[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
>> ALL RIGHT. GIVEN IT IS SIX CONTENT WE WILL BEGIN THE MEETING AND WE WILL CALL IT TO ORDER AND START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. CAN WE HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
CALL] >> WITH FIVE MEMBERS WE HAVE A
[D. Declaration of Quorum]
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
QUORUM. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND FINALLYFAX FROM PREVIOUS MEETING? >> SO MOVED.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY TRENT OR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? BOTH APPROVED. COMMUNICATION BILLS AND EXPENDITURES.
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
>> YES, THANK YOU YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A DRAFT OF THE 2024 BZA MEETING DATES CALENDAR. WE NEED YOU TO PLEASE REVIEW THAT AND VOTE TO ADOPT IT. THE ONLY THAT IS NOT ON A TYPICAL FOURTH MONDAY WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE MEMORIAL HOLIDAY IN MAY AND THAT'S PROPOSED TUESDAY, MAY 28.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGENDA?
>> MR. PRESIDENT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE 2024 CARMEL ZONE OF APPEALS CALENDAR AS PRESENTED.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? QUICK SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AGENDA
[H.(UV, V) Nathan Hawkins Addition Lot 4 Use Variance & Variance.]
IS APPROVED. WE WILL THEN GO TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING AND START WITH ITEMS NUMBER 2 AND THREE THE NATHAN HAWKINS ADDITION USE FOR VARIANCE PZ-2023Ó00229UV AND PZ-2023Ó00230UV AND THAT HAS TO DO THE FIRST ONE WITH PERMITTED USE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING NOT PERMITTED AND THE ZONING AND THE SECOND ONE HAS PARKING SPACES IN ANY BUSINESS, INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO ANY LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR FOR USE OF RESIDENTIAL PART IS THIS. 2 FEET IS REQUESTED. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STEP TO THE STAND OVER THERE AND MAKE SURE THE MICROPHONE IS ON. TAKE USTHROUGH THE PETITION. >> IS IT ON? ALL RIGHT.
>> WE HAVE THE OVERHEAD BY CHANCE?
>> AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING HERE AND A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BACK HERE. THIS WHOLE LOT OR THIS WHOLE PARCEL IS ZONED B-1
BUSINESS OR HISTORIC OVERLAY. >> EXCUSE ME REALLY CLOSELY YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ARE YOU A RESIDENT OF CARMEL OR
PWHERE ARE YOU LOCATED? >> MY NAME IS FRED KROSNICK AND I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER APPLEGATE PROPERTIES.
ACTUALLY, IT IS TWOFOLD. LAST WEEK WE MET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GIVE US APPROVAL FOR THE PARCEL SPLIT AND SO NOW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR A USE VARIANCE AND LET'S SEE. LET ME READ IT. SORRY. THIS WAS AS STATED EARLIER LOOKING FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY AND ALSO PARKING.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, ANGIE, I KNOW THAT BOTH YOU AND ALEXIA WERE ASKING ABOUT THE LOT COVERAGE AND FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENT I HAD A GOOD BUILD OF PLANS AND FROM THE ENGINEER FOR THE SURVEY I PUT MY MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEGREE TO USE AND CAME UP WITH 43 PERCENT AND THE ENGINEER AGREED WITH THOSE NUMBERS. I KNOW THAT WAS THE ONE OF MOST CONCERN SINCE 45 PERCENT IS THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE. ON THE OFFICE I DIDN'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS SO I WAS GENEROUS. THE
[00:05:02]
ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH 44 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE FOR THE OFFICE AND 70 PERCENT IS THE MINIMUM FOR COMMERCIAL. SO THIS IS THE OVERLAY. AND I SENT THIS TO ANGIE. I DOUBT YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT BUT I ACTUALLY HAD A VIDEOCONFERENCE WITH THE ENGINEER THAT WENT FOR ABOUT 45 MINUTES AND WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF REVISIONS A LOT STEMMING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT A LOT OF MOST CONCERN IS THE PARKING. AND SO WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE TWO VEHICLES HERE NOW AND HISTORICALLY THIS LOT HAS ALWAYS HAD TO CURB CUT. THIS ONE AND THIS ONE TO WHERE PEOPLE COULD BASICALLY PULL THROUGH AND THERE IS PARKING RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE BUILDING. SO, WE ARE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT TO CONTINUE TO FACILITATE THAT WERE PEOPLE COULD PULL IN AND POTENTIALLY PULL THROUGH OR IF THERE ARE TWO ONE COULD BACK OUT TO THE STREET AND THE OTHER ONE COULD PULL THROUGH AND IN ADDITION WE ARE LOOKING FOR TO HELP GET OFFSTREET PARKING TO SPACES HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE ENGINEER TODAY IS, WE HAD THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANT, 2 FEET AND HE BELIEVES HE CAN GET THE FULL 5 FEET IN HERE. DOING THAT THIS IS WHAT THE DECK LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. HISTORICALLY THIS IS WHAT WAS THERE. THE ENGINEER BELIEVES THAT THEY CAN EASILY PULL OFF THE DECK, MODIFY IT IN THE OWNER HAS APPROVED THAT. WE COULD EVEN PUT STEPS COMING UP FROM THE BACKSIDE IF WE HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD 5 FEET. IF I GO BACK WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS RIGHT HERE. SO, THE DECK RIGHT NOW COMES UP TO PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT HERE. I KNOW IT IS NOT VERY EASY TO SEE ON THE OVERLAY BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DECK UP THERE. SO, IN A NUTSHELL THAT IS THE PRESENTATION.>> THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ARE FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE AT THIS TIME? OKAY. IF WE DON'T CAN WE HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, PLEASE?
