[A. Call to Order]
[E. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings]
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
[H.1. Docket No. PZ-2021-00069 V UDO Section 5.39.D.3 Prohibited Sign, Off Premise Ground Sign requested in the median of Bennett Pkwy. ]
[00:04:05]
EXISTING GROUND SIGNAGE IS CURRENTLY PLACED.
WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD EXACERBATE AND MULTIPLY THE CONFUSION OF RESIDENT. THUS OUR REQUEST TO MOVE IT TO THE MEDIAN WHERE IT'S MUCH MORE CLEAR.
KIND OF A DIRECTION AND THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PETITION?
>> SEEING NONE, STAFF REPORT? >> THANK YOU.
THE STAFF REPORT GOES DEPTH ABOUT REASONS WHY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE DO THINK THAT IF THEY DO ERECT A NEW SIGN IN THE MEDIAN THEY SHOULD SHOW SIGN PANEL FOR THE OTHER APARTMENT
[00:05:03]
COMPLEX SO THEY EQUALLY SHARE THAT SIGN.OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE ACCUMULATION OF SIGNAGE CLUTTER. YOU WOULD HAVE THEIR GROUND SIGN. EXISTING GROUND SIGN AND THE NEW ONE FOR THE MULTITENANT RETAIL COMPLEX THAT'S BEING BUILT. THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN GROUND SIGNS. IT'S A LOT OF CLUTTER WHERE THINGS CONSOLIDATED THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN SPOT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. RIGHT NOW AS PROPOSED WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE MEMBERS OF THE BZA WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION?
>> YES, SIR. >> FROM ANGIE, THE EXISTING SIGN. THAT'S -- EVEN THOUGH THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED THAT PARCEL. THAT SIGN IS STILL GOING TO
THAT SIGN WILL STAY AND THERE'S A SIGN EASEMENT IN PLACE. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY
THANKS. >> THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A MOTION. SO -- OKAY.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROBLEM FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE
WITH MOVING THE SIGN OVER. >> PLANNING STAFF THINKS THAT THEY CAN JUST AMEND EXISTING SIGN.
THAT'S ON THE OUTER LOT TO HAVE LARGER SIGN PANEL RATHER THAN CREATING ANOTHER GROUND SIGN SEPARATE SO THEN THEY WOULD ADVERTISE
[00:11:51]
THE ONLY DEFINING LIMIT IS THE HEIGHT IT HAS TO BE SIX FEET OR LESS. THAT COULD BE WIDER.>> TELL ME ONE MORE TIME IF I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONSIDERATION BEGIN FOR THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE
>> WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? >> THE FINAL DESIGN SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL OF THE STAFF? >> ALL RIGHT.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AND BUT TO MOVE IT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX BE INCLUDED ON THE SIGN AND THAT THE SIGN BE SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.
>> I WILL SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THIS PETITION SUBJECT TO THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX BEING ON THE SIGN.
AND THAT THE FINAL DESIGN IS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.
[Items H.2. - H.4.]
>> NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2021-0100, 0505V AND 0105V. PUD SECTION 16 AND UDO5.39.H.2.B TWO WALL SIGNS ALOWELLED.
THREE REQUESTED. PUD EXHIBIT TEN MAXIMUM 15 FEET SET BACK ALLOWED. 30 FEET REQUESTED.
AND UDO SECTION 5.28 POINLT C. 77 PARKS SPACES REQUIRED 70 REQUESTED. SITES LOCATED AT 7299 EAST 146TH STREET ZONED LEGACY PUD/PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
FILED BY WILLIAM TNIEMIE R.E. ATTORNEY FOR DON RIGO PROPERTIES LLC. GOOD EVENING.
[00:15:01]
YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME ON WHO YOU ARE WITH AND YOU CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.MY OFFICE 21 EAST MAIN STREET NEW PALESTINE, INDIANA.
THIS EVENING I HAVE WITH ME AL-FREDO MELENDEZ AND RAFAEL GONZALEZ. THEY ARE OWNER OF DON RIGO PROPERTIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND EXISTING PUD REQUIREMENT. AND THE VARIANCES ARE RELATED TO PROPOSED UPSCALE RESTAURANT AT 7299 EAST 146TH STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 145TH STREET JUST EAST OF COMMUNITY DRIVE AND IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146TH STREET AND NORTH OF HOPE WELL PARKWAY. MY CLIENT OWNS A 1.25 ACRE OUT PARCEL IN THE LEGACY DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,744 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. AND THIS BUILDING.
