MEETING THEN WILL PROGRESS, CONTINUE TO PROGRESS INTO OUR SIGNBOARD MEETING, WHICH WE WILL
[1. Call to Order.]
[00:00:08]
START WITH. I DON'T HAVE ANY CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS.I WILL JUST PROCEED RIGHT TO ITEMS NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, WHICH ARE CONSIDERATION AND
[Items 4 & 5]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 3RD SIGN BOARD MEETING IN THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 29TH MEETING.I THINK WE CAN TAKE BOTH THOSE ITEMS TOGETHER.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE? OK, WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. CHAIRMAN WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 3RD 2021 SIGN BOARD MEETING, AS WELL AS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SIGN BOARD MEETING HELD ON JUNE 29TH, 2021.
OK, GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD VOTE PLEASE.
AND THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.
APPRECIATE IT. NOW WE WILL LAUNCH INTO ITEM NUMBER SIX ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS
[6. Consider: SV21-0013, Sign Variance for Methodist Southlake Medical Center]
TO DO WITH OUR APPLICANTS THAT WE JUST HAD IN OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS, WHICH I DON'T SEE ANYMORE.SO THE THE MATH IS NOT ADDING UP.
STAFF. I'M ASSUMING MA'AM I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX ARE YOU SEVEN OR EIGHT, SEVEN, SEVEN AND EIGHT.
OK, OK, NOT SIX BUT WE JUST HAD THE SIX APPLICANTS IN HERE AND THEY JUST WALKED OUT SO, WELL THEY WERE HERE. CAN WE GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR THAT IF MAYBE DENNIS COULD JUST TELL US WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
YEAH. ARE HANDLING I GUESS I'LL SEE IF I CAN CATCH THEM.
OK, YEAH. WELL, WE'LL SIT HERE AND TAP TAP DANCE [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
I LIKE SEEING TEAMWORK BY STAFF DIRECTOR BAKER DOES IT ALL OK.
WHY DON'T WE JUST. YEAH. BRIEFLY I THINK PROBABLY A QUICK ONE HERE DENNIS.
IN TERMS OF JUST THE VARIOUS REQUESTS.
THIS IS A IT'S PROCESS UNDER A SIGNED VARIANCE APPLICATION, BUT IT IS A PROVISION PROVIDED FOR IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR POLE MOUNTED SIGNS WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, WHICH FOLLOWING, OF COURSE, A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR SIGN BOARD AS TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER. SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO WHICH I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ALREADY PLACED THESE OUT ON PROPERTY ADVERTISING AND MAKING AWARE OF THEIR EMERGENCY ROOM SERVICES, AND THEY'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THESE TO ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN.
THIS IS JUST OVERALL EXHIBIT OF THE VARIOUS SIGNS CURRENTLY ON SITE THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES FOR WHICH THEY'RE ASKING TO ALLOW THESE FIVE BANNERS TO REMAIN ON THE SITE OR ON THE LIGHT FIXTURES. EXCUSE ME.
AND I GUESS, DENNIS, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER IN WORK SESSION, I GUESS ANY OTHER COMPARABLE SITUATIONS WHERE THOSE HAVE BEEN GRANTED? UNDER THESE NEW PROVISIONS I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAVE SPECIFICALLY GONE THROUGH AN APPROVAL FOR [INAUDIBLE] YOU MENTIONED GATEWAY CHURCH HAD THEM IN THEIR MASTER SIGN PLAN, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS PART OF THEIR MASTER SIGN PLAN AND NOT CARRIED UNDER THIS PROVISION.
THE CITY AND I BELIEVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE UTILIZED THESE PROVISIONS.
HOWEVER, THOSE TWO ENTITIES ARE EXEMPT.
SO IT'S ALWAYS INTERESTING TO ME AND THEY ONLY WANT THEM FOR ONE YEAR.
