Aug 21, 2025 Sign Board

OUR LAST ITEM AND I WILL OPEN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SIGN BOARD MEETING FOR AUGUST 21ST, 2025.

[1. Call to Order.]

[00:00:08]

COMMENTS. NONE OTHER THAN AGAIN OUR CHAIRMAN'S OUT.

WE'LL WELCOME HIM BACK NEXT TIME AND FAIRLY SHORT AGENDA.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 5, CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 7TH,

[5. Consider: Approving the minutes from the August 07, 2025, Sign Board Meeting.]

AND IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THOSE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE SIGN BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DATED AUGUST 7TH, 2025 AS PRESENTED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 5-0. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 6.

[6. Consider: SV25-0006, Variances to the Conditional Sign Permit for 280 Sports Complex, located at 280 Commerce Street, Suite 105.]

THEY ARE LOCATED AT 280 COMMERCE STREET IN SUITE 105, AND THIS IS PART OF THE 280 SPORTS COMPLEX.

THERE IS A CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR THIS SITE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW. YOU CAN SEE COMMERCE STREET HERE.

THIS IS THE 280 COMMERCE BUILDING, AND THIS IS SUITE 105.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION HERE FACING COMMERCE STREET.

SO THIS IS THE REQUEST. THEY ARE UNDER THE CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.

THEY'RE LIMITED TO 18IN FOR LOGO HEIGHT, 43.4FT² FOR SIGN AREA.

AND THE SIGN COLOR NEEDS TO BE BLACK. THEY'RE REQUESTING A LOGO HEIGHT OF 31IN.

A SIGN AREA OF 100.41FT², AND THEY'RE REQUESTING SOME MULTIPLE COLORS OF BROWN, ORANGE, GREEN, YELLOW, AND BLUE. THEY DID PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL RENDERING TO SHOW WHAT THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THEY COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.

AND THESE ARE THE CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS. AND AGAIN THIS IS THE PREFERRED OPTION ONE THAT'S JUST DETAILED SIGN DRAWING.

AND THEN THIS IS OPTION TWO WHICH WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.

THESE ARE JUST SOME PICTURES OF THE SURROUNDING TENANTS THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE FOR THE EAST ELEVATION ON COMMERCE STREET.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ARE THERE ANY VARIANCES ON ANY OF THE OTHER SIGNS THAT WERE APPROVED? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY OTHER VARIANCES FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER SIGNS.

NOT THAT I RECALL OFFHAND. SO ALL OF THE OTHER SIGNS ON THE BUILDING MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF THE SIGN CODE.

I BELIEVE THAT TO BE CORRECT. I WOULD HAVE TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.

LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THE STAFF FOR IT.

YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER VARIANCES THAT WE HAD.

I WILL NOTE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS.

THIS IS ONLY APPLYING TO THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE COLOR AND THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT SIGNS BACK THERE. BUT THOSE ARE JUST COMPLYING WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON ITEM NUMBER 6? HOW ARE YOU THIS EVENING? THANK YOU. HOW ARE YOU GUYS? VERY GOOD. IF YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

HI, MY NAME IS ELISA CAPRIGLIONE. I LIVE AT 1352 TIMBER TRAIL IN SOUTHLAKE AND I WORK FOR SMART QUEST ACADEMY.

SO. VERY GOOD. ANY YOU JUST HEAR AND ANSWER QUESTIONS OR DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY? WELL, I KNOW THAT THE OWNER OF THE 280 SPORTS COMPLEX IS THE ONE WHO'S ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE.

THE ORIGINAL SIGNS WERE A LONG TIME AGO WHEN THEY WERE ESTABLISHED.

AND SO I DON'T THINK WE WANT TOO MUCH COLOR JUST A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT MORE A PRESCHOOL.

IT'S A PRESCHOOL. SO TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, MORE PRESCHOOL FRIENDLY AND WELCOMING ENVIRONMENT.

AND SHE IS DEFINITELY ON BOARD WITH THIS. AND WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH BILL SWIFT TO DESIGN THIS SIGN. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE RELATED TO THE COLORS IN STEAM. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A REASON WHY YOU CHOSE THOSE PARTICULAR COLORS,

[00:05:08]

NO, I'M NOT SURE. THE OWNER, CARLA, I THINK SHE JUST LIKED THOSE COLORS A LOT.

