Video index

1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on March 14, 2023.

2. BA-2023-01; (Tabled) 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)

3. BA-2023-02; (Tabled) 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 buUding by 3,450 sq. ft. located at 2400 S. 14th Street. (Clarissa Ivev)

Apr 11, 2023 Board of Adjustment

1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on March 14, 2023.

2. BA-2023-01; (Tabled) 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)

3. BA-2023-02; (Tabled) 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 buUding by 3,450 sq. ft. located at 2400 S. 14th Street. (Clarissa Ivev)

Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on March 14, 2023.]

[00:00:13]

MEETING TO ORDER. TWO HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO START THE

MEETING? >> MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY ARE FROM PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES. SO, THE FIRST ONE IS

[2. BA-2023-01; (Tabled) 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)]

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REMOVE TH FIRST ITEM.

>> MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> BOTH OF THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY ARE FROM PREVIOUS MEETIN MINUTES. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF WHIC MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING FOUR FAVORABLE VOTES ARE NEEDE TO APPROVE REQUESTS OR CONSIDERATION. THE SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THI DATE TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS IF ONE IS REQUIRED. A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE SUPPORTED IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING. A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY THE REQUEST IS APPROVED. THAT MUST BE AFTER THE MEETING HAS ADJOURNED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT WILL NOT BE RECONSIDERED UNTIL THRE MONTHS FROM THE STATE. THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COURT OF RECOR . IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE STATE. WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO IS COMING FORWARD TO PRESENT THE CASE TODAY. YOU MUS BE IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHI 10 DAYS FROM THE STATE. WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO IS COMIN FOR TO PRESENT A CASE TODAY. SO IF YOU PLAN TO COME TO THE LECTERN ON BEHALF OF A CASE TODAY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BU THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS BA-2023-01 TABLED FROM THE RECEIVE HE IS PREVIOUS MEETING, TO REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING, AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE END TO DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL EVERETT FOR A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM, 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT FIRST SIGN HEIGHT LOCATED AT 2024 EAST

OVERLAND TRAIL. >> IN MORNING, BOARD MEMBERS. I AM RANDY ANDERSON. I AM GOING TO GO OVER THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE THAT WAS PRESENTED LAST WEEK. THE REQUEST, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, WE WERE ASKING FOR A HEIGHT OF 50 FEET WHERE ALLOWED . THIS IS A COMPOSITE OF ALL THE AREAS , AN 300 SQUARE FEET IS ALLOWED. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE INTERSECTION OF LUKE 22 EVENTUALLY , WE ARE IN THE AREA THAT IS SHADED ON THAT MAP, THE LOOP WILL EVENTUALLY EXTEND FROM AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NORTH FROM STATE HIGHWAY 351 T THIS PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF THAT THIS APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED A SIGN O EACH FOOTAGE. THERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE SIGNS IN THE FACILITY. SEE THE HIGHLIGHTING

[00:05:05]

TO THE WEST OF THE REGIONS AND OVERPASS. IT IS ALL PRETTY MUC UNDEVELOPED. THIS IS WHAT THE IMAGE WAS THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT LIMIT. THEY REDUCE THE HIGH O THE SIGN OF THE MEETING THAT WAS TABLED LAST MONTH. THIS IS CATCHING ME BACK UP ON WHERE WE HAVE BEEN. THERE IS THE SIGN LOCATION , SOME OF THEM RAILED ALONG THE TRAIL. WHAT WE CONSIDERED LAST TIME WAS THE ELEVATION OF THE HIGHWAY ABOVE THE AREA WHERE THE SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED. IT'S ABOUT 21 FEET ABOVE THE SITE ELEVATION. WE DID SAY LAST TIME THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COUNCI , LOOKING AT THE QT SIGN , THEY FAVORABLY GAVE SOME CONSIDERATION IN GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE QT SIGN. SO, WE WERE MAKING THE POINT THAT YES, THERE IS SOME REASONABLE NEED FOR SOME CONSIDERATION FO ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. STILL, NOBODY HAS COMMENTED IN OPPOSITION OR FAVOR OF THE SIGN SO, THIS IS STILL CURRENT INFORMATION. I WANT TO STICK T THE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR A MINUTE. I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOM NEW INFORMATION THAT WE DID NOT HAVE LAST MONTH. THIS IS A NICE GOOGLE MAP IMAGE FROM FROM THE HIGHWAY 20 ROADBED . YOU CAN SE HOW THAT SIGN IS ABOUT 20 FEE ALSO FROM THE GRADE OF THE ROADBED. CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN IN CONSIDERATION WITH THE HEIGH OF THE SIGN, THE 50 FOOT HEIGHT TO BE MEASURED FROM THAT GREAT OF THE HIGHWAY. SO, THAT SIGN HERE IS 75 FEET IN HEIGHT. BECAUSE OLD ANSON THE ROAD ISN'T A STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ROAD, THEY ALLOW A SECOND SIGN THAT CAN EVENTUALLY BE BUILT TO BE 60 FEET IN THE AREA. SO, THEY DID CONSIDER THAT THE HIGHWAY WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR SOME REASONABLE LISTING , AND HOW THE SITE COULD BE MEASURED.

