[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] all right we'll call the meeting to order uh good evening and welcome to the July 18th 2024 meeting of the minetonka Planning Commission the commission generally meets on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of the month the schedule and tenative agendas can be obtained by calling the planning department or by checking the city City website at menanam mn.gov the commission holds public hearings on land use applications from a specific process standpoint that means we make recommendations to the city council on rezonings subdivisions conditional use permits and amendments to the city's comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations we also make final decisions on site plans signage requests and variance requests and expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council in that case the commission makes a recommendation and the council makes the final decision the city notifies Property Owners within at least 400 feet of the sites post signs on the properties and places notices in the Lakeshore Weekly News and the minaka memo any Agri party May appeal a final Planning Commission decision to the city council if you wish to appeal you must submit a written request to the city within 10 days of this meeting from a broader standpoint the city's comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are the city 's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and Community responsibilities individual rights are easy to understand Community responsibilities are more subtle but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group The planning department the Planning Commission and the city council are charged with managing the sometimes difficult Balancing Act we ask you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications again welcome uh staff please call roll minion here Waterman here Banks here Hansen is absent Henry here Maxwell here chur here there are six of us seated here tonight uh next on the agenda is approval of the agenda and I believe there's a change memo uh chair that is correct there's two changes on the change memo the first is actually to the agenda itself item 8A just have an incorrect date for uh the council consideration that we'll be going to Council on August the 5th in conjunction with the liquor license that's being requested and then item 8B we received some revised um sign plan drawings for the sign plan request the height of the sign is shown in those revised drawings as increased by 1 foot from 4 feet originally shown um to 5T as um shown now um that 5 foot does reflect what was approved on the building immediately to the east all right thank you uh recognizing the change memo would someone like to make a motion to approve the agenda I'll make the motion uh motion Henry I'll second second Waterman all those in favor signify by saying I I I I motion carries uh next is approval of minutes from the June 20th 2024 meeting uh Commissioners any changes to that uh to those minutes doesn't look like it then I'll take a motion to approve the minutes a motion we approve uh motion banks second uh second minion all those in favor signify by saying I I I motion carries next on the agenda is uh item five report from staff uh chair and Commissioners two city council uh meetings since your last meeting to report on the uh June 24th uh council meeting there were two agenda items that the council considered first was a conditional use permit for the accessory dwelling unit on the mall that was the conversion of that um existing detached garage into an accessory unit that was approved on the consent agenda and then the items concerning the Wells Fargo Redevelopment again the REM um removal of the existing Wells Fargo office building and bank on Plymouth Road and um Redevelopment of that site and that was approved per your recommendation with all of the conditions that you recommended and then on July 8th it seemed that most of the items on the agenda were uh related to the Planning Commission ction items um there were some conditional use permits for again an accessory dwelling unit on Brown Lane over the existing garage the flood plane alteration permit uh for a swimming pool um the conditional use permit I should back up those were approved on the the consent agenda as was an ordinance rezoning the property on Covington Road you actually heard this last summer it was an existing single family home zoned R1 it was right next the door to the minaga heights apartment building um which is zoned uh R4 the the existing home was zoned R1 minanga Heights had purchased that home they requested a rezoning so that they could remodel that home and use it for office purposes they actually paused that request while they considered maybe what else they could do with that property um they looked at a lot of other things but then they came back and said yeah we just want to move forward so that you did hear that it's just been a year in in time um then the council uh introduced an ordinance for the am Amira Villa Town Home Project you just reviewed that concept about two months ago um just south of the Amira um apartment building that will be back before you for actual uh development consideration um sometime in August so that was introduced at the council and then the two um primary items on the council agenda was the cup request for Les Schwab Tire um the applicant actually decided to request postponement of that item after the council um discussed it the council did feel that um the use was appropriate they but they asked staff and the applicant to look at potential other sites on that larger site and so staff and the applicant will be doing that and then the preliminary plat for 1 acre Oaks um the council comments really reflected everything that the Planning