AND WHEN SHE CAME UP WITH. YES, IT'S NOT AS NOTABLE, BUT WE DO HAVE THAT DEBATE.

IS IT STEAM OR IS IT STEAM? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE GET ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

ON THIS ONE, WE'VE ONLY GOT REALLY THREE ISSUES.

ONE BEING THE LOGO HEIGHT, THE OTHER THE SIGN AND THE AND SIGN COLOR.

AND THIS MAY BE ONE, JUST THINKING OUT LOUD WHERE WE ADDRESS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

BUT I GUESS TO GO THROUGH IT. WHAT'S EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS ON THE LOGO HEIGHT? I'M FOR OPTION TWO. NO VARIANCE REQUIRED. WE'VE SEEN THESE.

WE'VE SEEN THESE ONES BEFORE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE CUTESY COLORS ON THERE FOR LIKE, YOU KNOW, PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THEY WEREN'T APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.

SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SET A PRECEDENT ON THIS ONE.

BESIDES, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT LOOKS COOL AND THAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE COURTING TO THE YOUNGER CHILDREN, BUT THE YOUNGER CHILDREN DON'T CARE. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE FRONT DOOR AND GETTING INSIDE AND HAVING FUN.

MOM AND DAD ARE THE ONE THAT HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING. ALL RIGHT.

AND SO YOU WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF NO VARIANCES.

LEAVING LOGO HEIGHT, SIGN AREA AND SIGN COLOR PER ORDINANCE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? YEAH. I THINK IT'S A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW THE COLOR AND ALLOW THE LOGO. BUT LET THE LETTERS THE COPY BE BLACK SO THAT IT MATCHES ALL THE OTHER SIGNS AND KEEP THE SIZE THE SAME SO THAT YOU DON'T GET A SIZE VARIANCE.

THE ONLY VARIANCE WOULD BE THE COLOR AND THE LOGO.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE SUGGESTION I WAS GOING TO MAKE TO GO WITH THE BLACK INSTEAD OF THE BROWN FOR THE CORE LETTERS AND WITH THE COLOR I CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT'S AN ACRONYM.

AND IT DOES KIND OF SAY IT DOESN'T MEAN STEAM LIKE SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE AS STRONG AS OPPOSITION AS OTHERS. BUT I AGREE WITH. ALL RIGHT. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO YOU WOULD PREFER THAT THE SIGN AREA BE PER THE ORDINANCE. BUT I'M SORRY THAT THE SIGN.

WELL STATED AGAIN BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SCREW IT UP.

WELL, I WAS FOCUSED ON THE COLOR, SO I WAS FOCUSED ON INSTEAD OF THE BROWN TO STICK WITH THE BLACK, BUT THEN ALLOW THE COLORS AND THE STEAM. AND I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A COMMENT ON THE SIZE, ALTHOUGH I GUESS WHAT I WOULD WANT TO KNOW IS IF YOU TOOK THE OWL OUT, WHAT WOULD THE SIGN HEIGHT BE WITHOUT THAT PORTION OF IT? THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT, IF IT'S NOT CALCULATED NOW, WOULD BE AN OPTION TO KNOW IT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.

OKAY. WELL LOGO HEIGHT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS 31IN AND THAT THE LOGO IS GOING TO BE THE OWL I BELIEVE.

YEAH, YEAH. AND COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, YOU WERE GOOD WITH STAYING BLACK.

CORRECT. YES. YES, STAYING BLACK. NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCES ON THE COPY, BUT ALLOW THE LOGO AND ALLOW THE COLOR, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT. YEAH, YEAH.

WE'RE NOT KILLING BROWN AS THE COLOR, I GUESS. RIGHT? I FEEL LIKE THE BROWN ACTUALLY LOOKS PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE IT MATCHES ALL OF THAT.

AND THIS BUILDING IS SO BIG THAT THIS IS LIKE ALMOST A SEPARATE SITUATION WHEN YOU'RE THERE.

LIKE THAT PART OF IT DOESN'T ALMOST, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE IT'S A SEPARATE SECTION.

SO THE MATCHING I DON'T KNOW. SO YOU'RE GOOD WITH EVERYTHING.

I MEAN, I KIND OF AM. SO WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

YEAH, YEAH. SO WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE. HENCE MY COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING.

WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED SOME OPTIONS HERE. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A MOTION THAT'S GOING TO PASS, BUT WHO KNOWS.

SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S A COMPLETE NO VOTE, AND THEN THERE'S KIND OF A PREFERENCE TO LEAVE THE COLORS AND STEAM AND THEN MAYBE LEAN TOWARDS BLACK WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND NOBODY REALLY SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LOGO HEIGHT.

SETTING ASIDE DOCTOR SPRINGER FOR A SECOND. CORRECT? RIGHT. CORRECT. AND I'LL ADD I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT IT BEING BLACK.

[00:10:03]

ONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE, THE OTHER IS CHANGING THE BROWN TO BLACK, AND THEN THE OTHER IS AS IS. IS THAT CONFUSING ENOUGH? THAT'S FINE. SO THE MAIN PART, THE SMART QUEST ACADEMY, WOULD BE, YOU WANT TO SEE IT WITH THE BROWN AND WITH THE BLACK.

YEAH. SO IN OTHER WORDS, ONE THAT NEEDS TO THEY NEED TO TAKE AN OPTION TO COUNSEL.

THIS OPTION TO COUNSEL THEY NEED TO. NUMBER TWO, TAKE AN OPTION TO COUNCIL THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE AND REQUIRES NO VARIANCES.

ALTHOUGH I GUESS THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL AT THAT POINT.

RIGHT? RIGHT. CORRECT. YEAH, THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO GO.

BUT THE POINT. YES SIR. BUT THE POINT BEING, I THINK COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AND THEN THE THIRD OPTION WOULD BE APPROVING ALL OF THESE EXCEPT CHANGE THE BROWN LETTERING TO BLACK.

MAKES SENSE. PROBABLY YOU GOT THE TOUGH JOB TONIGHT ESPECIALLY ON THIS ONE.

THERE'S TOO MANY WAYS TO GO ON IT. THERE IT IS.

LET'S SEE HERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE SV25-0006.

WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICANT PROVIDING FOR COUNCIL A AN OPTION WITH NO VARIANCE, A OPTION WITH THE BROWN LETTERS CHANGED TO A BLACK COLOR.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE STEAM. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE COLORS IN THE STEAM, RIGHT? YEAH I THINK LEAVE IT AS IS WOULD BE THE FINAL OPTION.

YEAH. AND AS PRESENTED IN THIS SET, WITH THE COLORED LETTERS IN THE STEAM AND THE BILINGUAL THERE AND THE, AND THE COLOR PALETTE THAT IT'S THERE, THE BROWN NOW.

SO, SO BASICALLY WE WANT ONE WITH NO VARIANCES.

WE WANT ONE WITH THE LETTERING FROM BROWN TO BLACK.

AND THEN PRESENT IT AS IS PRESENTED HERE WITH THE FULL COLORS.

OKAY, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION IS REQUESTING THREE OPTIONS BE TAKEN TO COUNCIL.

CORRECT. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND, DENNIS? IS THAT OKAY? YES IT IS.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM CARRIES 5-0. AND TO SUMMARIZE, YOU GOT A LITTLE BIT OF WORK CUT OUT FOR YOU, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU UNDERSTAND THREE OPTIONS. YOU NEED TO TAKE THE COUNCIL.

THEY WILL OBVIOUSLY CHOOSE ONE OF THEM. AND WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SV25-0007 SIGNED VARIANCES FOR BURGER

[7. Consider: SV25-0007, Sign Variances for Burger King, located at 125 N Kimball Avenue.]

THESE ARE SIGNS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED.

THERE IS A FREESTANDING ORDER SIGN, SLASH CANOPY AND A MENU BOARD SIGN.

AND THIS IS FOR THEIR LOCATION AT 125 NORTH KIMBALL AVENUE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE FACING, THE BUILDING FACES NORTH KIMBALL AVENUE.

AND THIS IS WHERE THE SIGNS ARE LOCATED. FOR THE FIRST SIGN, THE FREE STANDING ORDER SIGN CANOPY.

THIS IS JUST NOT A SPECIFIED SIGN TYPE IN OUR SIGN ORDINANCE.

THE SIGN IS ROUGHLY 9FT, 9 INCHES TALL AND ROUGHLY 6FT WIDE.