AT THE MEETING LAST TIME, THEY ALSO OFFERED SOME CONCESSION WITH REGARDS TO A SECOND SIGN . IN THIS UPDATED SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN IS ON THE CORNER OF OVERLAND TRAIL. THIS WOULD BE A SECONDARY SIGN . THE HEIGHT OF THAT SIGN -- THE HEIGHT AND AREA OF THE SIGN WA REDUCED WAY LOWER THAN WHAT THEY WERE PERMITTED . THEY HAD 35 FOOT TALL SIGN OVER THE LOOP , AND I THINK IT'S 300 SQUARE FEET. SO, THEY DO NOT FEEL LIK THE SIZE WAS APPROPRIATE IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE MAIN SIGN SO, THEY DID OFFER A SMALLER VERSION OF THE SIGN AT THAT LOCATION , AND I WILL REVIEW THAT IMAGE WITH YOU HERE IN A SECOND. SO, NOW, GOING FORWARD THEY HAVE DONE WITH THEIR EXHIBITS IS THAT THEY HAVE LEFT THE SITE HEIGHT AT 90 FEET , THEY REDUCED THE AREA OF THE SIGN FROM 855 DOWN TO 523 SQUARE FEET. BASICALLY, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY TOOK DOWN TH FLASHING LIGHT , AND THEY JUST LEFT THE DIESEL PRICING SIGN O THERE. SO, THEY HAVE COME DOWN CLOSER TO WHAT THE CITY HAS GRANTED AS PART OF THE QT A FEW YEARS AGO. HERE IS A SECONDARY SIGN . THE SIGN HAS , LET'S SEE , IT HAS AN AREA OF 133 FEET , AND THE HEIGHT OF 20 THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED OTHERWISE THAT WAS NOT PART OF

[00:10:01]

THIS VARIANCE CONSIDERATION. THEY HAVE ALSO DESIGNED AND UP WITH SOME NICE DECORATIVE STONE AROUND THE SIGN, SO IT LOOKS A LITTLE MORE STREET APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ALONG THE HIGHWAY . IS DEFINITELY DESIGNED UP OVER THE OTHER SIGN THE PICTURES THAT I THINK WERE IN YOUR PACKET LAST TIME THAT I WANT TO GO OVER QUICKLY IS , WHEN YOU CONSIDER HEIGHT, THIS WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGN. THE TOP OF THAT CRANE , THAT'S 100 FEET. IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR 90, YOU COULD SUBTRACT ABOUT 10 FEET, AND IF YOU FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT IS , WERE ASKING, BASED ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION, THAT THEY ALLOWED 75 FEET. SO, YOU CAN IMAGINE YOUR HEAD WHAT 25 FEET WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO WHA THE QT WAS GIVEN DURING THAT APPLICATION. THESE ARE SOME PICTURES WHERE THE APPLICANTS SUPERIMPOSED , IF YOU'RE DRIVIN WESTBOUND ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY , YOU CAN SEE THE POST SIGN AT THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT OF 100 FEET, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE APPROVED AT 100 FEET. COULD SUBTRACT THE FIVE FEET FROM THAT , OR THE 10 FEET THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, AND SEE HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT HEIGHT VISUALLY ALONG TRAFFIC. THERE IS DEFINITELY A WISE VENTILATION TO THE EAST. KNOW THE CYCLE WILL SINK DOWN, WHICH IS PART O THE CONSIDERATION THAT THEY WER ASKING FOR. AND HERE IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE . THE FIRST ONE WAS MILE . THE FIRST ONE WAS HALF A MILE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE OFFRAMP, AND HERE IT IS . THESE ARE IMAGES THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR WITH HEIGHT. GOING BACK TO YOUR OPTIONS , THESE ARE THE SAME A WE TALKED ABOUT LAST MONTH. YO CAN MAKE A SINGLE MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH , A SINGLE MOTION TO DENY BOTH , YOU CAN MAKE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ONE AND DENY THE OTHER , YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN . WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS SOME OTHER NUMBER. YOU CAN THE AREA OF THE SIGN . YO CAN ALSO IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , SUCH AS, IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION THAT THEY SELF IMPOSE THE HEIGHT AND AREA IN THE SECONDARY SIGN IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE PRIMARY SIGN. I GUESS, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TODAY, AND EIGHTH OPTION WOULD BE TO TABLE IT AGAIN FOR ONE MONTH. THEY WERE MADE AWARE THAT THE EATING WAS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY . IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT, THEY PROVIDED THESE EXTRA EXHIBITS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST . I AM SURPRISED THEY ARE NOT HERE TODAY , SEEKING CONTINUE TO TABLE ITS, OR YOU CAN STILL DENY BOTH IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE. BUT, THAT IS WHAT WHERE WE AR AT RIGHT NOW. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU! ANYTHING FURTHER, OR ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND.

>> IS SIMPLY AS YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN , COULD YOU STATE THE DIFFERENCES FOR THE CODE STANDARDS, IF YOU WOULD , TO WHAT THEY CHANGE THEM TO NOW? WHAT IS THE SIGNAGE ON THE TAL ONE WITH THE AREA THAT THEY AR ALLOWED TO HAVE , AND WHAT THE ARE PROPOSING NOW , AND A SAME THING WITH THIS THE GENERAL FIELD WITH THE DEVIATIONS . THE ARITHMETIC IS JUST HITTING TOO

HARD FOR MY OLD EYES. >> WE HAVE TO DO THAT. I WILL G BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE. THIS IS REFERENCE IN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY CAME IN WITH . THIS ALLOWS 50 FEET FOR SITE LINE.

THE CITY COUNCIL, IN THE YEARS HAVE GIVEN SOME CONSIDERATION

[00:15:04]

FOR THE SITE RELATIVE TO THE ROAD. IF YOU USE THAT LOGIC , THE HIGHWAY IS 21 FEET ABOVE THE GRADE OF THE SITE. SO, IF YOU ADD THIS TO THE 21 FEET, IT WOULD BE 71 FEET. CITY COUNCIL ALLOWED THE QT TO HAVE 75 . I WE WERE TO FOLLOW THAT SAME LOGIC , IT WOULD GO 75 HERE , AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS GIVEN FOR SOME KIND OF CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR SITE BEING IN A WHOLE. AS FAR AS TH AREA OF THE SITE GOES, 300 FEET IS ALLOWED FOR THE PRIMARY AND SUBDIVISION. THE ORIGINALLY CAME IN WITH 800, THEY REDUCE THAT TO 522 . THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR THE QT IS 450.

