>> COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE EVENING AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GAVEL IN.
[1. Call to Order. ]
[00:00:05]
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE'S MOST EXCITING GOVERNMENTAL MEETING, THE SIGN BOARD MEETING ITEM NUMBER TWO.ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS THIS EVENING? I DON'T SEE ANY.
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON OUR AGENDA.
[5. Consider: Approving the minutes from the October 19, 2023, Sign Board Meeting. ]
CONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR OCTOBER 19TH SIGN BOARD MEETING.ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE OUR VICE-CHAIR DELIVERS A MOTION?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 5 ON OUR AGENDA.
>> THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 6 ON OUR AGENDA,
[6. Consider: SV23-0020, Sign Variances for Top Prospects Academy located at 2870 Market Loop, Southlake, Texas. ]
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF SIGN VARIANCES FOR TOP PROSPECTS ACADEMY.THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2870 MARKET LOOP AND COMMERCE BUSINESS PART.
THIS AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE AND ARROW POINTING AT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SIGN PLACEMENT.
THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SIGN AND A CLOSE-UP AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE SIGN.
THIS IS A FLAT PANEL SIGN WHICH IS PERMITTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.
THE VARIANCE BEFORE YOU IS BASED ON SIZE OF THE PANEL STRUCTURE ITSELF.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPACE, THE MAXIMUM IS 25 SQUARE FEET, AND THE PANEL ON THIS ONE IS 40 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY.
THIS IS SOME PHOTOS OF OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, GLENICE.
WE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON THIS ITEM.
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, IF YOU DON'T MIND? AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
2870 MARKET LOOP, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.
>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE?
>> I WAS THINKING THAT WALL PACK LIGHT UP THERE LOOKS ODD NOT BEING CENTERED UP ON YOUR SIGN.
IS THE SIGN CENTERED ON THE DOOR OR WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THAT?
>> THAT LIGHT WAS THERE AND WE CENTERED IT ON THE DOOR.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH THE LIGHT.
>> I'M ASSUMING IT'S AN EXISTING SIGN THAT'S HANGING OUT THERE TODAY?
>> OKAY. I THINK WE'RE JUST NOTING FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S NOT OUR FAVORITE WAY TO CONSIDER THESE APPLICATIONS.
>> OKAY. AHEAD OF TIME, IT'S USUALLY THE PREFERENCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP.
ANY DELIBERATION FROM FOLKS NEEDED HERE? I THINK PROBABLY JUST CALL FOR A VOTE AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 6 ON OUR AGENDA.
SV23-0020 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2023.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, SECOND VOTE PLEASE.
PASS THE SEVEN O. CONGRATULATIONS.
NEXT TIME PLEASE, TRY TO COME VISIT US FIRST BEFORE THE SIGN GOES UP, BUT THIS ONE APPEARED PRETTY REASONABLE.
GOOD LUCK ON DECEMBER 5TH, ASSUMING YOU MAKE IT.
SO WITH THAT, CALL FOR LAST ITEM OF THE EVENING.
[7. Consider: SV23-0021, Amendment to the Master Sign Plan for Granite Place Two located at 601 State Street, Southlake, Texas. ]
ITEM NUMBER 7 ARE SIGN BOARD AGENDA CONSIDERATION THE AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR GRANITE PLACE TWO.>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD.
THIS IS THE GRANITE PLACE TWO BUILDING LOCATED ALONG STATE STREET DIVISION.
THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO AMEND THE CURRENT MASTER PLAN, WHICH ALLOWED FOR THREE UPPER STORY SIGNS, AND THEY HAVE NEED TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL SIGN FOR A NEW TENANT.
THAT WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE EAST FACADE OF THE BUILDING ROUGHLY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
THIS IS A ELEVATION OF THAT SIGN SIZE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER THREE THAT ARE APPROVED ON I BELIEVE TWO ON DIVISION ONE ON STATE STREET.
[00:05:03]
THE MASTER SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BE FIRST ALLOW FOR AN UPPER STORY SIGN, WHICH IS ONLY PERMITTED EITHER BY VARIANCE OR AS PART OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN.THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AREA, THE HEIGHT OF A POTENTIAL LETTER HEIGHT.
THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO ALLOW ANY SIGN THAT WOULD FIT IN THIS 4 BY 40 BOX, WHATEVER TENANT THAT MIGHT INCLUDE.