THERE IS A 46 INCH DISPLAY WHICH SHOWS THE MENU, FOOD ITEMS, OR ADVERTISING WHEN NOT IN USE, AND THE SCREEN SHOWS THE ORDER WHEN IN USE AND THE CANOPY IS ILLUMINATED AND IT PROVIDES RAIN COVER FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ORDERING.

THE MENU BOARD SIGN. THE ONLY ASPECT OF IT THAT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE IS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE MASONRY SURROUNDING THE SIGN FACE.

THIS IS JUST SHOWING WHAT THE SIGN LOOKED LIKE PREVIOUSLY.

AND THIS LOCATION. THIS SIGN HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED.

AND THIS IS WHERE THEY HAD AN ORDERING SPEAKER, THAT'S WHERE THE NEW CANOPY IS.

[00:15:01]

AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

WOULD YOU GO BACK AND SHOW ME THE ONE, WHERE WAS THE ORIGINAL ONE YOU SAID IT HAD BEEN REMOVED.

SORRY. THE SIGN HAD BEEN REMOVED THE PREVIOUS, THE MENU BOARD BEHIND IT.

YEAH. THAT ONE. THIS LITTLE SIGN HERE. YEAH. THAT ONE'S. SO THEY TORE THAT WALL DOWN THAT WOOD THAT IT'S SITTING ON NOW.

YES, THAT'S GONE AND KEPT THE ONE THAT THE LARGER MENU BOARD IS ON, AND THEN PUT THE OTHER SIDE ON TOP OF IT.

YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON ITEM NUMBER 7? HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? IF YOU WOULD COME ON DOWN, PLEASE.

GOOD. IF YOU WOULD DO US A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YEAH. MY NAME IS DAMAR CHAPA, AND I'M FROM 3801 VITRUVIAN WEST IN ADDISON.

ANY KIND OF COMMENTS OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE? YEAH. SO THIS WAS DONE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN TWO YEARS AGO.

WE HAVE AROUND 150 LOCATIONS OF BURGER KINGS, AND HONESTLY, WE HAVE NEVER REALLY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE PERMITTING UNTIL NOW.

THIS WAS DONE BEFORE US, SO WHEN WE GOT THIS ORDER, WE WERE KIND OF IN SHOCK.

HONESTLY, IT'S JUST KIND OF STATING IF WE NEED A PERMIT ON SOME KIND.

IF YOU COULD JUST TELL US HOW TO GET THE PERMIT.

WE'RE HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THAT. ALL 80% OF THE PEOPLE THAT GO TO BURGER KING GO THROUGH DRIVE THRU, SO, THIS WELL, THIS SIGN IS, IS IMPORTANT TO THE SALES THAT WE HAVE.

AND SO WHAT'S Y'ALL'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT? FIRE RESTAURANT'S MANAGEMENT, LLC. OH, WE WORK AT SUN HOLDINGS WHERE PROJECT MANAGERS.

YOU'RE THE PROJECT MANAGER? YEAH. SO YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE BEFORE Y'ALL ARE THE ONES THAT MADE THE CHANGES.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BEFORE FIRE RESTAURANTS MANAGEMENT? NO. NO, NOT BEFORE THAT. JUST. IT WAS I DON'T REALLY HAVE THE EXACT TIMELINE.

I JUST KNOW THAT IT WAS DONE BEFORE US, AND THEN WE GOT THIS.

SORRY. WE GOT THIS ORDER IN, AND. YEAH, BUT THIS WAS DONE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, LIKE, TWO YEARS AGO.

OKAY, SO WHEN YOU SAY BEFORE Y'ALL. BEFORE WE CAME IN TO THE.

DIFFERENT PROJECT MANAGER. YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY. GOTCHA.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? EXPLAIN TO ME YOUR POSITION HERE. YOU'RE A PROJECT MANAGER.

WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? DO YOU WORK FOR THE RESTAURANT CHAIN? ARE YOU AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT? YEAH, IT'S AN OUTSIDE.

SO SUN HOLDINGS IS A CORPORATION THAT MAINLY WORKS IN FRANCHISES.

SO WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT BRANDS, ONE OF THEM INCLUDING BURGER KING.

SO WE WORK IN AS PROJECT MANAGERS INSIDE SUN HOLDINGS, WHICH THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE FRANCHISES THAT WE HAVE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

SO NORMALLY IT'S NOT GOOD WHEN YOU GO PUT SIGNS UP AND DON'T GET APPROVAL, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTHLAKE.

