Mar 14, 2023 Board of Adjustment

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>>> GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on November 8,2022.]

PREVIOUS MEETING. >> MOVE.

>> AND SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> I. >> I.

>> APPROVED AS PRINTED. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING AND FOUR FAVORABLE VOTES MUST BE HAD TO BE APPROVE ANYTHING.

IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. IF ONE IS REQUIRED.

A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING.

A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY OF THE -- THE DAY THE REQUEST IS APPROVED AFTER THE MEETING HAS ADJOURNED.

IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THIS DATE.

APPEALS TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COURT OF RECORD, IN THIS CASE THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THIS DATE. WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT A CASE TODAY SO IF YOU PLAN TO COME TO THE ELECTRIC -- LECTURN AND SPEAK ON ANY CASE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS TODAY IS

[2. BA-2023-01: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from N2 Development represented by Michael Everett for a 50' variance from the maximum 50' requirement for sign height and a 555.21 square foot variance from the maximum 300 square foot requirement for sign area located at 2824 E. Overland Trail. (Randy Anderson)]

RANDY. >> GOOD MORNING.

RANDY ANDERSON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

WE WILL BE PRESENTING THIS CASE FOR YOU.

JUST IN THE LAST 12 HOURS OR SO THE CASE HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED. I'M GONNA COVER IT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED IN YOUR STAFF REPRESENT AND THEN I'LL GET TO THE AMENDMENT AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE OVERHEAD, YOU CAN SEE THE VARIANCES.

THE SIGN FACING AREA IS 855 SQUARE FEET AND 300 IS ALLOWED.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE AND IT IS ONE THAT WE DON'T TAKE AS A STAFF LIGHTLY BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.

IMPORTANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER HERE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE FUTURE INTERCHANGE OF LOOP 322 AND I H-FP -- I-20.

YOU WILL SEE THAT LOOP 322 IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO PUSH THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION AND HEAD TOWARD 351 TO THE NORTH.

SO AS A RESULT WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS PLATTED HE WAS ASKED TO DEDICATE A ONE HALF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THIS FUTURE INTERSECTION EXTENSION TO THE NORTH ON HIS SIDE OF THE EUB TER -- INTERSECTION.

SO AS WE LOOK AT THAT MAP, HE OWNS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE PROPERTY IS THE TRIANGLE PART OF THE PINK AREA THAT IS SHOWN AS GENERAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL.

THEY DEDICATED A LOT AND YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER SIDE IS THEIR PROPERTY ALSO, BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST.

THE PHYSICAL -- THE PICTURE I WOULD FOCUS ON THAT SHOW THE AREA AND THE SITE IS THE PICTURE ON THE TOP RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS ADJACENT OVERPASS. YOU SEE THE RELATIVE GRADE OF THE SITE WITH THE HIGHWAY TO THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE.

YOU SEE THERE IS ABOUT A 20-FOOT DROP FROM THE ROAD BASE OF THE HIGHWAY DOWN TO THE GRADE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THAT IS PART OF THE BASIS FOR -- THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT THAT THEY HAVE. WHAT THEY INITIALLY CAME IN WITH WAS THIS SIGN THAT IS -- THE BOTTOM IS AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD WHERE THE PRICES WILL BE POSTED FOR THE GAS.

THE NAME OF THE STATION IS ON THE TOP.

YOU CAN SEE IT IS A HUNDRED FEET MEASURED FROM BASE ELEVATION TO

[00:05:01]

SO IT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE HIGHWAY.

WHAT YOU DON'T SEE -- WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE VERY WELL IN THIS PICTURE IS THAT THE SITE -- THIS SITE DOES DROP TKPR -- FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST TOWARD THE END OF THE TRIANGLE.

THIS CORNER HERE WOULD BE THE HIGH SIGHT OF THE PROPERTY.

IT ALL FALLS AWAY FROM THAT LOCATION.

WE ASKED THEM TO TURN IN THIS DIAGRAM TO SHOW YOU EXACTLY THE DIMENSIONS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS THE INTER -- INTERCHANGE YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS PICTURE. IF YOU LOOK IN THE TOP PHOTO WHERE THE OVERPASS IS LAID OUT, THE ROAD GRADE IS JUST SHY OF 1F THE LOOP AS IT RUNS UNDER THAT OVERPASS.

IF YOU MEASURE IT TO THE TOP OF THE WALL, IT'S 20 FEET 9.

YOU CAN SEE A BETTER IMAGE ON THE BOTTOM PICTURE.

YOU CAN SEE THE SITE IS RISING UP AS YOU GO AWAY FROM THE SITE.

IT IS MAYBE HALF A MILE TO A MILE LESS THAN HERE.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE TRAVELING FROM WEST TO EAST.

THAT'S PART OF THEIR RATIONAL. I WANTED TO PRESENT THAT ARGUMENT SO YOU UNDERSTAND. WE SENT OUT NOTICES TO THE PROPERTIES. THEY ARE IN THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY. THERE WERE NO PEOPLE THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION OR IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.

THERE'S A LOT TO GO THROUGH. THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK HERE.

JUST TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE THIS, YOU CAN READ IT YOURSELF, BUT THE MAIN POINTS HERE IS THAT THIS BOARD HAS GRANTED VARIANCES FOR SITES THAT WERE LOWER THAN THE GRADE OF AN ADJOINING HIGHWAY. IF YOU FOLLOW THAT LOGIC THE SITE IS 20 FEET 9 INCHES BELOW THE GRADE OF THE HIGHWAY.

SO IF YOU ATTACH 50 FEET TO THAT 20.9, IT IS A VARIANCE OF 70.9 WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE IF OTHER SITUATIONS SIMILAR TO THIS, BUT THEY HAVE KEPT IT WITHIN THE 50-FOOT MAXIMUM SITE HEIGHT. THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY -- IF YOU GO 70.9, HE'S ASKING FOR 100 WHICH IS ACTUALLY 30 FEET ABOVE WHAT WE HAVE ALLOWED OTHER PEOPLE IN THE PAST.

THE SIGN AREA, 855, WE HAVE NEVER HAD A VARIANCE FOR A SIGN OF THAT SCALE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SAYING HERE.

THAT SOME KIND OF A SIGN VARIANCE IS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE. THE OTHER WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THAT SIGN AREA. HE'S INDICATED TO ME ON THE PHONE THE BIGGEST RATIONAL FOR THE SIGN AREA IS THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAVELING PUBLIC CAN SEE THE PRICES OF THE GASOLINE THEY ARE SELLING ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY CAN DO THEIR SERVICES AT THEIR STATION. IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE SIGN HEIGHT OF LESS THAN 100 FEET IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON PAST PRECEDENT. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT -- THE HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY, WE DO SEE THERE IS JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE OF THE SIGN HEIGHT. THE APPLICANT BROUGHT THIS PROPERTY KNOWING THE SIGN WAS IN A SMALL DEPRESSION, RIGHT BY THE HIHWAY AND HILLS AND ACCESS OFF OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY.

SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING.

THEY GOT A TERRIFIC CORNER. ONE DAY THIS CORNER IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE BUSIEST CORNERS IN THE CITY WHEN THE LOOP IS EXTEND ETD -- EXTENDED TO NORTH OF 351, THERE IS GOING TO BE GOBS OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH HERE. UNTIL IT IS OPEN, THEY ARE

[00:10:05]

MAYBE IT IS A CUSTOMER THAT WANTS TO GET GAS.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT DYNAMIC WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

THERE MAY NOT BE A HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF THE SIGN AREA.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE HIGHWAY.