IS THAT THE REQUEST? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
[00:05:01]
CAN YOU VERIFY THAT THE REQUEST IS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO ALLOW THE LIPPO BANNERS REMAIN UNTIL THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXPANSION IS COMPLETE IN JULY 1ST, 2022.ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION, IT'S AN OBSERVATION.
THE ONE THING IT STRIKES ME IS THERE'S PRETTY MUCH A LACK OF VISIBILITY.
I MEAN, THESE THINGS ARE SMALL ENOUGH THAT IF THEY'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY ROOM THERE, I DON'T SEE HOW THESE SIGNS ARE DOING THAT.
I MEAN, IT'S IT'S RARE, BUT WE DO IDENTIFY SITUATIONS WHERE THE SIGNAGE MIGHT BE TOO SMALL TO ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED EFFECT.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A CASE LIKE THAT, THOUGH.
SO BUT DIDN'T WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY ROOM, SOME BIG LIGHTED EMERGENCY ROOM FOR THEM SIGN NOT LONG AGO? YES.
THEY DID GET APPROVAL FOR SOME EMERGENCY ROOM SIGNAGE ATTACHED SIGNAGE.
I GOT A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS.
BUT HERE'S THE THING. IT CAN'T BE VIEWED FROM ANY ROADWAY.
I KNOW, BECAUSE I REALLY BE VIEWED FROM ANYWHERE.
AND I DRIVE BY THIS PLACE ALL THE TIME.
ALREADY DID MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF SHORT THERE DENNIS.
BUT MIKE, I MEAN, I COMMISSIONER DYCHE, I TOTALLY SHARE YOUR VIEWPOINT, BUT I'VE JUST SEEN IT A MILLION TIMES.
THE SECOND WE LET THEM DO THIS, YOU KNOW, KATIE, BAR THE DOOR.
TO CUT THIS APPLICANT A LITTLE SLACK BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS.
SOMEBODY PROMOTING WE'VE GOT NACHOS ON TUESDAYS THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WILL SEE.
SO IF THAT'S THE CASE AND THAT'S GOOD YEAH, OK, NO THAT'S IMPORTANT, THAT'S WHAT WE JUST NEED TO TALK ABOUT NOW, BECAUSE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND OUR VIEWPOINT NOW FOR WHEN THEY INEVITABLY COME IN.
SO SO WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE.
WE HAD WE HAD ONE HERE UNTIL THE LAST FIVE MINUTES.
SO I GUESS I'M YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'LL TAKE SOME ADVICE FROM STAFF HERE.
I MEAN, I NEVER MIND GIVEN THE GIVEN THEY'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER HEARING ON THIS AT A MINIMUM AT COUNCIL.
I DON'T MIND DELIBERATING ON IT AND VOTING ON IT, BUT I KNOW THAT MOST OF THE TIME STAFF AND COUNCIL DON'T LIKE DOING THAT, BUT.
COMMISSIONS CAN EITHER TABLE IT AND WE CAN REACH BACK OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND GIVE THEM THE NEXT DATE AND HOPEFULLY THERE'LL BE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE AND CAN PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT ON MAYBE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SIGNAGE OR YOU CAN MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION JUST BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE.
AND OF COURSE, COUNCIL IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ALL SIGNED VARIANCES.
OK, WELL, MAYBE LET ME GO AROUND THE DIAS REAL QUICK.
IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. DYCHE BE SUPPORTIVE GIVEN THE ONE YEAR TERM ARE YOU COMFORTABLE VOTING ON IT TONIGHT OR.
OK, COMMISSIONER PHALEN ANY STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
YEAH, I'M COMFORTABLE VOTING ON IT AND I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THE SAME REASON.
[INAUDIBLE] BUT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE VOTING NO THIS EVENING.
ABSOLUTELY. OK, COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER, I'M COMFORTABLE VOTING ON IT I QUESTION THE REAL VALUE OF HAVING IT JUST TO GET ONE QUARTER ON A POLL, IN MY OPINION.