RESTAURANT WILL BE THE 13TH RESTAURANT OWNED AND OPERATED BY DON ROGI RESTAURANTS. I WILL SHOW THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS. AND WHAT ARE SHOWN HERE ARE THE SOUTH AND THE WEST ELEVATIONS LET ME ALSO SHOW JUST A DIAGRAM SHOWING THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING.
MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING ARE LOCATED ALONG 146TH STREET.
THEY FACE TO THE SOUTH OR TO THE NORTH.
THEREFORE HAVING TWO BUILDING WALL SIGNS ALLOWS THOSE BUILDINGS TO ADVERTISE FACING BOTH HOPEWELL AND 146TH STREET. AS SHOWN HERE ON THE SITE PLAN. OUR BUILDING IS ORIENTED TO THE WEST AND OUR MAIN ENTRANCE WILL BE ON THE WEST OF THE BUILDING. THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THIS EVENING UNDER PZ-2101-0100 V. TO ALLOW THREE BUILDING WALL SIGN ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE WEST SIDE AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
AGAIN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH WILL BE FACING HOPEWELL AT 146TH STREET AND THE REASON THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THE THIRD BUILDING WALL SIGN IS TO ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO READILY IDENTIFY THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING.
ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED TO THE WEST OF OUR PROPOSED BUILDING THE WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION WILL NOT BE READILY VISIBLE FROM EITHER 146TH STREET OR HOPEWELL.
IT'S MAIN PURPOSE TO DIRECT PEOPLE ONCE THEY ARE WITHIN THE PARKING LOT SO THEY CAN LOCATE FRONT ENTRANCE.
ALSO KIND OF LIKE THE MATTER THAT YOU HEARD PRIOR TO THIS REQUEST I WANT TO EMFAR EMPHASIZE THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ANY CONDITIONS THAT YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPROVAL OF ANY VARIANCE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.
THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE AS SHOWN HERE ON THE WEST ELEVATION WOULD ALLOW A THIRD BUILDING WALL SIGN.
I WOULD PROPOSE AND STAFF HAS SUGGESTED THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A THIRD WALL SIGN WE COULD PUT STICKERS ON THE GLASS PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM WEST ELEVATION THE WINDOWS REALLY DON'T LEND THEMSELVES TO ADVERTISING.
WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS VARIANCE, AND THE THIRD WALL SIGN, THAT WE INSTEAD USE DECALS ON THE WINDOWS I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A IF THE MEMBERS DO NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AS PROPOSED WITH THE SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED, THAT PERHAPS YOU MAKE CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE THAT THE
[00:20:01]
LETTERING BE REDUCED TO 24 INCHES.AS PROPOSED, THE LETTERS ARE 35 INCHES.
ALMOST THREE FEET. IF YOU CUT THE SIZE BY A THIRD REDUCE TO 24 INCHES. THAT'S IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE OUTRIGHT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS THE COMPROMISED POSITION.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WILL STILL ALLOW THE CUSTOMERS ONCE THEY ARE IN THE PARKING LOT TO READILY IDENTIFY THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BUILDING IN THE PROPER LOCATION. ALSO THIS EVENING WE ARE REQUESTING UNDER DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2101-0505V WE ARE REQUESTING 15-FOOT BUILDING SET BACK WHERE A 30 FOOT BUILDING SET BACK IS REQUIRED. THE REASON FOR THIS SET BACK REQUEST IS BECAUSE THERE'S A 30-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN EXISTENCE ALONG HOPEWELL. IF WE WERE TO BUILD THE BUILDING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, WE WOULD BE PUTTING IT DIRECTLY ON TOP OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS NOT PRACTICAL FOR ANYBODY. THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE IS STRAIGHT FORWARD BY NECESSITY CAUSED BY EXISTING 30-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO SET OUR BUILDING 30-FEET BACK OFF THE PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF 15. THEN THE THIRD VARIANCE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THIS EVENING UNDER DOCKET PZ-2101, 106V.
AND UNDER THAT VARIANCE WE ARE REQUESTING 70 PARKING SPACES WHERE 77 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING CODE.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE DO HAVE AS A CONDITION OF PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY WE HAVE RECIPROCAL PARKING RIGHT WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND THEREFORE WE BELIEVE WITH THESE PARKING RIGHT, THE 70 PARKING SPACES ON OUR PROPERTY WILL BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR USE.
AND WE WILL REQUEST APPROVAL OF THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE.