YOU HAVE THE BLUE SIGNS THAT TXDOT THAT PUTS OUT SAYING SERVICES AT THE NEXT EXIT. OR THERE ARE BILLBOARDS WHERE THEY CAN PUT THE PRICES ON THE BILLBOARD WITH ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS WHERE THEY CAN CHANGE THEM IF THEY NEED TO.

THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

TO COMPENSATE FOR THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE SITE RELATIVE TO THE OFF-RAMPS AND GRADE OF THE PROPERTY.

BEFORE I GET TO THE OTHER OPTION THESE ARE YOUR OPTIONS AS YOU LOOK TO MAKING YOUR MOTIONS ON DECIDING WHAT TO DO WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BOTH VARIANCES. YOU CAN HAVE TWO MOTIONS TO APPROVE ONE AND NOT THE OTHER OR VICE-VERSA.

YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN.

THERE IS A MOTION TO REDUCE THE AREA OF THE SIGN FACE.

APPROVE OR DEFY -- DENY EACH VARIANCE.

THERE IS ACTUALLY A SEVENTH OPTION THAT BEFORE I GET TO LOOP OR TO THE SCREEN I'LL DESCRIBE IT.

BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY HAS DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FUTURE LOOP 322 EXTENSION, THEY DO TECHNICALLY HAVE TWO FRONTAGES. IN ABILENE THROUGH THE LDC, EVERY PROPERTY WHO HAS A FRONTAGE HAS THE RIGHT TO A FREE STANDING SIGN. SO LAST WEEK WE DISCOVERED THAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO PUT A 35-FOOT TALL PYLON SIGN ON THE LOOP SIDE SO YOU WOULD END UP -- IF THIS IS GRANTED OR NOT GRANTED, YOU COULD END UP WITH TWO SIGNS.

ONE ORIENTED TOWARD THE FREEWAY AND ONE ORIENTED TOWARD THE LOOP. THAT GETS ME TO THE SECOND OPTION. WE INDICATED TO THE APPLICANT WHAT THEY COULD CONSIDER DOING IS TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT -- THE HEIGHT AND AREA OF THE SECOND SIGN IN ORDER FOR POTENTIAL K -- CONSIDERATION FOR THE OTHER SIGN.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T GET TWO SIGNS THAT 400 SQUARE FEET -- OR 300 SQUARE FEET TALL OR BIG AN AREA AND ONE WOULD BE 35 AND THE OTHER 70 TO 100 FEET TALL. WE THOUGHT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO SCALE THE SECOND ONE DOWN AS POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE OTHER ONE GETTING SOME KIND OF A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA.

SO WITH THAT SAID -- SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PICTURE, THE RED DOTS ARE THE PROPOSED SIGN LOCATIONS.

THE ONE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF THE LOOP AND FRONTAGE ROAD IS THE ONE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE THEIR SECOND SIGN.

SO THEY WOULD BE IN FAIRLY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER AND THAT WOULDN'T LOOK TERRIFIC EITHER IF THEY WERE BOTH BUILT TO THE MAXIMUM AREA THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

SO WHAT WE DID -- THIS IS DIFFICULT.

SO WE ASKED FOR A SIGN DETAIL OF A POE -- POTENTIALLY SMALLER SIGN ON THE LOOP FRONTAGE. SO IN CONSIDERATION OF THAT, WHAT HE DID WAS HE REDUCED THE SIZE -- THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN BY 10 FEET. AND NOW IT IS 90 FEET AS OPPOSED

[00:15:01]

I FEEL LIKE THE MAD SCIENTIST. SO IN CONSIDERATION ON THE SECOND SIGN IS HE WOULD COME BACK TO US WITH THIS SIGN WHICH IS 20 FEET TALL. THE TOP SIGN FACE WOULD HAVE A 64 SQUARE FEET OF AREA AND THE BOTTOM OF THE MESSAGE BOARD WOULD BE ABOUT 48 SQUARE FEET AND YOU HAVE 24 SQUARE FEET KITCHEN SIGN AND SO THAT IS ROUGHLY ABOUT A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> HE IS SCALING DOWN THIS SIGN TO FAR LESS THAN A 300 SQUARE FEET HE WOULD BE ALLOWED AND THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WOULD BE 20 FEET AS OPPOSED TO THE 35 FEET TALL SIGN YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED.

THIS IS A MUCH MORE I THINK MORE PROEP -- APPROPRIATE-SIZED SIGN FOR THE LOOP. HE IS ASKING -- HE IS SAYING I WILL GIVE YOU THIS SMALLER SIGN HERE IN EXCHANGE FOR ADDITIONAL AREA AND HEIGHT ON THE PRIMARY SIGN.

>> HOW MUCH LESS IS THIS THAN THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD REQUIRE NO ACTION BY US AT ALL FOR THIS PARTICULAR SIGN?

>> HE -- HE'D BE ALLOWED 300 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA AND A

HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. >> AND HE'S ASKING FOR?

>> HE'S ASKING FOR ROUGHLY A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET PLUS MINUS 5 OF AREA AND 20 FOR HEIGHT. HE IS LOWERING BY 15 AND DIMINISHING THE SIZE BY OVER I'D SAY 200%.

HE IS ALLOWED 300 AND COMING IN CLOSE TO 100.

THAT'S CLOSE TO 200% REDUCTION OF THE SECOND SIGN.

BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CAN DO -- YOU CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THE MOTIONS PLUS THE MOTION I HAD ORIGINALLY AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THIS AS ANOTHER OPTION AND YOU CAN STILL NEGOTIATE WITH THE APPLICANT AS MUCH AS HE'S WILLING TO REPRESENT THAT HIS APPLICANT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO LOWER THE TALLER SIGN BY SOME MORE AREA OF HEIGHT THAN WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR OR MORE AREA THAN WHAT HE IS PROPOSING THE 155. I WOULD SAY OF ALL THE PARTS VARIANCE, THE MOST CONCERNING TO ME IS THE AREA OF THE TALL SIGN.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- COMING BACK TO ABILENE LAST YEAR, ONE OF THE THINGS I SAW THAT IS IMPRESSIVE IS WHEN YOU DRIVE AROUND THE CITY, ESPECIALLY ON THE FREEWAY AND OTHER HIGHWAYS IS MOST OF THE SIGNS IN THIS TOWN ARE COMPLIANT. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE GOING DONE OF -- DOWN THE FREEWAY. YOU DON'T SEE ANY SIGNS THAT STICK OUT AS BEING EXCEPTIONALLY TALLER THAN ALL THE REST OR EXCEPTIONALLY BIGGER THAN THE REST.

THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. NO ONE BUSINESS HAS AN ADVANTAGE OVER ANOTHER ONE BY HAVING THE BIGGEST SIGN OR THE TALLEST SIGN IN THE AREA. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SIGN VARIANCES ARE THE MOST TRICKY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS LIKE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE HIGHWAY ELEVATION AND THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAYBE WE HAVEN'T BECAUSE PEOPLE GET AN EDGE AND WITH THE SIGN AREA THEY ARE ASKING FOR, IT IS NEARLY 200% GREATER THAN THE NORM.

[00:20:03]

WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AREA IS IT IS QUITE IN EXCESS OF WHAT ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY IS DOING RIGHT NOW.