Commission also said um but that was approved uh by the council at that meeting and then Ju Just for information uh Public Service Announcement if you had not been following the lawful gambling consideration that was also approved by the council so um pull tabs coming to your local minaka establishments that is my that is my update your next meeting will be August the 1st all right great thank you Commissioners anything to report uh the only thing I have to report is just want to say thank you to the city and the staff in particular for putting on a great boards and commissions dinner last night uh on behalf of the Planning Commission we appreciate their recognition and special shout out from the mayor uh recognizing uh all the hours that we put in as a as a the body and some of us put in even more on additional boards and commissions so um we are well represented at the dinner and uh and all the work that we do so just want to say thank you it was a great event and uh I was enjoyable so thank you to City staff for that all right uh let's move on to if I could add one more comment to that one please jump in as evidenced by our well represented commission last night we had six of the seven Commissioners there which was by far the the highest turnout of any of the commission so I think it shows embodies our commitment to helping out the city and its citizens absolutely yes thank you um all right moving on to uh item number seven which is the consent agenda items uh these will be items that will'll pass in one motion unless someone would like to pull an item and have a full complete discussion on it otherwise uh we will move forward with that uh the items for consideration tonight are uh recommendation the city adopt the resolution approving the request for an expansion permit and front yard setback variants for additions to the existing home at 3500 Morland Road and um approved the a minor amendment to an existing Master development plan for An Elevator Shaft Edition at 5995 Opus Parkway um Commissioners would anyone like to pull e either of these items and have a complete discussion no anyone in the audience like to pull either of these items and have a full discussion does doesn't look like it all right then I think we're probably ready for a motion would someone like to make a motion uh to approve uh those two items I'll make that motion chair uh thank you motion Maxwell all second second minion staff please pull the commission I'm working a lot of computers here just what matter no worries okay uh minion yes Waterman yes Banks yes Hanson is absent Henry yes Maxwell yes Cher suul yes motion carries and both those items are final decisions uh subject to appeal within 10 days of writing of this meeting so uh good luck with your projects all right uh before we move on to uh item number Eight's non-consent agenda items I'd like to review the steps and the process in the public hearing procedure that will be followed for each proposal first the item will be announced and staff will report on the subject the commission will then ask questions next the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer any comments Commissioners may ask additional questions at this time after the applicant is finished the public hearing will be open to give anyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record we ask that you keep your comments brief and try not to repeat points already made all right um the public hearing will then be closed and no further comments will be allowed the commission will discuss the proposal and make a decision the first item on tonight's agenda is is item 8A a conditional use permit for a restaurant with an on sale intoxic liquor at 17623 minetonka Boulevard and this is a recommendation the council adopt the resolution approving the permit uh Miss Thomas uh thank you chair and Commissioners this uh First Site is located in what we generally refer to as the mini Haven Mall which is situated in the southwest quadrant of the County Road 101 minona Boulevard in inter section in 2018 excuse me the city approved a conditional use permit for naal bowls uh to occupy as a restaurant space uh within mini haven mall and a few years later nautical Bulls vacated that space moved to the building on the property to the South and El traviso uh Takira occupied that same space under that same conditional use permit in 2013 then the city received a cup essentially for a change in just the type of restaurant the same ownership but the the menu items the type of restaurant changing uh in that same space you as a Planning Commission reviewed that request you recommended approval of the request but the applicant chose not to move forward before it um was ultimately approved by the city council and so now um here we are in in 2014 and we have essentially what is the same request that came before us in 2023 um new ownership um and I apologize if I pronounce this wrong but El Bagon um uh is proposing uh to occupy this same space but essentially change the menu from a takera to a tapa bar uh serving um small plates as well as uh beer and wine so they've applied for a liquor license that triggers just a different conditional use permit than is already existing so this review is the same that we uh looked at last year just with a different uh restaurant name and a different restaurant owner as we did last year staff recommends approval um of the conditional use permit because it would meet the conditional use permit standards also it would meet the parking stand standards which have not been changed um since the last time uh we reviewed this and so I again recommend your approval that you recommend to the city council and I would turn it back to the chair great thank you any questions for staff I think bullet point number one kind of sums up a lot of us um all right uh