EXACTLY. OK, WELL, YOU YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A MOTION.
AND I TEND TO SYMPATHIZE WITH DR.
SPRINGER AND COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER ON THIS ONE.
BUT AGAIN, COUNCILMAN CAN BE THE FINAL ARBITER AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE THEIR CASE TO COUNCIL. AND IF IT'S PERSUASIVE, THEN THEY CAN STILL GET THEIR SIGNS.
BUT I THINK NOT HAVING AN APPLICANT HERE AND JUST THE NATURE OF IT, I'M JUST I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE. SO I'LL LET YOU CRAFT THE MOTION AND WE CAN MOVE ON.
CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE DENY CASE NUMBER SV21-0013 AS SUBMITTED.
OK, AND JUST EVERYBODY KEEP IN MIND A VOTE.
YES, I'M SORRY. SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 30TH, 2020.
CORRECT. AND A VOTE YES IS TO DENY SO.
LET'S DO HAVE A SECOND, OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE REPORTED THREE TO TWO, SO CLOSES ONE
[00:10:04]
OF THE NIGHT. SO FAR, SIGNS ALWAYS BRING OUT THE BEST IN HERE, OK.LAST ITEM OR SORRY, LAST TWO ITEMS.
[7. Consider: MSP21-0003, Master Sign Plan Amendment for Chapel Crossing]
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, THE MASTER SIGNED AN AMENDMENT FOR CHAPEL CROSSING.AND DENNIS, I THINK WE SAW THIS ONE AGAIN IN OUR WORK SESSION.
MAYBE WE CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BOTTOM LINE.
THIS ONE, DENNIS, IS THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE SIGNS.
THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR THEM TO BE MORE VISIBLE BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS NOT VERY VISIBLE.
CORRECT. AND THEY ALSO I BELIEVE THESE ARE PERMITTED AT 42 INCHES.
THEY'RE ASKING THESE TO BE PERMITTED MAXIMUM LETTER OF 42 INCH AS WELL ON THIS SIDE AND THEN LIMITED TO THE 78.85 SQUARE FEET.
THE TENANT SIGN SPECIFICALLY, WHICH I HAVE A SIGN PROPOSED FOR THE SMILE REHAB CENTERS, I BELIEVE THEY'RE MAX SIZE IS JUST UNDER 29 INCHES, BUT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THOUGHTS FROM COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTIVE, NOT SUPPORTIVE? GOT SUPPORTIVE, SUPPORTIVE.
YEAH, I'M AMBIVALENT, BUT I MEAN, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT A NUMBER ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEY'VE GOT A GPS ON THEIR PHONE THAT NOBODY IS LOOKING AT THAT SIGNAGE THERE.
THIS IS SCARY BECAUSE I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH DR.
SPRINGER ON MY SECOND CASE IN A ROW.
AND I JUST THESE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LEASING BROKERS, A LOT OF ATTORNEYS, OFFICE BUILDINGS INTO BILLBOARDS AND RETAIL STRIP CENTERS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING, CALL IT ONE NAME.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT 15.
THIS IS THE ONE I REMEMBER THAT CAME IN.
I PROPOSED EIGHT NAMES ON IT ORIGINALLY GOT WHEELED DOWN TO FOUR.
WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU CRAFT A MOTION NOW? WE'LL JUST SEE. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH IT.
OK, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CASE NUMBER MSP21-0003 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT SORRY I NEVER CALLED YOU UP HERE MA'AM.
SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP HERE AND OK, GO AHEAD. SORRY. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BACK UP HERE I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER MSP21-0003 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 20, OR JULY 30TH, 2021.
WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. OK, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
PASSES THREE TO TWO, I THINK YOU HEARD SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS YOU CAN KIND OF CARRY THAT STAFF HOPEFULLY HEARD THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW COUNCIL ASKED THAT SOMETIMES I THINK IT'S JUST NOT MAYBE SO MUCH INDIGESTION WITH MAYBE SIGN LOCATION WITH JUST NUMBER OF SIGNS AND RATHER NOT VOTE FOR CHANGE.