WITH THE CONDITION THAT LIMITED THE HEIGHT IN THE AREA ON THE SECOND SIGN ALSO , THE LOGIC IS IF YOU HAVE A HUGE SIGN, FIGHTING THE SECOND ONE THAT IS JUST ABOUT AS BIG? THAT ONE WA APPROVED ON THAT BASIS , BUT THIS IS A SIMILAR REPEAT OF THA LOGIC. A SECOND SIGN IS A LOT MORE SMALLER THAN WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE SQUARE FEET. LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE WAS I GOIN TO SAY? AND THEY ARE DESIGNING IT UP. IN ADDITION HERE , THIS OLD ROAD IS JUST A VARIETY ARTERIALS STREET. THIS WOULD B A STATE SYSTEM HIGHWAY. SO, WE ARE ASKING FOR 133 FEET FOR TH AREA OF THE SECONDARY SIGN . THEY ARE UPSIZING IT JUST A LITTLE BIT , BECAUSE IT'LL EVENTUALLY -- IF YOU'RE HEADIN NORTHBOUND , THERE WILL STILL B A BIGGER SIGN THAN SIX FEET.

JUST TO BE ORDER TO SEE IT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HIGHWAY. IF THIS REQUEST WERE TO FOLLOW CITY COUNCIL LOGIC WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE QT, 450 WOULD MATCH WITH CITY COUNCIL DATED WITH A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET WOULD MATCH WITH CITY COUNCIL DID , AND THE SECONDARY SIZE IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT COUNSEL DID, BUT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE IN THIS CASE , BECAUSE THIS IS A FOUR LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR LANE ARTERIAL STREET. YOU CAN SEE PRETTY WELL WHAT IS GOING ON. SO, THAT IS WHAT THE CODE SAYS. WITH CITY COUNCIL AS DON IN CONSIDERATION FOR THESE HIGHWAYS, WE TRY TO FOLLOW IT AS BEST WE CAN, BUT WE DID NOT WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE SIGN CODE HER USUAL PRECEDENT WHERE PEOPLE ON OTHER PARTS OF THE HIGHWAY , LIKE BUFFALO GAP , THEY DO WANT TO HAVE AN EXPLOSION OF SIGN AREAS THERE , JUST YOU CAN HELP PULL PEOPLE OFF THE HIGHWAY. I THINK CITY COUNCIL DID A GOOD JOB ON FINDING A LINE THAT MADE SENSE WITHOUT GIVING UP THE SIGN ORDINANCE . EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT HERE, YOU CAN STILL APPROVE A VARIANT , OR DENY VARIANCE , WHICHEVER IS YOUR PREROGATIVE, OR TABLE THEM . YO HAVE ALL THE OPTIONS AT YOUR DISPOSAL. SPUNK IF I COULD ADD ONE MORE THING, WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO HANDS OF ACCEPTANCE FROM THIS REQUEST, WHETHER YOU DO ONE MOTION OR TOGETHER, YOU'D STILL FIND THE GRANT A VARIANCE, YOU NEED TO HAVE THOSE FINDINGS SUCH AS THE PECULIARITY OF THE LIEN AND , AND THE NON-FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.

HELPFUL, I APPRECIATE IT. >> IT WAS HELPFUL. THE PARTS THAT I AM STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ON , THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN MAKES SENSE TO ME. IF YO GO BACK TO THAT OTHER SLIDE --

>> YEAH, AND YOU SEE THESE SIGN ALL UP AND DOWN ON 20 THAT HAV GAS, AND DIESEL, AND WHAT COMPANIES ARE PRODUCING THAT.

[00:20:05]

I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T WANT THESE MASSIVE, MASSIVE SIGNS . A 75 TO 100 FEET IN THE AIR, THAT WILL LOOK GOOD AT ALL. IT IS JUST CONFUSING TO ME, BECAUSE, AT 30 FEET, WHICH IS OUR CODE , EVEN KNOCKING IT DOWN TO JUST A SIMPLE DIESEL SIGN , YOU ARE STILL TWICE THE SIZE OF THAT, ALMOST. I DON'T KNOW, THAT IS WHERE IT IS A WILL THEY CONFUSING TO ME ON WHY THAT COD IS SO SMALL.

>> THE CODE WAS WRITTEN FOR EVERYWHERE COMMERCIAL IN TEXAS.

THE LOGIC, LEGALLY, AS YOU WAN TO TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY. WHE COMPETITORS NOT HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER ANOTHER COMPETITOR. EACH WILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF SIGN AREA.

ABILENE HISTORICALLY HAD AN IMAGE SIGN PROLIFERATION ISSUED AT THE TIME. IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE TOWN NOW, THE SIGNS ARE PRETTY MUCH CONSISTENT . THEY RAISED THE HEIGHT FROM WHEN I WAS HERE BACK IN THE '80S, THAT HEIGHT HAS GONE UP .

MOST OF THE SIGNS IN TOWN ARE STAYING WITHIN THAT HEIGHT. TH ONE EXCEPTION CITY COUNCIL MADE WAS FOR THE QT, AND THE SIGN RIGHT HERE AS PROPOSED IS ONLY 70, I HAVE TO DO MATH IN MY HEAD, IS ONLY 73 FEET ABOVE, AND 450 WAS WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED FOR FOR HEIGHT. THIS HEIGHT IS 90 , AND WITH CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S ABOUT 75. SO, THEY HAVE COME CLOSER TO THE MARK . I THINK THEY HAVE ROOM T GO DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER, AND THEY HAVE COME DOWN CONSIDERABL FROM 855 ORIGINALLY DOWN TO 523. SO, THEY HAVE MADE SOME CONCESSIONS TO TRY TO MAKE IT CLOSER TO THE MARK FOR THE PRECEDENT THAT CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED IN 2020. IT'S BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEND NUMBER, EAST OF THE PREROGATIVE WITH MERITS, OR LACK OF ADDITIONAL MERITS. THEY ARE BOTH PRETTY FAMILIAR . THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THAT QT HAS , I 20 I AN AREA THAT IS FLAT. A COUPLE MY LIST OF THE SIGN , IT IS LEVEL IN THIS LOCATION , AND BETWEEN 351 AND THE SITES THAT YOU HAVE , AND THE SITE FALLS DOWN TO WHERE IT IS PRESENTED. SAME THING, IT IS IMPROVISED.