I think we'll probably ready the applicant would like to come forward offer any comments or presentation you can otherwise you don't have to all right I guess not then we'll open the public hearing if anyone has any comments on this item please come forward doesn't look like it then we will close the public hearing we're cruising here folks uh Commissioners any comments or we don't have any questions otherwise I think we're probably just ready to move right someone like to make a motion then uh think I'm I'm just taking a Paul in a gut check here probably ready for approval but you can make whatever motion you want but uh I think we're probably ready for a motion uh recommend the council adopt the resolution approving the conditioning use permit for restaurant with on sale intoxicating liquor at 17623 minetonka Boulevard would anyone like to make that motion motion minion I'll second second Waterman staff please pull the commission minion yes Waterman yes Banks yes yes Maxwell yes Su yes motion carries and this is a recommendation uh that will be heard by the city council on August 5th uh good luck with your application all right uh moving on to item 8B Amendment to the sign plan for Crescent Ridge Corporate Center as it pertains to 1110 Yetta Boulevard uh and this is uh recommendation to adopt the resolution denying the Amendments and Miss Thomas this is your item again uh thank you again chair uh the Crest Ridge Crescent Ridge excuse me Corporate Center is a 24 acre development situated at the northeast corner of Hopkins Crossroad and uh 394 uh interchange the sign plan that was originally approved for the property back in 1999 allowed for one wall sign per building which is consistent uh with city code or sign ordinance and allowed for four freestanding signs signs on on the site two of which or excuse me three of which nope two of which are development related signs and two of which um at the main entrance allow for tenant identification in the summer of last year um the owner of the property on the east side 10900 uh applied to the city for an amendment to allow for a second wall sign uh on that building these properties are under separate ownership so that Amendment applied just to um the easterly building staff did recommend um denial of that amended sign plan for a couple of reasons um first we thought that it would be contrary to really the city's philosophy with regard to sign that too many or twoo big signs particularly on Office Buildings really detract from the Aesthetics and our community second that this sign plan already allowed for much more identification than is typically allowed in the sign ordinance and um third that it would set set a precedent for other office buildings in our community um the Planning Commission uh disagreed uh with that uh and did approve the sign finding that there were some um unique situations going on here the building was very large it was on 394 and the Tenant was the second largest tenant in the building now um this year the owner of the Westerly building 1110 is essentially requesting the same amendment that was approved um last year to allow for a a second sign I'm showing um this screen what was approved for again the easterly building and what would essentially mimic that on the Westerly building as we did last year um again for consistency staff is recommending denial of this project we we continue to believe that um tenant identification on Office Buildings is is really difficult because office tenants are constantly changing sizes of tenants are constantly changing and and drawing that line um becomes difficult um we do believe that this property already has excess of uh tenant identification and this is really contrary again to to our philosophy so with that I would uh turn it back over to the chair great thank you Commissioners any questions for staff yeah commissioner Waterman I have a few thanks chair uh thanks Miss Thomas um couple data points the Allis space in the new um the new space in the 10900 WIA do you know how many square feet that is I I'm not certain I could go back to the um the previous proposal I can find that in the old report certainly yeah okay I appreciate it thanks um second refresh my memory like are do we have a lot of Office Buildings this size in motanka uh chair and commissioner Waterman on the 394 Corridor the SE are probably the second largest Office Buildings on the 394 Corridor obviously the Carlson towers are the the largest um across the street the Crescent the um not Crescent Ridge Crest Ridge um are are slightly smaller smaller than this so I would say along this Corridor probably not um in minona our larger Office Buildings are probably in the Opus area okay and are those the ones in the Opus are there ones that are the size like 200,000 certainly yeah okay thanks and then lastly sort of a hypothetical but this application is not for a specific tenant nor is there a lease so let's hypothetically if we were to Concur and this gets rejected is it then done could the applicant reapply uh chair Su and and commission yes this applicant can always reapply some communities have written into their ordinance that when an application is denied uh there's a a cooling off period of a year motanka does not have that in our ordinance okay thanks other questions yeah commissioner Banks thanks chair um do you recall um when we we met about this uh previously were there any conditions um in terms of like we like we knew that the tenant was going to be hilarious they were moving from one side to the other um but were there any conditions imposed um with that approval by this Committee in terms of like square footage of size or anything of that nature chair and and commissioner Banks let me pull up the uh approval [Applause] specific the only conditions were that the um the wall sign could