Aug 20, 2026 Sign Board

AND NOW WE WILL CALL INTO ORDER AN EVEN MORE EXCITING MEETING.

[1. Call to Order.]

[00:00:07]

I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS.

I'M GOING TO ASSUME NO. I WON'T HAVE ANY CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS, SO MAYBE WE'LL JUST SKIP RIGHT TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE,

[5. Consider: Approving the minutes from the June 4, 2026, Sign Board Meeting]

WE'VE ALL BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THOSE. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR EDITS TO IT BEFORE WE CONSIDER A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. SO, PLEASE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 4TH, 2026 SIGN BOARD MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE.

PLEASE. PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE ON TO

[6. Consider: MSP26-0001, Master Sign Plan for Shady Oaks Office Condos, located at 515 and 521 W. Southlake Boulevard.]

YES. THEY'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR SHADY OAKS OFFICE CONDOS, WHICH ARE LOCATED AT 515 AND 521 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS 521 AND 515 EAST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.

AND THIS IS JUST KIND OF AN OVERVIEW VIEW SHOWING THE VARIOUS SIGNS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF.

NORTH HERE IS FACING THIS DIRECTION HERE, THAT SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.

SO, ON BUILDING 521 THESE THREE SIGNS HERE ARE THESE HANGING BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.

AND THEN THEY HAVE ONE STANDARD TYPICAL ATTACHED BUILDING SIGN HERE.

AND THEN FOR BUILDING 515, THEY HAVE FOUR OF THE HANGING SIGNS.

AND THEN THEY HAVE TWO STANDARD ATTACHED BUILDING SIGNS.

AND THIS IS JUST. I APOLOGIZE, THIS IS NOT THE EASIEST TO READ, BUT THIS IS JUST SHOWING HOW THESE SUITES ARE BROKEN UP.

THIS BUILDING UP HERE 515 IT IS A CONDOS. SO, THERE'S QUITE A FEW TENANTS IN THAT BUILDING.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE HOW 521 IS KIND OF DIVIDED.

SO THE FIRST SIGN THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE THIS IS A KIND OF A STANDARD ATTACHED BUSINESS SIGN.

THIS EDWARD JONES SIGN DOES HAVE A PERMIT. IT'S, IT'S AN EXISTING SIGN.

BUT FOR CONSISTENCY, THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT FOR ANY FUTURE TENANTS, THEY'D BE ALLOWED 36-INCH LETTERS WITH A MINIMUM LETTER DEPTH OF A HALF OF AN INCH.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER SIGN THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING ON THE BUILDING.

THIS SIGN DOES NOT HAVE A PERMIT. AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THIS, THIS SIGN PACKAGE HERE. THE, THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IS 36IN.

IT'S A NEON LIT SIGN, AND THE LETTER DEPTH IS ONLY A HALF AN INCH COMPARED TO A TWO INCH.

AND AS I SAID ON THIS PREVIOUS ONE, PART OF THE REASON THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR 36-INCH LETTERS FOR THE SIGN FOR ANY FUTURE TENANTS IS TO MATCH THIS SIGN.

AND THESE ARE THE HANGING BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.

TWO OF THEM ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING. THEY ARE ASKING TO ADD TWO MORE.

THESE SIGNS DO NOT HAVE PERMITS. WE'RE NOT SURE HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN UP THERE, BUT THEY'VE BEEN UP FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

BUT THEY'RE ASKING TO HAVE FOUR FOR THIS BUILDING.

AND FOR THE OTHER BUILDING, THEY'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THREE SIGNS WHICH ARE ALL EXISTING.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE OTHER ATTACHED BUILDING SIGN THAT'S ON 521.

THIS IS A PERMITTED SIGN. AND THESE ARE JUST SOME SITE PHOTOS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUILDING LOOKS KIND OF SOME MORE, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSE UP OF THE HANGING SIGNS.

