* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:06] GOOD MORNING. I'M JEREMY MCDONALD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THANK Y'ALL FOR JOINING THIS MORNING. I KNOW THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT SHORT NOTICE, APPEAL TO THE BOARD. TYPICALLY, WE HAVE TWO WEEKS TO TURN THIS ONE OVER, UH, TO HEAR AN APPEAL AND PRESENT THAT TO THE BOARD. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ROOM IS GOING THROUGH RENOVATIONS ON THE SECOND WEEK OF THAT TWO WEEK PERIOD, SO WE KIND OF HAD TO SQUEEZE THIS ONE IN. SO I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE LAST MINUTE TIME THAT Y'ALL PRESENTED AND BEING PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. WE'LL START TODAY OFF WITH OUR ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR SPECIAL, UH, SPANISH INTERPRETERS AVAILABLE. GOOD MORNING. OKAY. NEXT WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL FOR QUORUM. LEWIS OCULUS. PRESENT. OH YEAH. JEFF BYER. PRESENT. SCOTT BERGER. RON CMES. JOHN MARTIN. GREGORY MCFARLAND. HERE. ADRIAN CONTES. MAX HOSFORD. SPENCER ROSO. GEORGE SALIBA. GARY KUNTZ. HERE. EDWARD. EDWARD DEL TORO. ROBERT HANLEY. HERE. ROBERT JONES. MARK BEUS. LON COLBERTSON. HERE. MICHAEL RUST. HERE. MARK ROSS LIDDEL. TOY PRESENT. PETER LEY. BRIAN E. SMITH. JOES PRESENT. WILLIAM BURRIS. KAREN CARPENTER, JACK MOORE, ERIC AND FRANK LEY. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE 10 MEMBERS THROUGH OUR PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE FOR COMBINED QUORUM OF ABOVE NINE. SO WE DO HAVE QUORUM FOR THIS MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST ACTION. UH, AGENDA ITEM. GO AHEAD. DO WE NEED TO, DO WE NEED TO APPROVE LAST MONTH, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A AGENDA ITEM? YES. OKAY, PERFECT. YEAH. SO THE, UH, GEN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS TO APPROVE THE JUNE, JULY 21ST, 2022 MEETING MINUTES. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. ROBERT DANLEY MOVE APPROVAL. IT'S MIKE RU. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO, AT THIS POINT, I THINK, I THINK THE ONLY PEOPLE PRESENT ARE THOSE THAT ARE PART OF THE APPEAL. SO DEFINITELY YOU'LL HAVE TIME DURING THAT TIME. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY BEFORE THAT, THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR THAT. OKAY. SO NO PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMENT BEFORE WE START THE AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER TWO. SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. THIS IS A PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE VOTING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO DENY THE SIGNED PERMIT. REQUESTED FOR FIRST MARK, UH, BANK, ACTUALLY, CREDIT UNION AT 2103 NORTH 1604 EAST UNDER PERMIT RECORD. AND, UH, S I G PERMIT APPLICATION 22 2 0 8 0 1 6 0 3. UH, AND THIS APPEAL IS, UH, RECORDED UNDER THIS REQUISITION NUMBER AS WELL. SO THIS IS CHAPTER 28. I KNOW THIS BOARD OVERSEES BOTH CHAPTER 10 AND CHAPTER 28. CHAPTER 10 BEING ALL THE, THE ADOPTED BUILDING CODES. CHAPTER 28 IS OUR SIGN CODE. WE DO HAVE, FORTUNATELY, A FEW OF THESE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE SIGN CODE HAVE REVIEW PROCESS. WE'RE UPDATING THAT CURRENTLY. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE KNOWLEDGE ON THIS BOARD THAN I WOULD SAY TYPICAL, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIGN CODE. BUT I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HERE IS KIND OF AWARE OF CERTAIN TERMINOLOGY AND CERTAIN ITEMS ABOUT THE SIGN CODE THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT TODAY AND THE IMPACT, UH, ACCORDING TO CODE. SO ONE OF THE BIG ONES, AND IT'S NOT HERE, UH, IS KIND OF THE, THE SIGN CODE'S BUILT AROUND TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. AN ON-PREMISE SIGN, AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN ON-PREMISE SIGN IS I HAVE A BUSINESS ON A WITH A LOT. I HAVE A SIGN DEDICATED TO THAT BUSINESS. I CAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RULES AND REGULATIONS ON WHAT SIZE, SIGNS AND INFORMATION CAN BE BLOWN THERE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT'S CALLED AN ON-PREMISE SIGN. I CAN ADVERTISE FOR MY BUSINESS LOCATED AT [00:05:01] THAT PREMISE. OFF-PREMISE SIGNS IS WHEN YOU'RE KIND OF SEEING BILLBOARDS AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHERS BEYOND JUST BILLBOARDS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF A SIGN THAT'S DEDICATED TO ADVERTISING, TO, YOU KNOW, SELLING THAT SIGN AS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO WHOEVER WANTS TO USE IT. SO, EVERYTHING WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS ON-PREMISE SCIENCE, BUT IT DOES KIND OF MORPH INTO A LITTLE BIT OF OFF-PREMISE, AND THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHT THAT. UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT AN SS AND P IS FOR. SO, AN SS AND P, UH, WHICH WE'LL NORMALLY SEE IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT, UH, TYPICALLY COMMERCIAL WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, STRIP CENTERS WITH MULTIPLE TENANTS AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE THEIR, THEIR INDUSTRY OR THEIR, OR, UH, BUSINESS ON ONE SIDE OF THAT STRIP CENTER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. AND LIKE A LARGE, UM, LIKE I SAID, ANY TYPE OF STRIPES STRIP CENTER. SO IT ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE AWAY FROM THEIR LOT AND ADVERTISE KIND OF THROUGHOUT THAT WHOLE STRIP CENTER OR LARGE DEVELOPMENT AS THROUGH A SS M P. SO, AND IT'S AN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYBODY, PART OF THAT S AND P THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE, WE'RE UNIFORM. WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS. AND WE DESIGN AND WE SET UP WHERE SIGNS CAN BE THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO WE KINDA LACKS THE ON-PREMISE SIGN REQUIREMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 28. UNDER THE S AND P, THE, THE GIVE AND TAKE FOR THAT IS IN ORDER FOR AN SS AND P TO BE APPROVED IS EVERY LOT IS, IS ALLOWED SUCH A SIZE OF SIGN AND SUCH A HEIGHT OF A SIGN BASED ON WHAT SIZE STREET IT'S NEXT TO AN EXPRESSWAY REQUIRE, ALLOWS FOR A CERTAIN HEIGHT OF A SIGN AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A SIGN, ARTERIAL, UH, STREETS, AND THEN DOWN, UH, LOWER THAN THAT. SO THEY'RE ALLOWED SO MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HEIGHT, AND THEY REDUCE THAT BY 25% OVERALL FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT LOTS IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT SS M P. SO EVERYBODY THAT'S SIGNED UP TO BE PART OF THIS PLAN, THEY COMBINE, THEY SAY, HERE'S THE TOTAL HEIGHT THAT WE'RE ALLOWED FOR ALL THE SIGNS. HERE'S THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THEY REDUCE THAT BY 25% ROUGHLY. AND THEN THEY PRESENT THAT AND THEY CREATE AN S M P AND THAT GETS APPROVED. LET'S SEE HERE. UM, THE REQUIREMENTS TO DO THAT IS THEY INCLUDES TWO OR MORE CONTIGUOUS LOTS. SO ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A OVERALL PLAN, BUT EACH ONE OF THESE BUSINESSES ARE TECHNICALLY ON A DIFFERENT LOT. THE OWNERS OF ALL THE LOTS TO AGREE IN WRITING TO THE S AND P. SO ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED, A SIGNATURE SIGN SAYING, HERE'S THE NEW S AND P THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT AND, UH, BE APPROVED. AND ALL EXISTING SIGNS WITHIN THE S P UH, CONFORM TO THAT S AND P. SO REALLY, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU'VE NOT COME IN AFTER THE FACT WITH AN SS AND P WE'RE SAYING, HEY, HERE'S THE SIGNS THAT ARE OUT HERE. WE EITHER NEED TO, TO, UH, REMOVE THOSE IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH S AND P CURRENTLY, OR YOU ADD THAT TO YOUR INVENTORY THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE S AND P AND SAY, LOOK, WE'RE STILL REDUCING EVERYTHING BY 25% AND WE'RE GONNA FALL INTO, UH, THOSE APPROVED GUIDELINES. SO THE LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS, UH, THE S AND P THAT IS IMPACTING THIS SIGN WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BACK IN 2005 AND THEN, UH, WAS MODIFIED BACK IN 2008. SO BOTH DURING THAT TIME, ALL OF THAT WAS, UH, OVERSEEN BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL 2017. THE RECENT VERSION OF THE CHAPTER 28, THEY MOVED THAT TO MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. SO ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL 2017, ALL SMPS AND MODIFICATIONS TO SMPS WERE, WERE SEEN AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND THAT WAS THE APPROVAL PROCESS. NOW IT IS AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, UH, THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS ONE SITS RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AT A MODIFYING OF AN S AND P, IT WOULD BE AN INTERNAL TO A STAFF. AND LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS A PROVEN UNDER THE 2017, UH, EDITION, THE JULY 3RD, 2017 EDITION OF THE SIGN CODE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER. YEAH. OH YEAH. IS THAT, THIS IS MY CROSS, IS THAT WHY WE'RE HEARING THIS AND NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? 