IF THESE MATTERS ARE APPROVED THIS EVENING, WE ANTICIPATE THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BEGIN APPROXIMATELY AUGUST 1ST OF THIS YEAR. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OUR PLAN, DESIGN HAS BEEN SUBMIT THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGN WAS REFERRED TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE WHICH WILL MEET NEXT ON JULY 7TH FROM FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING DESIGN. AND WE HAVE MET ALL OF STAFF'S AND THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REQUEST AND MODIFICATIONS AND I THINK THAT STAFF WILL AGREE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE MADE MANY, MANY, MANY REVISIONS AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF AND ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ANGIE CONN AND RACHEL AND JOE FOR ALL OF THEIR HELP AND INPUT IN GETTING US HERE THIS EVENING.
WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THIS EVENING IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE STARTED WITH.
AND I THINK ALL FOR THE BETTER.
WHAT WE COME WITH TONIGHT IS A MUCH BETTER FINAL PRODUCT THAN WHAT WE STARTED WITH. AND I AM CERTAINLY HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE DECISION CRITERIA, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
AND IF THAT'S NOT HELPFUL, I WON'T GO THROUGH THAT.
>> DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR PRESENTATION?
>> IT DOES. >> COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE MEETS ON JULY 6TH. NOT 7TH.
>> WE WILL BE A DAY EARLY NOT A DAY LATE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT THAT WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION?
SEEING NONE, STAFF REPORT. >> THANK YOU.
THE PLANNING STAFF IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES FOR BUILDING SET BACK AND PARKING. AND WE STILL RECOMMEND NEGATIVE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SIGNAGE VARIANCE.
THE PETITIONER DID PROPOSE UNIQUE COMPROMISE REDUCING THE SIGNAGE LETTERS TO 24 INCHES IN HEIGHT.
THAT'S STILL TWO FEET TALL. IF THE SIGN COULD BE BROUGHT DOWN TO THREE SQUARE FEET, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE ONE FOOT TALL LETTERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXEMPT SIGN AS THE PETITIONER STATED. IT'S FOR MORE PEOPLE IN THE PARKING LOT. NOT FOR PEOPLE DRIVING BY.
[00:25:02]
WITH THAT WE DO RECOMMEND THE THREE-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN OR AGAIN GOING WITH THE WINDOW SIGN WHICH COULD BE PUT IN THE GLASS DOOR AREA. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU. BEFORE I OPEN THIS UP.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. IF THIS IS -- IF THE THIRD SIGN REQUEST IS THREE FEET OR LESS.
THEN IT'S EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINANCE.
>> CORRECT. >> AND THEY COULD PUT THAT UP.
>> RIGHT. >> ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO WISH WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS AT THIS
TIME? >> COULD YOU POINT OUT I NOTICED ON YOUR NORTH ELEVATION YOU SHOWED NO
COULD YOU JUST IDENTIFY WHAT THAT SIGNAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE?
>> YES. BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A REVISED BUILDING ELEVATION THE BOTTOM VIEW IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, THE TOP VIEW IS THE EAST ELEVATION.
AND THE WEST ELEVATION IS THE BOTTOM AND THAT IS WHERE THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS LOCATED TO THE BUILDING AND UP TOP IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GOING THROUGH THE FOUR ELEVATIONS. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD FACE 146TH STREET.
THE TOP ELEVATION IS EAST WITH NO SIGNAGE.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
WHICH I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST LOOKING BACK OF THE THE BUILDING THAT I'VE EVER SEEN.
ON THIS SLIDE, THE TOP VIEW IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION WHICH WOULD POINT TOWARD HOPEWELL PARKWAY AND THEN THE BOTTOM ELEVATION, AGAIN THAT'S THE WEST AND THAT IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE. THAT'S THE ONLY THICK THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ABOVE THE DOOR IS THE NAME OF THE RESTAURANT.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WHAT YOU PRO POST 35 INCH HIGH LETTER.
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. THAT THREE FOOT SIGN IS THREE
SQUARE FEET? >> TOTAL? COULD BE ONE FOOT OR THREE FOOT HOWEVER THAT WORKS OUT TO
GET THREE SQUARE FOOT. >> IF I MIGHT POINT OUT JUST BECAUSE THE DIMENSIONS ARE SOMEWHAT SMALL, THAT PROPOSED FOR THE WEST ELEVATION 35 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND PANS 17.35 FEET. AGAIN, AS I SUGGESTED COMPROMISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL MAY BE THE REQUIRED THAT THE LETTERS BE SMALLER THAN PROPOSED BUT STILL BE ALLOWED OVER THE THREE-FOOT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THE BUILDING WILL BE BLOCKING IT.