SOME ADDITIONAL SITE PHOTOS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND MAYBE JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY HERE IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED FOR THESE HANGING SIGNS WHICH I GUESS YOU KIND OF SHOWED ON ONE OF THE SLIDES THAT EFFECTIVELY MAKES IT TO WHERE IF THEY EVER WANTED TO PUT UP SIGNS ON THE BIG BRICK PARTS, THEY'D HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND SPECIFICALLY REQUEST FOR THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN HERE. YEAH, I WOULD INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.

YOU COULD MAKE YOUR MOTION TO STATE IT THAT WAY AS WELL.

BUT SINCE IT IS A MASTER SIGN PLAN, GENERALLY WHEN WE HAVE A MASTER SIGN PLAN, IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THAT MASTER SIGN PLAN, WE DON'T ALLOW ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS. I MEAN, I GUESS THAT THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED IS IN LIEU OF MAYBE.

OKAY, SO YOU SHOWED THIS ONE. MAYBE IF WE COULD GO BACK ONE MORE, SEE THE OTHER ONE.

YEAH. SO THIS ONE, YOU GOT TO SIGN UP ON THE BRICK, TWO HANGING SIGNS, AND THEN ANOTHER SIGN UP ON THE BRICK.

[00:05:04]

YES. OKAY. AND WE PUT THAT IN THE MOTION. AND SO THE CHOICE IS LIKE, DO WE WANT THE LITTLE HANGING SIGNS OR WOULD WE RATHER TELL THEM NO, WE WANT LIKE BIG SIGNS ON THE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? AND I KNOW TYPICALLY WE LIKE TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THESE FIRST A LITTLE OUT OF PRACTICE HERE.

WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY SIGNS IN A WHILE, BUT TYPICALLY LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM FIRST. THEN WE'LL CALL UP THE APPLICANT. ANYONE HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS ON THIS ONE.

I KNOW IT'S, IT'S, I GUESS GOT A SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD ADDRESS, BUT IT IS KIND OF BURIED OFF OF SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REALLY SEE IT FROM THE STREET.

SO I GUESS THERE'S THAT CONSIDERATION, I GUESS.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? NO. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S KIND OF PICKING YOUR POISON.

AND I KNOW I AGREE WITH YOU THAT, I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, HARD TO, TO SAY, JUST TEAR THEM DOWN AND GO THROUGH A WHOLE NEW SIGN PROCESS.

BUT I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO STATE THAT IF ANY OF IT IS TO BE IMPROVED OR CHANGED, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A NEW SIGN PERMIT.

YEAH, I GUESS YOU'D HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

AND IS THAT FAIR? YES. CORRECT. I MEAN, BASED ON HOW IT'S UNLESS YOU STATE DIFFERENTLY IN YOUR APPROVAL, THE ONLY THING WE WOULD ALLOW IS FOR COPY CHANGE WITHIN THAT SAME OR VIRTUALLY SIMILAR FRAME FOR EACH OF THOSE HANGING SIGNS.

AND IF THEY WERE TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A NEW OR DIFFERENT SIGN OR ADDITIONAL SIGN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND AMEND THIS MASTER SIGN PLAN TO DO THAT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHERE IT HAS THE ADDRESS UP THERE IN THE CENTER.

ONE, IF THEY WANTED TO MOVE THE ADDRESS TO SOMEWHERE SMALLER, COULD THEY REPLACE A SIGN THERE? IS THAT CONSIDERED AN APPROVED SIGN RIGHT THERE? I MEAN, IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THE SIGN PACKAGE, WE WOULDN'T ALLOW A SIGN THERE WITHOUT COMING BACK HERE.

OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, ISN'T PART OF THE REQUEST FOR FUTURE TENANTS ON THAT EDWARD JONES SO.

YES. IT'S THIS SIGN HERE. THAT SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE WERE JUST SAYING.

IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THE REQUEST.

IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS LIKE WE THEY WOULD.

SO, THIS, THIS JW CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED IF A NEW TENANT CAME IN, A DIFFERENT TENANT COULD PUT A SIGN THERE AS LONG AS IT WAS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS.

