALF OF DR.
UM, LOOKING AT THIS EARLIER AND TRYING TO SEE, UM, EXACTLY KIND OF LIKE WHERE THE INCONVENIENCE FOR THE, UH, VEHICLES COMING FROM WOULD BE, I'D SAY YOU GET A LOT OF TRAFFIC FROM HIGHWAY THREE AND THOSE VEHICLES GOING, UM, EAST ON, UH, 6 46, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE SIGNIFICANT BLOCKAGE IF THE SIGN WAS 20 FEET TALL, 'CAUSE WHERE THE BRIDGE IS, THAT'S GONNA, ALL THAT TRAFFIC GOING EAST, IT'S GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING HER PROPERTY.
UM, BASICALLY WHERE THE WHOLE THING OF THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BRIDGE.
SO ANYONE COMING EAST IS GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING IT.
SO IF IT WAS 30 FEET, THERE'D BE NO PROBLEM BECAUSE THE SIGN ITSELF, UH, IF WE GET THE SIZE INCREASE, THE SIGN WOULD BE 10 FOOT TALL AND NINE OF THE, UH, NINE OF THEM WOULD BE OVER THE TOP OF THE BRIDGE.
SO, UM, ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THE SIGN PHASE.
UH, THE BRIDGE IS, UH, RIGHT IN FRONT OF DR.
KOHLER'S PROPERTY IS 21 BY MY, BY MY SCALE, 21 FEET, FOUR INCHES.
UM, SO IF THE SIGN WAS 20 FEET, ALL OF IT WOULD BE BENEATH THE EDGE OF THAT BRIDGE, SO ESSENTIALLY COMPLETELY COVERED.
SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID HERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? I THINK I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
WE ARE ADDRESSING TWO ISSUES HERE.
AND THE OTHER THEN IS THE AREA OF THE SIGN MM-HMM
UM, AND SO WE COULD ALLOW ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER MM-HMM
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A SIGN BY ORDINANCE IS A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, 100 MAX CITY.
AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR 182? YES, SIR.
SO THAT'S 82%
SO WOULD WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, ONE FOR HEIGHT AND ONE FOR AREA? I WAS JUST THINKING THE SAME QUESTION.
I THINK YOU COULD, I THINK WE COULD ALSO DO IT UNDER ONE MOTION, BUT IT'D PROBABLY BE CLEANER TO DO IT MAYBE SEPARATELY IF, IF YOU WOULD, IF, IF THE CONSIDERATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVING ONE OR THE OTHER, THE PREFERENCE IS DEFINITELY THE HEIGHT.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE.
MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SURE.
UM, I'VE GONE PAST THE BUILDING SEVERAL TIMES, UH, AND DIDN'T NOTICE A MONUMENT.
[00:10:01]
MONUMENT THAT WAS THERE BEEN REMOVED? YES.AND WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THAT MONUMENT PREVIOUSLY? UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, I DON'T THINK IT WAS TALLER THAN ABOUT EIGHT FEET.
HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
BUT, UH, APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED, YEAH.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, UH, AND IT WAS KIND OF HARD TO TELL FROM THE DRAWINGS, IS YOUR IDEA OF THE PLACEMENT OF THIS ELEVATED SIGN AS FAR TO THE EAST OF ON ON THE PROPERTY AS POSSIBLE? SO IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH, IT HAS MINIMAL CONFLICT WITH THE BRIDGE.
IT'S, LET'S SEE, IT IS AS FAR WEST ACTUALLY, UH, AS FAR WEST AS IT CAN GO.
UM, THEN IT'S GOING, THEN IT'S GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION AS FAR AS THE BRIDGE HEIGHT, ESSENTIALLY.
I MEAN, THAT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT, HOWEVER, THAT'S WHERE THE SIGN WAS.
AND SO KEEPING IN THAT, IT'S THERE, IT'S IN THE PENINSULA RIGHT AT THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGE, IF YOU LOOK, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU LOOK? OOPS, SORRY.
TO THE EAST OR THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO? UM, THE END OF MY PROPERTY IS THERE, UM, STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, MA'AM.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND OF THE BUSINESS.
AND SO, UM, THE LITTLE BIT TO THE END OF MY PROPERTY ON THAT EAST OR RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE IS MY DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, THEN IT'S MY PARKING SPACES, AND THEN IT'S THAT LITTLE PENINSULA THAT WAS MY, UM, STREET SIGN.
UM, THAT'S NOW BEEN REMOVED BY TDOT AND MY MONUMENT SIGN.
