Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

AND CONVENE WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR, THE EXCITING SIGN BOARD MEETING HERE ON

[1. Call to Order.]

NOVEMBER 5TH, GAVELING IT IN AT 7:39 P.M., I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT I HAVEN'T ALREADY MADE SO WE CAN SKIP OVER THAT ITEM.

WE DON'T NEED EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ASSUMING THERE ARE NO STAFF COMMENTS, WE CAN WORK OUR

[4. Consider: Approving the minutes from the October 8, 2020 Sign Board Meeting.]

WAY TOWARDS MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 8TH MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO A MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA, THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 8, 2020 SIGN BOARD MEETING.

MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

PASS 6-0.

APPRECIATE IT. NOW, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH

[5. Consider: SV20-0015, Sign Variance for Sushi Dojo]

IS A SIGN VARIANCE FOR DENNIS.

I THINK IT'S SUSHI DOJO IS THAT CORRECT? OK. AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY WE'VE ALREADY HEARD A PRESENTATION ON THIS, THE WORK SESSION. SO I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED TO GET BACK INTO THE DETAILS UNLESS OTHERS NEED TO. I THINK WE SEE THE SEVERAL VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED HERE, MAYBE ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE GO STRAIGHT TO THE APPLICANT? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

WE'LL GO AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON THIS ONE.

IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

ALEX [INAUDIBLE] SIGNS EXPRESS, OK.

YES, JUST A LITTLE CLOSER.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, ALEX [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.

SIGNS EXPRESS.

OK, THANK YOU. SO THREE VARIANCES IN PLACE HERE.

ANY COMMENT REQUEST ON ANYTHING ON CONTEXT ON THOSE.

THE SIGN LOCATION IS EXACTLY WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS.

SO THAT'S A REQUEST FOR YOU GUYS.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE CARE OF THAT.

SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE COULD WORK WITH IT, MAYBE MAKE IT TWENTY EIGHT SQUARE FEET, BUT WE WOULD REQUIRE THE BACKER PLATE BECAUSE THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FROM THE TENANT, THE RESTAURANT OWNER. OK.

OK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP, OK, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DELIBERATE. SO JUST LOOKING AT THIS ONE, JUST GETTING EVERYBODYS TWO CENTS.

WE'VE OBVIOUSLY GOT AN UPPER STORY SIGN, WHICH I GUESS I DON'T THINK IS THAT BAD, GIVEN THAT'S WHERE THE TENANT IS.

AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, IT'S JUST KIND OF ONE OF THE THINGS WE TYPICALLY DO APPROVES. I THINK I WAS OK WITH THAT.

I THINK WE JUST HEARD THE APPLICANT CAN SAY THAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH A TWENTY EIGHT SQUARE FOOT SIGN, WHICH WOULD NO LONGER NECESSITATE A VARIANCE.

SO I THINK MAYBE WE CAN DENY THAT VARIANCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BACKER PLATES, I GUESS MAYBE KEN OR DENNIS MAYBE.

I GUESS I MIGHT ASK IF YOU GUYS JUST MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPICALLY AREN'T ALLOWED AND JUST SOME OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE.

AND I GUESS IT DOESN'T I DON'T I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T DONE THAT THAT OFTEN. IF I'M THINKING CORRECTLY OR JUST MAYBE IF YOU CAN REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.

HASN'T BEEN EXTREMELY FREQUENT.

THE CONTEXT BEHIND IT WAS KIND OF A STICK WITH MORE CHANNEL CUT TYPE LETTERING WITHOUT A SEPARATE BACKER PLATE THAT FRAMES UP OR EXTENSION EXTENUATE THE SIZE OF THE OF THE SIGN.

OK, SO I GUESS I'LL MAYBE SEE IF THERE'S ANY COMMISSIONER OPINION ON THIS.

WELL, I THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE NEEDING ALL THE HELP THEY CAN GET WITH THIS LOCATION RIGHT HERE. AND I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT AS A BACKER PLATE.

I MEAN, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE PART OF THE SIGN.

I KNOW I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS, BUT IT'S JUST.

I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

I KNOW EXACTLY. IT MUST BE THE SUSHI IT'S GOING TO MY HEAD ANYWAY.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, NOT THIS ONE.

IT'S NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS LIKE THE ONE WE HAD.