IN THE SITE FALLS DOWN, SEE DON'T HAVE THAT SAME LONG-RANG

VISIBILITY, >> CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BU IF YOU ARE COMING WESTBOUND ON I 20 , EVEN AT HALF A MILE PICTURE THAT YOU PULLED UP , THERE IS STILL NOT AN EXIT RIGH TO THEIR . IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON GETTING GAS, YOU'LL STILL HAVE TO COME AROUND TO THE 351 EXIT SIDE AND CIRCLE THEIR WAY BACK AROUND. THERE IS AN EXIT RIGHT THERE?

>> YES, THERE IS AN EXIT. I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ON A PLAN , SO I CAN'T SAY THAT THIS IS WHA THE GOSPEL DOES , BUT FROM I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID, WHAT IS SHOWN HERE WILL BE LOCATED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER EAST OF THIS

LOCATION. >> IT WILL COME BACK UP?

>> YES. SO, YOU HAVE MORE SPACE FOR THE OFFRAMP, SO YOU CAN STACK MORE CARS . RIGHT NOW, THIS OFFRAMP IS BASED ON A RURAL VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, WHICH IS NOT VERY MUCH , BUT WHEN THE LOOP DOES GO THROUGH THERE, IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE AN URBAN TYPE INTERSECTION . SO, YOU WANT TO LEAVE YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE TO STACK CARS BACK UP TO THE HIGHWAY AND DOWN BELOW. THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE FURTHER OUT. THAT IS WH YOU HAVE ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTIO RIGHT NOW IN THIS AREA.

>> AND HER THOSE DEPICTIONS WITH WHAT THEY REQUESTED? OR A

[00:25:05]

THE REDUCED HEIGHT? >> THIS SHOWS 100 FEET , SO, THEY DO NOT UPDATE THIS TO SHO 90, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THAT MUCH DIFFERENT. YOU STILL HAVE VISIBILITY OF THIS.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THAT BUILDING COULD OBSTRUCT THINGS IF IT

WERE REDUCED. >> YOUR IS THE QUARTER MILE YO SEE ON THE BUILDING. YOU WON'T HAVE TO DRIVE VERY MUCH MORE .

WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS IF THEY PLAN ON CUTTING THIS DOWN TO A LOWER GRADE , BUT RIGHT NOW, THEIR SING THAT THEY ARE NOT.

THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY OTHER PURPOSE THE INTERSECTION THAT CAN SHOW WITH THE PROPERTIES OU THERE ARE ACTUALLY NEEDING. SO THIS MIGHT BE THE CONDITION OF WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING LIKE. IT APPEARS THAT THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS HIGHER FOR THE HIGHWAY. BU WHEN YOU GET UNIT INTERSECTION, THEY WILL CUT IT DOWN , AND GE

DOWN TO THE INTERCHANGEABLE . >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES . IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AND TH OTHER SITE IS THAT THERE ARE TWO MAJOR DIFFERENCES. ONE IS THE QUIKTRIP SITE IS NOT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY , AND SECOND OF ALL, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT RAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE EYE 20 COURT ORDER HERE THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED AT QUIKTRIP. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU MENTIONED THE SIGN ORDINANCE , AND THAT IMPLIES T CITY RULES. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO ACCOMMODATION FOR A SITE THAT IS LONGING TO SAY HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED TO A CITY

ORATORIO'S STREET? >> THE WAY THAT WORKS IS WRITTE RIGHT THERE. THAT IS CORRECT. LOOKING AT THIS CASE, GOING BAC TO WHAT KELLY SAID ABOUT FINDINGS, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THOSE DISTINCTIONS , THERE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT OF WHY YOU THINK THIS SIGN DESERVES ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION , YOU CAN DO THAT. THE ELEVATION IS FAIR GAME . THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN , IF IT IS BLOCKED BY OTHER BUILDINGS , WE CAN MAKE ALL KINDS OF FINDINGS TO HELP DISTINGUISH THE SIGN FROM ANOTHER CASE COMING IN THE FUTURE . I JUST WANT TO USE THI AS A PRECEDENT. THAT IS WHY SH AND I ALWAYS SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS BUILDING , SEE HAVE TO SPECIFY BASED ON THIS FINDING, THIS FINDING, AND ASSIGNING THAT THIS WARRANTS SOME UNREASONABLE CONDITIONING OR SITUATION THAT THE SITE HAS FIRST ON LOCATION.

>> MY FINAL QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOMETHING TO APPROVED FOR QUIKTRIP , THE NUMBERS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE

AGENDA NEED TO BE CHANGED . >> RAY.

>> I THINK YOU NEED TO GO DOWN TO 25 WITH HEIGHTS, BECAUSE WE

WOULD BE APPROVING 75. >> 50 IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS. YOU CAN MAKE A FINDING THAT BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION O THE SITE, YOU FEEL LIKE THERE I CONSIDERATION TO WARRANT SOME ADDITIONAL HEIGHT , AND HE SAID IT IN A NUMBER, IF THAT'S 90 FEET THAT THEY PROPOSED, OR 75 FOR QUIKTRIP, OR SOME OTHER

NUMBER -- >> MY POINT IS THAT THE AGENDA ITEM SAYS A 50 FOOT ADDITION T THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT. THAT MEANS WE ARE PROVING A 100 FOOT SIGN. THAT'S THE WAY THE AGEND

ITEM IS WRITTEN. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR HAY. YOU ARE CORRECT. IT DEPEND WHAT YOU GRANT. IF YOU GRANT A 50 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT, YOU HAVE A 100

[00:30:02]

FOOT SIGN. IF YOU GRANT A 40 FOOT VARIANCE --

>> IF WE DO 25, WE CAN GIVE YOU WHAT WE GAVE TO QUIKTRIP.