OR IF EDWARD JONES BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE, A NEW SIGN COULD GO IN THAT LOCATION AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS.

MAYBE NOT SO MUCH. NOT NEW SIGNS, BUT NEW SIGN LOCATIONS.

YES. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS TO INCREASE THE SIZE FOR THAT AREA.

FOR EDWARD JONES, THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MATCH WHAT THE JW CONSTRUCTION IS ASKING FOR, WHICH IS THE 36-INCH LETTERS. SO YEAH, ANY FUTURE TENANT AFTER EDWARD JONES COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE 36-INCH LETTERS, THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN. THE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED ARE MARKED ON HERE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANOTHER SIGN IN THAT CENTER ELEVATION WERE 512 IS, IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? NO, THE EDWARD, THE REQUEST FOR WHERE THE EDWARD'S EDWARD JONES SIGN, I THOUGHT I HEARD IS FOR A FUTURE TENANT WHEN IT COMES IN TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR BIGGER LETTERS. YES, YES THAT'S CORRECT. TO MATCH.

I GUESS I'M ASSUMING THE THOUGHT IS TO MATCH THE SCALE AND THE SIZE OF THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

CORRECT, THAT WOULD SET UP THE BOUNDARY FOR WHICH THEY COULD PLACE A SIGN.

YES. SO, I GUESS THAT'S JUST WHERE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE HOW COMFORTABLE YOU ARE WITH THAT OR NOT.

YEAH. IS THAT FAIR? OKAY. GOOD CATCH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL THE APPLICANT UP TO? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU STAFF. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ONE? YOU MIND COMING UP STATING NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. MY NAME IS BRANDON GRANBERRY.

I WORK WITH KIKI LEDBETTER AT FIRST GRAPHIC SERVICES, WHERE THE SIGN COMPANY.

OKAY. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I GUESS WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? YEAH. I THINK YOU GUYS NAILED ALL THE POINTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP.

GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND SIGN APPLICATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK GOODNESS. SO WE WON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE, BUT YOU'LL GET YOUR HEARING.

[00:10:02]

AND IF WE NEED OTHER PEOPLE TO MAYBE MAKE A MOTION ON, ON SOME OF THE SIGNS, SOMETIMES.

I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY OR. YOU CAN, YOU CAN MAKE, YOU CAN MAKE ANY MOTION YOU'D LIKE.

NOW, WE DO NEED A MAJORITY SUPPORT ON ANY MOTION THAT.

I AGREE TO ESCAPE THE ITEM, BUT. THE ONLY THING THAT GETS ME IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTED AREA THERE WHERE THE EDWARD JONES SIGN IS.

I MEAN, IF YOU PUT 36-INCH LETTERS IN THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ABOUT WHAT THEY DID OVER HERE, THREE LETTERS. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMEBODY COMING IN HERE AND TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE EDWARD JONES FIT WITH 36-INCH LETTERS ON THE END OF THE BUILDING DOWN THERE.

THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN. AND IS IT IS IT? IS IT KIND OF CAPPED WITHIN A SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA OR IS IT JUST.

WELL, OUR NORMAL BUILDING LAYOUT HAS YOU TO DO A PROPORTIONAL SIZE TO THE FRONTAGE SO THAT FRONTAGE DOESN'T EXIST IN THIS PRESENT STATE, SO EVEN THOUGH IF THEY COULD DO 36-INCH LETTERS, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE REALLY RESTRICTED ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN PUT IN.

PUT ABOUT FIVE LETTERS. YEAH. LIKE SOUTHLAKE DERMATOLOGY IS NEVER GOING TO LIVE THERE.

YEAH. SO YEAH. YEAH. FAIR POINT. OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMENTS? WELL, THAT'S THE ONLY PART THAT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH.

AND I THINK THE LETTERS WORK WITH THE SIGN ON THE LEFT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S BROKEN UP.