YEAH, YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE GOOD IF, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.

BUT IT'D BE GOOD IF YOU'RE THAT FIRE RESTAURANT'S MANAGEMENT LLC, KNOW THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM WHEN THEY DO THIS.

SO WE DON'T WANT THEM DOING STUFF LIKE THIS. BUT I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING OUT AND SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS AND KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT DOESN'T REALLY LOOK THAT MUCH DIFFERENT TO ME BUT.

YEAH, SO I MEAN, OVERALL WE'RE JUST KIND OF HERE TO SEE.

SO THIS WAS BEFORE US. WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE IN THE OTHER BURGER KING LOCATIONS, A PERMIT ISN'T REALLY REQUIRED. BUT IF IT IS, WE'RE HAPPY TO COMPLY IN FILING A PERMIT.

AND, WELL, HONESTLY, JUST FOR THE MENU BOARD NOT TO BE TAKEN DOWN.

AND THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE MAIN GOAL WE HAVE.

BUT YEAH. AND IF WE NEED A PERMIT, JUST WELL, WE'RE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR IT.

OKAY. WELL IF YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL AFTER THE VOTE TONIGHT, ONE THING THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL.

DON'T SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE MOST CITIES REQUIRE PERMITS FOR SIGNS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD GO OVER WELL. BUT I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT WAS BEFORE YOU.

SO ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THOUGHTS ON ITEM NUMBER 7?

[00:20:05]

WELL YEAH. AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE AGAIN IT'S SETTING THE PRECEDENT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD THE PEOPLE JUST RIGHT DOWN THE STREET PUT THEIR VACUUMS IN WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A RASH OF THAT'S GOING UP AND DOWN THE STREET THERE, BUT SO THE OPTIONS WOULD BE THEY COULD APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO HAVE THE SIGN AS IT IS, WHICH IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US AGAIN, I'M ASSUMING, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A RECOGNIZED TYPE OF SIGN.

OR IF WE DENY IT, DO THEY HAVE TO TOTALLY TAKE IT DOWN? DENNIS, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNFAIR QUESTION HERE ON THE SPOT.

IF IF THE REQUEST IS ULTIMATELY DENIED, THEN YES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT.

AND THEY CAN SUBMIT A PERMIT THAT WOULD CONFORM WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DRIVE-THRU MENU BOARDS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS AND RECONSTRUCT ANOTHER SIGN UNDER THAT PERMIT.

AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO AND COME BACK HERE, OR COULD THEY DO THAT IN BETWEEN HERE AND COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. I JUST MAYBE MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

COULD YOU REPEAT THE. WHAT THE QUESTION WAS IF WE DENY IT, WILL THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE SIGN DOWN THAT'S EXISTING NOW? AND IF WE APPROVE IT, WELL, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO COME AND GET APPROVAL, RIGHT? THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE SIGN BECAUSE IT IT IT'S NOT LEGAL AT THIS POINT.

SO WHEN WE'RE IN THE SO IF THEY I GUESS WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE ULTIMATELY IF SIGN BOARD MAKES THEIR RECOMMENDATION WHATEVER THAT IS IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. AND WE WOULD IF SIGNBOARD RECOMMENDS DENIAL THIS EVENING, WE WOULD NOT MAKE THEM REMOVE IT UNTIL IT GOES TO COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL TAKES WHATEVER ACTION THEY ARE TAKING ON THAT.

IF IT IS DENIED, WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO REMOVE IT AND THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A PERMIT FOR A NEW SIGN IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A MENU BOARD SIGN.

IT WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR A MENU BOARD.

IT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT TO DO THAT. IF YOU APPROVE THE SIGN AS THEY'RE PROPOSING.

YES, THEY NEED TO SUBMIT PLANS AND THEY MAY NEED TO VERIFY SOME ELECTRICAL RELATED ISSUES WITH THAT PERMIT, BUT THEY WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A SIGN PERMIT FOR THE TWO SIGNS AS THEY ARE.

SO WE'VE GOT RECORD, DOCUMENTATION OF THAT AND WHATEVER INSPECTION WOULD BE NECESSARY FOLLOWING THAT.

AND YES, I WOULD NEED A PERMIT ISSUED BY OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR THAT.