>> DOES THAT FOLLOW? >> YES, I WAS NOT SURE WHAT YO

ARE SAYING. >> IF WE GIVE YOU A 300 FOOT VARIANCE, THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN 800 FOOT SIGN. IF THE COUNCIL ALLOWED FOR 50 FOR QUIKTRIP -

>> SO, A 230 FOOT VARIANCE? >> YES. IF YOU APPROVE THE WA THAT THE AGENDA ITEM IS WRITTEN , THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ASK FOR.

>> IF WE APPROVE THE WAY THE AGENDA ITEM IS WRITTEN , THE WA I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY ASKING FOR --

>> OUR CONSENSUS THINKING NOW I IT SHOULD BE . WE ARE GIVING TH

MORE THAN THEY ARE ASKING FOR. >> YES, BUT THEIR DIFFERENCES T

THE SITE. >> YEAH, BUT THEY STILL DON'T NEED THE FULL AMOUNT. GIVE THEM MORE THAN THAT.

>> THE POINT IS, IF WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AND NOT GIVE THEM WHA THEY ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY THE MOTION IS STATED COMPARED TO WHAT IS PRINTED. THAT IS MY

POINT. >> IN IT EASIER WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT -- THAT EASIER THE MORE CLEAR WAY TO PUBLISH THAT WOULD BE IF YOU ALL CAN AGREE ON A NUMBER FOR HEIGHT, THEN THE VARIANCE WILL BE, LET'S SAY, 75, AND THE VARIANCE IS 25 FEET. IF THE NUMBER YOU SETTLE FOR OF THE AREA IS --

>> THAT'S GETTING TOUGH AGAIN. >> OF ITS 500 FEET, THE THEN TH

VARIANCE IS 200 FEET. >> THIS FORM IS GETTING A LITTL DIFFERENT. SINCE THE PROPONENT IS NOT HERE TO AGREE WITH WHAT THIS DISCUSSION HAS CONDUCTED , IF WE DO IT THE WAY I THINK WE ARE ALL THINKING OF IT , THEY MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE WITH THAT AND THEN BE STUCK WITH THAT. I WANT TO SLIGHT IT AGAIN, GOD, AM TIRED OF THIS ONE, BUT I WAN TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE HERE THE SO THAT THEY CAN AGREE WITH YOU IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT WE ARE BOXING THEM IN IF WE TAKE THE SHORTEST NUMBERS, THE SMALLEST NUMBERS , IF WE USE THE OLD NUMBERS, WE ARE GIVING THEM MOR THAN WE WANT TO GIVE THEM, AND IF WE DO ANYTHING IN BETWEEN, W

DON'T HAVE THEIR INPUT. >> WE DON'T KNOW FOR GIVING THE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY WER ASKING. THE -- WE ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES TO THIS SITE THAT COULD POSSIBLY WARRANT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.

>> I DID NOT HEAR IT THAT WAY A ALL. THAT BRINGS US -- WE ARE TALKING 90, THEN 75 WITH THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE DIP.

>> 75 IS COMPARABLE TO QUIKTRIP WE ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE

DIFFERENCES TO THE SITE . >> RIGHT, THAT BRINGS US INTO 90, BUT IT DOES NOT BRING US BACK.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. >> THE PROPONENTS ARE NOT HERE.

LAST TIME . >> FROM THE LAST EMAIL EXCHANGE I HAD WITH THEM, FOR THEM, 90 FEET WAS A CRUCIAL NUMBER .

THEY ALSO SAID THAT THE DIESEL SIGN PANEL WAS THE CRUCIAL SIG ELEMENT. FROM THAT, I WOULD SA THEY WOULD BE OPPOSED TO REDUCING IT. IF THEY WERE HERE, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD

HAVE A SAY IN IT. >> AND I WILL BE A 40 FOOT

VARIANCE TO THE REQUEST. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO, THIS 50 FOOT NUMBER BECOMES 40.

>> I ASKED THEM, I SAID , BASED ON HOW I THOUGHT THE CONVERSATION WENT , WITH THE SIGNS BEING PROPOSED, I SAID

[00:35:05]

YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A PLAN B OPTION SO THAT THE CONVERSATIO STARTS GOING NEGATIVE , IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO APPROVE THE SIGN AREA , WE COULD FOLLOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS EVEN AN OPTION. I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT

FROM THEM. >> I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 100 AND 90, 90 AND 75 IS THE BIG POINT, WHICH IS WHA I WOULD TAKE MY HEELS INTO. YO ARE JUST NOW SEEING THAT SIGN ONLY A QUARTER-MILE OUT, THAT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TO GET

IN THE RIGHT EXITS. >> WITH THE TECHNOLOGIES WE HAV TODAY, EVERYONE TRIES WITH A PHONE IN THEIR CAR. SIGNS DON' MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, AND IS I YOU HAVE A GAS STATION I HAD, THE PRICE , AND HAS NEGATED TH NEED FOR WARNINGS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS A VOICE SAYING GET IN THE RIGHT LANE, YOU HAVE TO TURN OFF HERE FOR THE CHEAPEST GAS IN 100 MILES. IT' ONLY GETTING WORSE.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS I WE HAVE ROOM FOR MORE DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A TIMEFRAME FOR THIS?

>> I DON'T. BUT THE WAY THEY ARE WORKING OUT THERE , I ASSUM THAT WILL BE FINISHED SHORTLY. IT WILL BE WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR

IF NOT LESS THAN THAT. >> I ASKED BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION , THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO REACT BASED ON THE LAY OF THE LAND AND EVERYTHING . FO THIS SIGN, I DON'T CARE WHAT HIGHWAYS TO EXIT. YOU MIGHT NEED ANOTHER SIGN BEFORE THAT.

MODEL OR SOMETHING. >> 79.

SIGN IS 450 FEET ? >> YES, SIR.

>> IT LOOKS SMALLER. THAT'S OKAY.

>> SEE, THAT ONE LOOKS BIGGER T ME THAN PROPOSED. THAT'S WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING WHEN I SEE A GAS STATION ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I KNOW THAT THEY ARE GENERATED .

>> THE BRAND PORTION IS CONSIDERABLY BIGGER.

>> IT'S TRIPLED, BUT SMALLER IN AREA.