AND SO WITH BOTH OF THOSE REMOVED, IT LEAVES THAT LITTLE BIT OF PENINSULA WHERE WE CAN STILL PUT OUR SIGNAGE WITHOUT COMPROMISING ANY OF OUR PARKING OR MOVING OUR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO MY ONLY FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE IF IT WERE MOVED TO THE FAR EAST OF THE PROPERTY, WHAT HEIGHT WOULD IT BE TO CLEAR THE BRIDGE? WHAT HEIGHT WOULD BE NEEDED TO CLEAR THE BRIDGE? UH, IT'S ABOUT 81 FEET TO THE WEST.
YEAH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD VIEW RIGHT THERE.
WELL GOING, UM, FORGIVE ME, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I LOOKED INTO, BUT, UM, JUST DOING THIS REAL QUICK HERE, IT LOOKS ABOUT 80 FEET TO THE WEST AND WOULD PROBABLY CLEAR THE APPROACH OF THE BRIDGE.
THAT'S JUST A REAL QUICK LOOKING AT THIS PROFILE HERE THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT.
SO WHAT WE'RE SURMISING THAT IF IT WERE MOVED TO THE EASTERN END OF THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE SEEN WITHOUT RAISING IT ABOVE THE 20 FEET? THAT IS THE CASE, BUT THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR WHERE OUR SINGLE ENTRY IS.
UM, AND SO NEAR OUR ENTRY IS WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE SIGNAGE.
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, CHAIRMAN.
NO FURTHER, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT SIX 13.
IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM.
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT SIX 13.
UH, AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION OR A PAIR OF MOTIONS IT SOUNDS LIKE, OR APPROVING THE VARIANCES, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS A MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH.
MR. MR. MILLER WOULD LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE APPROVE BOTH THE AREA INCREASE AND THE HEIGHT INCREASE.
UH, HAVE A SECOND MOVE THAT WE CONSIDER BOTH ISSUES SEPARATELY.
MR. KLEIN WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THEM BOTH SEPARATELY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO EITHER OF THOSE MOTIONS? NO SECONDS.
MR. KLEINS, HOW WAS IT? OKAY, I'LL SECOND.
SO MR. MILLER IS GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION THAT WE CONSIDER BOTH OF THESE VARIANCES SEPARATELY.
SO, AND, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND HIS MOTION
AND THE REASON WHY, IF, IF I CAN GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION.
[00:15:01]
I FEEL THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THESE AS TWO SEPARATE MATTERS IS, UM, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE IS NOT AS MUCH OF A REQUEST AS THE AREA, AND IT IS, I THINK IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE TO ASK THAT IT BE VISIBLE ABOVE THE BRIDGE.AND SO LOOKING AT HEIGHT AS A SEPARATE ISSUE IS ONE THING.
NOW, SIZE-WISE, WISE, ESPECIALLY IF WE, AND I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE EXISTING SIGNAGE IS ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR.
AND SO SOMETHING A LITTLE SMALLER ON TOP OF THE, THE, THE PYLON, UH, WOULD BE SOMETHING I THINK WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND THAT, UH, WE WOULD APPROVE ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER.
I TEND TO, UH, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT THESE SHOULD BE SEPARATE MOTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE SEPARATE.
UM, THEY'RE SORT OF SEPARATE CLAUSES WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
YOU HAVE AN AREA OF MAXIMUM AND YOU HAVE A HEIGHT MAXIMUM.
AND I DO THINK THAT THEY REQUIRE CONSIDERATION SORT OF SEPARATELY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE REQUESTS.
ONE THING I WANTED TO KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP IN MIND IS THESE REQUESTS CAN'T JUST BE FINANCIAL NATURE AND ADVERTISING BY, ITS, I'M SAYING NATURE TOO MUCH, BUT, UH, ADVERTISING BY NATURE IS FINANCIAL, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE BUSINESS.
THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION, IT'S REALLY MORE LIKE, HERE WE ARE, RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE WE ARE.
UM, SO YEAH, I AGREE THAT, THAT THE, THERE IS A ELEMENT OF ADVERTISING IN ANY SIGNAGE.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ALSO THE, THE, UM, AND I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S, UH, SOMEWHERE IN, I THINK IN THE ORDINANCE IT'S ALSO TO HELP PROMOTE BUSINESS AND SO ON MM-HMM
SO, UM, THIS HAVING A SIGN IN AND OF ITSELF, I THINK CAN SERVE BOTH PURPOSES.
UM, I GUESS WE, WE'VE GOT TWO MOTIONS ON THE, ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.
SO, UH, THE FIRST THING WE'D HAVE TO DO IS APPROVE ONE OF THOSE TWO MOTIONS TO THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST MOTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS TO CONSIDER BOTH, UH, VARIANCE REQUESTS IN A SINGLE, IN A SINGLE, UH, MOTION.
SO WHY DON'T WE, I THINK, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, OF TAKING THESE AS A SINGLE MOTION, SAY AYE.
I THINK IT'S, UH, THAT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS TO REJECT THAT ONE.