YOU ARE CORRECT, DOCTOR SPRINGER IS YOUR CONCERN PRIMARILY WITH THE CANOPY SIGN AS OPPOSED TO THE MENU BOARD SIGN? I THINK IT'S THE MENU BOARD SIGN IS THE ONE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY A MONUMENT SIGN.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, IT DOESN'T HAVE A MASONRY ENCLOSURE AROUND IT, BUT THE ORIGINAL INSTALL WHERE THEY HAD THE OTHER SIGN FURTHER BACK IN THE ORIGINAL INSTALL AT THE SMALLER MASONRY BASE ON IT, YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T HAVE, IT WASN'T A, IT WASN'T LIKE A MONUMENT SIGN EITHER.

SO THE MAIN THING I WANT TO DO IS GET THE SIGN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

OKAY, SO TO CLARIFY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MENU BOARD.

SIGN HERE ON THE RIGHT. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? JUST LEAVING IT AS IS. YES, BUT THEY'RE BOTH.

THEY'RE BOTH OUT OF COMPLIANCE THOUGH, RIGHT? SURE.

BUT I MEAN, IN MY MIND, THE MENU BOARD ONE HERE ON THE RIGHT IS ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS BEFORE.

RIGHT. IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SAME. BUT THE STICKING POINT IS NOT HAVING A PERMIT TO START WITH TO DO THE WORK.

UNDERSTOOD. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M WITH YOU.

I MEAN, IT'S A MENU BOARD AT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT.

IT'S JUST THAT'S THE WAY THEY LOOK. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK WE JUST NEED TO ADDRESS THE, THE REAL PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE NO PERMIT. SO IF THEY CAN GET THIS THROUGH COUNCIL, I'M FINE WITH IT,

[00:25:08]

WELL, LET'S DO THIS. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MENU BOARD REAL QUICK.

COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THE MENU BOARD.

WELL, AS FAR AS THE MENU BOARD IS CONCERNED I MEAN IT'S IN COMPLIANCE EXCEPT FOR PUTTING A MASONRY WRAP AROUND IT, BUT ADDING A MASONRY WRAPPER AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO MAKE IT BIGGER.

AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANY GOOD. THE OTHER SIGN THERE'S NOT, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT HELPS DEFINE THAT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO EITHER SIGN. THEY'RE PART OF AN OPERATING BUSINESS, A VITAL PART OF AN OPERATING BUSINESS SO WE CAN'T, IN MY OPINION, WE CAN'T JUST OUTRIGHT DENY THAT AND HAVE THEM TAKE THEM DOWN AND THEN TAKE ALL THE TIME THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THROUGH IT IN ORDER TO GET THEIR BUSINESS OPERATING AGAIN. SO THERE'S SOME PRACTICALITY HERE THAT WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH.

RIGHT. COMMISSIONER GUNTHER, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? YEAH, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE USER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE CANOPY SIGN PROBABLY IS VERY FUNCTIONAL TO BE ABLE TO ORDER IN THE RAIN AND ALL THAT.

SO I THINK THE SIGN ITSELF IS GOOD. I MEAN, I DEFINITELY WOULDN'T WANT TO SANCTION, I DIDN'T KNOW TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY.

LET ME JUST DO IT AND THEN ASK FOR FORGIVENESS.

BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, LOOKING AT THE USER, I, I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT THE LOGISTICS AND WONDERING IF THIS IS BACKWARDS BECAUSE ISN'T THE MENU BOARD AFTER WHEN YOU WOULD ORDER? AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE PICTURES. BUT THAT'S MY COMMENT.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER DRISCOLL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK THIS MENU BOARD IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO ADD THAT HEIGHT, UNLESS IT'S SOME SORT OF ELECTRONICS THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST TALLER FOR NO REASON, AND THE ORIGINAL, LIKE THAT EXTRA BLACK BOX WASN'T THERE IN THE ORIGINAL SIGN.

SO IT WAS IT'S BIGGER FOR NO REASON WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING SURROUNDED BY MASONRY.

AND I DON'T THINK THE COVERING, IF IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE, WE'RE OPENING THE DOOR TO ALLOW EVERY FAST FOOD COMPANY IN TOWN TO WANT TO PUT UP A LIGHTED RAIN COVER. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THAT.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE AGAIN.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH, TWO QUESTIONS. IF WE WERE TO APPROVE AND REQUEST A PERMIT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO FOR AN APPLICATION? YES. BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

WE'LL HAVE DONE. OR WOULD WE HAVE TO DENY IT AND REQUEST AN APPLICATION, AND THEN IT WOULD STILL STAY UP UNTIL THAT APPLICATION IS FILED? JUST ONE SECOND. APPLICATION ALREADY IN THIS.