>> THERE BIGGEST POINT IS THEY WANT TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC SEES THE PRICE. THE PRICE HERE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN CITGO.

EACH ONE OF THOSE PRICINGS IS 120 SQUARE FEET BY ITSELF.

>> NSC SAME AS THE QT ONE? >> NO, THOSE ARE SMALLER. YOU SAID IT PERFECTLY. THE QT IS BIGGER THAN CITGO CONSIDERABLY, BUT THE PANELS WERE MUCH SMALLER CONSIDERABLY THEY ARE FOCUSING MORE ON THE BRAND , AND THE OTHER ONE IS FOCUSING ON THE PRICE. IT'S TH BEST PRICE IN TOWN, SO THEIR FLASHING IT AS BIG AS POSSIBLE. THEY WANT TO GO TO THE C STORE

GET SOME FOOD. >> WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE 100

FOOT PHOTO? >> THE ORIGINAL?

>> NO, THE ONES WITH THE DISTANCE, THE QUARTER-MILE, HAL

A MILE. >> OH, YES. THAT IS HALF A

MILE. >> SO, THAT TOP RED LINE INDICATES THE TOP OF THE CITGO LINE, AS PROPOSED?

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT DOESN'T LOOK INTRUSIVE

TO ME. >> IN HERE IS THE QUARTER-MILE.

IF YOU CAN PICTURE THAT OVERHEA MOVING THAT DOWN 10 FEET TO 90 THAT ROUGHLY PUTS THE PRICE AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.

[00:40:03]

>> COULD YOU GO TO THE HALF-MIL VIEW, PLEASE?

>> SEE, WITH THROWS IT OUT OF WHACK IS, IN THIS CASE, THE ROAD ELEVATION IS HIGHER THAN THE FREEWAY. USUALLY, ANOTHER TEXAS SYSTEM HIGHWAY FALLS OFF AND DOWN TO THAT RAMP HERE. AN THEN, IT FALLS DOWN LIKE A SLID .

>> THE POSITION OF THEIR PROPOSED SIGN WOULD NOT BLOCK THE QT SIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? IT WOULD BE OFFSET? IT WOULD B BETWEEN THE BILLBOARD AND THE Q SIGN?

>> THEY ARE NOT CO-LOCATED. >> THAT ONE IS ON A DIFFERENT ROAD. THIS ONE IS OUT ON THE EDGE .

>> OKAY. >> THE SIGN YOU SEE DOWN THERE IS THAT LITTLE RED THING BELO -- IS A MUCH SMALLER SIGN FOR

MUCH SMALLER BUSINESS. >> I GOT MORE CONFUSED THAN I WAS. SO, OKAY. SHOW ME WHERE THERE SIGN WOULD BE IN GENERAL BASED ON THAT LOCATION. IS THA NOT THAT LOCATION? THAT'S NOT

-- IS THAT I 20? >> YES.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY, WHERE WERE THERE SIGN BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY? ON THAT PHOTO?

>> THEY ARE SHOWING WHERE IT IS LOCATED.

>> WHERE IS IT LOCATED? >> IT WOULD BE LOCATED TODAY, REGARDLESS OF THE 75 OR SOMETHING ELSE , THAT LAND AT THE FOREGROUND OF THIS PICTURE THAT IS REALLY LOOP WILL EXTEND INTO IT. THAT IS WHERE IT IS GOING TO BE. HE SEE THAT THE HIGHWAYS FAIRLY EVEN WITH THE SITE. IT IS THE VIEW HERE ON THE OPTIONS SIDE OF THE 322 EXTENSION , AND THAT'S WHAT WORK IS A LITTLE BIT MORE TRICKY. THAT'S THE HALF-MILE PICTURE , AND THAT IS THE QUARTER-MILE PICTURE.

>> AS AN EXAMPLE? >> YES. YOU CAN SEE ON THE HIGHWAY THERE, THERE IS A DIP . THE ROAD DOES GO DOWN .

>> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> TO HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> JUST ONE MORE. THE SECOND SIGN IS NOT PART OF -- DOES NO REQUIRE ANY ACTION BY US, CORRECT?

>> I THINK IT DOES, BECAUSE, THEY'RE OFFERING IT UP AS A CONCESSION. THEY ARE SAYING IF YOU GIVE CONCESSION ON THE HIGH AREA , THEY WILL CONCEDE DOWN , AND IT UP WITH THREE -- I MEAN TWO HUMONGOUS SIGNS , SO THEY WILL TAKE A SMALLER SIGN THAT I MORE APPROPRIATE TO WORK WITH. FOR NON-HIGHWAY INTERSTATE

TRAFFIC ON THE LOOP. >> IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST, BUT YOU COULD INCORPORATED AS A CONDITION AS YOU CHOSE TO?

>> DON'T INCLUDED AS A CONDITIO , THERE IS NOTHING LINING THEM TO STICK WITH WHAT WE ARE TELLING THEM RIGHT NOW WITH A

>> OKAY. >> THEY ARE TRAINED TO GIVE US SOMETHING THAT IS A POSITIVE FOR THE LOOP FRONT EDGE FOR TH INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THAT WHICH MAKES SENSE. IT MAKES SENSE

WITH THE QUICKTIME. >> I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU IS, IF WE APPROVE ANYTHING HERE , THEY ARE OUT FO 180 DAYS? IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT WE APPROVE?

>> IF YOU DENY SOMETHING, THEY ARE OUT FOR A YEAR. IF YOU

[00:45:01]

APPROVE SOMETHING , THEY RESERV THE RIGHT TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A TIME CONSTRAINT FOR SOMEONE TO COME BACK AND MAKE A SECOND REQUEST.