SO THE SECOND MOTION WOULD BE TO CONSIDER THESE AS SEPARATE, UH, SEPARATE MOTIONS.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT, UH, SAY AYE.
SO WE WILL CONSIDER THIS AS A SINGLE MOTION.
NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AREA VARIANCE, SINGLE MOTION TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE THE AREA.
THE LARGER THAN PERMITTED SIGN, RIGHT? YES.
I'M NOT SO MOVING, I'M JUST CLARIFYING.
ANYBODY ALL MOVE TO APPROVE? OKAY.
MR. MILLER WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AREA INCREASE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION? I MEAN, MY DISCUSSION IS, UH, ON THE AREA, UM, I DON'T KNOW, IS THIS ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YOU HAVE THE LITTLE BUTTON VEST HERE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHICH BUTTON ON THE NECK RIGHT THERE.
UM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 82% DIFFERENCE MM-HMM
UM, OUR JOB IS NOT TO SET POLICY THAT'S SET BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND FOR ME, UM, 82% IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THE ORIGINAL POLICY IS.
UM, SO I'M NOT, WE AREN'T HERE TO, UM, DISCUSS POLICY OR FUTURE BUSINESSES THAT COME FORWARD TO UM, ASK FOR SIGNED VARIANCE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO SET THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE SIGNS.
UH, IF IT WAS A COUPLE OF FEET, I, YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, BUT, UM, 82% IS HUGE.
AND WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGNAGE FEET, THE HUNDRED LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MM-HMM
AT AN AERIAL HEIGHT OF 30, THERE'S, THEY STILL WILL HAVE A GOOD, GOOD VIEW OF SEEING THE SIGN, MOVING THE SIGN BACK.
THEY'RE GONNA ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO ABOUT 35 TO 40 FEET TO GET THE SAME AESTHETICS THAT THEY NEED FOR WHERE IT'S IN THE CURRENT LOCATION.
WELL, THERE'S CLEARLY GOING TO BE MORE PEOPLE COMING FORWARD.
[00:20:01]
THAT, AGAIN, THEY'RE THE POLICY SETTERS AND WE, UM, WE JUST, UH, SEE IF THERE'S A HUGE EXCEPTION ON WHY.AND TO ME, A COUPLE OF FEET IS SOMETHING WE CAN MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR OR THERE'S EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THIS IS CLEARLY GONNA GO ON THIS ENTIRE CORRIDOR.
OR I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THE COUNCIL SET THE POLICY AND, UH, IT WAS CLOSER TO THAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT? I AGREE.
UM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND THEN VOTE FOR, UH, TO APPROVE THE AREA.
ALL IS IN FAVOR OF, UH, APPROVING THE MOTION.
UH, THE AREA INCREASE VARIANCE IS FAILED.
SECOND ITEM IS THE HEIGHT INCREASE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT INCREASE VARIANCE? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
MS. CURR HAS, UH, MO MOVED TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OR TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT? INCREASED VARIANCE.
WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE HEIGHT.
THAT'S, UH, STILL A 50% INCREASE.
UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF THE BUSINESSES ALONG HERE, BUT I THINK CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO SET THE POLICY ON WHAT THAT IS.
I I TEND TO, I TEND TO AGREE, UH, WE'VE HAD VERY SIMILAR REQUESTS, UM, TO THIS ONE, UH, THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE AND VERY, VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I THINK THAT, UH, A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS, IS REALLY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE, UM, RATHER THAN THE, THE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN HERE.
WHICH I THINK IT FEELS LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION ABOUT POTENTIALLY AMENDING THE RULES OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS FOR EVERY BUSINESS THAT COMES ALONG 'CAUSE WE HAVE ALL THIS NEW GROWTH.
RIGHT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOPE.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF INCREASE OF APPROVING THE 50% HEIGHT INCREASE VARIANCE, SAY AYE.
UH, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE WILL PASS, CORRECT? NOPE, THAT DOESN'T PASS.
WE HAVE TO HAVE 75 VOTE PERCENT.
RIGHT? IT'S THREE TO THREE TO TWO.
BUT I THINK IT HAS TO BE 75% ON THIS BOARD, SO I BELIEVE SO, YES.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THE VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN, UH, HAS BEEN DENIED.
[5. Staff Comments]
UH, MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE.DO WE HAVE ANY STAFF COMMENTS? UH, JUST ONE THING, JUST A REMINDER.
UM, WE DO HAVE A MEETING IN FEBRUARY AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE WILL BE HOLDING THAT MEETING 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE ANOTHER, UH, REQUEST COMING BEFORE FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT MEETING,
AND IT IS NOT FEBRUARY 1ST? NO, IT'S SATURDAY.
UH, IT IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH.
UH, THE MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED AT 6 24.