Planning and Economic Development Committee - Regular Meeting

They've been there that long and just haven't had a sign, huh?

I'll make a motion that we conditionally approve the proposed sign contingent upon them verifying the 10-foot setback and the city approving that. And I'm still going to say providing the white split-face block columns and also calling out the evergreen plants in the landscape plan.

So all of those certificates of occupancy, those are all going to cost money, correct? When she gets one from the city and one from the county, there's a fee associated with that. And then it's in the code that it has to be a hard surface, Tom?

Yeah, I saw the alley and I wasn't quite sure. She doesn't have to put a hard surface in the alley just on the parking spot. Right. Yeah. Those are my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was thinking the same thing, Jeff. I really was and how could we make it a hybrid but the code is the code. But the one thing I think we can do that Nora kind of alluded to is give the business a good amount of time so that you know you've got your solid business and you know you can afford to make that investment in your business. I'd like to see us do that. I really wanna do what Mr. Noble just said, but I have a hard time butting up against the code, I really do, so.

Not if we make the right motion for you.

I've already made a motion, and I think Nora and I are on the same page.

I guess my question is, is this enough distance?

But that back plaza is already spoken for, I've been told.

Are these places going to be grandfathered?

Yes. That is correct. You can deny them, but it might face a loss.

1,500 feet is not a lot. That's not a lot, no.

Well, I think overall this is a good step. I mean, we've got four of them already in our city, and we want to make sure we regulate and limit what could happen. The map's really helpful, by the way, Gia. It's really...

And it'll be grandfathered in, but I like getting rid of B1 altogether.

Right. I like that. You guys okay with that? Okay.

Well, I think planning's done a good job of saying 30,000 square feet is one level and 30 to 70 is another level. I think that, because I think they all want to be a lot bigger than 70,000 square feet, to be honest. And I like that they're saying they're only going to be allowed in certain districts, especially if we get rid of some of that industrial zone that's down there. Last month's meeting, it limits how much either is. I think it's a necessary step. Does it go far enough? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's a necessary step.

I think the public perception, though, is so negative that I wonder if we'll get blowback, and really it would be council getting blowback over just not banning them completely. The current perception is not at all well received.