>> THANK YOU. CURRENTLY THE SITE HAS THE OFFICE BUILDING IN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS ALLOWED TO BE ON THE SAME LOT THAN THIS ZONING DISTRICT AND THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND BECAUSE THE PETITIONER WANTS TO SPLIT THE LOT INTO TWO THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE USE VARIANCE WHERE THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING WITHIN BECOME ITS OWN SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE. AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS ALL BUILT CURRENTLY AS FAR AS THE TWO BUILDINGS AND THE ONLY VARIANCE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUESTED FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PARKING SPACES WHICH SOUNDS LIKE IT MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED IF THEY CAN INDEED MEET THAT 5 FOOT SETBACK. BUT OVERALL PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTED OF THE USE VARIANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUEST. WE DO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE CONDITION OF ADDRESSING THE REMAINING TWO REVIEW COMMENTS AND ALSO THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EFFECTS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE
OTHER CURB CUT THAT YOU HAVE? >> RIGHT NOW THIS CURB CUT IS EXISTING AND IN REALITY IT IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS A GARAGE THEREFORE A NUMBER OF YEARS. THIS ONE TOWARDS THE FRONT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
SINCE WE DID THE PARCEL SPLIT WE ARE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT TO ALLOW FOR THE OTHER PARKING.
>> DID YOU WANT TO RETAIN ONE FOR THE OTHER HOUSE, TO? IS
>> SO, YOUR PLAN INCLUDES REMOVING THE DECK, FOR SURE OR YOU ARE JUST OFFERING THAT AS AN OPTION?
>> FOR SURE. IF WE ARE GOING TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE
PARKING. >> OKAY. AND THEN DID I HEAR
[00:10:02]
YOU SAY THAT THE COVERAGE FOR THE HOME IS 47 PERCENT?>> 43 PERCENT. >> 43. I MISHEARD. THANK
YOU. >> MAY I ASK A QUICK QUESTION MAYBE I MISSED IT. I KNOW THE REVIEW TALKED ABOUT PROPOSED TRAFFIC PLANS THAT WE ARE WORKING OUT. IS THIS BASED ON THE PRESENTATION HERE TONIGHT? IS THAT A CONCERN OR NOT?
>> IT DOES HELP ADDRESS THE CONCERN AS WELL AS THE BZA SIDE OF THINGS. I THINK THEY STILL HAVE THE REVIEW CYCLE AND PROJECT DOCKS FOR THE PRIMARY PLOT AMENDMENT. YOU CAN KEEP THAT AS A REVIEW COMMENTS ON THAT SIDE AS WELL. KNOWING THAT THE SECOND CURB CUT ON THE EASTERN LOT WILL NEED APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE GRANTED THAT APPROVAL YET?
>> I REACHED OUT TO ALEX JORDAN. I AM WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM HIM SO I WILL REACH OUT TO HIM AGAIN TOMORROW.