IT'S NOT ALL CONTIGUOUS IN THAT SPACE. RIGHT, AND SO, I JUST, I FEEL LIKE THAT CAN JUST BE TAKEN AT THE TIME THAT THERE'S A NEW TENANT THAT MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING WITH THAT SIZE.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. I GUESS WE'LL SEE WHAT KIND OF MOTION IS PRESENTED AND IF WE NEED ALTERNATIVES.

LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION. SO DENNIS, I MEAN, IF THEY IF THEY DID, A NEW TENANT CAME IN AND THEY WANTED TO PUT THEY WANTED TO MAXIMIZE THAT SPACE THERE. ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUST DO IT? OR ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH A NEW PLAN WHEN THEY CHANGE THE EDWARD JONES SIGN TO ANOTHER TENANT? FOR WHAT REGULATIONS THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED AND THEIR MASTER SIGN PLAN, THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO THEY, IF APPROVED AS PRESENTED, THEY COULD HAVE UP TO 30-INCH LETTER OR LOGO.

OKAY. BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FACADE.

THEY'RE PLACING THE SIGN ON. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE OTHER RESTRICTIVE ELEMENT ON HOW BIG A SIGN THEY COULD PUT ON THAT, SO THEY COULDN'T MAKE ANY LARGER THAN WHAT THAT PARTICULAR ARTICULATED FACADE PLANE WOULD ALLOW TO FIT WITHIN THAT 75% GAP THERE, SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.

LET'S SEE WHICH ONE WE'RE ON HERE. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER ITEM NUMBER 6.

YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 6 ON OUR SIGN BOARD AGENDA.

CASE MSP26-001. MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR SHADY OAKS OFFICE CONDOS AS PRESENTED WITH THE, ADDING THE, I GUESS EXCEPTION OF THAT, IF THE HANGING SIGNS THAT ARE PRESENTLY THERE ARE CHANGED AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST THEIR BASE CONTENT WITHIN THE FRAME, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO GET A NEW SIGN, PERMIT OR MODIFY THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. OKAY, GOOD.

I GET A THUMBS UP. A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. VOTE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PASSES 6-0.

CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15TH.

WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[7. Consider: MSP26-0003, Amendment to the Residences at Southlake Master Sign Plan, located at 1530 Meeting Street. ]

YEAH, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THE RESIDENCES AT SOUTHLAKE TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL UPPER STORY BUSINESS SIGN ON THE BUILDING.

THIS LOCATION IS 1530 MEETING STREET. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING.

AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE SIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ALSO THE PROPOSED SIGN.

THERE ARE FIVE EXISTING SIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

LABELED A, B, C, D, AND E, AND THEN F IS THE NEW PROPOSED SIGN HERE FACING STATE HIGHWAY 114.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SIGN. IT IS AN UPPER STORY SIGN.

ALL UPPER STORY SIGNS, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A MASTER SIGN PLAN, DO REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION AND ITS CHANNEL LETTERS ATTACHED TO A PUSH THROUGH SIGN CABINET AND THE WIDTH OF THE SIGN IS 14FT.

[00:15:11]

AND THESE ARE JUST ENLARGEMENTS SHOWING WHAT THE SIGN WILL LOOK LIKE.

THIS MIDDLE PICTURE HERE SHOWS THE SIGN HOW IT WILL APPEAR AT NIGHT.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH JUST REALLY QUICKLY THE EXISTING SIGNS THAT ARE OUT THERE. THIS SIGN PLAN HERE SHOWING SIGNS A AND B ON BUILDING A.

THIS IS SIGN A AND HERE WE HAVE SIGN B. AND THEN SIGN C, THE OTHER SIGN THAT'S FACING STATE HIGHWAY 114 AND BUILDING A.

YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S JUST THE PARKING SIGN. AND THEN SIGNS E AND D ON BUILDING B.

THIS IS WHAT THOSE TWO SIGNS LOOK LIKE AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I MEAN ARCHITECTURALLY THEIR SIGNAGE IS, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGH END AND IT GOES WITH THE ARCHITECTURE.