AND FOR THE LEFT JUSTIFICATION, AND WITH THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD NOT BE CONGRUENT WITH THE TENANT LEASE SPACE LOCATION.
THESE CONDITIONS ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PERMITTED BY THE OTHER SIGNS AND THE MASTER SIGN PLAN.
THESE ARE THE OTHER SIGNS PERMITTED UNDER THAT MASTER SIGN PLAN.
AND THESE ARE THIS IS PHOTOS FROM THE GRANITE PLACE ONE.
SIGNAGE IS VERY SIMILAR BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
GRANITE TWO HAS NOT HAD ANY INSTALLED AS OF YET.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE?
>> I DO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATIONS.
RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ALLOWED TO BE THREE SIGNS IN THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOUR SIGNS?
>> CORRECT. RIGHT NOW, THE MASTER SIGN PLAN ALLOWS TWO UPPER STORY ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND ONE ON THE WEST ELEVATION.
IN ADDITION, THERE WITH THE MASTER SIGN PLAN, THEY'RE PERMITTED THE LOWER FLOOR SIGNS THAT ARE ON THESE TWO EXHIBITS.
AND I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO ON THE SOUTH AND ONE ON THE WEST.
THE REQUEST THIS EVENING IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL ON THE EAST FACADE, SOUTHEAST.
>> SORRY. SO THE FOURTH ONE, IS IT GOING ON THE SAME SIDE AS ONE OF THEM OR IT'S A SIGN THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS RIGHT NOW?
>> MAYBE THE PLAN VIEW WILL SHOW HOW THAT'S PLACED.
NO OTHER SIGNAGE IS APPROVED OR PROPOSED ON THIS EASTERN ONE AS OF THE CURRENT MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
IT'S THE THREE UPPERS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE.
>> ON GRANITE BUILDING ONE, I KNOW THERE'S ONLY TWO, BUT YOU JUST SHOWED, THREE.
THERE'S TWO AT THE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL AND THERE'S ONE AT THE TOP CAMPUS, BUT ARE THERE APPROVALS TO DO MORE?
>> ON GRANITE ONE, THEY ARE ALLOWED TWO UPPER STORY SIGNS AND TWO LOWER STORY SIGNS, I THINK ONE ON THE EAST AND ONE ON THE WEST.
I THINK WHEN THEY CAME IN HERE ORIGINALLY FOR THE SIGN APPROVALS FOR THE SUBJECT BUILDING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAD ASKED FOR IT ON THAT EAST SIDE ORIGINALLY, RIGHT? DO YOU REMEMBER? MAYBE WE SAID NO AND JUST SAID IT'S THESE ORIGINAL.
>> I WASN'T SURE IF I HAD THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ON THIS PRESENTATION OR NOT.
>> THIS IS REALLY THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE GRANITE TO MASTER PLAN, BUT I CAN LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS ONE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ON ONE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENTS.
>> IT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I MEAN, NOT YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH.
I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR A REMINDER OF THE PRIOR APPROVALS ON GRANITE I. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WENT LIKE ON GRANITE II.
I THINK THAT'D BE A GOOD ONE TO MAYBE IF STAFF DOESN'T MIND MAYBE LOOKING BACK AT THAT DISCUSSION ONLINE AND JUST SEEING IF THAT'S WHAT WAS REQUESTED VERSUS WHAT WE SETTLED ON.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT ISSUE.
>> I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS THE ANSWERS.
[00:10:02]
GOOD POINT. OKAY.>> THIS EXHIBIT HERE SHOWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GRANITE I AND THE MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE BUT I'LL LOOK BACK AT THE ONE PRESIDING IT.
>> NOT THAT WE DON'T TRUST ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS, BUT WE ALSO LIKE TO DOUBLE-CHECK THEM AS WELL.
>> NO, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE ALL SENSITIVE TO OVER BILL-BOARDING SOME OF THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, FOR ME, I THINK THESE ARE THE TWO BY FAR HIGHEST QUALITY BUILDINGS I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TOWN.
SO THEN THERE'S THAT LEEWAY, BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR NOW? WELL, WE WON'T BE SHY IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THE EAGER APPLICANT TO GO AHEAD AND COME UP HERE, PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
PLEASE KNOW THAT YOU HEARD SOME OF THE DIALOGUE, SO FEEL FREE TO LAUNCH IN.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANITA GALIGATO AND ADDRESS IS 401 NORTH HOUSTON STREET IN DALLAS.