YEAH. AND I'M NOT SURE THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED A PERMIT AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE TO INITIATE THIS VARIANCE PROCESS. SO. THEY HAVE AT LEAST SUBMITTED A VARIANCE APPLICATION PERMIT FOR THIS.

FUNCTIONALLY, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY HAVE OR HADN'T ACTUALLY SUBMITTED DOCUMENT TO INITIATE JUST SPECIFIC SIGN PERMIT TO INSTALL THIS. I MEAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU COULD REQUIRE THEM TO DO BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL. AND JUST TO HAVE DOCUMENTATION, THAT ONE THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.

OKAY. AND THEN ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION. IF WE WERE TO DENY THIS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL.

IT CAN'T BE TORN DOWN OR WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE IT TO BE TORN DOWN UNTIL COUNCIL ULTIMATELY ADDRESSES THE ISSUE.

CORRECT. CORRECT. YES. WE BEFORE WE REQUIRED REMOVAL WE WOULD AT LEAST LET IT, GO THROUGH THE COMPLETE THE PROCESS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T MANDATED IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THEY WERE GIVEN NOTICE. THEY WERE TIMELY AND SUBMITTING THE PROPER PAPERWORK TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THESE LEGAL SIGNS THE VARIANCE PROCESS.

SO I'M SURE THAT IF YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, IF IT GOES THROUGH AND GETS DENIED, IS, YOU KNOW, A SO THAT THE BUSINESS HAS A WAY TO ORDER PUT SOME TYPE OF A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLETE A CONFORMING APPLICATION TO COMMENCE RECONSTRUCTION OF THESE WOULD PROBABLY BE REASONABLE,

[00:30:04]

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION AND A VOTE.

I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF ALL OVER THE MAP HERE. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE SEEM TO BE GETTING A LOT OF THESE THAT AREN'T IN COMPLIANCE.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE OUT OF BUSINESS.

AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S A PROBLEM AT THIS POINT.

BUT LIKE YOU SAID, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THESE HAPPENING AND ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS ON STUFF LIKE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT THE IDEAL WAY TO DO THINGS.

SO DO YOU WANT ME TO, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT DAY.

I MEAN, MY FIRST THOUGHT IS TO NOT APPROVE IT AND TO ASK THEM TO, HAVE IT DO A CONFORMING SIGN APPLICATION TO PRESENT TO EITHER TO COUNCIL OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING, BECAUSE, LIKE DENNIS SAYS, I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THEM SOME PERIOD OF TIME HERE, 30 DAYS, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, TO DO ENGINEERING OR WHATEVER.

THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME LITTLE TIME THERE. BUT OF COURSE IT'S TWO WEEKS TILL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, SO THEY'VE GOT TWO WEEKS THEN DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THE THEM SUBMITTING A CONFORMING SIGN APPLICATION BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL? YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WHETHER IT PASSES OR DOESN'T.

I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SOME GUIDANCE BEFORE THEY GO TO COUNCIL.

I MEAN, WHO KNOWS WHAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO? BUT YEAH, I MEAN, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND ONE THING THAT I MIGHT SUGGEST TO THE APPLICANT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS HERE, Y'ALL SHOULD GO TO THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, MCDONALD'S AND KFC AND ALL THE OTHER ONES AROUND THERE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE AND TAKE PICTURES TO KIND OF SHOW COUNCIL WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IN THE AREA. BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN GO EITHER WAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING THEM IN A POSITION THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE CUSTOMERS ORDERING, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING, I DON'T THINK, BUT MAKING THEM GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SEND THEM TO COUNCIL, EVEN WITH A DENIAL. I'M FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THAT OR NOT, AND THAT'S MY THOUGHT. I'M AGREEING WITH YOU.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT THE GUYS OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLAN TO RECTIFY IT. AND SINCE NOTHING IS REALLY GOING TO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL MAKES THEIR DECISION ON WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO I THINK WE CAN DENY IT AND STILL FEEL GOOD ABOUT NOT JEOPARDIZING THEIR BUSINESS.