THAT WAS THE WHERE WE HAD THE THREE THAT WERE BEHIND THERE, THE COLOR [INAUDIBLE], WHATEVER THAT WAS LAST TIME THAT.

I MEAN, IF I WAS THE SIGN GUY I WOULD HAVE SAID THIS WAS MY LOGO RATHER THAN SAYING IT WAS A BACKER PLATE, YOU KNOW, BUT I'LL LET EVERYBODY ELSE THROW IN WHATEVER.

WHAT IF THE BACKER PLATE ALSO DID SOLAR PANELING.

WELL, IF IT WAS SOLAR, I'D BE HAPPY WITH IT.

BUT IN ITS PRESENT LOCATION, IT WOULD BE VERY EFFECTIVE.

[00:05:04]

OK, OTHER SORRY.

OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AT ALL I THINK TO COMMISSIONER SPRINGERS RIGHT.

LET'S HELP HIM STAY IN BUSINESS HERE.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FROM THIS SIDE.

YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE TWO CONSIDERATIONS FOR ME.

NUMBER ONE IS THE LOCATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN FACING SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD OR SOMETHING.

IT IS SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO FIND UNTIL YOU BECOME A CUSTOMER OF THEIRS. THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS, I GUESS IT'S AWAY FROM THE MORE PROMINENT RETAIL PARTS OF THE CITY. I DON'T THINK IT CONFLICTS WITH ANYTHING, SETS ANY PRECEDENT.

IT'S GOING TO CAUSE ANY ISSUE WITH US.

I CERTAINLY WOULD ECHO COMMISSIONER SPRINGER'S COMMENT ABOUT MAYBE THE WORD BACKER PLATE NEVER NEEDED TO COME UP.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR THING? I THINK YOU'VE KIND OF HEARD WHERE WE'RE ENDING UP, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE GRANTING THE FIRST VARIANCE UPPER STORY, DENYING THE SECOND VARIANCE OF SIGN AREA, AND THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE GRANTING THE BACKER PLATE AREA.

ALTHOUGH WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS COUNCIL WILL PROBABLY HAVE JUST AS MANY QUESTIONS, IF NOT MORE, ABOUT THAT.

SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO NOODLE IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND.

IF THEY DID DENY IT, WHAT WOULD YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE? SO I'D SAY BE PREPARED FOR THAT.

BUT I GUESS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA, SV 20-005, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 30TH, 2020, AND SPECIFICALLY NOTING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE UPPER STORY SIGN AND THE BACKER PLATE AND DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN AREA.

OK WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND.

GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE.

PASS 6-0. CONGRATULATIONS.

GOOD LUCK, SIR. THE NEXT LEVEL.

[6. Consider: SV20-0016, Sign Variance for Epicenter Dance Revolution]

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH IS SIGN VARIANCE FOR EPICENTER DANCE REVOLUTION.

YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM, WE HEARD THIS ITEM IN OUR WORK SESSION SO WE COULD PROBABLY JUST GO STRAIGHT TO THE YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS ONE WAS GOOD, DENNIS, IN TERMS OF JUST REMINDING EVERYBODY KIND OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AND I THINK IF YOU WENT ON TO ONE OF THE.

YEAH, THIS THIS IS GREAT IN TERMS OF JUST SEEING WHAT THE OTHER ONES LOOK LIKE A LITTLE A LITTLE CALMER THAN WHAT WE JUST VIEWED.

AND MAYBE LASTLY THAT, YEAH, THE AGAIN, GREAT, GREAT CHART, GREAT WORK IN TERMS OF TRYING TO ALWAYS BE SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT UP HERE.

SO ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF BEFORE WE CALL THE APPLICANT UP.

OK, ANOTHER GOOD PRESENTATION AGAIN, YOU KNOCKED THEM DEAD, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ONE? OH.

OK, ALEX [INAUDIBLE] SIGNS EXPRESS.

THANK YOU. MAYBE I GUESS BEFORE WE GET INTO IT, MAYBE JUST COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THE REQUEST FOR THE THE LOGO HEIGHT AND SIGN HEIGHT, BECAUSE CLEARLY THEY'RE WELL IN EXCESS OF, I GUESS, WHAT'S BEEN GRANTED HERE BEFORE, ALBEIT THIS IS CLEARLY A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT OF A VISIBILITY CHALLENGED CENTER AND HAS HAD SOME VACANCY ISSUES.

