►
From YouTube: 5-26-21 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Wednesday, May 26, 2021.
View the agenda: https://DSM.city/ZBOAatHome
A
A
If
you
have
not
already
provided
these
to
city
staff
prior
to
the
hearing
once
all
concerned
citizens
have
spoken,
the
board
will
then
ask
any
additional
questions
of
city
staff.
Lastly,
the
applicant
will
be
given
three
more
minutes
for
rebuttal
or
other
closing
comments.
All
speakers
are
required
to
begin
their
presentation
by
giving
both
their
name
and
address
of
business
or
residence.
In
the
event,
you
may
need
to
be
contacted
for
legal
notices
related
to
the
outcome
of
this
appeal.
A
All
speakers
are
requested
to
remain
courteous
and
to
focus
their
comments
only
upon
those
facts
that
demonstrate
whether
or
not
the
criteria
established
by
law
have
been
satisfied.
Speakers
are
also
asked
to
ensure
that
they
are
respectful
of
time
considerations
if
necessary.
The
board
chair-
or
in
this
case
the
board
vice
chair,
will
limit
further
comments
by
a
speaker
if
they
exceed
their
time
limitation.
A
The
board
will
then
close
any
further
public
comment
on
the
agenda
item
and
the
board
will
immediately
deliberate
the
request
and
make
a
decision
on
the
appeal.
Please
note
that
it
takes
at
least
four
affirmative
votes
for
any
zoning
appeal
to
gain
approval.
That's
regardless
of
the
number
of
of
participants
that
we
have
on
the
board
in
attendance.
B
B
A
A
Unless
there
is
someone
in
the
audience
that
wishes
that
is
opposed
to
the
staff
recommendation.
That's
been
kind
of
submitted
already
for
this
conditional
use.
Permit
so
I'll
give
a
minute
in
case
anybody
wishes
to
speak
either
raise
your
hand
or
push
star
9.,
whether
you're
in
support.
Well.
Now,
if
you
support
it,
you
don't
you
don't
need
to
do
that
if
you
oppose
it.
A
E
D
E
A
C
E
G
C
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I
H
We
would
support
approval
of
a
of
exception
level.
We
do
believe,
there's
the
practical
difficulty
situation
here
and
then
we've
written
that
up
here.
That
shows
a
different
amount
of
signs
where
that
sign
area
that
would
be
earned
could
be
increased
to
by
another
50
additional
over
that
for
42.5
earned.
And
then,
when
that
gets
divided
across
the
two
north
and
south
non-occupant
front
edges,
we
realize
there's
50
of
that
earning
that
would
be
not
used.
H
Staff
is
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
requests,
but
a
revised
appeal
to
allow
exception
level
area
based
on
the
earning
of
50
percent
over
what
would
be
earned,
allowing
the
total
of
63.75
square
feet
and
that
would
basically
be
split
between
the
north
and
south
non-occupant
walls
of
the
building.
And
then
we
had
also
recommended
a
third
and
another
exception
added,
be
added.
That
would
allow
a
third
sign,
and
that
would
allow
that
additional.
H
A
I've
got
a
a
couple,
quick
ones
just
so
I
understand
exactly
what's
being
requested.
One
is
they're
not
asking
for
any
sort
of
a
variance
over
the
number
of
allotted
signs.
Their
two
requests
are
for
the
total
square
footage
of
signage,
and
then
the
second
one
is
is
for
one
of
the
signs
that
it
be
bigger
than
what's
allowed.
C
H
To
the
north
and
south
walls,
so
there's
this
unused
portion
that
doesn't
that's,
earned
that
that
they're,
not
even
proposing
to
use
so
staff,
is
also
recommending
a
a
third
appeal
be
considered
to
allow
an
additional
sign
so
that
they
could
use
the
additional.
You
know
31,
plus
feet
square
feet
of
earning
on
that
west
wall,
which
would
give
them
that
vis
visibility
and
still
be,
within
an
exception
level.
H
Right
so
we're
it's
a
lesser
level
of
appeal
than
was
originally
noticed
and
and
requested
so,
but
because
of
the
because
of
the
way
we're
amending
the
recommendation
from
what
is
requested.