IF YOU MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON WHY YOU WILL NOT SUPPORT A REQUEST , THAT MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT UNLESS YOU SHOW INFORMATION YOU DID NOT HAVE ON YOUR ORIGINAL DECISION THAT HAS SOME BEARING ON FUTUR DECISIONS. IF THAT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU GET OUT THERE INTO TH ACTUAL ENGINEERING , YOU DISCOVER SOMETHING THAT YOU DI NOT NOTICE WHEN HE FIRST LOOKED AT A PROPERTY. ON THIS ONE, I THINK IT IS VERY CLEAR . I DON' SEE A SURPRISE THAT WILL EFFEC THIS. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS -- IT IS PRETTY EASY TO GET TO THAT SITE. WHATEVER IS THERE IS THERE. I DOUBT THERE WILL BE SOMETHING UNUSUAL THAT WILL EFFECT MAKING A SECOND DECISION ON THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, I WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING I UNDERSTAND THE PROPONENT IS NOT HERE TO SPEAK. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. WOULD ANY OTHERS LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR O THIS REQUEST? I AM SEEING NONE ANY TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I AM SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE TH PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I AM RELUCTANT TO PASS ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE. I DON'T WANT TO ANTAGONIZE THEM T THE POINT THAT THEY CHANGE THEI MIND .

>> IS THERE ONE ASPECT BETWEEN THE HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE NOW ? APPROVE ONE OF THEM NOW , BUT MAYBE THEY NEED TO COME BACK FO ANOTHER ? MAYBE THE SQUARE

FOOTAGE ONE? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, IT'

RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. >> I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST. WANT YOUR GUISES OPINION ON

THAT. >> I AM NEAR THAT , I AM JUST CAUGHT UP ON THAT EXTRA 10 FEET

>> AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT.

>> THAT'S FOR 90. SO, IF WE GO WITH WHAT THEY SAID, IF THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE AGENDA AS WELL FROM 50 FEET 40

FEET , IT WOULD LOWER TO 90. >> THE AGENDA DOES NOT CHANGE.

WE WRITE THE REQUEST ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE YOU GET MORE THAN THEY ARE ASKING. HERE IS ALL OF WHAT THEY ARE ASKING. AN THEN, IN YOUR MOTION, YOU SAY HOW MUCH YOU ARE GIVING. SO, TH AGENDA DOES NOT HAVE TO CHANGE, IT IS JUST NOTICED.

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY YOU MOTION DIFFERENT THAN THE AGEND

TO PROVE IT. >> SHE IS SAYING NO.

>> NO, YOU NEED TO STAY WITH YOU ARE GRANTING IN YOUR MOTION BUT THE ONLY REASON IT IS ON TH AGENDA LIKE THIS IS THAT HERE IS WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. IT IS IS NOTICE OF WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. SO, YES, YOU NEED T STATE THE AMOUNT THAT YOU ARE GRANTING IN THE AMOUNT OF VARIANCE YOU'RE GRANTING.

>> POTENTIALLY, WE COULD SAY IN ACCORDANCE, TO REMAIN IN LINE WITH CITY COUNCIL WITH QT , WE COULD USE THE ROAD ELEVATION A A BASE , AND THEN SAY WE ARE ADDING A 50 FOR VARIANCE , BUT THEN, WE NEED TO ADD TO GET TO 90.

>> NO, THE 50 FOOT VARIANCE BRINGS YOU TO 100, BECAUSE THEY

[00:50:02]

HAVE 50 FULLY AS A RIGHT. IF YOU GRANT EXEC WE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR WITH THE 50 FOOT VARIANCE, IT WOULD BE 100. IF YOU GRANTED 90, IT WOULD BE A 4 FOOT VARIANCE.

>> IF WE WERE TRYING TO MIRROR WHAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED , THE 50 FOOT VARIANCE WOULD BE A 25 FOOT VARIANCE.

>> IT WOULD BE A 75 FOOT SIGN. BECAUSE YOU HAVE 50 OF RIGHT BY CODE. I BELIEVE THAT, BASED ON THE LANDS MOVING SO MUCH VERSU THE QT , THE 90 FEET IS REASONABLE .

>> POSSIBLY EVEN THE 50 IS REASONABLE

>> IF THEY PULL BACK, YES. >> I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF OUR BOARD IS, BY MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THIS, WE ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT. IN MY OPINION, THERE IS EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT COULD BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ARGUMENT IN THE FUTUR FOR APPROVING SIMILAR VARIANCE THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ON THE STAT HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED TO A CITY STREET ON 351. THE GRADES OF I 20 ARE DIFFERENT THAN HERE THAN THEY ARE WORTHY QT SIGN IS. I THE ACCOMMODATION THAT THEY ARE MAKING FOR THIS SIGNAGE SIGN ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY , THE ACCOMMODATION IS SLIGHTLY INCREASED FOR SIGN SIZE ALONG I 20 . TO ME, THAT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE , AGAIN, IN MY OPINION THE ORDINANCES A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL , AND, LIKE H SAID, WE WANT TO TRY AND KEEP THAT DOWN WITHIN THE CITY AND THE ARTERIAL STREETS . BUT, TO ME, THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY ARTERIAL STREETS. THAT ACCOMMODATION THAT THEY ARE OFFERING , TO ME, IS APPROPRIAT . IT IS A BALANCING ACT BETWEE KEEPING THE FUTURE SIGN ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY REASONABLE COMPARED TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BALANCE OUT TO ME, THOSE ARE THREE IMPORTANT EXTENUATING STANCES FOR THIS CASE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE QT.

>> DID YOU GET ALL OF THAT? JUST AT THIS POINT, I MAKE THE MOTION THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOWN, I HOPE , TO STATE ALL THA WAS STATED IN THEIR, BECAUSE I DEFINITELY CAN'T REPEAT THAT.

IS THAT OKAY? >> SO, THAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION

NUMBERS TO BE INCLUDED. >> TO THE 40 FOOT, SO GUESS TO

BE 90 FEET. >> YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THE

MOTION? >> YES. OKAY, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IN THE AGENDA ITEM , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SIGN HEIGHT BE A 40 FOOT VARIANCE T THE SIGN HEIGHT , AND THE SQUAR FOOTAGE BE A 450 FOOT TO MAKE SURE, WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THE SIGN THEY WERE PROPOSING?