I'M WITH THE ARCHITECTURE TEAM THAT WORKED ON PHASE 2.
WE DID COME IN A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE TO SEEK VARIANCE.
THE FIRST TIME WAS BECAUSE WE WERE SEEKING VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT RESTRAINT FOR THE SIGNAGE.
WE RECEIVED AN OKAY FOR THAT ONE.
ON THE SECOND TIME, WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD ADDED SOME VERBIAGE THAT WAS NOT ALLOWING US TO GO UP TO THE FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT ON THE UPPER SIGNAGE AND WE WANTED TO RECTIFY THAT.
THOSE WERE THE SOUTH AND THE WEST ELEVATIONS.
WE RECEIVED THE OKAY TO PROCEED WITH THOSE.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WERE COMING IN FOR THE EAST ELEVATION.
NOTHING HAS BEEN PROPOSED YET FOR THAT ONE.
OUR A TENANT DOES SEE THE VALUE IN THAT VISIBILITY FROM THE TOWN CENTER AND THEN DIVISION AND RESERVE STREET.
>> IS THIS A PRE-APPROVAL FOR A FUTURE TENANT OR IS IT A TENANT THAT'S ALREADY YOU'RE TALKING TO?
>> IT'S A TENANT THAT IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH GRANITE.
YES. THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THEIR SIGNAGE WOULD BE APPROVED ON THAT SIDE.
>>. WOULD THEY ALREADY HAVE SIGNAGE ON THE WEST AND/OR SOUTH SIDE?
>> I BELIEVE THEIR SIGNAGE WOULD BE THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE AND IF WE INCLUDE ANY OTHER SIGNAGE, IT WOULD BE FOR OTHER POTENTIAL TENANTS.
I WOULD HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT THOUGH.
>> OKAY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE OCCUPANCY IS OR THE LEAST SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOW?
>> WELL, WE HAVE 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THEY'RE BUILDING OUT SOME [OVERLAPPING] OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> IT'S MORE JUST POTENTIALLY, IF A TENANT WANTS THIS, WHICH MAYBE THE TEXT AND TALKING ABOUT THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE AND I THINK STAFF CAN CORRECT ME HERE.
THE FOUR FEET YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH GRANITE I, CORRECT NOT THAT I REMEMBER WITH THAT.
>> YES AND WITH ALL OF THE OTHER APPROVED.
>> IN TERMS OF IT THE SIGN HEIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> EARLIER QUESTION IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT EITHER OF THE PRECEDING MASTER SIGN PLANS PROPOSED SIGNAGE ON THAT EAST ELEVATION.
>> ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ONE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN THE MOTION?
>> I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH A PRE-APPROVAL ON A SIGN WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH SIGNAGE SPACE AND THEY ARE PROBABLY THE NICEST BUILDINGS IN SOUTHLAKE, BUT JUST A LOT OF SIGNS IN MY OPINION.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS DELIBERATING OVER TO, ESPECIALLY RELATIVE TO HOW [OVERLAPPING] ALL OF OUR DECISIONS, THEY'RE ARE TWO PARTS.
ONE OF THEM, THEY'RE FOCUSED ON THE EXACT REQUEST THAT EVENING AND THE OTHER ONE IS HOW DOES THAT RIPPLE OUT TO FUTURE REQUESTS THAT WILL GET BECAUSE IT'LL TO BE CONSISTENT.
>> IF THE OTHERS ARE UNASSIGNED AT THIS POINT, THEN I'D HATE TO HAVE TWO OF THE SAME COMPANY.
ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ONE ON THE EAST SIDE AND I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S JUST LIKE IT COMES OUT TO US IF YOU REALLY NEED IT.
>> DIDN'T MAKE THE LEAVES DONE.
>> I WAS TRYING TO DELIBERATE MY HEAD, WHICH IS WORSE? IS IT WORST HAVING EFFECTIVELY, IT'S THREE OF THEM.
THEY'LL BE VISIBLE FROM THE PARK IN TOWN SQUARE,
[00:15:03]
OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THREE OF THEM VISIBLE FROM THE FREEWAY? WHICH ONE'S BETTER OR WORSE? DO YOU WANT PEOPLE SITTING IN YOUR PARK STARING AT BILLBOARDS OR NOT BUT THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT STRONGER TENDENCY DEMAND WHEN THEY GO INTO BUILDINGS AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE STRONG TENDENCY IN THESE BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE GREAT BUILDINGS SO I THINK I CAN GET THERE.I'D PROBABLY TAKE ALL THESE ONE-BY-ONE, FUTURE ONES, BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I CAN GET THERE, BUT I KEPT THE THOUGHT.