be no longer larger than 5T and it had to be located in the position here um and it was based on again your findings were that the building was uh over 200,000 ft in size um the tenant was the second largest tenant in the building and the property was situated on the 394 Corridor those were the reasons um but I will get you what the tenant size was I'm flipping through reports here okay thank you other questions for staff one question I have is it's the two buildings together are 200,000 square feet or each each side is 200,000 actually the building yeah chair the building on the the West is the smaller of the buildings it's 275,000 the building on the East is actually 310,000 square feet so both buildings quite large okay got it thank you all right you can look at that and maybe follow back up with us when we go to comments if that works for you um all right um and I think we have the applicant on the phone uh oh oh you're even even better it's even better than having you on the phone come on up and if you can give us your name and address for the record and uh welcome do you need my personal address or the building building is fine okay that's fine U my name is Ashley lar I'm with kushman in Wakefield um I'm the general manager of Crescent Ridge 1 at 11100 YZ Boulevard um so as stated our neighbor and sister Building Crescent Ridge to um who is separately owned leased and managed um was recently approved for a second sign a Laris which is our current tenant um they're 21,000 Square ft in our building um and they are now relocating next door as we work to back fill that space um we will be down to approximately 77% occupied um so we're just asking for the same opportunity as our direct competitor Crescent Ridge 2 um and we're willing to follow the same specifications as the approved second sign next door um it is um just more of a proactive measure for us so um we you know wouldn't typically give exterior building signage to anyone under a certain threshold of square feet um but as employers work to bring employees back to the office they do want to Foster an on-site culture that draws their employees back into the office um one of the ways that they look to do this is branding uh through building signage um one of the hurdles that we're finding um in this current market is time it is of the essence with deals in the current market um and while we don't have a specific Prospect um with a signed requir M you never know when a requirement may occur um it is incredibly beneficial in our leasing efforts to have the sign approved proactively rather than reactively um and it's been increasingly hard to compete with surrounding cities such as pouth Golden Valley and St Louis Park um as they may allow for greater amount of building exterior building signage um thus our direct competitors of the building may have a competitive Advantage when it comes to uh signage right offerings uh we do realize that one of the concerns of the additional signage is detracting from Aesthetics of the surrounding area um and as the two sister buildings are significant in sides with large facades uh we do not feel the additional sign will be overwhelming or takeway from the appeal of the community there are several um increased um or benefits to the community with increased occupancy at our building um it generates employment the occupancy drives the building value and in turn the real estate taxes uh to support the local school district and the city's infrastructure um it also increases activity of surrounding retailers entertainment restaurants Etc and supports the housing and lodging development um thank you for your time and consideration all righty great thank you uh Commissioners any questions for the applicant commissioner minion you have a question can you tell me who owns kushman Wakefield um it's an Italian [Music] family thank you tell know do you need their address too yeah wasn't sure if there was a conflict so I just wanted to find it fair enough I appreciate your thoroughness yeah commissioner Waterman um in our pack there's a table of uh some of the the current occupancy the current tenants so it's I know Lis is currently there and moving that's 21,000 ft then the there's vacant space of 40,000 ft is that 40,000 contiguous okay so that's all it is not no so the idea is this would be for the probably the 21,000 correct square feet okay Y which this gets to the I'm kind of curious as to the size of where they're moving but thanks yeah any other questions yeah commissioner Henry you have a question oh sure uh thanks for the presentation can you confirm that the 21,000 square feet if occupied in its entirety would be the second largest tenant in the building um it I believe it would be me um I'm pretty sure that's accurate wondering if that tenant would get the sign um we do have one other tenant on third floor that's approximately the same size as theis space um the space is 21743 um and we have a tenant named HCC which is 21825 that's did that answer your question that answers it perfectly than you all right any other questions commissioner Banks has a question yeah thanks Shar um thanks for the presentation and the information so um the the sign for this U this area here would it be for the second largest tenant in the building or you mentioned a threshold of square footage um as long as any tenant would meet that threshold would that be uh the um the case for um that tenant um it would definitely be you know anything larger we don't usually like to give it away anyways um I'd say 15,000 or less um is we usually don't even consider that um giving those rates away for that okay so you would have a process in place if like I see here you have two tenants over 15,000 could potentially have a third if someone takes over the larish Bas so you have potentially three tenants how would