BUT I THINK AS AS COMMISSIONER SPRINGER NOTED ON ANOTHER ITEM THIS EVENING, YOU KNOW, THE SECOND WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR YOU, WE'LL HAVE A LINE OF APPLICANTS IN HERE FROM THE REST OF THE TENANTS.

SO WE JUST NEED TO THINK THAT THROUGH.

SO WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US SOME CONTEXT ON THAT.

THIS IS MORE LIKE THE LOGO ITSELF.

THE CIRCLE. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE CHANNEL LETTERS, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT.

THE CLIENT, AGAIN, HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND THEY WANT IT TO BE JUST LIKE THEIR LOGO. SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN FOR THEM.

OK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

YEAH, I MIGHT POSE A QUESTION TO YOU, SIR.

THEIR CURRENT LOCATION.

THIS IS NOT THEIR LOGO.

THE CURRENT LOGO IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE BALANCED.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SCRIPT ALONG THE BOTTOM OF IT.

IT IS A HORIZONTAL WITH WHICH MIGHT CREATE SOME ISSUES.

BUT THIS IS THIS IS A LOGO CHANGE, A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT THEY MADE TO CHANGE THE LOGO. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE CLIENT GAVE US AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR WITH THEM FOR A WHILE. I WOULD REALLY REQUEST YOU GUYS TO APPROVE IT OR DO IT.

[00:10:03]

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO THIS IS A ONE OFF BUSINESS.

THIS IS NOT A FRANCHISE OR.

NO, IT'S NOT A FRANCHISE.

THE FIRST LOCATION.

AND WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED NOW? THEY HAVE AN OFFICE IN SOUTHLAKE SOMEWHERE.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE, BUT THEY ARE ON GREENBRIER DRIVE UP JUST BEHIND DRIVER'S ED BACK IN THAT INDUSTRIAL PARK.

AND I KNOW BECAUSE I HAPPENED, I'M IN A BUILDING ADJACENT TO THAT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. I'M JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION BECAUSE I DRIVE BY THAT AND I SEE THEIR LOGO EVERY DAY. OK.

I AGREE, I DON'T.

WELL, THIS IS NOT SO MUCH FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I DON'T LIKE SETTING THAT PRECEDENT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOT A FRANCHISE.

AND JUST I OBJECT GRAMMATICALLY TO THEIR LOGO BECAUSE AN EPICENTER WOULD BE OF THE ARTS, NOT FOR THE ARTS.

BUT THAT'S MORE AESTHETIC.

WOW. LEAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IF WE NEED YOU.

YEAH, I GUESS I'M KIND OF TORN IN THE SENSE THAT I KNOW.

I GUESS, DENNIS, IF YOU DON'T MIND PUTTING UP THE ONE WITH THE NUMBERS AGAIN ON IT.

WELL, I'M FAIRLY SYMPATHETIC TO DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP THIS SPACE VISIBLE AND OCCUPIED. THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A MEANINGFUL DEPARTURE FROM WHAT OTHERS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO. SO I YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE WITH IT.

IT'S NOT EVEN THE LOGO HEIGHT THAT I THAT I OBJECT TO, WHICH IS A 12 INCH.

IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FORTY EIGHT SEVENTY THREE POINT NINE FOR THE SIGN HEIGHT, IT SEEMS EXCESSIVE.

YES. WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THERE'S SEVERAL OPTIONS HERE.

OBVIOUSLY, ONE APPROVE AS IS, YOU KNOW, TWO JUST DENY THREE APPROVE BUT REVISED DOWNWARD TO SOME DEGREE THE REQUEST.

JUST AGAIN, JUST KNOWING THAT BE PREPARED FOR AS WE KNOW, THE REST OF THESE GUYS COME THROUGH AND ASK FOR THE SAME THINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE FINE IN TERMS OF THIS LOCATION. SO ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? YOU KNOW, I THINK AND I BRING UP THE CURRENT LOGO ONLY BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS.

I'M JUST LOOKING ON THE WEBSITE FOR SEVEN YEARS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN IN THEIR CURRENT BUILDING.

THE CANDIDLY, THE LOGO THAT'S ON THE CURRENT BUILDING PROBABLY WOULD NOT PASS MUSTER HERE BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF IT.