THERE'S A LOT OF PECULIARS. THE MEETING ON JULY 6TH, I
BELIEVE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT THAT PLANNING STAFF HAS DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO DO THE LAYOUT LIKE THAT SO THAT THE BUILDING FRONT ON HOPEWELL TO MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE TO THE SOUTH.
THAT'S WHY THE PARKING IS PUSHED TO THE NORTH.
JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE THEY'VE ALREADY I GUESS ADDRESSED STAFF'S CONCERNS REGARDING THAT.
>> IN THIS INSTANCE WE WANT THE PARKING ON THE ROAD.
>> INSTEAD OF THE BUILDING ON THE ROAD.
>> IN MANY OTHER INSTANCES IT'S THE OPPOSITE.
IT'S A HARD DECISION FOR STAFF TO MAKE.
THE DECISION WAS KEEP HOPEWELL PARKWAY MORE WALKABLE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. THAT'S WHY IT TURNED OUT THIS
>> MAY I MAKE ONE FINAL MOMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO POINT OUT, WE DID GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY REFERRED US TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE WITH AUTHORITY FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE MADE EVERY SINGLE MODIFICATION
[00:30:08]
BELIEVE ME THIS TARGET HAS BEEN SHISKABOBED.I WOULD REQUEST THE MATTER NOT BE TABLED.
IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BORNING APPEAL WE CAN COME BACK AFTER THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE ON JULY 6TH.
NOT THE 7TH. >> THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE DOES HAVE FINAL APPROVAL ON THIS.
BUT A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN COMMITTEE.
WHAT MAY SEEM SET IN STONE MAY NOT BE.
TO LEO POINT. HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT. EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY THAT LOCATION, THE SHOPPING THAT'S ALREADY THERE CONTIGUOUS TO THIS IS HALF EMPTY. IT HASN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. THEN THE ONE TO THE SOUTH OF IT IS ALSO PREDOMINANTLY EMPTY.
THERE IS A LOT OF VACANT SPACE IN THIS LOCATION.
ITS BEEN A DIFFICULT SITE. I HATE TO SEE THAT MUCH PARKING ON 146TH STREET. I WOULD RATHER SEE THAT REDESIGNED SOMEHOW. THAT'S ALL.
I WILL CONTINUE TO PUT MY LEAVE THE TABLE.
>> ANGIE, GO AHEAD. ONE QUICK COMMENT.
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR REMINDED THE BUILDING TO THE EAST FOR THE VETERINARY OFFICE WERE APPROVED FOR THE BUILDING CLOSER TO HOPEWELL PARKWAY. THEY ARE FOLLOWING SUIT WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TREND AMONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF HOPEWELL PARKWAY. IF YOU CAN VISUALIZE HOW THAT
WILL BE BUILT OUT TO THE EAST. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE
THE MOTION DIED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THIS PETITION OR CONCERNS?
>> COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
ASSUMING THAT THE LOCATION REMAINS THE SAME.
YOU HAVE TWO SIGNS. YOU WANT THE SIGN FACING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THE ONLY WAY ACCOMPLISH THAT THEN TO HAVE THE BACK OF THE BUILDING FACING ONE OF THESE?
>> THE BUILDING WILL BE ORIENTED TO THE WEST.
FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE WEST. ORIENTATION FACING 146.
THAT WILL BE THE NORTH AND FACING HOPEWELL BE BE THE SOUTH. IN ORDER TO GET TWO SIGNS AND THE ONE ON THE FRONT. YOU WOULD REALLY THEN ALMOST NEED TO ORIENT ON NORTH SOUTH BASIS WITH THE FRONT DOOR NORTH OR SOUTH. FROM THE BUILD INDESIGN I SAW IT LOOKS TOO LARGE TO MOVE. AS ANGIE NOTED, IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH NOT ONLY THE BUILDING TO THE EAST BUT ALSO THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST, WE REALIGNED THE BUILDING AS REQUESTED BY STAFF.
IF IT CAME DOWN TO ONLY TWO BUILDING WALL SIGNS THE PETITIONER MAY BE FACED TO DECIDE WHETHER IT PUTS ONE ON THE WEST AND NORTH AND NOT ON THE SOUTH WHICH FACES HOPEFUL.
THE BEST WOULD BE HAVE TWO SIGNS NORTH AND SOUTH AND SMALLER SIGN ON THE WEST. AGAIN IT'S BECAUSE THE BUILDING FRONT THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS FACING -- IT'S ON
THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
HOW LARGE ARE THE LETTERS ON THE DON RIGO SIGN?