WITH THAT I'LL ASK QUESTIONS. >> COULD I ADD JUST ONE THING.

YOU HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO VARIANCES HERE. IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION DIFFERENT THAN THE INITIAL SOLUTION PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE EACH OF THOSE -- EACH OF THOSE FINDINGS ADDRESSES BOTH VARIANCES.

YOU CAN'T SAY I'M GONNA MOVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT UNLESS YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY THAT.

SO IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE OTHER OPTIONS, YOU'LL JUST NEED TO ADJUST YOUR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT WHICH EVER OPTION YOU'RE CHOOSING. AND SO YOU CAN STILL VOTE ON EACH VARIANCE SEPARATELY OR DO IT TOGETHER AS LONG AS YOU'RE ADDRESSING EACH VARIANCE WITH YOUR FINDINGS.

I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THAT.

>> IT WAS CONFUSING BEFORE, BUT YOU JUST POLISHED IT.

>> OH, I'M SORRY. >> I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT SUPPORTS ONE OPTION. AND SO IF YOU CHOOSE AN OPTION THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT, YOU WOULD NEED TO ADJUST YOUR

FINDINGS IN YOUR MOTION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR RANDY?

>> ARE WE LOOKING AT TWO SIGNS NOW?

>> NO. FOR THIS CASE TODAY, YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE SIGN. IN OUR BACK POCKET WE KNOW HE IS COMING IN WITH A SECOND SIGN. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT TODAY AND PULL A PERMIT FOR A 300 -- FOR A 300 SQUARE FOOT SIGN THAT'S 35 FEET TALL. WE KNOW HE CAN DO THAT.

WHAT HE IS SAYING IS I WILL CONCEDE SOME OF THE HEIGHT AND THE AREA OF THE SIGN AND MAKE IT LOWER IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR MORE AREA AND HEIGHT ON THE PRIMARY SIGN.

THE VARIANCE IS ONLY FOCUSED ON THE ONE TALL SIGN.

BUT IT IS WITHIN YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS THE SECOND SIGN IN CONSIDERATION FOR EXCHANGE OF

THE SECOND SIGN. >> SO WE CAN'T REALLY DISCUSS OR FIND ANYTHING ON THE SECOND SIGN BECAUSE THE SECOND SIGN FOR OUR PURPOSE DOESN'T EXIST EXCEPT IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE AND WHATEVER DISCUSSION THERE HAS INTERNATIONALLY.

>> THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE -- I'M JUST THINKING UNLESS YOU ARE THINKING FURTHER THAN ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN RESTRICT -- YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS JUST -- CORRECT ME IF I SEE THIS DIFFERENTLY AND I WILL SAY OH, OKAY.

THE WAY I SEE IT IS HIS INTENT WOULD BE TO MAKE A SMALLER SIGN.

LIKE I'LL DO THIS IF YOU GIVE ME MORE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN

-- >> IN THIS CASE I WILL DO LESS.

>> RIGHT. I WILL DO THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE -- UNLESS YOU CAN REMIND ME OF SOMETHING I'M MISSING, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANY ENFORCEABILITY BECAUSE WE HAVE -- BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT SIGN AND HE -- AS A RIGHT HE CAN MAKE IT A CERTAIN SIZE.

>> ACTUALLY I WOULD DEFER. >> I MIGHT BE WRONG ABOUT THAT.

BECAUSE I HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THIS YET.

WE CAN APPROVE 18 CONDITIONS OR NO CONDITIONS OR ONE CONDITION.

IN THIS CASE HE WOULD BE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR A 90-FOOT TALL SIGN AND 855 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AND HIS CONDITIONS WERE HIS SECOND SIGN WAS LIMITED TO 20 FEET AND 100 SQUARE FEET OF

AREA. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

YEAH. I JUST WASN'T THINKING CONDITIONS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADD A CONDITION THAT ANOTHER SIGN ON THIS PROPERTY NOT EXCEED --

>> THOSE LIMITATIONS. >> RIGHT.

>> SINCE WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AREA OF THE SIGN, I CAN LOOK AT IT AND TRY TO MEASURE IT, BUT IT IS LIMITED TO AN AREA OF 110 OR WHATEVER I COME UP WITH REAL QUICK THROUGH CALCULATIONS.

WHEN HE IS DOING HIS PRESENTATION I WILL FIGURE THAT

OUT. >> IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THIS THING CAN'T BE POSTPONED TO PUT THE WHOLE PACKAGE INTO ONE PACKAGE SO IT IS BLACK AND WHITE.

>> YOU CAN CONTINUE IT TO A FUTURE MEETING, CERTAINLY, IF

[00:25:03]

HE'S GOT ALL OF THE TKAU MENTIONS ON THERE -- DIMENSIONS ON THERE SO IT IS EASY TO CALCULATE.

AND THAT IS ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS IT -- IF YOU WANT TO CALCULATE IT. YOU CAN GIVE HIM HIS -- HIM YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS AND HE CAN GO BACK TO HIS CLIENT.

HE MAY COME BACK WITH A SECOND OPTION, BUT THAT'S ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS TO CONSIDER TODAY FOR SURE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR RANDY?

>> YES. IN WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING HERE AS A COMPROMISE -RPBGS -- WE ARE REDUCING THE HEIGHT FOR 10 FEET.

I'M CLEAR ON THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE SIGN.

>> NO CHANGE. >> STAYING AT 855 SQUARE FEET.

>> WE ASKED HIM TO CONSIDER BOTH AND THE RESPONSE HE HAD ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT WAS THAT THE OWNERS FELT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT THE PRICES -- IT IS THE PRICE PANEL.

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

YES, SIR. >> THAT THAT BE UP THERE IN THE FACE OF THE MOTORISTS GOING 70 MILES AN HOUR DOWN THE FREEWAY, THAT THEY WOULD SEE IT AND BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION AND GET OFF THE HIGHWAY. THE PRICE IS THEIR COMPETITIVE EDGE OVER OTHER COMPETITORS OFFERING THE SAME SERVICES ON THE FREEWAY. I WOULD JUST SAY YOU GO DOWN THE FREEWAY AND THE SPEED LIMIT IS ABOUT THE SAME, MAYBE FIVE MILES AN HOUR LESS AND ALL THOSE GASOLINE STATIONS, YOU COME DOWN THE FREEWAY AND YOU HAVE A SON GNAW -- SONOCO AND THEY HAVE A TALL SIGN, BUT THEIR PRICES AREN'T -- THEIR PRICE SIGN IS NOWHERE NEAR THIS. I JUST THINK IT IS A LITTLE -- I THINK IT IS A LITTLE GREATLY EXCESSIVE.

SOMEBODY WANTS YOUR GAS, YOU CAN PUT YOUR PRICES ON A BILLBOARD SIGN OR A MESSAGE BOARD THAT CHANGES WHEN THE PRICES CHANGE

UP AND DOWN. >> NEEDLESS TO SAY THE GEOGRAPHY IN THAT AREA WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY FALLING DOWN INTO THE VALLEY. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ALONG THE FREEWAY, AT LEAST NOT IN MY LIFETIME.

AND AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT IS SOMEWHAT OF A CONCERN SINCE WE WERE MENTIONING FUTURE THINGS, AGAIN, I-20 IS PROBABLY GOING TO SEE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THROUGH THAT AREA THERE IN THE FUTURE.