OKAY, WELL, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A VOTE? LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

I MEAN, I THINK EVERYBODY'S, MAYBE NOT TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT ON THE MENU BOARD ITSELF.

LIKE, I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.

BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT OPINIONS. SO LET'S JUST TAKE A SHOT AT IT AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH HERE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOT APPROVE CASE SV25-0007 SINE VARIANCE FOR BURGER KING, REFERENCING THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 21ST, 2025, WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A CONFORMING SIGN APPLICATION BEFORE THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

DENNIS HAS HAD MOTION COVERS, AND DOES THAT PROTECT THE OPERATOR FROM BEING ABLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? NO ONE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE SV25-0007 WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A CONFORMING SIGN APPLICATION BEFORE THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT ONE, DENNIS. YES. ALL RIGHT.

WE GOT A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT ONE? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

[00:35:08]

BUT YOU'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A CONFORMING SIGNED APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

AND YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

OBVIOUSLY WE WANT YOU TO STAY IN BUSINESS, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY.

AND SO AS I SUGGESTED, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OTHER FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS IN THE AREA, BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON ON YOUR NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE.

ALL RIGHT. I WAS THE QUESTION. YEAH. YOU CAN TALK TO DIRECTOR KILLOUGH HERE YEAH.

AFTER THE MEETING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 8, SV25-0010.

[8. Consider: SV25-0010, Sign Variance for Paragon Plastic Surgery, located at 1130 N Carroll Avenue, Suite 110.]

THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR AN ATTACHED NON ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN FOR THEIR LOCATION AT 1130 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE, SUITE 100. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE.

WE HAVE EAST HIGHLAND TO THE NORTH AND NORTH CARROLL AVENUE TO THE TO THE EAST.

THEY ARE LOCATED IN SUITE 100. AND THIS IS THE SIGN LOCATION FACING NORTH CARROLL AVENUE.

AND THIS IS THEIR REQUESTED SIGN. THIS IS AN EXISTING SIGN, AND THE ONLY ISSUE WITH IT BEING NONCOMPLIANT IS THAT THE LETTER DEPTH IS ONLY THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH. OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE LETTER DEPTH TO BE A MINIMUM OF TWO INCHES.

AND THIS IS A SITE PHOTO. THIS IS THE ADJACENT TENANT SIGN THEIR LETTERS ARE 3/8 INCH THICK. THE SIGN WENT IN BEFORE THE CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE TWO INCH LETTER THICKNESS.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ADJACENT SIGNS IN THE AREA.

MORE ADJACENT SIGNS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. SO IN TERMS OF YEAH, IN TERMS OF THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT ABOVE THE DOOR THERE AT 1130, BOTH WOULD BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GREATER THAN TWO INCH LETTER DEPTH IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO THE MONUMENT SIGNS THAT YOU WERE SHOWING AS EXAMPLES.

THEY LOOK LIKE THEY HAD THE SAME TYPE LETTERING.

RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT TWO INCH AS WELL ON THE THE PREVIOUS SLIDES WITH THE SHOWING THE MONUMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE.

YEAH. LIKE THE CAPITAL TITLE, THOSE ARE NOT TWO INCHES TALL.

YEAH. THOSE AREN'T, THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE MONUMENT SIGNS. OKAY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON ITEM NUMBER 8? OH, NO. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN APPLICANT. ONE MORE TIME.

IS THE ITEM. THE APPLICANT HERE ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. WE DO NOT HAVE AN APPLICANT ON ITEM NUMBER 8.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE THERE WAS AN EMAIL SENT EARLIER THE THE THIS IS A DOCTOR'S PRACTICE.

AND THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD BE POSSIBLY IN SURGERY TONIGHT.

SO I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY HERE, BUT THERE WAS THERE WAS SOME PRIOR COMMUNICATION.

GOTCHA. OKAY, SO THEY HAVEN'T TOTALLY IGNORED US.

OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY ELSE'S THOUGHTS ARE IN MY MIND.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW OVER THE DOOR.

NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT. AND WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER DEPTH, SO I'M GOOD WITH IT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THIS ONE.

MR. CHAIRMAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE SV25-0010, REFERENCING STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 15TH OF 2025. AND LEAVING THE SIGN AS IS.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM CARRIES 5-0, AND THE SIGN BOARD MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU EVERYBODY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.