AND MAYBE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO GET THE THE THE DESCRIPTION TO FIT BETTER.

BUT BASED ON WHAT WE SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE HERE, DENNIS, THAT SHOWS THE OTHER BUILDINGS WITH BYE BYE BABY.

AND IN THE OTHERS, IT'S OUT OF SCALE TO THOSE.

I GUESS IF WE BROUGHT IT MORE, IF THEY WERE TO BRING IT MORE IN SCALE, IN LINE WITH THE SCALE OF THE OTHERS, IT'D PROBABLY BE MORE PALATABLE PERHAPS TO EVEN COMMISSIONER DYCHE.

BUT IT JUST CONSUMES THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THAT BUILDING TO ME.

AND THE OTHER THING THAT I SEE ABOUT THAT SCROLL IS LIKE IT JUST BLENDS IN AT A DISTANCE, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT HELPING AT ALL AS FAR AS BEING AN IDENTIFIER FOR THE BUILDING.

SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE OWNER NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE SIGN GUY IS DOING WHAT HE'S DIRECTED TO DO.

WELL, HE'S THE MESSENGER.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, IDEAS? ANYONE WANT TO PROPOSE ANYTHING ON THIS ONE? YOU KNOW THIS, I'M NOT A MARKETING GUY AND I'M NOT A BRANDING GUY, BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY AND APOLOGIZE THAT YOU'RE THE ONE HEARING THE MESSAGE, BUT I THINK MAYBE THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH A LOGO.

AND I THINK COMMISSIONER SPRINGER'S COMMENTS ABOUT THAT SCRIPT, EVEN LOOKING AT IT FROM HERE, YOU'VE GOT TO STRUGGLE TO READ FOR THE ARTS.

AND MAYBE WHILE ITS INTENTION TO GIVE THEM A NEW BRAND, A NEW IDENTITY, IT CREATES ISSUES ON TWO FRONTS. NUMBER ONE IS IT REALLY READABLE NUMBER TWO IS AN IN SCALE WITH THE OTHERS IN THAT COMPLEX. SO I THINK PROBABLY BOTH OF THOSE NEED TO BE CONSIDERATIONS THAT TAKE IT

[00:15:03]

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, IN MY OPINION.

SO THE STAFF THEN GIVEN THE SENTIMENT HERE, IF WE DENY IT, HOW LONG BEFORE THEY CAN, THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL? THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON THAT.

THEY COULD SO THEY'D BE ABLE TO REPRESENT AS QUICKLY AS THEY COULD GET TO IT.

YES. AND WITH THE COMMISSION DENIAL, UNLESS THEY WITHDRAW IT OR TABLE IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL, ASSUMING THAT IT WAS DENIED BY P&Z IT WOULD STILL MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL UNLESS THE APPLICANT REQUEST A CHANGE THEN COURSE OF THAT, EITHER WITHDRAWING OR REQUESTING A TABLE UNTIL THEY DECIDE TO BRING IT FORWARD.

THIS I MEAN, IT PROBABLY BE THE BEST SUGGESTION WE COULD GIVE TO THE APPLICANT TO MAYBE RETHINK THIS AND BRING IT TO US, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN APPROVE AND SEND TO CITY COUNCIL RATHER THAN FORCING US TO DENY IT AND THEN SENDING IT UP WITH IT WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION THAT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME.

YEAH, I THINK I GUESS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY APPLICANT TIMING ISSUES.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE CHOICES WOULD BE SEE IF THEY WOULD THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT A TABLE, IF THEY WOULD THEN BRING SOMETHING BACK AND WE VOTE ON IT, OR IF WE JUST DENY IT AND WE REFLECT THE SENTIMENT, I GUESS THEY COULD MOVE IT ON, ALBEIT IT MIGHT NOT BE AS PALATABLE RECEIVED BY COUNCIL THAT IN THAT MANNER, TO YOUR POINT, MAYBE I'LL CALL THE APPLICANT BACK UP JUST IN TERMS OF AND GO AHEAD REAL QUICK.

MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THE REST OF THE AREA THERE WITH THE OTHER SIGNS, THE.

I MEAN, IN MY OPINION, I AGREE THAT THE VARIANCES PROBABLY AREN'T WARRANTED, BUT IN TERMS OF THE LETTERING AND BEING ABLE TO READ IT, OBSTACLE WARRIOR TO ME IS JUST AS BAD.