>> CAN WE PUT A STIPULATION THAT EACH TENANT CAN ONLY HAVE ONE OF THE SIGNS SPACES?
>> NO. I GUESS THEY'RE REPETITIVE TENANT NAMES?
>> APPLICANT, IS THAT SOUND WILD AND CRAZY OR IS THAT SOUND REASONABLE?
>> OKAY. NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT THOUGHT THAT SOUNDED REASONABLE.
MAYBE WE'LL JUST INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE MOTION THAT IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THAT IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THEY'RE NOT BEING DUPLICATIVE.
DUPLICATIVE NAMES FOR THE NOW FOUR UPPER STORY SIGNAGE AND IT'S JUST ONE, WHICH I GUESS THEY'LL DECIDE WHICH ONES THOSE WILL BE.
>> I WAS GOING TO COMMENT AND SAY THAT WHEN I THINK OF OFFICE BUILDING SPACE AND YOU'D HAVE SIGNS AND THIS MAY NOT BE TRUE, BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU MY THOUGHTS.
I USUALLY ASSOCIATE IT WITH ANCHOR TENANTS OR SIGNIFICANT TENANTS AND SO ONCE YOU START HAVING FOUR, WELL, WHO'S REALLY THE ANCHOR? THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
>> THEY'RE NOT ARGUING WITH YOU ON THAT.
HOUSTON IS A CITY WITH LITERALLY HAS NO ZONING WHATSOEVER, BUT THEY DON'T ALLOW THE USE ON ANY OTHER BUILDINGS ANYWHERE SO TAKE THAT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
I MEAN, SOMEHOW THEY SEEM TO SURVIVE WITHOUT THEM.
>> BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE ROAD OR YOU'LL BE KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT.
I THINK WE NEED TO STIPULATE FOR SURE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT IT CAN'T EXCEED FOUR FEET BECAUSE I CAN JUST SEE SOMEBODY COMING IN HERE WITH SOME GIANT LOGO THAT'S GOING TO BE 10 FEET TALL.
>> IS THIS THE EVO PROVISIONS?
>> THAT COULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR.
YEAH, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE NAILED DOWN.
>> I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, DON'T WE HERE?
>> FRAMEWORK OF THIS MASTER SIGN PLAN LIMITS ALL OF THE SIGN TO REMAIN WITHIN THAT 4 BY 40 OR BOX.
I DON'T THINK I'M WORRIED ABOUT DISPLACEMENT ON THE OTHER SIGN LOCATIONS AS WELL SO IT HAS TO FIT WITHIN THE BOX.
>> WELL, NOTING THAT, WE DO HAVE AT LEASE THAT RESTRICTION TIED DOWN, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE NON-DUPLICATIVE CLAUSE OR MAYBE STAFF CAN JUST CONVEY IT TO COUNSEL THAT WE'LL SEE HOW THE SMOKE GOES BUT HOWEVER IT GOES.
YOU CAN CONVEY TO THEM THE FLAVOR OF THE CONVERSATION.
I GUESS THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTERNATION ABOUT IT, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME ATTRIBUTES TO THIS SPECIFIC BUILDING AND THE SPONSORSHIP AND THE JOB THEY'VE DONE HERE. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 7 ON OUR AGENDA, AS V-23.002170 TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023, AND MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL CONTINGENT ON A TENANT NOT HAVING DUPLICATIVE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONE SIGN FOR THE TENANT, NOT MULTIPLE SIGNS FOR THE TENANT. THAT MAKES SENSE?
>> MAKES SENSE TO ME. IF I SEE JANICE IS NODDING HIS HEAD AND HE'S THE BOSS, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> VOTE PLEASE AND PASSES 5:2.
YEAH, I THINK THAT CONVEYS A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTERNATION THERE.
AGAIN, PART OF IT, DON'T TAKE IT TOO PERSONALLY, BUT WE GIVE YOU FOUR AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE REQUESTS COMING IN RIGHT AFTER YOU FOR OTHER BUILDINGS AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO WANT.
WELL, WITH THAT, GOOD LUCK DECEMBER 5TH, AND WE ARE [NOISE] ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.