you work that out if the threshold is just over 15,000 ft Well we'd go with the largest tenant I mean ideally it'd be the second largest tenant in the building okay all right thank you yep any other questions it doesn't look like it but we may have more for you great thank you all right we will open the public hearing and if anyone would like to come forward and offer any comments on this item now is the time for that I'm guessing there's no one on the phone for this item then thank you for coming in also appreciate it uh we'll close the public hearing uh Miss Thomas did you get an answer I do the tenant space that Allis is will occupy or is going to occupy in the easterly building is 34,653 square ft sounds good great Commissioners any final questions otherwise I think we're probably ready for comments um I wasn't at the meeting for the easterly discussion unfortunately so but I did read the notes so yeah commissioner Henry I do have another question for Ashley so if you would like come on back up you mentioned that it's a competitive disadvantage for you to not have the ability to proactively have a sign in place to attract another tenant right you also said that if the tenant would come in you'd like to have him occupy what would be the looks like the third largest uh second largest or sorry it would be the third largest in that building you also said that you ideally would like to have that sign go to the second largest tenant in the building which is already as of now it's existing in there so it seems like there's a little bit of a conflict in that you want to have that sign space to attract somebody but then they would not get that sign space so can you help us justify that please yep yes so um on the fifth floor which is where Allis is at currently um there are some smaller tenants that um we are able to relocate should we get someone that's a larger size to come in um potentially taking a whole floor plate um also the HCC space um that I mentioned um they're up for Renewal next year um and they are potentially looking to downsize so there is a potential for a tenant to um or our need to backfill that space as well so we have a couple larger spaces coming up um and as I stated we would ideally give it to the larger of the two spaces so um you know we we would um make sure to you know follow any protocol for that thank you all right thank you Commissioners comments what do we think does anyone have an opinion they'd like to share love to hear what you're thinking who'd like to go first commissioner hry you ready sure thanks chair yeah thanks to Ashley for the presentation thanks for the city for the recommendation and in looking over the notes from last year as Commissioners we remember a lot of these things vividly including this one and looking over the notes I remember that myself and several other of the Commissioners were hesitant about this we ultimately approved the second sign in the other building because we did not want to set a precedent and several of us also noticed that well if we approve this then sure enough people in the other building would want to have that just for the name of equity and competition I think we were told then that the buildings were not owned by the same group so from the principle of fairness and I I think it makes sense to have two signs in there that's on one hand on the other hand there was some there was some unique circumstances about the second building in that the other building was more aligned with 394 for so people could see the building more from the road that was one of the things that the the building owners wanted pointed out anyway and a lot of us agreed with it something else that's different was that the Allis potential occupant was moving in there contingent on having that sign it's a much larger space and I am hesitant to approve blanket approve over what the city recommends which like we always say the city does really good and thoughtful job about trying to maintain what the city should be and to have it developed in a in a smart way for the the betterment of all the community so again I'm torn with this one because in the name of equity I think it's it makes sense to have it but there are different circumstances to this versus the previous approval last year and I'm inclined to not be in favor of this because there is no tenant and it's in a beautiful location our city is a beautiful place to do business if I were an employee and somebody had an office in this building I would jump at the chance to work there so I don't think that it's a a severe competitive disadvantage to not have a sign approval in place I don't take variances willy-nilly I take them very seriously and the other one there were specific reasons why I decided only way to approve it this one I don't see that compelling of a case to do so so while I am torn I I will be not inclined to agree with uh with the applicant in this case great thank you other opinions other thoughts commissioner Banks what do you think uh thanks cheer um certainly agree with um very large percentage of commissioner Henry's thoughts and his comments um you know we did struggle with this uh last year and um you know it's always difficult to um you know find fault with whatever the uh staff recommends in ter because they they do their homework they they certainly provide a lot of great information um and you know but for for this particular um for this particular building you know for me it's the fact that you know we have two buildings um you know to the necked eye they're pretty much um the same very similar but uh you know unfortunate that you know there's two different owners two different management companies um and really unfortunate that you know you're losing a tenant uh and then as you drive to work or you know uh management company drives to work