AGAIN, IT MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE THE MOVEMENT OF THE EXITS TO THE SERVICE ROAD AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT WILL BE MOVED OFF BACK FOR EXITING TRAFFIC ON

351 AND 322. >> RIGHT NOW IT IS REALLY BAD.

IF YOU WANT TO GET OFF TO THE GAS STATION COMING WEST OR EAST, TO GET SERVICES AT THE LOOP BECAUSE IT IS A LOOP AND A MAJOH ANOTHER HIGHWAY AND THEN THERE IS AN OFF-RAMP UP THERE.

BY THE TIME YOU REALIZE THERE IS NOT, YOU HAVE DRIVEN PAST THE STATION AND HAVE TO GO BACK TO IT.

THAT'S A CONSIDERATION. BUT THEN AGAIN, YOU CAN -- A PERSON CAN COORDINATE WITH TEXDOT AND PUT ONE OF THEIR NAMES ON THE BLUE SIGN WHERE IT SAYS SERVICES AVAILABLE AND THEN YOU GET OFF THE HIGHWAY AND THERE ARE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO GET TO YOU YOUR DESTINATION. THOSE ARE ALL REALITIES AND THAT'S WHY IT PROBABLY MAKES BETTER SENSE TO CONSIDER EACH OF THESE ON THEIR OWN MERIT AND THEIR OWN CONSIDERATION OF WHAT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. EACH WILL HAVE ITS OWN UNIQUE SET OF FINDINGS. THERE ARE LAW CHALLENGES WITH THIS LOCATION. THAT IS DEFINITELY CORRECT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH THIS LOCATION.

THAT IS DEFINITELY CORRECT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THESE ARE TWO-SIDED SIGNS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> AND FOR CLARIFICATION, IT IS

WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS? >> RIGHT.

>> AND WITH, IT WILL MEET THE SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS? >> YES.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE HAD QUESTIONS ARE MULTIPLE SIGNS ALLOWED FOR THE SAME LOCATION?

>> YEAH. >> WE HAVE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT

THAT IN DIFFERENT ITEMS. >> HE IS -- AS I SAID BEFORE, HE

[00:30:03]

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THAT'S WHY POTENTIALLY YOU COULD IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PRIMARY SIGN TO HAVE A VARIANT ON THE SECOND SIGN. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO TWO PYLON

SIGNS. >> THERE ARE OTHER GAS STATION SIGNS FURTHER WEST FROM THIS LOCATION.

DO THEY MEET THE 300 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT?

>> THE CLOSEST ONE THAT HAPPENED MOST RECENTLY WAS THE QT SIGN CLOSER TO TOWN. THE GRADE'S NOT AS TERRIBLY DIFFERENT ON THAT ONE. THEY WERE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SIGN HEIGHT TO BE MEASURED AT THE ROAD GRADE.

THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE IS ASKING HERE.

THE SIGN AREA -- I THINK THAT ONE HAS TWO FRONTAGES.

AND THEY WR-BT -- THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO PUT A SMALL SECONDARY SIGN -- THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUT A SECONDARY SIGN THAT WAS MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED IN EXCHANGE FOR 100 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL AREA ON THEIR SIGN ORIENTED TO THE HIGHWAY. SO THAT IS SET -- INSTEAD OF 30.

THAT WAS THE VARIANCE OF THAT MUCH.

100 FEET AS OPPOSED TO IN THIS CASE ASKING FOR 500 FEET.

>> WILL THE SIGN SIGN-IN TER FEAR -- SIGN CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE UTILITY SETBACK OR POWER LINES THAT RUN ACROSS THE

-- >> NO.

NO, SIR. I MEAN, OUR ONLY CONCERN IS THE PRECEDENT FACTOR. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD REASONS TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE, BUT WE'RE CONCERNED WHEN YOU GRANT A VARIANCE, IT BECOMES NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, BUT IT BECOMES A PRECEDENT THAT OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT BE COMING IN TO YOU AND SAID WELL, SINCE YOU DID THIS HERE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS THERE. I THINK THE HEIGHT -- THERE IS DEFINITELY A RATIONAL TO SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET AT LEAST ON THAT ONE. WHERE WE HAVE HEARTBURN IS THE AREA OF THE SECOND. IF IT WAS A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER, FIND -- KIND OF LIKE WHAT THE QT DID.

INSTEAD OF 300 IT IS 400 AND SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT.

IF SOMEBODY HAS A SIGN VARIANCE THAT IS NOT GREATER YOU CAN HAVE OTHER PEOPLE IN TOWN WHO WANT THE SAME CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S WHERE WE FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH. MOST OF THE CITY SIGNS RIGHT NOW ARE COMPLIANT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VARIANCE MIGHT HAVE FOR OTHER PEOPLE WANTING TO COME IN WITH THE SAME CONSIDERATION. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY IF YOU WERE TO -- IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE ANY VARIANCES WHILE YOU MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT WHILE SUPPORTING THIS ONE, SO HOPEFULLY SOMEONE ELSE DOES COME IN YOU CAN DISTINGUISH THIS CONSIDERATION FROM SOMEBODY ELSE WHO MAY HAVE A REGULAR OLD SITE AND SAYS I WANT TO PUT UP A 500-FOOT SIGN TOO.

YOUR FINDINGS WILL HELP YOU AND US IN THE FUTURE FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO BRING A PERIL PRECEDENT FOR THEIR -- PARALLEL PRECEDENT FOR THEIR VARIATION BASED ON WHAT YOU DO HERE.

>> SOME OF THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY IS UNEVEN.

IS THERE MISSION OF FILL CHANGING THE ELEVATION FOR THE

LOCATION OF THE GAS STATION? >> YOU NEED TO ASK THE APRIL -- THE APPLICANT THAT CONSIDERATION.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BECAUSE WHERE THE SIGN IS GONNA BE, YOU CAN'T SEE THE -- SEE THEM TOO WELL.

BUT THE SIGN IS LOCATED BY A -- AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT THAT MUCH LOWER THAN THE GRADE OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT.

THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO PUT SOME FILL IN THERE AND TO RAISE THAT BASE LEVEL.

IT -- ALL OF THE DRAINAGE WILL FLOW FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST AND TOWARD THE LOWER SPOT WEST OF THEM.

I DON'T SEE WHY THEY -- >> IT WAS A 15 -- MY ESTIMATION IT WAS A 15-FOOT MOUND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

JUST WONDERING WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT.

TO ME IF WE ARE BASING IT ON ELEVATIONS THAT WOULD CHANGE THE ELEVATION AND THEY ARE BASING IA VARIANCE I WOULD BASE IT ON THE

[00:35:12]

ALL OF THE GRADES -- ALL OF THE FINAL GRADES OF THE SITE ARE KNOWN. THEY WOULD BE BASING IT NOW ON THE FINAL GRADE AND NOT ON THE GRADE THAT IS THERE TODAY, BUT THE FINAL GRADE WHEN IT IS PAVED AND THERE IS A PEDESTAL DOWN THERE TO PUT THE SIGN ON TOP OF. I THINK YOU ARE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY ARE BASING IT ON SOMETHING THAT IS A FINAL FINISHED GRADE OF THAT PORTION OF THE SITE.

>> SO IF THE GRADE IS 5 FEET HIGHER THAN IT IS CURRENTLY,

DOES THE 20.9 STILL STAND? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MR. ANDERSON, DOES THIS HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE UNCONTROLLED

AIRPORT TO THE EAST THERE? >> NO.