SO I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THAT SAYS IF IT WASN'T TELLING ME UNDERNEATH IT.

BUT MAYBE I NEED A THICKER SET OF GLASSES, TOO.

SO WHO KNOWS? IF IT WERE UP TO ME, I WOULD SAY SEND IT ON AND DENY THE VARIANCES.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

OK, ARE THERE ANY TIMING, CONCERNS OR PREFERENCES IN TERMS OF WOULD YOU KNOW? YOU JUST KIND OF HEARD A COUPLE OF THE OPTIONS.

ONE WOULD BE IN YOUR ELECTION TABLING AND COMING BACK.

THEIR PLAN TO OPEN UP THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER TO GET THE CHRISTMAS SEASON HOPEFULLY.

THEY HAVE A TIMELINE ISSUE FOR SURE.

ONE THING I WANT TO SUGGEST IS THE LETTERS FOR THE R IT'S 30 INCHES.

WE COULD PROBABLY GO DOWN TO TWENTY ONE OR SO TO MAKE THE TOTAL HEIGHT GO DOWN.

THE TOTAL SIGN HEIGHT GO DOWN PROBABLY FROM SEVENTY FOUR TO LIKE AROUND SIXTY, SIXTY TWO.

THAT'S A SUGGESTION.

SO THE FOR THE ARTS ARE GOING TO GO DOWN NINE INCHES TO MAKE IT TWENTY ONE ON THE RIGHT.

YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S TO YOUR POINT, IT'S MAYBE NOT THAT THE I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE LOGO IS SUBSTANTIAL, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT SELF-INFLICTED.

I THINK THE LETTER HEIGHTS MAYBE AREN'T CRAZY.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE WITHIN.

IT'S JUST HAVING HAVING THEM BOTH TOGETHER IS JUST COMPOUNDING, UNLIKE THE OTHER SIGNS AT THE CENTER, WHICH ARE ALL KIND OF ONE ROW OF WORDS LOGOS.

THAT ARE DISTINCTIVE AND YOU CAN READ THEM.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT WITH YOUR CUTTING, THAT FOR THE ARTS SIZE DOWN, IT'S JUST GOING TO WIND UP BEING A SCRIBBLE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING.

HOW ABOUT I MAYBE SUGGEST THIS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GOT SOME TIMING.

I MEAN, AND YOU GUYS PLEASE SHOOT BACK AT ME HERE.

I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT END UP GETTING THIS EVENING IS A DENIAL, BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE IT ON THE COUNCIL.

AND I WOULD SAY YOU'VE HEARD OUR SENTIMENT HERE.

I THINK IF YOU SHOWED UP AND STAFF JUMP IN HERE AND LET ME KNOW AS WELL.

BUT IF YOU SHOWED UP AT COUNCIL AND YOU WERE NOT PRESENTING THIS, MAYBE AND YOU'LL HEAR

[00:20:01]

THESE WORDS RESONATE OFTEN.

COUNCIL LOVES OPTIONS.

WE SAY THAT UP HERE A LOT.

SO IF YOU WERE TO BRING IN MAYBE A COUPLE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS OF ONE THAT'S SOMEWHAT SMALLER THAN THIS, MAYBE WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND ONE THAT'S EVEN SMALLER THAN THAT, LET THEM LOOK AT SOME OPTIONS.

LET THEM KICK IT AROUND AND MAYBE OPEN UP WITH YOUR LINE ABOUT, HEY, LOOK, WE'D REALLY LIKE TO GET OPEN FOR CHRISTMAS.

AND AND I THINK THEY'LL BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY WORK TOWARDS SOMETHING.

I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE WHAT EVERYBODY BE? YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS IS AN OPTION WOULD BE TO GET RID OF THE SCRIPT AND GO WITH BLACK LETTERING. I'LL SUGGEST THAT TO MY CLIENT AS WELL.

I'LL DEFINITELY DO IT BECAUSE I THINK THEN AND YOU DOWNSIZE IT BY 10 OR 12 INCHES, I THINK IT'S MORE READABLE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IF IT'S NOT SCRIPT.

SO I THINK THAT MAY BE THE ROUTE WE GO.

WE'LL JUST GO OUT AND VOTE ON IT.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THESE MEETINGS ARE RECORDED.