>> MR. PRESIDENT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE PZ-2023Ó00229UV AND PZ-2023Ó00230UV ALONG WITH THE CONDITION OF ADDRESSING THE REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS AND WITH THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. 5-0. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE
[H.(V) 116th and Rangeline Redevelopment, Sign Variance. ]
AGENDA IS NUMBER 4 WHICH IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023Ó00250UV.BASICALLY WE'VE GOT SIGNS FACING SOUTHEAST NOT TOWARDS ANY STREET FRONTAGE. IT IS NOT ALLOWED BUT IT IS REQUESTED.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND WE WILL PROVIDE DETAILS. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS WARREN JOHNSON AND I RESIDE IN CARMEL I AM A LONGTIME CARMEL RESIDENT. TONIGHT WE ARE DISCUSSING A PROJECT AT 116TH AND RANGE LINE AND 30 YEARS AGO THIS YEAR I BUILT A NEW CONVENIENCE STORE GAS STATION THERE AND I WAS 20 YEARS OLD THEN. AND, I AM SURE ALAN PROBABLY REMEMBERS THAT BUT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REDEVELOPING THE SITE. WE ARE A LOCAL FAMILY-OWNED COMPANY DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. WE ARE DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY FREE LAND OR FREE MONEY FROM THE CITY. THIS IS ALL DEVELOPED BY OUR OWN MONEY AND OUR OWN CAPITAL. WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO SECURE A TENANT, BML. THEY WRE ORIGINALLY ON THE OTHER CORNER AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER WHICH THEY RELUCTANTLY GAVE UP SO THAT THEY COULD BUILD THEIR FACILITY AND THEN THEY HAVE BOOKING FOR A SITE EVER SINCE THEN AND WE WERE LUCKY TO HOOK UP WITH THEM. OUR SITE PLAN IS, THIS IS A VIEW OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. IT YOU ARE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROUNDABOUT LOOKING AT THE SITE AND THEN THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY IF YOU ARE BEHIND THE BUILDING LOOKING TOWARDS THE ROUNDABOUT. AND, THE BLUE PORTION THERE IS THE END OF THE CANOPY. WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT A BML SIGN AT THAT SITE. AND, THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT. ON THE BLUE BLADE. THIS IS AN OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE LOCATION. THIS IS THE PMO SITE HERE THIS IS A TWO-STORY OFFICE RETAIL FACILITY WITH AN ATRIUM IN THE MIDDLE AND OUR SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED HERE. SO, IT WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IT WOULDN'T BE VISIBLE FROM MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS.
IT WOULD ONLY BE VISIBLE TO THE PMO CUSTOMER. MOST COMPANIES
[00:15:01]
SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARSDEVELOPING THEIR BRAND AND THEIR IMAGE. I CAN'T IMAGINE MCDONALD'S WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF GOLDEN ARCH. AND ALSO I THINK EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THESE BRANDS ARE IMPORTANT EVEN TO THE CITY OF CARMEL. WHEN I WALKED IN HERE TONIGHT I SAW FOUR LOGOS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL. OBVIOUSLY THAT LOGO IS IMPORTANT TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TO THE CITY. IN THE SAME IS TRUE FOR BML. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEM. BML DESIRED SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE WELL WITHIN THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A 300 SQUARE-FOOT SIGN IN THEIR SIGN REQUEST IS 72.3 FEET. WE ARE REQUESTING THIS VARIANT BECAUSE IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IT IS JUST NOT AND IT'S GOING TO BE VISIBLE JUST TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT, THE CARMEL SIGN STANDARDS. IF YOU READ THE PURPOSE AND INTENT SIGNS OBSTRUCT VIEWS, DISTRACT MOTORISTS, DISPLACE ALTERNATIVE USE OF LAND AND POSE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT LEGITIMATELY CALL FOR REGULATION. THIS SIGN DOESN'T OBSTRUCT ANY VIEW. IT DOES NOT DISTRACT ANY MOTORIST.IT DOES NOT DISPLACED ANY ALTERNATIVE USE OF LAND. IT COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND POSE NO PROBLEM TO THE CITY OR TO THE COMMUNITY. BEHIND US IS TREES. BEHIND THE TREES OUR HOMES. THEY WILL NOT SEE THIS. NOBODY WILL SEE THE SIGN. SO I BELIEVE AND I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SIGNED STANDARD IS CLEARLY STATED. I THINK WE MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO, I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE TONIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE WE WILL HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT REPORT PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. AS THE PETITIONER STATED YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN FROM THE STREET BECAUSE THE ONCE THE PATRON IS ON THE SITE THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. THEY ALREADY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GOING THEY ALREADY KNOW THE SITE. THEY BELIEVE THE SITE IS TOO LARGE.