ANYWAY, LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
[8. Consider: MSP21-0004, Master Sign Plan Amendment for Medical Villas at Tuscan Creek]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, MASTER SIGN AMENDMENT FOR A MEDICAL VILLAS AT TUSCAN CREEK.AND AGAIN, I THINK, DENNIS, THE REQUEST HERE IS THAT IT'S UNDER A MASTER SIGN PLAN.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN OUR GENERAL ORDINANCE.
AND THE REQUEST IS TO REVERT BACK TO OUR ORDINANCE SO THAT THE TENANTS HAVE THE LATITUDE TO DO IT WITH A REGULAR SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO THE EXTENT THEY DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE A [INAUDIBLE] CORRECT.
THEY WANT TO RETAIN ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROVISIONS THAT WERE PERMITTED FOR THE SEPARATE MONUMENT SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS UNDER THE MASTER SIGN PLAN.
HOWEVER, THE INDIVIDUAL TENANT BUILDINGS, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE COME TO THE BORDER COUNCIL AT ONE POINT, ARE ALL A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CUT METALLIC LETTER.
AND THAT IS PART OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN, KEEPING EACH OF THOSE LETTER TYPES AND MATERIALS CONSISTENT.
AND ALL OF THESE OFFICE UNITS HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED AND THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED AND THEY WOULD JUST RATHER REQUIRE ALL OF THEM TO FOLLOW THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE ATTACHED SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.
OF COURSE, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPTION OF ASSUMING ALL THESE CURRENTLY COMPLY WITH THE MASTER PLAN TO CONTINUE UTILIZING ANY OF THOSE PREVIOUS STYLES.
[00:15:02]
OK ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? DO WE HAVE EXAMPLES, I THINK WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE IS REALLY TO MASTER SIGN PLANS BLENDED AS ONE. THIS SEEMS FAIRLY UNUSUAL IF IT SEEMS TO ME IF IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN AMENDED, SIGNED PLAN THAT THE EXISTING TENANTS PROBABLY NEED TO ADHERE TO THAT SAME SIGN PLAN. TO ME, MAYBE I'M A LITTLE UNREASONABLE THERE, BUT.AND MAYBE DENNIS IS THAT RIGHT? I GUESS. IS THAT IS THAT IS A GOOD DESCRIPTION FOR IT OR WHAT? HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE REQUEST? JUST TO THE REQUIRE THE REQUEST IS REALLY TO MAINTAIN WHAT THEY WERE PROVIDED ON THE THE MONUMENT SIGNS WHICH WERE THERE, THEIR SIZE AND NUMBER OF PANELS AND THE WAY THE PANELS COULD BE APPLIED TO THE SIGN.
THEY WANT TO CONTINUE FOLLOWING THAT.
AND THAT WAS A COMPONENT OF THIS OVERALL MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT ALSO INCLUDED THE ATTACHED BUILDING SIGNS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT OVER WHAT WAS APPROVED.
WE HAVE TO ADMINISTER IT AS A WHOLE.
SO THEY'RE BOUND BY THE LETTER TYPES THAT WERE APPROVED UNDER THAT MASTER PLAN.
THEY ARE ASKING TO HAVE THE PROVISION FOR EACH OF THESE TENANTS AND OR BUILDING OWNERS, CONDO OWNERS, TO SIMPLY ABIDE BY THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE FROM THIS DAY FORWARD ON ALL THEIR ATTACHED SIGNS.
A LOWER STANDARD, IN FACT, THAN THAN THEIR MASTER PLAN CURRENTLY IMPOSES, SO YOU COULD CONSIDER IT THAT WAY, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE MORE OPTIONS UNDER THE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE THAN THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GET WE'LL GET YOU UP HERE IN JUST A SECOND.