YOU'VE GOT ALL THE CONTEXT.

YOU CAN RELAY IT. SURE.

AND STAFF CAN RELATE THAT AS WELL TO COUNCIL THAT THAT WE I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SPACE OCCUPIED LIKE TO SEE IT OPEN.

WE JUST GOT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE PRECEDENT THAT WE'RE SETTING FOR EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE CENTER. SURE.

OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. UN LESS THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE WE WANT TO HIT ON? I WILL ENTERTAIN POTENTIALLY YOUR SECOND MOTION TO DENY SOMETHING SO.

OH, YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT. I'M GOOD WITH IT.

YEAH, OK. I CAN'T EVEN READ IT ANYWAY.

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA, SV 20-0016 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 30TH 2020 AND DENYING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED, BUT NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO BRING IN ALTERNATE PROPOSALS, INCLUDING ADDRESSING THE SCRIPT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE LOGO WITH POTENTIALLY BLOCK LETTERING AND DIFFERENT SIZES. SO JUDGING FROM THE LOOKS I'M GETTING FROM STAFF, I THINK I THINK WHAT THEY'RE WANTING IS JUST A STRAIGHT DENIAL MOTION INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF.

YES, IT MIGHT BE MORE CLEAR GIVEN YOU'RE DENYING THE VARIANCES AND THAT'S BASICALLY ALL THEY'RE REQUESTING.

THAT'S ALL THEY ARE REQUESTING. I MEAN, YOU COULD DENY AS PROPOSED, BUT MAKING A STATEMENT IN THE DENIAL THAT THEY BRING FORWARD OPTIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

GOT YOU. ALL RIGHT.

LET ME TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA SV 20-0016 AND NOTING OUR APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO BRING ALTERNATE PROPOSALS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO THE SIZING AND THE SCRIPT VERSUS BLOCK LETTERING SO THAT COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND YOUR NEED TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT PRIOR TO THE HOLIDAYS.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING SOME HEAD NODS NOW.

SO I THINK WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND. OK, THAT WILL HOLD ON.

THIS IS A.

VOTE YES IS TO DENY.

SO, OK, JUST LET'S MAKE SURE WE ALL GET THAT STRAIGHT, INCLUDING MYSELF.

OK, SO IT IS DENIED SIX ZERO, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE THE CONTEXT FOR IT AND HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT LEVEL YOU CAN HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOG AND HOPEFULLY GET TO AN OUTCOME.

SO THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US.

APPRECIATE IT. OK.

LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[7. Consider: SV20-0017, Sign Variance for Retina Center of Texas]

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SIGN VARIENCE FOR THE RETINA CENTER OF TEXAS.

AGAIN, WE WENT OVER THIS SESSION OR THIS ITEM AND WORK SESSION, TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT, ESTABLISHED THAT THIS IS A WHILE THE BUILDING'S LARGE ENOUGH TO BE A MULTITENANT BUILDING. IT IS A SINGLE TENANT BUILDING.

SO SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF DENNIS ON THIS ONE? OK, AND AND MAYBE JUST A REALLY QUICK ONE, JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT I WAS SAYING THERE.

SO NOW MAYBE SETTING ASIDE THE LOCATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WERE THREE TENANTS IN THIS BUILDING, THEN ASSUMING THEY PUT THEM IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS, THAT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE THREE SIGNS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

OK. OK, SO IS SINGLE TENANT.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ACTUALLY STIPULATE WITH ANY MOTION, IS THAT IF THEY IF THEY GIVE UP SPACE AND BECOME MULTITENANT, THAT I THINK THAT THEY'RE ALREADY CAPPED ON THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. SO THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK IN FOR A VARIANCE.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAN DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, GIVEN HOW YOU APPROVE THIS, IF THEY DID DIVIDE THE BUILDING, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE TENANT IS LOCATED AND WHERE THEY PLACE THE

[00:25:04]

SIGN, IT COULD BE DONE COMPLIANT UNLESS THERE IS A PROVISION IN YOUR MOTION THAT THEY RETURN BACK TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS, WHETHER IT BE FOR A NEW TENANT OR CURRENT.

I THINK THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONSIDER JUST GIVEN THAT.

BUT WE'LL GO THROUGH IT.

WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY WE GIVE THEM.

BUT ASSUMING WE GIVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY, THAT MAY BE THE TRADEOFF.

SO, OK, ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF BEFORE I CALL IT THE APPLICANT.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP AND NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AS ALWAYS, I THINK YOU KNOW THE ROUTINE ONCE OR TWICE, MAYBE JUST ANY QUICK CONTEXT WE MIGHT NEED FOR THIS ONE. SURE.

GOOD EVENING, KIRK [INAUDIBLE].

PRIORITY SIGNS AND GRAPHICS 605 VICKSBURG COURT, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.

I THINK YOU KIND OF HIT ON IT.

IT'S A LARGER BUILDING, SINGLE OWNER, TENANT.

AND REALLY THE SIGNS ARE REQUESTED.

THEY DON'T SEEM TO OVERPOWER THE BUILDING.

THEY SEEM TO MAKE LOGICAL CHOICE IN PLACEMENT AESTHETICALLY.

THEY'RE PROPORTIONAL CLEAN LINES AND NEUTRAL COLORS.

OK, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE LOGO ON THE TOWER? SO SOME OF IT IS TO FOR AESTHETICS TO AND ALSO JUST LOGO BRANDING FOR A LARGE BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING SOMEBODY DRIVING ALONG, LOOKING AT THAT, I THINK IT'S SOME KIND OF A CLOCK OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SEEING WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF BENEFIT OUT OF THAT UNLESS POSSIBLY AT NIGHT, YOU'VE GOT ONE ON THE OTHER WALL OVER HERE WITH THE RETINA CENTER WITH THE GRAPHICS ON IT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE TO ME JUST SEEMS A LITTLE USELESS, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, EDITORIAL COMMENTS? I MEAN, I THINK IT ALSO HELPS TO ESTABLISH I MEAN, I THINK YOU KIND OF HIT ON IT WHEN YOU ASKED, IS IT MULTITENANT? IT'S NOT. IT KIND OF HELPS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE WHOLE BUILDING IS FOR RCT.

OK, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER. I GUESS THE ONLY COMMENT I'D MAKE IS GIVEN THE WAY THIS BUILDING SITS ON THE LOT AND THE STREET, VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT THAT LOGO ANYWAY.

THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT IS IF YOU DRIVE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

SO I'M WITH COMMISSIONER SPRINGER.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT REALLY ADDS FROM MY STANDPOINT.

WELL, SO THE BUILDING IS FACING THE FRONTAGE ROAD, SO THERE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD VISIBILITY AS YOU'RE DRIVING UP TO IT.

OK, SO I MUST HAVE IT WRONG ON MY APOLOGIES.

OK. SO, OK.

SO YOU KIND OF COME DOWN FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK DOWN AT THE BUILDING, IT'S A ONE WAY FRONTAGE ROAD THAT WAY.

WELL, I DO LIKE THE TOWER LOGO.

I THINK I THINK HE'S RIGHT.

IT KIND OF SHOWS THAT THIS IS A SINGLE TENANT THROUGH THE WHOLE BUILDING.

AND I THINK IT ADDS A LITTLE DECOR, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TO THAT TOWER.

SO I PERSONALLY LIKE IT.

OK, GOOD CONTRASTING VIEWPOINT THERE.

I THINK THE TOWER LOGO IS FINE.

IT'S KIND OF COOL. AND OTHER THAN PUTTING MY INITIALS ON IT, IT WORKS FOR ME. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT ONE YET. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT THEN WE CAN DELIBERATE REAL QUICK.

THANK. WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU SIR.

THANK YOU. CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED YOU.

MAYBE JUST TO GO THROUGH IT BRIEFLY ON THE SOUTH I GUESS MAYBE DENNIS IF YOU MIND GOING THROUGH THE LIST. JUST AS I GO THROUGH THIS RVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT THANK YOU.

SOUTH ATTACHED SIGN.

SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE OK WITH UPPER STOREY.

LOGO. SO LOGOS ARE OBVIOUSLY PERMITTED.

IT'S JUST LOGO HEIGHT.

SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE OK WITH THE LOGO BEING THERE, BUT IT'S JUST DO WE WANT IT TO BE OUTSIZED OR NOT. ANY, ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS ON THAT.

I WOULD SAY IT SHOULD NOT BE OVERSIZED.