IT IS OUT OF THE FLIGHT PATH. I THINK IT WOULD BE SMART IF ANY VARIANCE IS APPROVED THAT THERE BE SOME KIND OF A CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE F.A.A.

REGARDING -- REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO PUT A BEACON ON TOP OF THE SIGN, A WARNING LIGHT THAT WOULD FLASH TO INDICATE TO THE WORLD THERE IS A UP THERE.

THE AIRPORT IS -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE FLIGHT PATH OFF THE AIRPORT -- I DON'T THINK I HAVE AN IMAGE HERE.

THIS PART OF THE LOOP -- IS THIS MORE NORTHWEST OF THE AIRPORT AND NOT THE DIRECT LINE HEADING NORTH SOUTH OR SOUTH TO -- FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH? I THINK IT HAS A LINE, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE A WORTH WHILE CONDITION TO SAY THAT THEY WILL GET F.A.A. APPROVAL FOR THE HEIGHT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BEACON ON IT. THEY WILL PUT THE BEACON UP THERE. THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT.

WE CAN ASK THEM THAT QUESTION. >> THANK YOU.

I KIND OF HAD AN IDEA LIKE THAT, BUT THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR RANDY? A QUICK ONE? GIN -- GENERAL RETAIL WITH THE GAS STATION?

>> IT IS DEFINITELY PERMITTED USE WITH THAT LOCATION.

>> ANYTHING ELSE. >> QUESTIONS?

>> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD THE UH -- OPPONENT COME IN AND FILL US IN.

>> HELLO. I AM HERE REPRESENTING CITGO AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. MR. ANDERSON HAS DONE A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING. THERE IS NOT A TON EXTRA I CAN BRING TO THE TABLE. HE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB LOOKING AT EVERYTHING. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. THOMAS, WE RUN THEM BY THE F.A.A. SO WE CAN GET A LETTER FROM THE F.A.A. KHRAOEURING -- CLEARING IT FOR THE HEIGHT TO ADDRESS THAT. YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT WITH TEXDOT. WE HAVE SEEN THEIR PLANS AND THEY ARE PRELIMINARY AND SCHEMATIC.

IN ALL HONESTY, THE EASTBOUND EXIT HELPS OUR CASE.

IT IS GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION SO IT HURTS OUR VARIANCE CASE. THE WESTBOUND EXIT WILL BE MOVED FURTHER BACK. THOSE ARE SCHEMATIC SETS.

YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL HOW MUCH IT IMPACTS IT YET.

IT WILL BE MOVING BACK THE WESTBOUND EXIT AND MOVING FORWARD THE EASTBOUND EXIT. SO KIND OF A GIVE AND TAKE THERE A LITTLE OF BOTH. PRICE IS OUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. TEXDOT HAD NO PLANS TO EXTEND THE LOOP. WE ARE DOING THAT ON OUR DIME TO THE CITY STREET STANDARDS AND AT SOME POINT I THINK TEXDOT WILL TAKE THAT OVER AND IT WILL BE A BUSIER INNER -- INTERSECTION.

WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE TRAFFIC TO SEE THE PRICE OF IT LEGIBLY AT THE EXIT IS THE GOAL. THAT'S THE MAIN CONSIDERATION HERE. I THINK BY REDUCING THE HEIGHT AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SECONDARY SIGN AND ADDING IT TO THE PRIMARY SIGN, IT SEEMS LOGICAL AND A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE AND PUTS MORE IN THE CONVERSATION OF WHAT YOU MAY HAVE IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT YOU

[00:40:01]

I UNDERSTAND THE GREAT POINTS MR. ANDERSON MADE AND DON'T ENVY Y'ALL'S DECISION TODAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I

CAN ANSWER? >> IS THERE ANY REASON OR WOULD DELAYING THIS DECISION TODAY BY A MONTH HAVE ANY IMPACT ON

ANYTHING? >> NO, SIR.

WE'RE STILL GONNA -- HOPE -- HOPEFULLY BREAKING GROUND AND FINISHING UP BUILDING PERMIT. A LITTLE BIT OF A GAMBLE CLOSING ON THE SITE AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION.

I DON'T THINK -- IT WOULDN'T HURT TO TABLE IT.

OBVIOUSLY THE SOONER WE GET THE ANSWER THE BETTER SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH -- THEY DON'T JUST HAVE THOSE SITTING IN THE WAREHOUSE. IT MAY TAKE AWHILE TO BUILD THOSE. WE HAVE A LONG LEAD TIME ON CONSTRUCTION ON THE SIGHT -- ON THE SITE.

WE WILL BE CUTTING INTO THAT FIELD.

THAT WILL BE CUTTING DOWN THE GRADE WITH THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE. IT IS FALLING EAST TO WEST AND THEN IT RAISES AS YOU GO BACK NORTH.

IT IS A FLOOD PLAIN ON THE WEST END OF THE SITE.

>> THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHY IS THE OFF SITE SIGN -- SIGNAGE ON

A BILLBOARD NEAR THE EXIT. >> MOST OF THE BILLBOARDS HAVE LONG-TERM LEASES ON THEM. WE USED THEM ON OCCASION.

NOT AS MUCH AS BUCKY'S DOES, AND FEWER LED ONES.

IF Y'ALL RUN INTO THAT TEXDOT DOES NOT GRANT THOSE ANYMORE.

THEY ARE GOLD IF THEY ARE THERE. WE HAVE A SIGHT IN SULFUR SPRINGS THAT HAS A DOUBLE DECKER BILLBOARD ON IT.

WE ARE TRYING TO LEASE THAT WHEN WE FINISH THE SIGN.

THE LEASES ARE TWO TO FOUR YEARS EACH.

IT IS A POSSIBILITY WE WILL BE LOOKING INTO THAT AND THEN IF WE DON'T GET SOME OF THE VARIANCE HERE.

>> WHEN -- WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE SO MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT IS

AT THE QT? >> LEDGE BUILT BEFORE EXIT.

QT IS NOT ALIGNED WITH TOPOGRAPHY, BUT THEIR SET UP IS CLOSER THAN OURS. I THINK IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

WE DO A DRIVE AND HAVE A CRANE OUT THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM THE EXIT.

I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY. HALF A MILE BACK FROM THE EXIT.

>> IT IS IN YOUR PACKET. >> SO IT IS JUST ABOUT BEING ABLE TO READ IT AT THE EXIT LEGIBLY.

WE DON'T WANT THEM TO READ IT AT THE EXIT.

PREFERABLY BEFORE IT SO THEY CAN MANEUVER OVER.

ESPECIALLY WITH THE RIGS. WE HAVE SIX LANES OF DIESEL HERE AND WE DON'T WANT THEM MAKING HASTY DECISIONS FOR EXITING.

>> QUESTION. >> SORRY.

GO AHEAD. >> WHAT DOES A 300 SQUARE FEET

SIGN DO TO YOU? >> WHAT IS THAT?

>> IF IT IS LIMITED TO 300 SQUARE FEET, WHAT DOES THAT DO

TO YOU? >> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD SERVE MUCH OF A PURPOSE AT THAT POINT.

WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO REDUCE SOME OF THE SUPC SIGN, BUT IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO READ THE PRICE WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE

TO EXIT BASICALLY. >> CAN WE GO TO THE SIGN IMAGE? THE ONE WITH THE DIMENSIONS? NOT THAT ONE.