MY CURIOSITY IS WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK FOR THIS SIGN A FEW MONTHS BACK WHEN THIS PACKAGE CAME THROUGH? SO, SO THEY DID PREVIOUSLY WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH WITH THE MASTER SIGN PLAN THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A SIGN IN THIS LOCATION HERE.

LET ME, IT WAS THE SIGN F AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE HERE.

AND IT WAS JUST A, IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO SIGN BOARD. IT WAS JUST THE LOGO, THE MEDALLION.

THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM SIGN BOARD TO REMOVE IT. AND THEY JUST, THEY DID REMOVE IT WHEN THEY MOVED FORWARD TO COUNCIL, BUT NOW THEY'VE COME BACK AND ASKED FOR A DIFFERENT SIGN IN THAT LOCATION. WELL, MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF DELIVERS? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT I'M ASSUMING HERE? YEAH. I'M ASSUMING YOU WEREN'T JUST A FAN OF LOCAL CITY GOVERNMENT AND YOU MIGHT BE HERE FOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND A FAN, YOU PROBABLY HAVE A FAN CLUB.

YOU'VE BEEN AT THIS SO LONG. NAME AND NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

I AM MIKE GARMAN, 705 CIMARRON TRAIL, AND I REPRESENT FOREST COMMUNICATIONS, WHERE THE MARKETING GROUP THAT THE OWNER HAS CONTRACTED TO HANDLE THE SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND MAYBE DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT, I GUESS THERE WAS SOMETHING INCLUDED THERE.

IT WAS STRUCK IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THIS. NOW THIS REQUEST IS BACK, OR WHAT'S THE.

YES, SIR. INITIALLY THE OWNER HAD REQUESTED THE JUST THE LOGO PORTION, JUST THE SHIELD, AS YOU SAW IN THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE.

AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO NOT GO WITH THAT, WHICH I CANDIDLY AGREE WITH.

I THINK THAT THE SHIELD MINUS THE LETTERING DIDN'T MAKE AS MUCH SENSE AS HAVING THE ENTIRE SIGN PRESENT.

AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR TWO OF THOSE SHIELDS, ONE ON EACH END OF THE BUILDING.

HERE IT'S BEEN REDUCED TO THIS JUST ONE SIGN.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR IT BEING ILLUMINATED? IS. THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN IS I GUESS GEARED MORE FOR NIGHT VIEWING DURING THE DAY. IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE THE VISIBILITY THAT IT WILL WHEN THOSE LETTERS ILLUMINATE AT NIGHT.

AND SO IT'S FOR VISIBILITY PRIMARILY FROM 114.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. BACK UP. WE NEED SOME HELP.

THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. WAITING PATIENTLY THROUGH ABOUT AN HOUR OR SO.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? I GUESS YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T.

YEAH, I'M. I'M FINE WITH IT. MOST OF THEM ARE OUT THERE NOW, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE THE POWER NOW SO YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER MOTION YOU LIKE.

WELL, THERE AGAIN, I MEAN, IT'S A RIDICULOUS SIGN IN MY OPINION, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOBODY DRIVING ON 114 IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO READ THE SIGN.

SO, YOU KNOW THAT AND SO THEY STILL GOT WHAT THEY WANTED WITH THE BADGE, AND NOW THEY GET MORE LETTERS THAN THEY'RE ON TOP OF IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S BUT I WILL SAY THAT OVERALL THEIR SIGNS LOOK, LOOK VERY RESPECTABLE.

THAT'S ABOUT AS BIG A COMPLIMENT AS YOU'LL EVER GET OUT OF THE VICE CHAIR.

SO. SO WITH THAT IN MIND. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE MSP26-003 AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENCE AT SOUTHLAKE MASTER SIGN PLAN AS PRESENTED.

[00:20:06]

OKAY, QUICKLY. LET'S GO FOR IT HERE. GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.

PASSES 5-1. OKAY. THANK YOU. SEPTEMBER 15TH TO BE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THIS EVENING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.