'CAUSE BASED ON THE, THE WAY THE, THE BOOK READS, YOU KNOW, VARIANCES GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. SO THIS ISN'T A VARIANCE, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. IT'S A, IT'S A GRAY AREA OF THINGS, WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO. SO WE FELT LIKE THIS BOARD WAS THE EASIEST TO COME TO AND, AND HELP US MAKE A DECISION ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE IF WE CAN'T MAKE, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION, OR IF WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF CHAPTER 28 IT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. BUT, BUT I WOULD SAY THIS IS KIND OF A GRAY AREA. IS IT MORE OF AN INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 28, OR IS IT A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 28? AND DEFINITELY, I THINK THE, THE DIALOGUE, HOPEFULLY WE'LL PRESENT THAT. AND JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SO WHO DOES MAKE THAT JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT GOES TO A, A TRUE VARIANCE, THIS BOARD, LEGAL INTERNAL STAFF? UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT, IT'D PROBABLY BE THROUGH THIS DIALOGUE, UH, WITH THIS BOARD AND WE KINDA SEE WHAT COMES OUT. AND THEN ALSO DEFINITELY WHAT THE APPLICANTS, YOU KNOW, BENEFITS THE APPLICANTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UH, THIS IS, AND I'LL ZOOM IN ON A CERTAIN AREA, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SEE Y'ALL TO SEE THE OVERALL, UH, S AND P THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOK. SO THIS IS THE 2008 MODIFICATION. UH, THIS IS AT 1604 SONARA 2 81, UH, INTERCHANGE. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PROBABLY DRIVEN BY, IN THIS AREA. YOU GOT THE, THE BEST BUY, THE, THE EVENT CENTER, ALL OF THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS ORIGINALLY UNDER THE 20, UH, 2005. THEY MADE A CHANGE BACK IN 2008 THAT WASN'T SIGNIFICANT. THEY HAD SOME VARIANCES THAT ALLOWED FOR SOME SPACING. UH, SO THE SIGNS IN BLUE [00:10:01] WERE THE CHANGES. AND NOT ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN INSTALLED YET. SO, AND I'LL, LIKE I SAID, I'LL ZOOM IN. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE HERE, UH, BUT I WANTED Y'ALL TO KINDA AT LEAST GET AN IDEA OF THE FULL, UH, SCOPE OF THE SS AND P UM, ON THE TOP LEFT CORNER, THAT IS THE ONLY LAWN LEGACY OWNER. UH, SO SAN TICOS OWNS EVERYTHING, AND I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT, RIGHT? SAN OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. ALMOST . OKAY. OH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THE TOP LEFT IS THE ONLY ONE THEY DON'T OWN. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. UM, BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE LANDOWNERS ON THIS ONE, UH, BOTH NOTABLY THE, THE TOP LEFT, WHICH IS, UH, LA FITNESS AT THIS TIME. BUT THE SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING IN IS, THIS WAS THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE, OF THE MAIN AREA. SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A POINTER, BUT BOTTOM RIGHT THERE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT SS M P IS THREE MONUMENT SIGNS AROUND, UH, WHAT'S CURRENTLY LABELED AS A CITIBANK IS THE FIRST MARK. AND UNDER THOSE MOD MONUMENT SIGNS, WHAT WE HAVE ON THE, ON THE TABLE THERE IS WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE S AND P, THE SIGNAGE ALLOWED. THAT WOULD BE, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN SS AND P AND THEY JUST HAD THAT LOT SPECIFICALLY, THEY CAN GO TO CHAPTER 28, LOOK AT THE TABLE, AND THEY WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, BASED ON ME BEING NEXT TO AN EXPRESSWAY THAT'S 1604, I WOULD ALLOW BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A, UH, THAT'S MONUMENT SIGN 11. SO 45 HIGH, UH, HEIGHT AND FOR A SIGN AS WELL AS 487.5 SQUARE FEET. BUT BASED ON THE S AND P AND THE COMPROMISES THEY MADE IN ORDER TO CREATE THAT S AND P AND ALLOW MORE SIGNS, AND THAT WAS REDUCED TO 16 FOOT HEIGHT AND 180 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S WHAT'S APPROVED CURRENTLY UNDER THE PROPOSED S AND P. THE S AND P IS DEVELOPED BY EVERYBODY THAT'S PART OF THAT S AND P, NOT BY THE STATE OR BY THE CITY OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THEY KIND OF JUST SAY, LOOK, HERE'S OUR PROPOSAL TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE S AND P AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE, A LITTLE BIT LAXING OF THE CHAPTER 28 RULES FOR ON-PREMISE SIGNS. AND HERE'S WHAT WE GAVE UP. SO THAT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT, THAT IT'D BE 16 FOOT AND 180 SQUARE FEET. THAT WAS JUST WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO STAFF AND THE B UH, B O A AT THE TIME. SO THE DECISION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE SIZE, AND I THINK EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW WHAT WAS PRESENTED. AND, AND I KNOW THE APPELLANT WILL, UH, PRESENT A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL OF THE SIGN THAT THEY WANNA DO. UH, WE'RE JUST GONNA KINDA GIVE YOU THE DETAILS AND ALLOW THEM TO TAKE OVER FROM THERE. BUT THE DECISION WAS TO DENY THAT PERMIT. THE CURRENT SS AND P AS STATED BEFORE, ALLOWS FOR 16 FOOT AND 180 SQUARE FEET. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 37 FOOT SIX INCH IN HEIGHT AND 207 2 SQUARE FOOT SIGN FACE. UH, SO WAS, AS I SAID BEFORE, UNDER SEC CHAPTER 28, SECTION 45, WHICH IS WHERE THAT TABLE'S LOCATED UNDER, IF A STANDALONE LOT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. BUT UNDER THE S M P, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE TO PROVE IT THROUGH, IS, UH, DOESN'T, IT EXCEEDS BOTH HEIGHT AND SQUARE OR AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FACE. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL OF THE PERMIT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. UH, BEFORE WE HANDLE OFF, BUT WANNA MAKE SURE WE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE BEFORE WE TURN OVER TO, UH, THE APP APPELLANT. I, I JUST HAVE A, I I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH THIS, SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS ON, SO WHEN YOU HAVE AN SS M P AND IT SAID THAT ALL OWNERS HAVE TO AGREE TO IT, RIGHT? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE. SO WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES UP, ARE WE GOING OUTSIDE OF ALL OWNERS AGREEING WITH IT? OR, OR IS IT JUST A SINGULAR REQUEST? SO CHAPTER 28 TALKS ABOUT HOW TO DEVELOP AN SS AND P, ALL OWNER OWNERS HAVE TO SIGN OFF TO APPROVE AN SS AND P. UH, BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US HOW TO MODIFY OR, OR DISSOLVE AN S AND P. SO, YOU KNOW, UH, WORKING WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO COME, COME AND MODIFY THAT S AND P, AND I'M SURE THEY'LL PRESENT THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT WE'VE, THEY'VE, THEY'VE HAD TROUBLE GAINING ALL THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED, AND THAT'S WHERE THE S AND PSS STOPPED AT. UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE CAN GO INTO THAT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT AS, AS, AS WELL. MOSTLY, I ONLY WANNA PRESENT IT ON THE ACTUAL SIGN ITSELF. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE DENIAL AT THIS POINT. THE SS AND P, WE'VE TALKED TO THEM, WE'VE SAT WITH THEM, THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS SINCE ABOUT 2019, I THINK. UH, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, THAT WASN'T THE FINAL, THAT WASN'T THE ACTUAL DECISION MADE. THAT'S MORE OF A CONSULTATION THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM ABOUT THE S AND P, AND THEY KINDA SAY, HEY, WE WANNA MODIFY IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES. SO WE KIND OF SAY, WELL GET US ALL THE SIG SIGNATURES AND THEN WE CAN MODIFY IT. UH, BUT WE HAVE SEEN, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED S AND P ROBERT HELEY. YES, SIR. UH, JEREMY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. SO, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE A CURRENT S M P, BUT TO GET THIS REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT, YOU'D NEED ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT S M P TO SIGN OFF ON IT. IS THAT CORRECT? IS MY UNDERSTANDING? WELL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO UPDATE THE S AND P TO ALLOW FOR THIS SIGN, WHICH DOES, WHICH OUR INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 28, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT'S REQUIRED TO MODIFY OR DISSOLVE. WE JUST USE, YOU KNOW, HEY, IT REQUIRES ALL SIGNATURES TO, TO CREATE [00:15:01] OUR INTERPRETATION IS IT REQUIRES ALL SIGNATURES TO MODIFY, ASK QUESTION. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, UM, THE SMPS AND THE SS P PROCESS. SO AS THE DEVELOPMENT'S BEING MADE IN 2005, THEY COME UP WITH THE S M P, I'M SURE THE DEVELOPMENT PROBABLY PREDATES, UM, 2005 IN SOME, IN SOME ASPECTS AT LEAST. UM, YOU PUT A GRAPH UP THERE THAT SHOWED THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA, THEY AGREED TO WHAT SS P THAT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE. SO THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER'S GIVEN UP. WHAT IS THE CITY LIKE? WHAT'S THE EXCHANGE, RIGHT? WHAT, WHAT IS THE WHAT, AND NOT NECESSARILY FOR THIS ONE, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, WHAT IS THE MOTIVATING FACTOR FOR AN SS P? IS IT JUST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SIGNS BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S A, IT'S A NIGHTMARE TO GET ALL THE DIFFERENT OWNERS TOGETHER? OR IS THE CITY GIVING SOME MATERIAL BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER IN EXCHANGE FOR THE S M P? IN OUR, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN IF I MISQUOTE, BUT I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, INHERENTLY IT'S THAT ON-PREMISE, OFF-PREMISE, YOU KNOW, SO THEY HAVE THEIR LOT, THEY'RE REALLY ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE A SIGN NEXT TO THEIR BUILDING ADVERTISING THAT, AND YOU HAVE THIS LARGE DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU WANNA BE ABLE TO KIND OF SAY, HEY, HERE'S AN ENTRANCE AND HERE'S A SIGN. YOU KNOW, I WANNA HAVE A SIGN AT THAT MAIN ENTRANCE SAYING, HEY, I HAVE THIS BUILDING HERE. SO THAT'S PART OF IT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT'S ALL OF IT, BUT PART OF IT IS TO KINDA HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, UM, ABILITY TO ADVERTISE A LITTLE BIT OFF OF YOUR SPECIFIC LOT. SO THAT'S THE GIVEAWAY. IS THAT ON-PREMISE SLASH OFF-PREMISE KIND OF GRAY AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THIS IS MIKE RUPA. I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT WHEN I WOULD STARTED MY QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE. YEAH, , GEEZ. UM, SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IT, SO JUST AS A OBJECTIVE, FORGET THE, THE, THE BUREAUCRACY AND EVERYTHING, IF EVERY BUILDING OR BUSINESS OUT ON THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SIGN THAT'S ALLOWABLE BY, YOU KNOW, THE CODE, I GUESS THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE ON THIS PROPERTY THAN THERE EXISTS TODAY. I, I CAN'T, I HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH TO SAY THAT, BUT IN ORDER TO CREATE THE S AND P, THE WHOLE POINT IS YOU HAVE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA OF ALL THE LOTS ASSOCIATED BY 25%. SO IT THAT, SO THEY MIGHT HAVE REDUCED IT MORE THAN THAT. I MEAN, THESE ARE, I WOULD SAY, HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SIGN CODE PROCESS AND SEEING THE SIGNS THAT ARE OUT THERE, I WOULD SAY THESE ARE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE SIGNS, VERY SMALL MONUMENT SIGNS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT'VE REDUCED IT EVEN MORE THAN THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE GIVE AND TAKE WAS. THAT WAS BACK IN 2005. AND I, I WON'T LIE. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, WE'RE HAPPY TO RESEARCH AND GET MORE INFORMATION AND I, I KNOW LARRY WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL, SO HE CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS WELL. JEREMY, THIS IS ROBERT GAN. UH, WHAT IS THE PROCESS OR PROCEDURE IF A, UH, A PROPERTY OWNER THERE DID NOT WANT TO BE PART OF A S M P? HOW DO YOU GET RID OF AN SS M P ON A, ON AN ASSET THAT'S MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT OWNERS? SO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO CHAPTER 28, IS WHEN THEY SIGN OFF ON THAT, THEY'RE AGREEING THAT ALL FUTURE OWNERS. SO IT IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ESSENCE, PERPETUITY TO ANYBODY THAT OWNS IT AFTER THAT. SO, UH, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S ALSO KIND OF THE GRAY AREA THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO HERE OF, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO SPECIFICATIONS ON DISSOLVING OR MODIFYING. IT IS REALLY JUST, WE ALL WE HAVE IS THE GUIDELINES ON HOW TO CREATE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING AS INTERPRETATION FOR ABLE EITHER TO DISSOLVE OR MODIFY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL THEN I'LL, UH, PULL THE PRESENTATION AND TURN OVER TO THE APPELLANT ON, OKAY, THERE WE GO. HI, GOOD MORNING. I'M ASHLEY FAIRMONT WITH KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT. UM, I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF AETNA. AND FIRST MARK, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE LARRY GOTTMAN, UM, AND THEN RICK NELSON WITH FIRST MARK. LARRY'S GONNA COME UP AND SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT HISTORY SINCE, SINCE IT CAME UP, BUT I DO, UM, I KNOW JEREMY WENT THROUGH THIS, BUT JUST TO ORIENT YOU ALL TO A LITTLE BIT OF, OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. SO IT'S THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1604 AND 2 81. UH, AND WHERE THAT STAR IS, IS WHERE THE FIRST SMART CREDIT UNION IS, AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS AND, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A SIGN. UM, AND AS YOU HEARD, THIS ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO, OR, OR WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A SIGNED COPY. UM, BUT AT THE TIME, IN 2005 WHEN IT WAS CREATED, UM, MR. SANTIKOS WAS THE ONE WHO OWNED ALL OF THE PROPERTY. IT PREDATED, UM, I MEAN, THERE WAS SOME DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, BUT IT PREDATED ANY VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS. SO, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, 17 YEARS AGO, I THINK THE VISION MAYBE WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OUT AT THIS CORNER, PARTICULARLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1604. AND THE FLYOVERS SENTARA IS GOING TO BE CONNECTED PRETTY SOON THROUGH THERE AS A BOND PROJECT. AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY AN ISSUE WITH VISIBILITY AND PROJECT CHANGES. UM, AND THEN I CAN GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN A MINUTE, BUT I THINK SINCE IT CAME UP, I'M GO AHEAD AND LET LARRY COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF, OF HOW THIS WAS INITIALLY CREATED. GOOD MORNING. HEY, JACK. I'M LARRY GOTTMAN. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF AETNA DESIGN GROUP. UM, I WON'T BORE YOU WITH TOO MANY DETAILS, BUT I CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE BACK IN 94 THAT [00:20:01] ACTUALLY DRAFTED THE SIGN CODE. UM, JUST BEFORE WE COMPLETED IT. UH, A DEVELOPER RAISED HIS HAND IN THE BACK AND SAID, HEY, WHAT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FILL IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THEN ALL OF THE BACK PROPERTY IS LEFT OUT? HOW ARE WE GONNA, UM, SIGN THOSE PROPERTIES? AND THAT'S HOW THE MASTER SIGN PLAN GOT DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE, IF THEY DON'T HAVE FRONTAGE, COULD HAVE SIGNS, UM, BEHIND THE FRONTAGE IF THEY, SO ANYWAY, UM, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BRIEF HISTORY. UM, JOHN SANTIKOS WAS A CLIENT OF MINE. AND, UM, ANYWAY, WHEN HE, WHEN WE DID THIS MASTER SIGN PLAN, UM, JOHN DID NOT LIKE BILLBOARDS, OKAY. AND HE DID NOT LIKE, UM, BIG, TALL, AGGRESSIVE SIGNS. SO HE SAID, I JUST WANTED TO DO SOME MONUMENT SIGNS HERE, AND, UM, THAT'S HOW I WANT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. THEN JUST BEFORE HE DIED, WE GOT TOGETHER AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, I GOT ALL MY TENANTS COMPLAINING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN AND I NEED TO REDO THIS, UM, PLAN. I SAID, WELL, UM, WE MIGHT NEED TO GET OTHERS. HE SAID, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I DIDN'T EVEN SIGN THIS PLAN. SO ANYWAY, THEN HE DIED, AND NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HE LEFT HIS FORTUNE TO, UM, ON ALL OF THE SIGNAGE AND, UH, SANTIKO'S PROPERTIES. UM, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED HERE IS A 60 FOOT TALL, 650 SQUARE FOOT SIGN PER CITY CODE. IF YOU DRIVE ALONG 1604, YOU'LL SEE THAT SAM RE HAS A 60 FOOT, 650 FOOT SQUARE FOOT SIGN. SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP HERE IS A LOT. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THE CHANGES TO THIS MASTER SIGN PLAN ARE GOING TO INCLUDE EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY. SO I'LL KEEP IT SHORT. IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM. IT'S MIKE RUSS AGAIN. SO, JUST TO RECAP WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THE FIRST MARK BANK, IF IT WAS NOT PART OF THE SS M P, WE'D BE AUTHORIZED A 60 FOOT, HOW MANY? SIX 650 SQUARE FOOT, 60 FOOT TALL SIGN. AND THE SIGN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, I COULD LOOK IT UP. IT'S 37 FEET AND TWO, I THOUGHT IT WAS 225 SQUARE FEET. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT YOU HAD? OH, 2 72, I'M SORRY. OKAY. 37 FEET AND 2 72. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? CORRECT. JUST, JUST FOR CLARITY FOR ME, I MEAN, I'M, I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF GOING THROUGH, EXCUSE ME, I JUST JACK UP MORE, UH, WHEELS AND TRYING TO FIND PROPERTIES AND A LOT OF THINGS FOR AN ESTATE SITUATION FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS. AND EVERYTHING I HAVE FROM, I'M BEING TOLD THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SIGNED DEED, IF YOU DON'T HAVE SIGNED X, SO IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE A SIGNED SS M P IS THIS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER WITH A BUNCH OF WRITING ON IT WITHOUT ANY SIGNATURES? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S BOTH FOR THE 2005 ORIGINAL AND THE 2008 MODI MODIFICATION. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE COPIES OF THIS EITHER? THAT IS CORRECT. UH, WE, WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM THE 2008 BOARD. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE BOTH PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. AND, UH, WE ALSO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION IN THE WAY OF MEETING MINUTES AND AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE 2008. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT FOR THE 2005, UH, BUT CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY WET R COPIED SIGNATURES. BUT IT'S THE UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH PARTIES THAT IT WAS EXECUTED. CORRECT. NO ONE'S DISPUTING THAT THAT CORRECT. EXACTLY. WE'RE KIND OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS MET THE, IN THE INTEREST OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STILL KIND OF, UH, BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO, TO HAVE THE BOARD PROVIDE US, YOU KNOW, ANY GUIDANCE. OKAY. UH, LIDDEL TOY, LARRY, UH, YOU SAID IF FIRST MARK WASN'T IN THE S AND P, THEY'RE ALLOWED 6 50, 60 FOOT FOOT IN HEIGHT YEP. AS A SINGLE TENANT? YES. THEY HAVE A MULTI, THEY HAVE A MULTITENANT LOCATION. THEY HAVE THREE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. OH, OKAY. ALRIGHT. I, BECAUSE NORMALLY IF IT WASN'T, HE'D GET 3 75 AT 50 FEET. YES. BUT THEY HAD, SO THAT'S WHERE THEY, THEY HAVE THREE CFOS. SO WHERE LARRY IS, IS COMING IN AT 37 POINT A HALF FEET. THAT'S, THAT'S, EXCUSE ME, THAT'S A REDUCTION OF 25%. CORRECT. FROM IT'S MORE, IT'S MORE THAN THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S WHERE [00:25:01] HE IS GETTING THAT 37 AND A HALF AT TWO 70 MM-HMM. TWO. OKAY. YEAH. AND, UH, BUT JUST BY THE WAY, MY COMPANY HAS DONE OVER 50 MASTER SIGN PLANS, AND I'VE BEEN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, HAVING THEM MODIFIED. UM, SO JUST SOME HISTORY THERE. THIS IS GREG MCFARLAND. MM-HMM. , AND I'M, I'M PHRASING THIS ON A PAST EXPERIENCE. I DEALT WITH THAT, UM, IN A DIFFERENT TOWN, DIFFERENT CITY THAT, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MEETING MINUTES THAT INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO NO OFFICIAL SIGNATURES THAT HAD BEEN PUT DOWN. I WAS INVOLVED IN CONTESTING ONE OF THOSE, AND THE CITY CAME BACK AND SAID, BECAUSE NONE OF THIS WAS PRESENT, IT DOESN'T COUNT, PERIOD. SO WHAT IS THE CITY'S LEGAL OPINION ON THIS TO COME OUT OF THAT? MM-HMM. , THIS IS, UH, JOSEPH HARNEY WITH THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YEAH. UM, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT HISTORY. UM, IF WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE THAT, UH, AN AGREEMENT WAS IN EXISTENCE THAT IT DID GET IN INTO, AND I WOULD THINK THAT, UM, WE MAYBE A, A MORE, UM, EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH, UH, MIGHT BE NEEDED. UM, I, I, I, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE, THE DETAILS, UM, BUT THE, THE B O A, UH, EVIDENCE, UH, WOULD LEND ITSELF TO BELIEVE THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY INVOLVED THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING VIABLE. UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, WITH THOSE TWO CASES, UM, I DON'T KNOW THE, AGAIN, THE ORIGINS BACK IN 2005, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE FILED FOR RECORD, UM, THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE COUNTY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF, IF A, YOU KNOW, A SEARCH HAS BEEN A THOROUGH SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FOR ANY EVIDENCE THERE. UM, BUT, UH, YEAH, AT THIS POINT, I, I THINK THERE'S AN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING WAS INTENDED AMONGST THE PARTIES AND GIVEN THE HISTORY, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TODAY. JOSEPH, REAL QUICK, SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A REQUIREMENT, IS THAT A B O A REQUIREMENT OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CHAPTER 28 REQUIREMENT THAT IT'D BE DOCUMENTED WITH, UH, VERA COUNTY IN, UH, CHAPTER 28, THERE'S A PROVISION ABOUT, UH, FILING FOR RECORD. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. SO THAT WAS ADOPTED UNDER 2017. IT WAS NOT THERE PRIOR TO THAT. THAT'S KIND OF BECAUSE WE WERE RUNNING INTO THIS, THAT'S WHY WE WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRINGENT, MAKING SURE IT'S ALL DOCUMENTED PROPERLY. BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN THE PAST THAT WASN'T. BUT I'M HAPPY, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER Y'ALL WANNA SEE IT BEFORE OR AFTER, I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT WE'VE PULLED UP ON THE B O A MINUTES FROM THE 2008, IF Y'ALL JUST WANNA SEE SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT'S OFFICIAL WITH THE CITY STILL OUT THERE. JEREMY, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY AGAIN. UH, UH, MY QUESTION, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS, HOW MANY SMPS ARE THERE? ONE, AND IF THE, THIS BOARD, UH, UH, GRANTED THE APPEAL, UH, WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT DOES THIS SET FOR ALL THE OTHER SMPS? I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I WANNA SAY IN THE ORDER, THE ONE TO 200 I THINK IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT, AT LEAST. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. UM, AND PRECEDENT, I MEAN, BASED OFF OF WHAT WE COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, I I I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING COMES FROM THIS APPEAL THAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGE HIS CODE. NOW, ONCE AGAIN, OUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE CHAPTER 28 PROCESS CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. MAYBE THIS BOARD KINDA LEADS US TO MAKING THAT CHANGE. I WOULD SAY THIS ONE'S VERY UNIQUE. UM, YOU KNOW, I I, BASED ON THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE S AND P, WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY PEOPLE AGAINST IT. NOBODY'S COME TO US SAYING THEY'RE AGAINST IT. IT'S MORE OF A GETTING EVERYBODY TO SIGN OFF. IT'S MORE OF A, JUST GETTING THE SIGNATURES VERSUS HAVING SOMEBODY THAT'S PART OF THE CURRENT SS AND P BEING AGAINST THE CHANGE. AND NONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THE PROPOSED 2019 REALLY AFFECTS THE SIGNAGE THATS OUT THERE CURRENTLY. AND THAT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY SIGNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY APPROVED TO THIS S AND P PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS NOW GONNA COME DOWN. AND JUST VERY QUICKLY IN THE MODIFICATIONS THAT, UM, WE PRESENTED A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN EVERY CASE, WE WERE REQUIRED TO REDUCE HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 25 SQUARE FEET. AND IN THIS CASE, WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING BOTH BY MORE THAN THAT. YES. ROBERT, I ALSO WANNA SAY LARRY AND HIS GROUP, UM, HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A NEW S AND P FOR YEARS NOW, . UM, BUT AS, LET ME SKIP AHEAD REALLY QUICK. SO HERE IS 2005, BY THE WAY, BUT, SO THIS IS THE CURRENT AERIAL OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. AND, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGE AS YOU CAN SEE. AND THOSE TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THOSE HAVE DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS. LIFETIME HAS A DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP. AND THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY A NEW HOTEL OUT THERE NOW THAT'S UNDER DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP. AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IS, AS THE SS AND P IS BEING AMENDED, OR I GUESS REALLY A NEW PLAN IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, UM, THERE'S [00:30:01] BEEN CHANGES. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE AN S AND P THAT MOVES FORWARD THAT IS COMPLETE SO THAT WE'RE NOT UNDER THIS SITUATION AGAIN. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALL OF THOSE OWNERS ASKING THEM TO GET OFF TO SIGN OFF ON A NEW PLAN, UH, CONSTANTLY. SO, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY, 'CAUSE I'M WORKING ON A ZONING CASE NOW, UM, A THIRD APARTMENT COMPLEX COMING IN THAT WILL FILL IN SOME OF THAT PARKING AREA THAT YOU SEE NEXT TO MAIN EVENT AND IN BETWEEN THE, THE HOTEL. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ONCE THAT HAPPENS, ONCE SONARA IS CONNECTED, I THINK THAT HOPEFULLY THE PLAN WILL BE FINAL AND WE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD TO WORK WITH JEREMY AND HIS GROUP ON, UM, THE ACTUAL UPDATED PLAN. AND THAT UPDATED PLAN WILL INCLUDE HOPEFULLY THE FIRST MARK SIGN, UH, IF WE CAN GET THAT APPROVED. EXCELLENT. UH, LET ME ASK A QUESTION. SO IF YOU REDO THE SS M P, DOES THAT ADDRESS FIRST MARKS, UH, CONCERNS ? WE EVEN, THE, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WAS THE GOAL INITIALLY. UM, BUT IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS NOW, AND SO THAT PLAN HASN'T BEEN RENEWED. SO WE'D, WE'D LIKE TO GET THAT SIGN APPROVED AND THEN INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW PLAN, UH, SO THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IT WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW PLAN. THIS IS MIKE RUSS. SO, AND I'M JUST IN, IN, UH, NON-SPECIFICALLY, JUST AS A GENERAL THING, TO GET ANY CHANGES TO THE S AND P, YOU WOULD NEED, NEED, UH, APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER OF THE APARTMENT COMP, THE SEPARATE APARTMENT COMPLEX. SO SEPARATE OWNERS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE THE ONES HOLDING IT UP, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE. 'CAUSE I CAN SEE WHERE AN OWNER OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IS, LIKE, I'M NOT SIGNING ANY, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SIGNAGE. I, YOU KNOW, I APPROACH YEAH. WELL, AND THEN THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE APPROACH OF MOST SEASON , MOST OF THEM. I MEAN, THAT'S THE STRUGGLE. AND SO THE INITIAL PLAN WAS SIGNED OR NOT, IT WAS WITH JOHN SANTIKOS, WHO WAS THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE THING, UM, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. AND THEN IT'S, YOU KNOW, PIECES HAVE BEEN SOLD OFF. AND, AND THAT'S THE STRUGGLE IS IT'S HARD TO GO TO A, A NATIONAL COMPANY LIKE LIFETIME FITNESS AND SAY, HEY, WILL YOU SIGN OFF ON THIS AMENDMENT? AND THEN, WELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF ACTUALLY WE CAN AMEND. IT'S REALLY AMEND THE PLAN. IT'S REALLY JUST A NEW PLAN EVERY TIME. SO THEN WE'RE GOING BACK AGAIN A YEAR LATER AND SAYING, HEY, WILL YOU SIGN OFF ON ANOTHER NEW PLAN? ANOTHER NEW PLAN. SO WE'D LIKE TO DO ONE BECAUSE IT'S HARD, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, TO GET PEOPLE INTERESTED IN A MASTER SIGN PLAN IN SAN ANTONIO WHEN THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF GYMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO, UH, THIS IS GREG MCFARLAND. I'M GONNA PUSH ON THIS EVEN HARDER BECAUSE AGAIN, I'VE LOST THAT LAWSUIT. MM-HMM. . AND IF THE DOCUMENT DOESN'T EXIST AND THE CITY CAN'T FIND THE DOCUMENT, AND IT DOESN'T EXIST NOW, JUST BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S ASSUMED IT, THE PRI THE, THE ISSUE I WAS IN, IT WENT FOR 25 YEARS AS WELL, WE STILL LOST. AND SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, WHERE THERE IS NO SIGNED ENCOUNTER, SIGNED DOCUMENT ANYWHERE THAT ANYBODY KNOWS OF AT THIS TIME. AND SO ARE WE REALLY BACK TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO S M P JUST 'CAUSE EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S THERE. IT'S NOT THERE, THERE'S NO DOCUMENT. AND SO ARE WE LITERALLY JUST BACK TO WHERE WE'RE STATE STRAIGHT UP CHAPTER 28 FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL TENANT? IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE'LL WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS A LOT OF OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE THROUGHOUT THAT COMPLEX BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, LIFETIME FITNESS HAS A SIGN THAT AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND AS WELL AS MANY OF THE OTHER TENANTS OUT THERE THAT WOULD NOT PREVIOUSLY BE ALLOWED. SO IF WE GO THAT DOWN THAT AVENUE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, REACHING OUT TO ALL OF THEM AND, AND HAVING ALL THOSE SIGNS CURRENTLY REMOVED. IT'S NOT SAYING WE WOULD DO IT IMMEDIATELY, WE'D TRY TO FIND, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS, BUT LEGALLY I THINK WE'D HAVE TO GO THAT APPROACH. YEAH. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY THING IS I'M JUST SITTING HERE IN MY HEAD GOING, THEY'RE PEELING A DENIAL BASED ON SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS, I MEAN, TOMAS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, PRIOR TO 2017, CHAPTER 28 DID NOT REQUIRE THE SMPS TO BE RECORDED. NOW THERE IS A LOT OF THEM THAT WERE RECORDED PRIOR TO 2017, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS NOT REQUIREMENT. NOW WE DO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION FROM 20 2005 AND 2008 WITH THE ORIGINAL, UH, SIGN MASTER PLAN AND, UH, CHANGES. AGAIN, IT'S NOT RECORDED, BUT WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION. AND AS JEREMY SAID, THE MAIN THING HERE IS IT, IT DID EXIST AND IT DOES EXIST TODAY BECAUSE IF IT DID NOT EXIST, YOU WILL NOT HAVE ALL THESE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS AROUND THE PROPERTY, AROUND THE SHOPPING CENTER. SO AGAIN, IF WE DECIDE TO SAY THIS, UH, SS M P DOES NOT EXIST, THEN A LOT OF SIGNAGE NEED TO BE REMOVED. YEAH, I I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF THIS YET, BUT I MEAN, I, I GET YOUR POINT, BUT IF THE OWNER IS NOT, I MEAN, YOU'RE DESCRIBING WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE A LEGAL [00:35:01] CAUSE OF ACTION IF THEY CHOOSE TO PURSUE IT, IF, DEPENDING ON HOW THIS ENDS UP OR, OR WHATEVER. UM, I THINK WE PROCEED HERE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH PARTIES IS, THAT ARE TACITLY SAYING THAT THE S AND P EXISTS. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT. I I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR THE, FOR THE APPELLANT, UM, BUT THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS RESULTS IN A LOT OF UGLINESS FOR, FOR BOTH SIDES, BECAUSE NOW, NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE STUCK WITH A, A MESS OF NON-CONFORMING SIGNS. UM, THE CITY'S IS, IS LEFT WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS LEGAL THING. UM, AND SO I THINK THAT I, I GET YOUR POINT AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP, BUT I THINK THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS APPEAL, I THINK WE'RE STUCK WITH JUST OUR OWN SCOPE OF, OF, OF, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT'S THE WORD? AUTHORITY. THANK YOU, ROBERT. UM, LIDDEL TOY. SO LARRY, YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON A NEW SS AND P FOR THE LAST COUPLE YEARS ON THIS PROPERTY, FIVE, FIVE YEARS. AND, UH, ALL OF THE TENANTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEED TO BE REMOVED. THEY'RE FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING THEM ON NEW PYLON SIGNS THAT WE'VE DESIGNED FOR THE NEW S M P. SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THEY'RE GETTING MUCH BIGGER SIGNS AND TALLER SIGNS. YEAH. 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA SUGGEST STARTING OUT WITH A NEW S AND P AND WITH A REDUCTION OF, OR WITH AN ADDITIONAL 25%. YEAH. ISN'T THE DUCTION NOW 40%? I MEAN, I'M SORRY, IT WENT FROM 40 TO 25. 25, RIGHT. YEAH. BUT AG AGAIN, UM, SO WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG? WELL, BECAUSE EVERY TIME, UM, LIFETIME FITNESS, UH, FINDS SOMEONE WHO'S AUTHORIZED TO MAKE DECISIONS, THEY EITHER GET FIRED OR MOVED. OKAY. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH PROBABLY SEVEN OF THEM AT THIS POINT. JUST LIKE THE CITY . YES. YEAH. BUT NO, NO COMMENTS. BUT, BUT THAT'S FUNNY. THAT'S FUNNY. BUT I DO WANNA REMIND YOU THAT JOHN SANTIKOS INSISTED THAT HE NEVER SIGNED THE DOCUMENT WHEN WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, REWRITING IT. SO CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT JOHN SANTIKOS SAID HE NEVER SIGNED THE DOCUMENT WHEN WE, WHEN HE TOLD ME THAT HIS TENANTS WERE ALL COMPLAINING, WE NEED BIGGER SIGNS, BUT THEN HE DIED. SO JUST, JUST FOR THE BOARD, BASICALLY WE ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT WELCOME, A NEW SS M P, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THAT AT ALL, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE JUST NEED TO FOLLOW CHAPTER 28 AND GET EVERYBODY'S APPROVAL. AND UNFORTUNATELY, AS THEY MENTIONED, LIFETIME, THEY'RE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH GETTING THAT SIGNATURE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S HOLDING THIS. IT'S JUST THE ONE, IT'S JUST THE ONE TENANT. YES. THIS ROBERT HANLEY MADE. WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE, UH, FOR THIS BOARD TO GIVE RELIEF ON WHAT THEY WANT? AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE EARLIER COMMENT I HAD ABOUT PRECEDENT. AND SO I KNOW THAT WHAT LARRY AND ASHLEY SAID THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON GETTING A NEW, UH, SIGNED MASTER PLAN. BUT WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE, UH, TO GRANTING THIS, UH, RELIEF? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S, UH, THE BOTTOM LINE BASICALLY IS WE CANNOT WAIVE CODE. UH, SO WHEN CODE SAYS IF YOU HAVE A SIGN MASTER PLAN, YOU NEED EVERYBODY'S APPROVAL. I'M TAKING SOMEBODY'S RIGHT AND APPROVING SOMETHING WITHOUT THEIR AUTHORIZATION JACK UP MORE. SO FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THAT, SO IN THE PAST, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN HANDLED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. PRIOR TO 2017. SO WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN HEARING THESE SINCE 17, OUR LITTLE GROUP, NO, THAT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AFTER 2017. SO IT'S AN INTERNAL STAFF DECISION AFTER THAT. AND UNTIL, WHICH, IF WE DENIED IT, THEY COULD GO TO THIS, THIS, THE APPELLATE BOARD THEY JUST NEVER DID SINCE 2017 'CAUSE CORRECT. YEAH. WE'VE NEVER RUN INTO THIS. SO ALL PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS ALL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BEFORE Y'ALL TOOK IT IN AS ADMINISTRATIVE? CORRECT. AND IT WAS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUST TO HEAR IT AND APPROVE IT. NOT WHENEVER THERE WAS ANY ISSUE WITH APPROVING IT. THEY, THEY WERE THE BODY THAT APPROVED IT AT THAT TIME. SO AT THIS POINT, AFTER 2017, WE'RE THE BODY THAT APPROVES IT. IF WE DENY IT OR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT THE, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH, THEN THEY CAN COME TO THIS BOARD, WHICH CAN, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, REVIEW THAT TO INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 28. SO THIS WOULD TRULY JUST BE AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT, BUT NOT SETTING ANY PRECEDENT. IT WOULD JUST BE A ONE OFF. CORRECT. YEAH. SO CHAPTER 28 STILL HAS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIANCE, BUT THIS BOARD IS FOR INTERPRETATION. THIS, YOU KNOW, WHY DOES THIS NOT GO TO THE B O A INTERNALLY? STAFF WOULD LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, B O A LOOKS AT CHAPTER 28. [00:40:01] THIS IS TECHNICALLY A SS AND P. IF THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, VER MAKE A VARIANCE TO THE S AND P AND MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A VARIANCE. BUT NOT TO CHAPTER 28. SO IT'S KIND OF THIS GRAY AREA, YOU KNOW, SO STAFF'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT HAND TIED WITH NOT HAVING A LOT MORE DETAIL OF WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR MODIFYING, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR APPROVING VARIANCES TO, AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR DISSOLVING AN SS AND P WHEN CHAPTER 28 ONLY TALKS ABOUT CREATING AN SS AND P, THIS, DOES THAT MEAN, OH, GO AHEAD AND, WELL, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST S AND P THAT THIS BOARD HAS LOOKED AT. SO, YEAH. SO THI THIS IS, THIS IS AMIN THOMAS. JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. PRIOR TO 2017, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CREATE, UH, SIGN MASTER PLAN, THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE CHAPTER 28, GET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, SIGNATURES, WHATEVER ASKED FOR, TO GET THAT APPROVED. THEY HAD TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR THE SIGN MASTER PLAN 2017. THAT CHANGED. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET THE SIGN MASTER PLAN APPROVED. YOU NEED TO COME TO US AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, OR HIS DESIGNEE WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD. IF YOU COMPLY WITH CODE. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING CHANGED IN 2017. NOW, PRIOR TO 2017, IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID NOT ALLOW A SIGN MASTER PLAN FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THE APPLICANT WANT TO APPEAL IT, THEY HAVE TO APPEAL IT TO DISTRICT COURT. NOW, AFTER 2017, IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DENIES AN S M P AND THEY WANT TO APPEAL IT, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO YOU, THEY'RE APPEALING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION OF APPROVING THE SS M P OR DENYING THE S M P. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIOR TO 2017 AND 2017 TO NOW. WAS THE, WAS THERE ANYTHING MORE TO Y'ALL'S PRESENTATION, OR ARE Y'ALL FINISHED OR ARE Y'ALL STILL PRESENTING? ARI, WE, WE KIND OF JUMPED AROUND A LITTLE BIT. UM, THERE, THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH MORE I JUST DID WANNA PRESENT AS, AS I MENTIONED, THINGS HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE 2005. THIS IS, UH, JUST A GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF 1604 BEFORE YOU GO OVER THE FLYOVER. UM, YOU CAN'T TELL BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIGN, BUT FIRST MARK IS, IS BEHIND THERE. UM, SO THEY HAVE NO VISIBILITY FROM THE ACTUAL HIGHWAY. THIS IS THE FRONTAGE ROAD. UM, I DON'T HAVE, IS THIS, NO, I DON'T HAVE A LASER POINTER, BUT, UM, THEY'RE THE SMALL BUILDING, UM, RIGHT, RIGHT THERE. UM, ALSO NO SIGNAGE. UM, AND SO THEIR, THEIR ONLY SIGNAGE CURRENTLY IS ON THE BUILDING. AND SO I THINK WE'RE ESTIMATING 200,000 CARS DRIVE BY HERE A DAY, 6 MILLION A MONTH. UH, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO KNOW THAT IT'S THERE. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A BIG PART OF, OF THE STRUGGLE HERE. UM, AND THIS WAS JUST PART OF THE, THE PROPOSAL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD WHEN, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS READY ON THE NEW PLANS. LARRY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? ASHLEY, THIS IS ROBERT LEY, AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE PHOTOS. BUT IF YOU PUT THAT SIGN UP, IT WILL BE THE ONLY ONE ON THE 1604 FRONTAGE ROAD. THERE'S A SIGN RIGHT NEXT DOOR FOR THE . UM, NO, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S, NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S NEXT DOOR. MM-HMM. . AND IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO AGAIN MENTION THAT I'VE BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON MANY OCCASIONS FOR CHANGES TO MASTER SIGN PLANS. ALMOST ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN APPROVED. JUST LEAVE IT THERE FOR QUESTIONS. SO I THINK THAT CONCLUDES BOTH PRESENTATION FROM STAFF AND, AND THE APPLICANT. BUT DEFINITELY WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, PROVIDE ANY INSIGHT. I JUST, ONE MORE QUESTION, AND AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO HEAD WRAP MY HEAD AROUND ALL THIS, BUT JACK UP MORE AGAIN. SO IF, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, COULD, WOULD, NOT THAT IT SAYS PRECEDENT, BUT CAN THE OTHER PEOPLE, LARRY, WITHIN THE, THE, THE WHOLE TERRITORY THERE, OF ALL THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, ARE THE BUILDING OWNERS, CAN THEY ALL COME, CAN YOU BRING THEM UP TO ALSO PUT A SIGN UP? WELL, I'M SURE THEY COULD. UM, BY THEN, I'M HOPING WE HAVE A NEW SS M P, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM ALL THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY NEED. SO, OKAY. YOU GOT, YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, IF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE WINE, IF WE CAME BACK, WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN, RIGHT? SO IF WE ASKED FOR MORE, [00:45:01] YOU'D HAVE TO APPROVE IT, UM, AT A TIME, ONE AT A TIME. , HOPEFULLY NOT, THAT'S NOT THE GOAL. UM, BUT IT IS SUBJECT TO YOUR APPROVAL. SO, SO LOOKING AT THAT AND THAT LINE OF THOUGHT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, GOING BACK TO WHAT I SENT Y'ALL AS FAR AS CHAPTER 28 AND THE AUTHORITY OF THIS BOARD IS, IS AN INTERPRETED INTERPRETATION, NOT A VARIANCE. SO, UM, CONSIDER THAT ON ANY ACTIONS Y'ALL TAKE. UH, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T WANNA OVERLY SPEAK FOR THE VOTING OFFICIAL, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT STAFF'S LOOKING FOR IS MORE OF AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT, WHAT CAN WE DO BASED OFF OF THE S AND P THAT'S ON SITE OR THAT'S APPROVED CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, THAT GREATER YEAR OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR THE MOST PART IT'S APPROVED THROUGH OUR, UH, ORGANIZATION HOW WE'VE BEEN APPROVING SIGNS. AND CURRENTLY THE SIGNS THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE ALL SET TO THE 2008 S AND P THAT WE HAVE ON FILE, WHETHER IT BE, YOU KNOW, SIGNED AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO PULL UP THE, THE B O A MINUTES, UH, FROM THAT 2008 MEETING. BUT IT'S REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT GROUNDS DO WE HAVE FOR MODIFYING THE S M P WITHOUT ALL SIGNATURES, UM, OR DISSOLVING THAT S M P AND ARE ALLOWING A SIGN, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, WITHIN