>> THE SECOND IMAGE OF THIS? >> NO.

THE FIRST ONE. >> I THINK IF YOU MINIMIZE THAT

[00:45:02]

ONE THE OTHER ONE WILL COME UP. >> THANK YOU.

>> PART OF IT THE SETCO, SETCO, SETCO, AND WE CAP GET THEM -- GET THEM TO GO DOWN. THE MAJORITY OF THE SQUARE

FOOTAGE IS IN THE PRICE HERE. >> THIS TYPE OF SIGNAGE IS COMMON ALONG I- -- I-20. IS THIS THE SAME SIZE BASICALLY

YOU SEE AT OTHER ENTITIES. >> WE HAVE DONE BIGGER.

WE HAVE DONE SMALLER. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE AND THE GRADE RELATIVE TO THE INTERSTATE.

SO IT JUST DEPENDS. IT IS A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLAR SIGN. WE DON'T TAKE THAT LIGHTLY.

THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO US.

THE LARGER YOU GO, OBVIOUSLY THE BIGGER IT IS AND THE BIGGER THE FOOTER TO SUPPORT IT. WE'VE GOT ONE NORTH OF CAMDEN THAT IS LARGER THAN THIS BECAUSE OF THE EXITS AND WE HAVE ONE IN SULFUR SPRINGS THAT IS SMALLER, A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THIS.

A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH GETTING THE RIGS TIME -- GIVING

THE RIGS TIME TO PULL OVER. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> DO YOU -- DO YOU HAVE PRICE SIGNS THAT ARE 300 SQUARE FEET?

>> YES, WE DO. YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? SEEING NONE IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND -- PUBLIC HEARING.

DISCUSSION. >> I AM REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS THING. I'VE BEEN DOING IT A LONGTIME AND I DON'T GET VERY UNCOMFORTABLE VERY OFTEN.

WE ARE DOING THIS JUST OFF THE CUFF IT SEEMS TO ME.

IT IS NOT DEMEANING TO THE WORK GONE INTO IT.

BUT THIS IS REALLY COMPLICATED TO DO IT.

MAYBE I AM OVER AGING GRADE ON THE FLY.

>> MY OPINION IS THE SITE CONDITIONS DEFINITELY WARRANT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT. THE PART I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THE VARIANCE TO THE AREA, THE SIGN AREA.

UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE CAN BE PRESENTED I DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF RATIONAL FOR THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS WE HAVE TO FIND OTHER THAN THE SITE AND THE FACT THAT THE TEXDOT EXITS FROM THE INTERSTATE ARE IN SUCH A LOCATION THAT IT REQUIRES THAT SIZE TO BE VISIBLE. TO ME THAT'S A VALID -- THAT'S A VALID REASON AND I THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE US AMMUNITION TO ARGUE AGAINST PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP BY SOMEONE ELSE THAT WAS ON A SITE NOT SIMILAR TO THIS.

BUT AGAIN THAT REASON ALONE DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT -- THE FINDINGS WE HAVE TO FIND TO APPROVE IT.

THAT'S MY OPINION. >> THE AREA OF THE SIGN IS STAYING. THAT'S ALL GIVE AND TAKE ON THE

FLY HERE. >> THE PRICE PORTION OF THE SIGN IS ABOUT 600 SQUARE FEET. SO IT IS EVEN DOUBLE THE 300.

[00:50:05]

>> YEAH. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

-- >> I SAY FOR PROPONENT'S BENEFIT ASK FOR A POSTPONE -- POSTPONE MEANT TO HELP FIND SUPPORT FOR WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR, IT'S A HARD SELL.

THE SIGN'S IN ABILENE AND WE REPRESENT THE LONG HISTORY OF SIGNS AND THE BOARD KEEPING IT UNDER CONTROL.

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE TO ALL OF US I THINK THAT WE DON'T GET THEM LOOKING LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH LEGS THAT WE WANT IT BIG SO YOU CAN SEE IT FAR AWAY.

WELL, HOW BIG AND HOW FAR IS A POINT.

AND AGAIN WE ARE TALKING GIVE AND TAKE, THIS SIGN AND THAT

SIGN. >> ALSO I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IT IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

THIS IS A HUGE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF A VARIANCE.

STP THERE WAS A -- IF THERE WAS UH PROPOSAL THAT WAS SAY 400 FEET OR SOMETHING -- AND CUT DOWN THE TRIPLE REDUNDANCY OF THE NAME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SHARE SOME OF THAT IN BRINGING THE SIGN TO A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT THE PRICING SIGN TO A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT COULD BE APPROVED I THINK WOULD BE MUCH MORE PALATABLE TOO.

>> AND IF THERE WERE NO OAR FACTORS -- NO OTHER FACTORS BECAUSE OF THE ROADAGE AND THE DEALS AND WORKING FORGIVE AND TAKE THERE WOULD BE NO SECOND SIGN FOR IT.

IT WOULD BE ONE PROPERTY AND ONE ACCESS WITH ONE SIGN.

SO THE BARGAINING CHIP IS REALLY EXTRA.

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS ADMIRABLE THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE THAT.

>> YES. >> AND THAT SECONDARY SIGN LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOW POINT AND IF IT IS EXTENDED TO THE NORTH THERE AND I APPRECIATE THEM OFFERING THAT UP. IT WOULD BE WORTHY IN CONSIDERATION IN MY OPINION OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE ON THE PRIMARY SIGN WITH THE CONDITION. SO WE COULD ENFORCE IT, BUT I THINK I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE ANOTHER PROPOSAL COME FORWARD THAT IS A LITTLE MORE R-PL -- MORE REASONABLE THAN WHAT THIS ONE IS. ROBERT?

>> THIS ONE IS HARD FOR ME TO SUPPORT BECAUSE OF THE -- YOU KNOW, IT IS CLOSE TO THREE TIMES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND I COULD GO ALONG WITH THE 50 AND THE 20.9 TOGETHER.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.

ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AS TO VISIBILITY AND THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN JUST, OKAY, A HUNDRED FEET, WHICH SEEMS SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY TO ME. BUT I -- IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME

TO SUPPORT WHAT WAS PROPOSED. >> YOU GET THE FEELING WE ARE TRYING TO HELP, THEN WE GOT THE RIGHT FEELING.

>> QUESTIONS? >> LIKE I SAID, THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN.

I'M SURE THE ENGINEERS HAVE FIGURED OUT ALL THE WIND VARIANCE AND ALL THAT TOO. THAT DOES BOTHER ME.

THAT DOES BOTHER ME. SOMETIMES BIGGER IS BETTER AND

SOMETIMES -- >> HAVE I THE SAME THOUGHTS THAT YOU -- I HAVE THE SAME THOUGHTS THAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING.

>> HONESTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IF WE COULD.

I KNOW TIME IS MONEY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANOTHER PROPOSAL IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, SIR.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS -- WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT AT ALL, BUT HOW TO GET THERE WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH, WE NEED A LITTLE MORE HELP TO GET

THERE. >> LIKE MORT SAID, IT'S A

[00:55:06]

>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE -- WELL, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE ARE DONE WITH DISCUSSION AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I MOVE WE TABLE THIS ITEM.

>> UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING MAYBE? >> THE NEXT MEETING OR WHATEVER WORKS FOR THE PROPONENT AS LONG AS NECESSARY.