IT SHOULD NOT BE OVERSIZE.

OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BEFORE A MOTION GETS CRAFTED.

I'M OK WITH IT. OK, IT'S OK.

COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER.

COMMISSIONER DYCHE.

[00:30:01]

YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHERE I FALL, I'M KIND OF FOR THE STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT'S DEFINED. OK, WOW THIS IS GOING TO BE A TOUGH ONE FOR YOU TO CRAFT HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN? YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S ON ONE BUILDING AND IT'S SINGLE OCCUPANCY, I'M OK WITH IT, TOO.

OK, I THINK I CAN GET THERE THEN.

ON THE SOUTH ATTACHED SIGN TOWER LOGO THAT COMMISSIONER PHALEN IS A BIG FAN OF.

SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT IT OR NOT GRANT IT RELATIVE TO BEING UPPER STORY.

COMMISSIONER PHALEN IS ON RECORD FOR LIKING IT.

OTHERS.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF IT.

NOT IN FAVOR. IT'S AN ABSTRACT CLOCK THAT DOESN'T KEEP TIME.

COMMISSIONER DYCHE, I'M OK WITH IT.

OK, COMMISSIONER TOTHMEIER.

I PREFER NOT TO SEE IT THERE.

OK, I GUESS I'D SAY I'M FINE WITH IT BEING THERE, BUT I'D PROBABLY REDUCE IT DOWN TO THE 30 INCHES THAT'S NOTED IN THE LOGO HEIGHT JUST TO KIND OF MEET IN THE MIDDLE THERE. AND LASTLY, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WE JUST KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT.

BUT I'M OK WITH THREE SIGNS GIVEN GIVEN A SINGLE TENANT.

HOWEVER, DENNIS PHRASED IT MUCH BETTER THAN I DID.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEM COME BACK, IF THE BUILDING BECOMES MULTITENANT AND THEY WANT TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL SIGN ON IT.

DENNIS, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU WORDED THAT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO.

JUST REQUIRING ANY ADDITIONAL TENANTS SIGN.

COME BACK TO THE SIGN BOARD AND COUNCIL.

OKAY. IT APPEARS IN VARYING SIZES WE ARE POTENTIALLY GOING TO GRANT THE SIGNAGE THEY'D LIKE. I THINK THAT'S FAIR IN TERMS OF IF THEY START TO MULTITENANT IT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET TO THE POINT WITH A FOUR OR FIVE SIGNS.

YOU KNOW, IT'LL START TO GET A LOT OF SIGNS ON IT.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN'T, BUT THEY JUST NEED TO COME BACK TO US FOR AN APPROVAL FOR IT. SO I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

SO MAYBE WE TRY A MOTION HERE AND SEE IF WE HOPEFULLY GET ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR IT.

THERE'S VARYING OPINIONS, AS ALWAYS, BUT I'M VERY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.

AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GET PRETTY CLOSE HERE.

WE'LL SEE. BUT IT'LL BE EXCITING TO HAVE THAT BUILDING BUILT AND OCCUPIED AND AND DOING BUSINESS HERE. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL LET OUR VICE CHAIRMAN TAKE A STAB AT IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA, SUBJECT TO OUR EXCUSE ME, SV 20-0017 SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 30TH 2020.

AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE UPPER STOREY VARIANCE WITH THE LOGO HEIGHT AND FORTY THREE INCHES AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE TOWER LOGO UPPER STOREY VARIANCE, BUT DENYING THE REQUEST FOR A THIRTY SIX INCH LOGO HEIGHT AND LIMITING IT TO 30 INCHES AND THEN OBVIOUSLY APPROVING THE ATTACHED THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AS REQUESTED AND.

YEAH GO AHEAD. YEAH.

AND THEN ALSO NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND OBTAIN SIGN BOARD APPROVAL IF AN ADDITIONAL TENANT SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND.

OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE AND SEE IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS HERE.

OH, OK.

NOT BAD. FIVE TO ONE APPROVAL.

CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD LUCK ATTHE NEXT LEVEL, YOU'LL PROBABLY GET A FEW OF THE SAME QUESTIONS THERE. SO JUST I GUESS I'D SAY BE READY.

YOU KNOW THE DRILL. BUT AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. SO APPRECIATE IT.

AND WITH THAT, HERE AT 8:13 PM, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.