>> THE OTHER ELEVATION? >> I LIKE AT 35 INCHES BY 18 FEET, 2 INCHES. LET ME CHECK THE OTHER ELEVATION. I BELIEVE THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE. LET ME CHECK THAT FOR SURE.
[00:35:09]
>> TWO INCHES IN WIDTH. 36 INCHES IN HEIGHT.
>> THAT'S THE TOTAL SIGN. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL DON RIGO PART OF THIS? IN OTHER WORD THAT LOOKS CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN THE ONE YOU PROPOSE ON THE WEST
ELEVATION? >> THOSE LETTERS ARE 30 INCHES. LOOKING AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION THOSE LETTERS ARE 30 INCHES. THE RED LETTERS ARE 30 INCHES.
THE GREEN -- THE RED ARE 30 INCHES THE GREEN ARE 18.
IT'S 38 INCHES TOTAL LETTERING.
AND THAT'S THE SAME ON THE SOUTH END AND NORTH ELEVATION.
>> IT'S RESTAURANT. >> THE BOTTOM ELEVATION AND SIMPLY SAYS DON RIGO. WE ARE PROPOSING 35 INCH
LETTERS AND >> I DON'T SEE WHAT REDUCING 24 INCHES ISN'T THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE SEEING THE HARDSHIP.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT AGAIN THAT STAFF REQUEST BUILDING WAS CHANGE FROM BEING ORIENTED EAST WEST TO NORTH SOUTH FACING WEST.
WE TURN THE BUILDING AT STAFF REQUEST AND THAT'S THE NECESSITY OF THE THIRD SIGN. IT'S JUST SIMPLY TO HAVE SIGNAGE ABOVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
I ACKNOWLEDGE OF THE THREE VARIANCE THAT WE REQUEST THIS EVENING THAT'S BY FAR THE TOUGHEST.
THAT'S WHY I PROPOSE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REDUCE
THE SIZE. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS? >> IF NOT IS THERE A MOTION?
>> OR MOTIONS? OUR MOTION TO APPROVE DOCKET PZ-2021-0100V. PZ-2021-0505V.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> CAN I SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT
TO THE MOTION? >> I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE WALL SIGN I WOULD NOT ENDORSE THE PETITIONER COMPROMISE OF TWO. THE FIRST WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF AGAIN. THAT COMPROMISE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN YOUR VIEW?
>> I THINK PLANNING STAFF WILL RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE THIRD SIGN. SO THEY COULD HAVE.
IF IT'S ONE FOOT STALL. JUST THREE SQUARE FOOT TOTAL.
EXAMPLE WOULD BE ONE FOOT BY THREE FOOT.
I WOULD LIKE SMALL IN THAT AREA.
THEY COULD ALWAYS REDESIGN THAT WALL TO BE SMALLER.
THERE'S PLANNING STAFF -- THERE'S PLANNING OPTIONS HERE. THEY TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION 24 INCH LETTERING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
>> THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. ARE WE STILL IN THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING HOW HOT THE SIGNS LIGHT UP.
THEY CAN HAVE THAT BLAZING RED?
IT APPEARS SO. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE
[00:40:04]
MOTION? .>> DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SECOND. BUT I WILL.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE KEEPING SCORE TO POINT OUT THAT IF THE SIGN VARIANCE IS PZ-2021-0500V.
>> POINT OF ORDER I'M WONDERING CAN HE SECOND HIS
OWN AMENDMENT? >> I AGREED TO AMENDMENT OF
THE. >> I'M USED TO BE THING LOAN RANGER HERE. THIS IS BECOMING REOCCURRING THEME. I RATHER ENJOY IT.
>> PZ-2021-0100V BEEN DENIED. TWO IN FAVOR, THREE AGAINST.
FOR PZ-2021-00105V. THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
AS AMENDED FOR IN FAVOR ONE AGAIN.
MR. DIERCKMAN AGAINST. AND FOR DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2021-0506V, THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED 4-1.
MR. DIERCKMAN, AGAINST. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CAN YOU READ THE FIRST VOTE WHO VOTED THE PERSON THE VOTE DECISION? ON THE FIRST ONE?
>> YES, PLEASE. FOR MY RECORD.
24 OF INCH HEIGHT MAXIMUM WITH THAT.
KENT FOR WITH THE CONDITION 24 INCH.
AND ALLEN AGAINST. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS
[00:45:04]
TO COME BEFORE US THIS EVENING?>> HEARING NONE, WE STAND ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.