>> 533. TOTAL. >> THE QUIKTRIP IS 450. THEY'R

ASKING FOR 523. >> THEY ARE REQUESTING A 555

SQUARE FOOT SIGN? >> 523.

>> 523. AND THEY ARE ALLOWED 300?

>> SO, 73 SQUARE FEET ADDITIONA VARIANCE FROM 855 DOWN TO 423.

[00:55:06]

ALLOW THE SECOND? >> 523-300 BE TO 23.

>> 223? OKAY. I WILL SAY 225 FOOT SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIGN SIZE BASED ON THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS LOCATION THE SECONDARY SIGN BEING ALON THE STATE HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED T A CITY STREET . THE GRADES THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH I 20 IN COMPARISON TO THE SITE LOCATION , AND THE ACCOMMODATION THAT THEY ARE MAKING TO REDUCE SECONDARY SIGN SIGNAGE. THE STIPULATION TO THIS MOTION WOUL BE THAT, WHEN THE FUTURE SIGN ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY , I ASSUME THAT IS A MONUMENT SIGN

>> IT'S A BRIDGE BETWEEN A MONUMENT AND A PYLON. IT CAN B

CONSIDERED A SMALL PYLON. >> BUT, THIS FUTURE SIGN AS PROPOSED ALONG THE STATE HIGHWA WOULD BE LIMITED IN SIZE AND HEIGHT TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED AT THIS MEETING.

>> IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT THE SIGN IS LIMITED TO THE PRIMARY SIGN LOCATION , AND THE VARYING SIGN IS LIMITED TO THE SECONDARY SIGN DESIGN. YOU JUST HAVE TO SAY THE PICTURE AND THE NUMBERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PICTUR HAS ALL THE NUMBERS BROKEN DOW . THAT IS THEIR BOX.

>> I SECOND YOUR MOTION, CAN WE GET TO THAT YET?

>> AND WE JUST DO A QUICK CLARIFICATION ALL FOR SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY HERE?

>> I'LL TRY MY BEST. WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND DISCUSSED , THESE THINGS ARE TRUE. GRANTING OF TH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY T THE PUBLIC INTEREST , AND THE VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT FOR THE LANDING DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND, IT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE PETITION.

>> YES, -- >> THOSE OF THE FOUR THINGS THA

WE HAVE APPROVED. >> THEY HAVE TO SHOW UP IN THE

MINUTES. >> I'M NOT CHANGING YOUR MOTION , BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO ORGANIZE IT. I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH . NUMBER YOU STATED WAS WHAT?

>> 225 FEET. 225. >> FROM THE 855?

>> NO. THE 555.21 CHANGES TO 225.

>> OH. SO, TO 25 ABOVE THIS --

>> ABOVE THE 300 THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED IS 525.

>> I UNDERSTAND, NOW. >> I WILL TRY TO RESTATE. I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE A 40 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAX OF THE 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR SIGN HEIGHT, AND A 225 FOOT SQUARE FOOT -- 225 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 300 FOOT SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIGN AT THIS LOCATION.

BASED ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS FROM THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS SHAPED THE SITE , THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY T PUBLIC INTEREST , OR INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO PUBLIC WELFARE, AS EXHIBITED O THE REPRESENTATION OF A SIGN O THAT SIZE AT THE LOCATION THAT WE WERE PRESENTED DURING THE MEETING , WHICH ARE ACTUALLY LARGER AND TALLER THAN WHAT WE ARE APPROVING. GRANTING OF THE

[01:00:03]

VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S LINDA VELTMAN CODE, AND EQUITY SUFFERING BY THE CONDITION -- THAT A CONDITION TO THIS APPROVAL IS WITH THE LIMITATION OF FUTURE SITE ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIMENSIONS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> THAT WAS EXCELLENTLY SAID.

>> I SECOND THAT. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> HE GOT IT. WE HAVE A MOTIO MADE BY MR. HAY, SECONDED BY COL. LANGHOLTZ. THIS MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION O THE SIGN HEIGHT TO BE 40 FEET AND A SIGN SIZE TO BE 225 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PHYSICAL SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAN , THE FACT THAT THIS IS ALONG A STATE HIGHWAY VERSUS A CITY STREET , AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ACCOMMODATIONS MADE FO THE SECONDARY SIGN . THIS APPROVAL HAS A CONDITION THAT

[3. BA-2023-02; (Tabled) 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 buUding by 3,450 sq. ft. located at 2400 S. 14th Street. (Clarissa Ivev)]

THE FUTURE SECONDARY SIGN BE LIMITED IN SIZE AND HEIGHT, AS

STATED. >> ANOTHER THING I WOULD CLARIF TO THAT IS THAT THE SQUARE FOO WOULD BE 225 . IS A 225 FOOT

VARIANCE . >> RIGHT, OKAY, SORRY.

>> THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THEIR 300. AND THE 40 FOOT IS A VARIANT MAXIMUM FOR THE HEIGHT THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL NON-SPECIFIED HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> COL. LANGHOLTZ ?

>> YES. >> MR. BEERMANN?

>> YES. TRAN 24 >> YES.

>> MR. LOUDERMILK? >> YES.

>> MR. HAY? >> YES.

>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> THAT WAS EASY.

>> MR. ODLE? >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE TABLE IS BA-2023-02 , WHICH WAS TABLED FROM THE LAST MEETING. W RECEIVED A REPORT, WE WILL HOL A DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING, AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM BOBBY GILBREATH FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMANCE BUILDING.

>> IN MORNING, MY NAME IS CLARISSA I.V. . REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT BUT, WHAT I HAVE TODAY IS CASE BA-2023-02, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLY A LOT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. THIS IS REQUEST MADE BY THE OWNER FOR THE LOCATION AT 2400 SOUTH 14TH STREET, HE IS REQUESTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING BUILDING BY 345 SQUARE FEET. THIS WOULD BE THE EXISTING WEST TEXAS POST, LOCATED ALONG SOUTH 14TH STREE . IS CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL , AND THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 1984 AT THIS LOCATION.