>> IF YOU'RE READY BY THE NEXT MEETING THEN WE WOULD --

>> SURE. WE WOULD TAKE IT UP AT THE NEXT ONE AND WHATEVER YOU CAN WORK IT INTO DOING.

>> SECOND. >> EVERYBODY'S GOOD?

>> OKAY. IS THAT THE MOTION?

>> THAT'S THE MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> ROBERT ALREADY SECONDED IT. >> SORRY.

I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION THEN. >> WE HAVE SECONDS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY -- A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING MR. THOMAS?

>> YES. >> LANGHOLZ.

>> YES. >> MR. BIERMAN.

>> YES. >> MR. HAY.

>> YES. >> THE MOTION CARRIES TO TABLE

THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU.

[3. BA-2023-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from Bobby Gilbreth for a special exception to expand a nonconforming building by 3,450 sq. ft. located at 2400 S. 14th Street. (Clarissa Ivev)]

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS BA-2023-02, RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY BOBBIE GILBRETH FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING BUILDING BY 34050 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 2400 SOUTH 14TH STREET. CLARISSA?

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CLARISS IVEY AND I AM WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I AM PRESENTING CASE BA-2023-02.

THE REQUEST WAS PRESENTED -- REQUESTED BY BOBBIE GILBRETH TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING BUILDING FOR 3450 SQUARE FEET AT 2400 SOUTH 14TH STREET. THIS BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH 14TH STREET IS CURRENTLY THE WEST TEXAS POOLS AND SPAS AND IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1984 THEY HAVE BEEN AT THAT LOCATION. IT IS IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING AND BEHIND IT WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL AND ACROSS FROM IT WE HAVE THE UNIVERSITY. THIS SWHRAOEUD -- THIS SLIDE SHOWS SEVERAL VIEWS AND YOU CAN NOTICES ON THE TOP RIGHT HAND THE AREA OF PROPOSED EXPANSION. YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT THEY HAV- THEY TREAT THIS AREA LIKE A DISPLAY RE -- RETAIL.

SO THEY ARE WANTING TO ENCLOSE THAT PORTION AND MAKE THEIR -- KIND OF LIKE A SHOWROOM WITHIN THE EXPANSION THEY ARE PAW POSING. HERE IS WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND.

THEY ARE GOING TO DO A 59 BY -- A 59 EXPANSION OF THAT BUILDING THEY PLAN ON ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING AND IN FRONT OF THAT ADDITION -- IN FRONT OF THE ADDITION AND ADDITIONAL PARKING ALONG THE ALLEY. DIDN'T REALLY SPECIFY HOW MANY SPACES THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE.

THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO.

WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION TO A 200-FOOT RADIUS.

WE GOT ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.

FROM THE OPPOSED PERSON WE ALSO GOT A COUPLE PHOTOGRAPHS.

THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN WAS PARKING AND HOW IT BLOCKS THE ROAD. IF I MAY PROVIDE THOSE PHOTOS? SO IN THE LETTER OF THE PERSON OPPOSING, THAT WAS THEIR BIGGEST ISSUE. THE EMPLOYEES DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK EXCEPT ON THE STREET AND IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S HOUSES.

[01:00:06]

THEY ALSO ARE PARKING. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS CASE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

THE EXISTING AND CONFORMING BUILDING CAN BE EXPANDED IN A MATTER THAT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE NON-CONFORMITY AND IT WOULD NOT CREATE A NON-CONFORMING PARKING SITUATION.

IF THE SIZE OF THE EXPANSION WAS REDUCED TO SATISFY THE -- ALL THE UH PHREUB -- APPLICABLE SETBACKS IT WOULD BE UH -- APPROVABLE. THE CURRENT BUILDING IS A NON-CON TP-RPL -- TPH*PB-CONFORMED BUILDING SO DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACKS IN 1953 WE ADOPTED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT IS WHY IT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING -- LEGAL NON-CONFORMING BUILDING TKPWRAPBGT -- GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND POTENTIALLY BE INJURE YOUS TO SITE SO THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR CUSTOMERS TO BACK ON TO A VERY BUSY ARTERIAL STREET.

SO RIGHT NOW THEY PROVIDE -- THEY HAVE ABOUT EIGHT PARKING SPACES MARKED IN FRONT OF THAT BUILDING ON THE TOP LEFT HAND PICTURE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEIR PARKING IS RIGHT ALONG THE FRONT. SO WHENEVER THE CUSTOMERS THAT COME TO THIS BUILDING AND EMPLOYEES THEY ARE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE PARKING SPACES AND THEY HAVE TO EITHER BACK ON TO A STREET OR GRAND AVENUE OR THEY CAN BACK INTO SOUTH 14 AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IS A VERY BUSY STREET.

TYPICALLY PARKING AREAS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CALLS FOR A 24-FOOT MANEUVERING AREA. SO PEOPLE CAN SAFELY GET OUT AND BACK ON TO THE LANE. IN THIS SITUATION THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AND THEY ONLY HAVE EIGHT PARKING SPACES AND RIGHT NOW THEY WOULD TYPICALLY NEED 14 SO I GUESS THAT TAKES YOU TO THE PORTION WHERE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHERE ALL THE CLIENTS AND EMPLOYEES ARE PARKING.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXPAND AS LONG AS THE EXPANSION DOES NOT INCREASE THE STRUCTURES.

STRUCTURES, NONCONFORMITY OR SETBACK.

IT IS TO INCREASE THE SCALE AND IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES ALLOW FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXPAND AS LONG AS THE EXPANSION IS ALSO TKAORBG -- IT DOES NOT ALSO BECOME A NONCONFORMITY.

THEY COULD POTENTIALLY EXPAND AS LONG AS THEY MEET TODAY'S SETBACKS. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING DOES NOT NEED THE TODAY SETBACKS OF 30 FEET FROM THE ARTERIAL AND 2E OF THE LOCAL STREET. SO THEY CAN EXPAND AS LONG AS THEY MEET THOSE SETBACKS AND PARKING.

THE EXISTING AND CONFORMING BUILDING WAS NOT CREATED BY ANY ACTION OF THE PETITIONERS. THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE IN THE EXPANSION OF A BUILDING IF ANY CONSTRUCTION COMPLIED WITH THE UH PHREBGABLE SETBACK -- APPLICABLE SETBACKS OF THE PARKING WHICH IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE BY PROPOSING THE DOUBLE DOWN ON THE ENCROACH --EN KROEFRP -- ENCROACHMENT THAT PERHAPS THE PETITIONER HAS OUT GROWN THE SITE.

SO WHENEVER THE APPLICANT WENT INTO THIS BUILDING IN 1984 THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY EXISTING. THE BUILDING DIDN'T MEET THE SETBACKS. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE -- IT IS NOT A HARDSHIP THEY ARE CREATING THEMSELVES.

THEY ARE JUST WANTING TO EXPAND TO THE SAME SETBACK THAT BUILDING CURRENTLY IS BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE UNLESS THE EXPANSION MEETS SETBACKS AND

[01:05:01]

SO TODAY I HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

Y'ALL CAN MOTION TO APPROVE THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT IS REQUESTED, MOTION TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THE PROPOSED EXPANSION TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LVC. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THE EXISTING FENCE THAT'S ON SOUTH 14TH, DOES IT CONFORM?

>> NO. FOR IT TO BE A CONFORMING FENCE

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- >> NO.

AS IT EXISTS, -- >> NO.