you have to see that tenant's name on the other building um and you know we we live in a different world now a lot of people work remote um people are downsizing companies are downsizing so I do think that you know whatever Advantage U we could provide um I think we should now that being said that's not an open invitation for everyone um in the city to you know request a signus change to buildings uh but what I find unique about this is that the building next to you that looks very similar to yours will have a sign uh and so to keep that uniform um and to keep that you know hopefully you know that Advantage for you to get a really good tenant in there um I would uh go against what the the city is recommending and I would approve that you would have it just because I think it's you it's it's not the same situation as last time there was a lot of mitigating factors last time however um for me just the fact that the buildings are so similar they're very close um that's enough for me to say you know if we can just keep them in terms of you know your sign will be the same size same height same location basically um that's for me that would be uh good enough to say you know I would go against what the city is recommending and and um and would approve to have the sign there so great thank you other comments yeah commissioner Waterman what do you think uh thanks yeah I I I agree with uh the comments already made it's kind of it's a it's a tough one it's it's funny when we're thinking about signs you can really split hairs and I'm kind of on that knife edge as well um you know definitely don't want to start a whole bunch of precedent setting but also want to help encourage uh businesses and a new business to come uh to motanka um I and I I wrestled with one this one last time as as as did we and I was I was comfortable with the conclusion that we came to but two signs on this I don't think it sets a a ter I mean I don't I think it's aesthetically doesn't make much of a difference and it's I entirely because these buildings are so massive and they are on the 394 Corridor and I got pretty comfortable with that that it wouldn't at least it shouldn't set a precedent that there um that would be applied to every office building if I if I recall I think that the this might be incorrect but the signage ordinances apply to all Office Buildings regardless of the uh regardless of the size so that's why I think it was unique in this situation and I'm I'm fairly comfortable in this situation as well mirring that basically saying yeah this this building could have this second sign um it doesn't sound like we had some specific limitations or caveats in what we ultimately prescribed but just recognizing that because of the unique uh nature here um so I would be I I think I'll vote against the ordinance or the excuse me the uh the sign plan but I would be in favor of then I think we have to potentially propose approving their sign plan so okay great thank you any other comments yes commissioner Maxwell what do you think I wasn't here for the last one um and I was a little bit surprised to see that it uh that it passed um but I think that the now given that this is a reasonable request yes there are some differences between the two um buildings um but because of the similarities of the Symmetry and the appearance I think um makes this unique to this particular site and would not then be setting a precedent spread throughout the city um and I while I I don't necessarily buy the applicant's argument that having a sign on the building would draw employees away from their comfortable homes and their pajamas into the office office um I do see that it would potentially be an advantage for a tenant to want to rent this space compared with other cities or other uh nearby areas and in interest of being um a city that will attract uh um business um particularly when there is a large amount of vacant office space uh around right now I think it makes sense to uh approve this one today great thank you any other comments commissioner minion I think we all sounds like we're of the Same Heart we're not a big fans of the signs and and I have to say for myself I like the code and I like uh the position of the city um but one thing that is unique about this is how often do we have two buildings that look so close aesthetically and uh they balance each other I am not a fan of signs but I um I do think that this scale that it shows still presents well it's still a nice attractive looking building and um if we can help our businesses be successful if this is a tool to help rent or make it more available uh to other tenants you know like we've discussed it's the the commercial culture um real estate has really been hit hard with uh a number of downsizes if we can help somebody to uh be more competitive in the market I think it's um I think it's a good thing thing so I'll be supporting the sign and and not voting for the city's position but um I think the Pandora's Box has been open unfortunately but uh um anyway I'll leave it at that it's uh I like not having more signs but I think uh I'll be voting for The Sign great thank you any other comments otherwise I'll offer my final comments um I agree I I really do appreciate um our our signed ordinance we don't want too many we don't want too big I just have a different opinion that this is not too many and this and they're not too big so um I'm agree with a lot of what commissioner uh minion just said I think um the good news is with variances we can take them on a case-by casee basis so I don't think this opens us up again approving the one on the east definitely set a precedent for the one on the west but I think it kind of is a pretty steep drop off after that so I'm not worried about Pandora's Box being fully open but um also mitaka doesn't have a a ton of uh