DON'T WORRY, DON'T WORRY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU TALKED ABOUT THEY WANT TO KEEP THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN STANDARDS, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO KEEP THE EXISTING SIGNS IN PLACE.
AND ONLY IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE THOSE WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO GO TO FOLLOW THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF THE EXISTING MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT EXISTS FOR THAT PARK.
IS THAT CORRECT OR IS IT TOO LATE TO BE STATING IS CORRECT.
YES. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ANY DIFFERING SIZE CRITERIA OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WERE AFFORDED UNDER THE CURRENT MASTER SIGN PLAN THEY THEY WOULD HERE FOR HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE CITY'S SIGNED ORDINANCE, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THEM FLEXIBILITY IN THE TYPE OF LETTERING, THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OF EACH ONE OF THOSE LETTERS THAT YOU HAVE OPTIONS UNDER THE CURRENT CITY SIGN ORDINANCE.
AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS.
WE'LL TOUCH BASE WITH EACH ONE.
WE'LL CALL THE APPLICANT UP AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT CALLING HER UP SOONER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU FOR HANGING OUT UNTIL 10:01 P.M..
I WAS TRYING TO GET DONE BEFORE 10:00, SO I KIND OF LOST MY OVER UNDER.
BUT PLEASE, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND YOU HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. MY NAME IS JANICE HORAK.
I LIVE AT 605 VICKSBURG COURT HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
AND WHAT THE TENANTS WOULD LIKE TO DO IS THEY WOULD LIKE TO JUST REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SOUTHLAKE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE LAND OR THE DEVELOPER AND I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS NO LONGER INVOLVED.
AND HE HAS REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE THESE BRONZE COLORED LETTERS AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE NOT VERY VISIBLE ON THE STONE FAÇADE.
SO THEY WOULD YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN EVERYBODY COME IN, HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN, THEY JUST SAID, WE'D LIKE TO JUST GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SIGNED PLAN.
IT CAN BE THE ORIGINAL SIGN PLAN AS WELL.
I MEAN, IT CAN BE WITH VINYL LETTERS.
CURRENTLY THEY'RE RAISED LETTERS AND THERE'S REQUIRED TO BE ACRYLIC THAT THEY WOULD BE FINE WITH JUST GOING RIGHT ALONG WITH SOUTHLAKE SIGN ORDINANCE.
IS THAT INCLUDING THE MONUMENT SIGN? IS THAT TIGHTENING THINGS UP OR IS THAT LOOSENING THINGS UP? I THINK THAT MONUMENT SON WOULD NEED TO STAY UNDER THE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE IT'S A LARGE LARGER THAN OK PERMITTED TYPE SONG TYPE.
BUT I MEAN, BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO IS TO MOVE THE BUILDING OF THE CONDO SPACE ESSENTIALLY OUT OF THE EXISTING MASTER SIDE PLAN AND NOT NOT COME UNDER.
[00:20:02]
SO THE MASTER PLAN WOULD STAY IN EFFECT FOR THE MONUMENT SIGN, BUT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST REMOVING THE CONDO OR THE OFFICE SPACE FROM THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT AND WILL NOW BE REGULATED BY THE CURRENT SIGNED ORDINANCES.WHAT'S BEEN REQUESTED? WILL THAT CAUSE ANY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE FOR STAFF? NO, SIR. WE WOULD JUST EVALUATE SIGN PROPOSALS.
THEY COME IN PER THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN, IT'LL BE BASED ON DIST.
LETTER SIZE. IT'S ALLOWED ON THE BOARD SIGNED TYPE THE NO NO ISSUES FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND CAN.
I GUESS SINCE SOUTHLAKE IS THE UNQUESTIONED LEADER IN DEVELOPING GARDEN OFFICE, THE WHAT ARE THE APPROACHES AND SOME OF OUR OTHER GARDEN OFFICE PARKS, I GUESS WITH RESPECT TO SIGNAGE, I DO WE DO THESE MASTER SIGN PLANS OR.