IT IS PROPOSED TO BE AROUND 34 FT.? AND IF THE ROOT PETITIONER COULD REDUCE IT DOWN TO THREE TOTAL IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AND EXEMPT SIGN AND THEY COULD HAVE IT BY RIGHT. THAT IS ONE SOLUTION WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE PETITIONER. OTHER SIGNAGE THAT THEY CAN UTILIZE THAT IS EXEMPT WOULD BE IT IS CALLED TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE AND THAT CAN BE AT MOST 3 FT.? IN SIZE AND AT MOST 3 FEET TALL AND THEY CAN HAVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER THAT WOULD HELP DIRECT CUSTOMERS TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA. THAT IS ANOTHER SOLUTION WE ARE OFFERING THE PETITIONER IF THEY DON'T MEET THE VARIANCE. WITH THAT BEING SAID PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS A NEGATIVE OF THE VARIANCE AND THE NEGATIVE FINDINGS AND FACTS BE WRITTEN BY THE BCA ATTORNEY.
>> WARREN, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN JUST A SECOND. ANGIE, TELL ME AGAIN WHAT SIZE SIGN WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT?
>> IT WOULD BE 3 FT.? IN THE AREA WERE SMALLER AND IT IS CONSIDERED AND EXEMPT SIGN. IT WOULD NOT NEED A SIGN PERMITTED. NO FEES AND THEY CAN HAVE IT ON THE BACK OF THE
BUILDING. >> OKAY. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING
FOR IS -HOW BIG IS IT? >> 34 FT.?.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE YOU DID GET A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED. IF NO ONE CAN SEE THE SIGN ANYWAY EXCEPT FOR THE CUSTOMERS OF THE BANK AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HATE TO MAKE IT SOUND THIS WAY BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS AN EGO THING. SOMETHING THAT YOUR CLIENT
[00:20:04]
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS AN IDENTIFYING AND IN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFYING MARK. IS THERE SOME REASON WHY I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH SMALLER BUT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE TO EVERYBODY? I'M JUST THINKING WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO GET THIS APPROVED.>> I GUESS, ALAN, THE CODE STATES I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE STATES IT COULD BE 70 PERCENT OF THE HEIGHT AND 85 PERCENT OF THE WITH PER SIGN TO THE FEE. P.BML REQUESTED THAT ON THE PART FACING THE STREET IT WOULD BE A BLUE BAN THE BMA LOGO WHICH IS THEIR LOGO WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANTED AND IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THE STAFF DID NOT LIKE THE BLUE. WE HIT A BRICK WALL WITH STAFF AND THEY WOULD NOT PROVE THE PROJECT. BML RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO BLUE FROM BEHIND THE SIGN THINKING THAT WE PUT THE SIGN IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE CUSTOMER SEE IT YOU CAN STILL PUT YOUR IMAGE OUT AND EVERYBODY SEES YOUR LOGO AND SEES THAT THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THAT APPROVED. AND THAT IS WHY I AM HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT HURTS ANYBODY AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS INCOMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
>> IT IS THEIR LOGO IN THEIR IMAGE SO TO SPEAK INCLUDES THAT BLUE? BUT THE STAFF DID NOT LIKE THE BLUE? IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN PUT BACK ON AND WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING IS HERE TONIGHT?
>> MR. JOHNSON, THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ATM HERE, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT GOING TO BE THE CLOSEST DRIVE A PLANE TO
THE BUILDING? >> IT WOULD BE THE OUTER LANE.
THE FIRST DRIVE UP WOULD BE THE WINDOW AND POSSIBLY 1 MORE DOCTOR A PLANE FOR TRANSACTIONS.
>> SO, I KNOW, AND HE THAT WITH THE ATM THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF SIGNAGE THAT IS BUILT IN TO THE CLADDING, IF YOU WILL OR SKIRTING AROUND THOSE MACHINES. WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS? HOW MUCH OFTHE BMO IS IT POSSIBLE TO INCORPORATING
INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH >> GIVE ME A MINUTE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT I BELIEVE IT IS STILL 3 FT.? MAXIMUM SIGNAGE ON
THE ATM SO IT IS EXEMPT. >> AND IN THE PLANS IT WOULD STILL BE ORIENTED IN THE SAME DIRECTION?