commercial office space and it is a tough market so anything we can do right now to help that I would much rather have an additional sign than empty Office Buildings I think that uh is a much much smaller uh price for the city to pay and if that's what takes I'm I'm willing to do that within within reason so it sounds like we're mostly on board maybe not unanimous but that's okay that's why we're here so um Miss Thomas is it okay if we U maybe craft a uh resolution that's different than what's said here so maybe uh look for a motion to adopt the resolution approving the amendment to the sign plan for Crescent Ridge Corporate Center as it pertains to 1 one0 y a Boulevard does that work yep and if if I may the findings for that approval that I that I thought I heard were that the subject property is located on I 394 the existing building is 275,000 Ft in size and the second sign would maintain uniformity and visual balance with the building to the east okay um and may I also offer two suggested conditions sure suggest a way um that they would they would be the same as the conditions applied to the building to the to the east simply that the sign has to be the the 5T in height which was was proposed by the applicant in your change memo this evening and um that it would be this as proposed here there had been another um another presential location on the top of the building but again to maintain that uniformity that it would be in this location perfect and I think not this is not the the time probably to litigate this but I think at over still 100,000 square F feet per sign that seems pretty darn reasonable to in my opinion this is just I'm going back to opinion for half a second here um as opposed if we had a 30,000 square foot building and eight signs I I'm I'm comfortable with again a sign per 100,000 square feet I'm just making this up seems pretty reasonable to me but all right so we uh we heard the uh the motion would someone like to make the motion with the conditions that Miss Tomas laid out so I'll make the motion to adopt the resolution but I just want to make sure adopting the resolution approving the sign plan proposal including the conditions Miss Thomas laid out nailed it actually before we go for the vote sure M Thomas could you confirm looking at the notes from last Year's meeting talked about that this was dependent on the sign of the tenant being the second largest tenant in the building can you confirm that and if so can we make also that a condition of this approval the uh chair and and commissioner Henry I'm reading from the resolution that was ultimately signed by uh the chair that was crafted at the last meeting so the findings were the subject property is located on 9394 the existing building is over 3,00 300,000 ft in size and oh shoot I typed over it probably it does was a Laris bank would be the second largest tenant in the building um those were the findings for approval the conditions were the second wall sign must be no greater than 5 ft in height and the second wall sign must be in general conformance with the um the location um which we have here which we have here proposed correct um yes okay I understand um and certainly up for discussion um with with the commission I understand where you're going with that [Applause] um commissioner Henry I think we could cite it as a finding but as a condition that might be tough but I don't know what what we think cuz I guess I personally don't care if it's the second or third largest tenant as long as there's only two signs right and the and they're not too big like that's what I'm most me too I mean just taking a leap of Leap of Faith with just not even knowing the tenant there will only be don't care which one is yeah commissioner Maxell yeah I think if we made it a condition of the second L just there could be too much swapping of the sign right if say a tenant leaves and then another one comes in and combines spaces and then it'll switch over and then you get arguing between tenants and trying to buy another property to get your sign or just construction to switch out the signs as a bigger space moves and then also the building to the east then they don't have that they don't have that uh condition was part of the findings we're not we're getting really into the weeds here in our our planning but commissioner Henry what are your what are your thoughts on the the differences between the condition versus the findings in last year's meeting we did have have it as a finding and not a condition so to be consistent it does make sense reasonable that it would be similar for this one all right I wasn't there so I don't know the the tone of the meeting but I I take your word for it so all right so chair and please m is that a friendly amendment to add that as a finding then that the the sign is intended for the second largest tenant you can I think it's we've talked about here so it's in the notes of it and it seems reasonable that it would be but I also agree with fellow Commissioners that I don't want to see squabbling over a couple square feet here and there causing custody of the sign to switch from one to the other that's just right for conflict we don't all right so finding that condition does that work everyone good all right so I think you got the motion out motion by water uh second uh Second Bank staff please pull the commission minion yes Waterman yes Banks yes Henry no Maxwell yes Su yes motion carries and this is a final decision uh subject to appeal within writing uh within 10 days of this meeting uh good luck with the signs all right moving along to item number nine adjournment would someone like to make a motion to adjourn I'll make that motion uh motion Waterman I'll second second Henry all those in favor signified by saying I I I I motion carries we are adjourned good night [Music] [Music]