>> IT DOES NOT CONFORM CURRENTLY?

>> CORRECT. >> AND IS PART OF THE PARKING PROPOSAL FROM THEM, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE ALLEY?

>> YES. COMING IN THROUGH THE ALLEY INTO PARALLEL PARKING WOULD BE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

>> OKAY. AND IS PARKING ALLOWED ON THE

SETBACK AREAS? >> YES.

WELL, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MANEUVERING AREA, BUT GIVEN THAT IN OTHER CASES WHERE YOU COME INTO THE PROPERTY AND HAVE YOUR PARKING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND YOU'RE PULLING FROM YOUR PROPERTY INTO THE PARKING, THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY ALLOWED.

PRETTY MUCH ALL THE MANEUVERING HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN THE PROPERTY -- WITHIN THE PARKING LOT.

SO YES THEY CAN HAVE A PARKING LOT IN THE SETBACK.

BUT THEY HAVE TO BACK INTO THE PROPERTY.

>> THE STAFF REPORT KIND OF INFERS THAT THE EXPANSION COULD TAKE PLACE AND COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COULD YOU EXPAND ON HOW THAT WOULD BE DONE?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO MINIMIZE THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE TO WHERE IT WOULDN'T MEET 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTH 14 SETBACK AND THEN THEY CONTINUE ON THE ALLEY -- THE ALLEYWAY AS IS.

IT JUST HAS TO BE MOVED BACK. >> IT COULDN'T BE DONE TO THE

MAGNITUDE THEY WANT. >> CORRECT.

YES. AND THEN OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE PARKING TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING EVEN THOUGH NOT ALL OF THE MANEUVERING IS DONE IN THE AREA.

>> THE SIGN LOOKS LIKE IT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY.

IS IT? >> YES.

>> WHAT WILL IT INTERFERE WITH? >> SO WITH THE PARKING, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BACK UP AND TURN AROUND INSIDE THEIR PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW THEY WOULD BE BACKING INTO THE ALLEY AND DOING THAT IN THE ALLEY OR BACKING INTO SOUTH 14 AND DOING THAT -- MAKING THE TRAFFIC BACK UP ON SOUTH 14.

TYPICALLY THE SIZE OF A PARKING SPACE IS 8 BY 16 FEET SO CAN'T EXACTLY RECALL WHAT THE -- HOW FAR THE BUILDING SETS BACK FROM THE ALLEY. I THINK THERE IS JUST ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE PARKING ITSELF. SO I THINK IT IS ABOUT 10 OR 12 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE TO WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE ALLEY IS. SO IT IS ONLY ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE PARKING. IT WOULD BE BACKING INTO THE ALLEY. AND IN THE FRONT, YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE, BUT NOT A WHOLE LENGTH OF A CAR.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO BACK INTO SOUTH 14TH.

>> ACTUALLY I DON'T FEEL LIKE MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.

WHERE IS THE BASE OF THE SIGN? IN LOCATION TO WHERE IT IS IN

[01:10:01]

PARKING WOULD YOU -- WOULD BE? >> IT IS GOING TO BE OUT OF THE WAY WHERE THEY ARE BRA POSING THE -- PROPOSING THE PARKING.

THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY ARE PAW POSING PARKING ON THE CORNER AREA AND THEY ARE WANTING TO EXTEND PRETTY MUCH AS FAR AS THAT SIGN WILL ALLOW. I DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE REMOVING THAT TO MAKE SPACE FOR THE EXPANSION AND HE MENTIONED THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE INTERFERING AND THAT THE SIGN WOULD REMAIN AND THERE IS ENOUGH CLEARANCE FROM THE EXPANSION TO THE SIGN.

>> WOULD IT HELP TO SHOW THE AERIAL OR THE PLANNING AREA TO SHOW WHERE THE SIGN IS. THAT SIGN SITS.

>> IS THAT A HOUSE TO THE NORTH OF THE BUILDING?

>> YES. THAT IS A HOUSE THEY RECENTLY ACQUIRED AND THEY HAVE REZONED IT.

I GUESS -- >> I GUESS IT IS COMMERCIAL?

>> YES. IT HAS BEEN REZONED.

>> WHAT THIS REALLY DOESN'T SHOW IS THE TOP OF THE -- TO THE TOP OF ONE BUILDING THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH MY VOICE.

THEY FILLED THAT WHOLE AREA WITH BUILDINGS SO IT IS NOT EMPTY AT

ALL. >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLARISSA?

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

>> AT THIS POINT I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WHAT THE PROPONENT COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

I GUESS THAT'S NOT YOU. OKAY.

HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION AND I'M ASSUMING THEY WERE NOTIFIED?

OKAY. >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE ANY ACTION WITHOUT HAVING THEM TO HEAR IT -- BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. CERTAINLY THERE ARE MANY

QUESTIONS. >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST HEAR THEIR SIDE OF THE

STORY BEFORE WE WOULD ACT ON IT. >> WE STILL NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. JUST DON'T FORGET.

>> YEAH. ANYONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION.

THANKS FOR CLARIFYING. >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN REACH A DECISION WITHOUT HAVING THE PROPONENT HERE.

IT IS NOT A FAIR DECISION. WE CAN REACH A DECISION CERTAINLY, BUT IT MAY NOT BE FAIR.

>> YEAH. WITHOUT THE PROPONENT, I CAN'T GET THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ANSWERED.

SO IT'S EITHER POSTPONE OR DENY. THAT'S MY OPINION AT THIS POINT.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE PROPONENT FOR US TO TABLE. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

>> SO MOVED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING. MR. THOMAS.

>> YES. >> LANGHOLZ.

>> YES. >> RIXEY.

>> YES. >> BAREAN.

>> MR. HAY. >> YES.

A LOT OF WORK THIS MORNING WITH NO RESULTS.

>> WE NEVER HAD A NEW PERSON JOIN THE PANEL UNDER STRANGER

[01:15:01]

SO ATTA GIRL. >> DID WE APPROVE MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING? I THINK WE -- OKAY.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR CHECKING.

>> I WILL HAVE TO -- MORGAN WILL HAVE TO SIGN THOSE FOR US

BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE. >> YEAH.

>> DO YOU HAVE THE COPY OF THE ONES I HAVE TO SIGN?

>> ONE QUICK THING FOR THE TABLE, THE NEXUS POOLS AND SPA, I WOULD LIKE AN OVER HEAD WITHOUT ANYTHING, JUST A PLAIN OVERHEAD SO WE CAN SEE WHAT ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE THERE.

>> MAKE IT AS BIG AS POSSIBLE SO YOU CAN HAVE DEFINITION.

>> TAKE THE YELLOW HASH AREAS OUT.

>> AND I WOULD MAKE AN INPUT THAT IF THEY CAN GIVE US A LITTLE BETTER SITE PLAN THAT WHAT WAS PROPOSED THAT SHOWS WHERE THE PARKING WOULD BE AND WHAT THE NUMBERS OF THE PARKING

SACES WOULD BE. >> THE DIMENSIONS TO THAT?

>> YES. SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE MORE THAN JUST THE BACK OF A NAPKIN DEAL.

>> AND THEY ACTUALLY CAN GO WIT. WE'LL KEEP IT IN OUR FILE.

>> VERY INTERESTING. >> OKAY.

I THINK WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THE AGENDA, SORT OF.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> I MOVE. >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> I.

>> STAND ADJOURNED. >> WEIRD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.