>> IT IS HIDDEN BY THIS WALL AND NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU ARE AT THE ATM STAND.
>> MY QUESTION IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE FRONT IT WON'T DESIGNATE. HOW WILL THEY EVEN KNOW THERE IS A BANK
THERE? >> THEY AGREED TO REMOVE THE BLUE PART OF THE SIGN THE BLUE SQUARE AROUND BMO. ALL THEY WILL HAVE IS BMO IN THE SMALL LOGO IN THE FRONT. AGAIN, IF WE GO BACK IT IS THEIR LOGO, IT IS THEIR IMAGE IT IS THEIR BRAND AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY GETS HARMED BY THIS APPROVAL.
BECAUSE NO MOTORISTS SEES IT, NO VESTRY AND SEES IT, IT IS BMO CUSTOMERS THAT SEE IT AND FOR THEM WE COULD SUPPORT THIS.
>> I AM FEELING TO SEE THERE IS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF LITERALLY NO ONE WILL SEE IT EXCEPT FOR THE CUSTOMER AFTER THEY HAVE GONE BEHIND THE BUILDING NO HARDSHIP HAS BEEN CREATED THAT CAUSES ME TO THINK THAT THAT SIZE SIGNAGE IS NEEDED. SO AS LONG AS IT IS KEPT WITHIN WHAT IS ALLOWED YOU CAN STILL HAVE GRAND BRAND RECOGNITION BRAND IDENTITY CONFIRMING CUSTOMERS LIKE THAT BRAND. THAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING ALL THE SIGNAGE AND THAT BRAND SO I STILL THINK THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT HAVING A HUGE SIGN. I DID DRIVE BACK
[00:25:01]
TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND THERE AND ACTUALLY WITH THE LEAVES OFF OF THE TREES THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE BACK THERE WILLSEE THE SIGN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT THE BANK IS NOT OPEN FOR 24 HOURS AND THAT SIGN WILL NOT BE ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT. AND ANOTHER THING IS IT IS A 3
FOOT SIGN. >> THAT IS NOT 3 FEET FIRST OF
>> IS NOT ABOUT THE BRIGHTNESS AND THE TIME OF DAY BUT YOU STATED THAT NOBODY COULD SEE IT AND THAT IS INACCURATE AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING OF SHARING.
>> I GOT A QUESTION THAT CAME UP. MY QUESTION IS IS IT
LIGHTED IT IS A LIGHTED SIGN? >> YES.
>> THE ENTIRE SIGN IS LIGHTED?
>> JUST BML AND THE LOGO. >> NOT ALL THE BLUE IS
ELIMINATED? >> KNOW THAT IS JUST A BLUE
BACKGROUND. >> ANGIE, WHILE HE IS GETTING THAT, WHEN YOU CALCULATE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A SIGN LET'S JUST SAY THIS PARTICULAR SIGN BECAUSE IT IS A BIT DIFFERENT, DO YOU CALCULATE THE BLUE IN THERE AS WELL OR JUST THE
ACTUAL IN THIS CASE THE BMO? >> IT WOULD BE THE BMO PLUS
THE LOGO. >> NOT THE BLUE PART?
>> NO. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROUND RED CIRCLE THAT IS 3 FEET 5.5 INCHES TALL AND THE LETTERS ARE ONLY 1.6 INCHES. BUT YOU MEASURE THE ENTIRE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT TO GET THE 34. IT IS NOT AN OVERWHELMINGLY HUGE SIGN BY ANY MEANS AND AGAIN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SIGN THAT IS 3 FEET TALL AT THE MAX.
>> AND ONLY THE BMO ARE LIGHTED.
>> AND THE RED LOGO. WHAT'S IT WON'T BE LIGHTED PAST
SUNSET? >> NO. ONCE THEY CLOSED THEY
TURN THE LIGHT OFF. >> ONCE THEY CLOSE REALLY.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE'S NO REASON FOR LIGHTING AT ALL.
>> NO. >> I AM ASSUMING THE LIGHT WILL NOT SPILL OVER ONTO ANY OTHER PROPERTY?
>> NO IT IS IN HER ELIMINATED SIGN. IT IS NOT BRATE. THERE IS NO HALO EFFECT AROUND IT AT ALL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A MOTION?
>> MR. PRESIDENT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL PLEASE STATE AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES THREE-2. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES. DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.