YEAH. KIND OF MASTER SIGN PLAN AMENDMENTS SIGN PLANS TYPICALLY.
DO WE JUST GO BY ORDINANCE? DO WE ARE THERE OTHER ONES THAT ARE JUST SCREWED DOWN TO JUST ONE BROWN COLOR OR WHAT? FOR MOST GARDEN OFFICERS, THE REASON THIS WAS UNDER A MASTER SIGN PLAN ORIGINALLY IS THAT THE WHEN THEY GOT THE RELIEF ON THE MONUMENT SIGNS, IT SITS DOWN IN A KIND OF A DEPRESSED AREA. THEY WERE LOOKING FOR KIND OF A UNIFORM LOOK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND I RECALL I WAS SOMEWHAT THE BASES, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE MOST OF THE GARDEN OFFICERS DEVELOPMENTS AREN'T UNDER THE MASTER.
SIGN PLAN. THERE ARE SOME LIKE THE WATERMERE DEVELOPMENT, AT 1709 AND WATERMERE THAT'S UNDER A MASTER THAT M.O.B., BUT I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY ARE NOT UNDER A MASTER SIGN AND I GUESS KEN OR DENNIS, DO YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE SITE, PLAN ONE, JUST SO WE CAN SEE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THESE SIGNS KIND OF FACE? YEAH, SO SOME FACE SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD SOME FACE TO SIDE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS? I JUST I HAVE ONE MORE JUST CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF.
SO IF SOME OF THESE LINES BECOME NONCONFORMING WITH THE JUST THE BASIC CITY ORDINANCE, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO REMAIN LEGALLY NON CONFORMING.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME IN WITH THEIR EXISTING SIGN OF IT'S NOW NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME IN, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, JUST LOOKING I THINK THEY ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. I MEAN, OTHER THAN NOT BE ABLE TO VERIFY THE SIZE.
BUT BUT THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
YES. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, HANG TIGHT. IF WE HAVE ANY QUICK QUESTIONS OR.
NO, THANK YOU. I'M STILL DISAPPOINTED I DIDN'T GET FINISHED BEFORE 10:00, SO I GUESS WE JUST KIND OF KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE.
I GUESS WE ALL [INAUDIBLE] SIGNS ARE IS OUR OWN SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT.
BUT I FEEL LIKE OUR OUR ORDINANCE, OUR SIGN ORDINANCE IS SPECIFICALLY PUT TOGETHER TO BE VERY TIGHT AND CREATE MULTIPLE VARIANCES.
SO WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND JUST ASKS, CAN WE JUST LIVE BY THE ORDINANCE? AND MOST OF THEM REALLY AREN'T THAT YOU YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T VIEW THEM FROM SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD. I KNOW THEY KIND OF GOT THE TRADE OFF ON THE MONUMENT SIGN, BUT I'M FINE WITH IT. BUT I GUESS WE ALL CAN HAVE OUR OWN VIEWPOINTS.
SO I KIND OF LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE FOLLOW THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? OK, FINE, FINE.
I THINK MR. ROTHMEIER, I GUESS ARE YOU [INAUDIBLE] YES, PLEASE.
PLEASE. SO YOU WENT ONE FOR TWO TONIGHT MA'AM.
SAID YOU WENT ONE FOR TWO TONIGHT I THINK.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, CLOSE OUT OUR EVENING THE FUN ONE.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER MSP21-0004 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 30, 2021, AND NOTING THAT THIS WILL MOVE THE CONDOS AND FUTURE TENANT SIGNS UNDER THE CITY ORDINANCE, BUT MAINTAIN THE MONUMENT SIGNS UNDER THE CURRENT MASTER SIGN PLAN.
OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.
CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD LUCK AT COUNCIL AND THANK YOU, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR STICKING IT OUT TONIGHT ON OUR BACK TO SCHOOL AGENDA.
JUST A LITTLE BETTER.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.