THAT ROUNDS OF INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 28 AND THE SMPS, RIGHT? MARK, SO YOU SENT OUT THE LINKS AHEAD OF TIME INSTEAD OF STUDY THEM, AND I'M A GOOD BOY. SO I DID STUDY THEM. , UM, THIS IS MIKE ROUGH, SORRY. UM, SO IN THE, THE SECTION, UH, ABOUT, UH, JURISDICTION ENFORCEMENT APPEALS, UH, WHICH IS 25, I'M HAPPY TO PULL THAT UP AS WELL. IF Y'ALL, UH, YOU DON'T NEED TO. I'LL, OKAY, UH, 11 MODIFICATIONS. UM, AND THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS. WE'RE HEARING AN APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED TO GRANT MODIFICATIONS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BASED UPON UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OR UNDUE HARDSHIP THAT MAKES THE STRICT LETTER OF THIS CHAPTER IMPRACTICAL. THE MODIFICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. AND THAT SUCH MODIFICATIONS DOES NOT LESSEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, HEALTH, ACCESSIBILITY, LIFE AND FIRE SAFETY OR STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, THAT GIVES US THE LEEWAY TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE THIS REQUEST. UM, F FURTHER, I FIND, AND I'M SORRY I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME MA'AM, BUT I FIND THAT POINT COMPELLING THAT IF THERE WAS A FURTHER MODIFICATION TO THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE SAME PEOPLE. UM, AND I MADE THE ANALOGY TO, TO JACK KIND OF OFF OFFLINE, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN MY, MY KIDS COME AND ASK FOR, YOU KNOW, A SNACK THE FIRST TIME I SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE SECOND TIME, LIKE, WELL, NOW YOU'RE PUSHING YOUR LUCK. YOU KNOW? UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO QUOTE UNQUOTE, CURE THE WAIVER. I THINK IF, UH, YOU KNOW, IF IT BE, IF IT DID START A DOMINO, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IS THE INTENT OF THE APPELLANT. BUT ANYWAY, NOT GETTING TO THAT. I JUST, I'D SAY ALL THAT TO SAY, I THINK WE HAVE SOME LEEWAY HERE TO MAKE A, A DECISION THAT IS INTERPRETIVE. UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DEFINE THAT, THAT GRAY AREA THAT JEREMY MENTIONED. ASHLEY, I APOLOGIZE. AND MIKE. I, UH, LIDDEL TOY. UM, I THINK ON LARRY'S PART, HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND IT'S NOT HIS FAULT OR, OR ANYBODY OF THE SSM OR THE, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY CAN'T GET THE LAST SIGNATURE. SO I THINK IF EVERYBODY'S ALL RIGHT WITH IT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, WE GRANT HIS VARIANCE. ARE WE F ARE WE COMPLETE WITH ALL PRESENTATIONS? UH, CORRECT. YES, WE ARE DONE WITH ALL PRESENTATIONS. A SECOND. IT'S MIKE RU A MOTION, MOTION AND A SECOND FOR, UH, FOR STAFF'S CLARIFICATION. WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THIS. SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE AND PROBABLY RUN THROUGH LEGAL ONCE AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE, I'M, I'M SORRY. SO THIS IS JOSEPH HARWOOD, THE, SO HE TURNS OFF. CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? WHAT WAS THE MOTION AGAIN? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT, UH, AETNA SIGN'S APPROVAL FOR THE FIRST MARK, UH, MAIN PILE ON SIGN ON THEIR LOCATION. OKAY. AS LONG AS JUST CERTAIN WORD LIKE VARIANCE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT AUTHORIZE FOR VARIANCE AND THEN, AND THEN YOU NOT AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE ANY PARTS OF CODE. THIS IS DEFINITELY A UNIQUE SITUATION. UM, WHAT, UM, MR. RUSH JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR MODIFICATION. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN AVENUE. AGAIN, THIS IS, I, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF YOUR DECISION WOULD BE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T WAIVE CODE. UM, WOULD, WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE? I ASSUME THE MOTION IS NOT MOVING RIGHT NOW, IT'S KIND OF WITHDRAWN. WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO MAKE, DO SOMETHING MORE LIKE A MOTION TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO AN SS AND P IF 90% PICKING A NUMBER, 90% OF THE SIGNATORIES APPROVE? AGAIN, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARILY AREN'T, AREN'T ADDRESSED AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF CREATING [00:50:01] A, A STANDARD THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO GO THROUGH A, A, LIKE A CODED OPTION. LIKE SAY THE CHAPTER 28 STUFF. AND WHEN YOU'RE, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE, ARE CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, UH, UM, ADDRESSED IN THE CODE, UH, AGAIN, THAT THE, THE ABILITY FOR THE, TO GIVE A MODIFICATION TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER MIGHT BE SOMETHING SIMPLY 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED. RIGHT. UM, I'M JUST STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT TRYING TO, TO SEE WHAT AUTHORITY YOU WOULD, YOU REALLY WOULD HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY TRY TO SOLVE THIS. CAN WE GET BACK TO THE BASICS OF WHAT, WHAT WE WERE CALLED HERE TO DO TODAY? SIMPLY WHAT WAS THE REQUEST DECISION? LEMME JUMP IN JEREMY REAL QUICK. UM, SO AGAIN, UH, SINCE 2017, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR DESIGNEE CAN APPROVE SMPS. AND I MEAN, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WE HAD SOME MOD MODIFIED SMPS THAT CAME THROUGH TO US, AND WE APPROVED THEM BASED ON PROVIDING ALL THE SIGNATURES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS RELATED TO THAT SS M P. THE REASON WHY THIS IS COMING TO YOU TODAY, BECAUSE WE DENIED THAT APPLICATION AT THIS POINT, THE MODIFICATION AND THE REASON FOR OUR DENIAL IS WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ONLY AUTHORITY WE HAVE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE SIGNATURES ARE EXIST? THAT'S THE ONLY AUTHORITY WE HAVE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TELLING ME? 'CAUSE I, I KNOW YOU WERE, YOU WERE KIND OF SPEAK, KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD, IT SEEMED LIKE, BUT MEAN, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, I MEAN, THAT'S THE KINDA WAY WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT. YEAH. BUT ON THIS JACK UP, MORE ON THE SAME POINT, IF YOU'RE ASKING US TO EITHER DISALLOW THE MODIFICATION OR ALLOW THE MODIFICATION AS PRESENTED WITHOUT SETTING SAYING SIGNATURES OR NO SIGNATURES. SO MAYBE, MAYBE, LET ME, LET ME PUT IT IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ASPECT. SO , SO AGAIN, TODAY'S CODE TALK ABOUT CREATING S AND P AS JEREMY MENTIONED, AND I THINK EVERYBODY MENTIONED THAT IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT MODIFYING THE SS AND P OR I GUESS, UH, CANCELING THE S M P, RIGHT? SO IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. OUR INTERPRETATION, BECAUSE IT STATES IT REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING. ONE OF THEM IS THE SIGNATURE OF ALL THE OWNERS OF THAT, THAT I GUESS SS M P, IF YOU WILL, WE ARE SAYING IF YOU WANNA MODIFY IT, WE ARE REQUIRING ALL SI SIGNATURES. IF YOU WANNA DISSOLVE IT, WE GONNA REQUIRE ALL THE SIGNATURES. THAT'S OUR INTERPRETATION RIGHT NOW. IF YOU GUYS BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY, THEN THAT'S, I GUESS WHERE YOU HAVE ROOM FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, APPROVING OR DENYING THIS. UM, JACK UP MORE QUICK QUESTION. SO WHEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HANDLED THIS, THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO IF IN, IN THAT CASE? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S INCORRECT THAT MODIFICATIONS TO MASTER SIGN PLANS REQUIRED ALL OF THE SIGNATURES. THEY DID NOT, I NEVER PRESENTED A CHANGE TO A MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT INVOLVED ALL OF THE SIGNATURES. SO THAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. UH, JOSEPH, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY. UM, I WANT TO BE CAREFUL FOR US AS A BOARD THAT WE DON'T TAKE AN ACTION ON A MOTION IN A SECOND THAT INVALIDATES WHAT OUR CHARGES HERE. SO I THINK JACK ASKED EARLIER, WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY, CAN WE SAY, IN OTHER WORDS, LIDDELL WAS TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE, BUT IT SAYS HERE POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPEAL. SO IF WE SAID, THIS IS FOR DIALOGUE, WE WANT TO GIVE A RELIEF TO APPEAL, IS THAT A VALID ACTION THAT WE TAKE AS A BOARD? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE REST OF THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THIS, UH, ACTION ITEM, RIGHT? I MEAN, I, I THINK YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, DIRECT STAFF TO, TO, UH, WORK TOWARDS SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION BEGINNING AS FAR AS YOUR AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY CHANGE A CODE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S THERE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THE AVENUE WITH, YOU KNOW, A POSSIBLE APPEAL TO B O A OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, BUT, BUT IT, JOSEPH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE CODE, THEN WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF US MEETING TODAY? BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED, RIGHT? UH, THIS MORNING ON WHAT THE RELIEF IS OF THE APPEAL. I THINK THIS WAS PART OF IT WAS SOME [00:55:01] DISCUSSION TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, VET THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT. UM, BUT GETTING TO THE ACTUAL ABILITY FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THERE'S, THERE'S SOME, SOME LINES THERE THAT CAN'T BE CROSSED. YEAH. AGAIN, I, OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. CAN I GO, ASHLEY? YES, PLEASE. IT'S OKAY. UM, JOSEPH, I MEAN, I THINK YOU SAID THIS, I MEAN YOU SAID IT TOO, BUT THE CODE DOES NOT SAY THAT AN SS AND P CAN BE AMENDED OR HOW TO AMEND IT. CORRECT. SO THAT WAS AN INTERPRETATION FROM YOU ALL THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES IN ORDER TO AMEND THE PLAN. RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. FOR MAJOR CHANGES AS SUCH AS HEIGHT INCREASES OR THE, THE SIZE OF SO FOR NOT ALLOWING OUR SIGN, RIGHT. SO CORRECT. WE'RE APPEALING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND ASKING THIS BOARD FOR A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. YEAH. CORRECT. CORRECT. SO, YEAH, BECAUSE, UM, THIS IS MIKE RUSS AGAIN. YOU KNOW, THOSE OF US HAVE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A LONG TIME. YOU KNOW, EVERY, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE GET TO APPEAL, WE HAVE THIS EXACT CONVERSATION OF WHAT IS OUR AUTHORITY, WHAT CAN WE DO NOT DO IN THIS CASE? UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE MODIFYING CODE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE BECAUSE THE SIGN THAT'S BEING PRESENTED IS WELL WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF CODE. WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE HEARING ABOUT IS A, IS A MASTER PLAN. UM, AND WE'RE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION TO A MASTER PLAN, UM, TO THE POINT MADE EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'VE EXHAUSTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET IT OFFICIALLY FIXED. I'VE, AGAIN REFER BACK TO THIS MODIFICATIONS LINE OF THE CHAPTER 28 THAT SAYS, BASED UPON SUB CIRCUMSTANCE, UNDUE HARDSHIP, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, UM, MODIFICATION IS, IS ALLOWED. RIGHT. SO, AND, AND AGAIN, MY, I HAVE A CONCERN HERE AND I'LL, I GUESS I'LL JUST SAY IT OUT LOUD. MY CONCERN IS THAT KIND OF HIDING OUT IN THE, IN THE UNDER THE BED IS THIS MONSTER THAT IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ASSIGNED S AND P. RIGHT. AND I THINK IT IS IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST, AND I THINK IT'S IN THE DEVELOPER'S BEST INTEREST THAT WE FIND SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE WAY TO SOLVE THIS SO THAT IT, SO THAT THE MONSTER DOESN'T CLIMB OUT FROM ANOTHER BED. SO JACK UP MORE HERE. WE WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON A, ON THE TABLE OF SAYING, WE THINK THAT YOU ASKED JOSEPH THAT YOU CAME HERE, WE'RE HERE FOR DISCUSSION OR OUR FEEDBACK. WELL, OUR FEEDBACK IS WE THINK YOU SHOULD WORK WITH THEM ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH THE CITY. AND IF WE DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY OF SAYING VARIANCE MODIFICATION CODE, BLAH. 'CAUSE WE DON'T, THEN WE THINK THAT THE, THAT THIS CITY SHOULD WORK WITH THEM. THAT'S WHAT I, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A VOTE ON THAT MOTION. 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THE MOTION CORRECTLY. UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT, JEREMY. I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE CODE. UNDERSTOOD. SO UNTIL WE GET THE, THE CORRECT VERBIAGE, I'LL JUST STAND DOWN AND I'LL WITHDRAW MY SECOND TO FOR POINT OF ORDER PURPOSES. GOTCHA. AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BOARD'S KIND OF LOOKING AT STAFF AND UNDERSTANDABLY TO TRY TO FIND THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY FOR MOTION. AND I THINK MY QUESTION, MAYBE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THAT, BUT ARE, IS, IS THE BOARD LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC TO THIS SIGN OR TO THE SS AND P ADMINISTRATION PROCESS? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE RULEMAKING ABILITY AS A BOARD TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE SS AND P PROCESS. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? MAYBE WE TAKE A, LIKE A FIVE TO 10 MINUTE BREAK AND MAYBE LET THE CITY H AND TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN, AND MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK WITH, I MEAN, IS THAT REASONABLE TO EVERYBODY TO, TO DO THAT? I, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT ALSO. OKAY. BUT I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS NUMBER TWO ON OUR AGENDA THAT SAYS PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPEAL. AND SO WHAT IS THAT ACTION? BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS PLEASE. THIS, THIS IS, UH, THIS, OKAY. ACTUALLY THIS IS JOSEPH HARNEY. WE, WE'D RECOMMEND AT THIS POINT THAT WE GO INTO EXEC EXECUTIVE SESSION AND CAN HAVE THE, THE, UH, LANGUAGE BY THE, UH, THE CHAIR. YES. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO THAT. LET'S MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY. OKAY. COULD I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION REAL QUICK SO I CAN DO THE FORMAL MOVING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? UH, THE TIME IS 10. LEMME MAKE SURE. [01:00:23] OKAY. I NEED TO HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE. REAL QUICK, AS WE'RE STILL IN ORDER, THE TIME IS NOW 10 34. ON AUGUST 22ND, 2022, THE BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES APPEALS AND ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONSULTATION SECTION 5 5 1 0.071. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHAIR. WE'LL TAKE THAT BREAK UNTIL THE EXECUTIVE SESSION CONCLUDES. THANK YOU. AND WE ARE LIVE. OKAY. IF WE COULD CALL OURSELF BACK TO ORDER. UH, THE TIME IS NOW 10 52. ON AUGUST 22ND, 2022, THE BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES APPEALS AND ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION. NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU CHAIR, MR. CHAIR. UM, THIS IS MIKE RUSTS. I MOVE TO, UH, GRANT THE APPEAL, UH, PER SECTION 28 DASH FIVE C 11 AND DIRECT THE CITY TO ISSUE THE PERMIT FOR THE SIGN FOR FIRST MARK. DO I HAVE A SECOND? JEFF BARR? I'LL SECOND THAT. ANY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU CHAIR. I'LL WORK TO GET THAT RESOLUTION OVER TO YOU SO WE CAN GET THAT SIGNED. DID YOU SAY NA GREG? I VOTED YEAH. SO WE HAVE GREG MCFARLAND ON THE RECORD. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, ALRIGHTYY. THANK YOU CHAIR. THAT WAS THE END OF THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE HAVE FOR TODAY. UH, THE ONLY ITEM THAT I WANNA BRING UP IS, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE THESE, UM, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SENDING OUT RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO REVIEW. IT'S A MONTHLY ITEM. I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO HA UH, GO AFTER Y'ALL TOO MUCH, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IF YOU DON'T COMPLETE IT THE MONTH THAT THEY SEND IT, THEY GIVE ME A LIST OF WHO HASN'T I KNOWING ON THIS BOARD. I'LL PROBABLY LET THAT SLIDE FOR A MONTH OR SO, BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO START HOUNDING Y'ALL LIKE I DO FOR THE FDR R THIS IS OUR FIRST MONTH THOUGH, ISN'T IT? WE HAD ONE IN JULY, SO NOW WE'RE AT AUGUST. OKAY. SO THAT WE HAVE TWO CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS. VERY GOOD. YEAH, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE GETTING READY TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO THE AUGUST ONE BASED ON MY CONVERSATION WITH NANCY. OH, OKAY. SO, AND DEBORAH, SO HOLD OFF BECAUSE THEY HAD SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT CORRECT THE WAY WE, UH, DO THIS PROCESS AND PROCEDURE AND THERE'S LEEWAY FOR THE CHAIRMAN AND THE CITY CHARTER AND THE BOARD, SO, OKAY, GOOD TO KNOW. YEAH, THAT'S NOT VERY CLEAR, IS IT? AND I SAID NO, IT WASN'T, SO IT'S GONNA BE MODIFIED. EXCELLENT. I ACTUALLY HAVE NOT DONE THE AUGUST ONE AS WELL. I'M IN THE SAME BOAT AS Y'ALL. I GOTTA, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE PLUS OTHERS. APPARENTLY. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. IT'S, UH, BUT THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE. UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE ADJOURN? MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO MOVED. ROBERT HANLEY . WE'RE ADJOURNED. ALL RIGHT. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANK Y'ALL. . * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.