It's
it
drops
the
amount
of
signage.
You
know
earned
quite
a
bit
and
we
wanted
to
also
put
that
in
as
an
opportunity
for
them
to
take
advantage
of
half
of
the
sign
area
that
they
earn
and
and
apply
it
to
that
primary
frontage
wall
on
floor.
A
Yeah,
no,
I
I
understand
the
step
down
concept.
I
guess
what
I
was,
and
I
assumed
this
was
the
case.
I
just
don't
remember
any
instances
where
this
is.
We've
done
this,
where
they're
not
asking
for,
say
a
variance
of
to
go
from
two
signs
to
four
signs
and
then
we're
going
to
grant
three
signs
right,
and
that
was
never
noticed.
A
The
number
of
signs
all
they've
requested
is
area
and
we're
in
what
staff
is
recommending
is,
is
granting
those
exception
level
area
requests
denying
the
variances,
but
then
adding
this
third
one
which
again
not
to
tip
my
hand.
I
mean
I
understand
that
the
concept
behind
I
just
wanted
to
just
doubly
verify
that
that
was
okay,
even
though
the
the
the
concept
of
like
adding
the
number
of
signs
had
not
been
noticed.
H
A
A
C
I
K
K
We
have
reviewed
the
staff
recommendation
and
re-evaluated
the
sign
areas
that
we
had
requested,
and
so
we
are
accepting
the
staff's
revision
of
the
of
the
variance
request
that
we've
put
in.
However,
for
this
particular
location,
we'd
want
to
maintain
the
signs,
only
two
signs
north
and
south
face
of
that,
rather
than
have
the
west
facing
sign
on
fleur,
so
it
is
slightly
different
than
has
been
discussed
through
there,
and
I
don't
the
the
technicalities
of
whether
or
not
the
board
can
make
that
kind
of.
K
An
adjustment
based
on
the
staff
recommendation
is
what
we're
kind
of
asking
for.
At
this
point,
we
see
that
there's
a
lot
more
value
with
the
north
and
south
facing
visibility
rather
than
the
floor
visibility.
Just
because
of
the
way
the
building
is
oriented
so
we'd
like
to
have
that
sign
area
again,
as
nathan
stated
we're
really
asking
for
the
sign
area
variants
to
be
on
the
north
and
south
facing
walls.
K
So
it
is
not
as
large
of
a
variance
request,
as
was
initially
submitted
because
we
have
recalculated
it
to
be
within
the
size,
and
I
had
sent
over
to
bert
the
revised
building
elevations
that
show
those
smaller
signs
than
what
was
originally
submitted.
So
they
have
been
scaled
down
to
fit
closer
to
the
to
the
staff
recommendation.
K
A
K
We
are
comfortable
with
the
staff
recommendations
as
they
fit
the
size
of
the
signs,
because
we've
redone
the
the
calculations
and
scaled
the
signs
to
fit
within
those
numbers.
But
what
we
want
is
to
use
those
values
for
a
north
and
south
facing
sign
and
not
have
the
third
sign.
So
we're
not
interested
in
increasing
the
number
of
signs,
but
we
do
want
to
use
the
area
for
the
north
and
south.
Just
two
signs.
Okay,.
H
H
That
is
an
exception
of
the
earned
area
for
the
whole
site
for
the
building,
which
is
which
is
that
was
the
point
staff
was
trying
to
make
is
by
giving
him
the
the
exception
of
of
the
total
earned
you're
only
able
to
take
advantage
of
half
of
that
on
non-occupant
walls
and
so
yeah.
That
makes
sense
to
the
board.
K
K
No,
I
want
you
to
go
to
floor
there.
You
go
so
on
this
one.
This
is
the
ones
that
we
just
sent
in,
so
it's
31.73
square
feet,
which
is
less
square
footage
than
what
we've
had
on
the
existing
hyvee
gas
sign.
That's
there
now
and
so,
based
on
the
staff
recommendations.
We
understand
that
the
side
ordinances
have
changed
and
we
have
done
recalculations
on
the
sign
area.
That's
being
proposed
today
to
be
more
in
line
with
what
the
staff
recommendations
are
for
the
non-frontage
road.
K
However,
we
don't
need
the
sign
and
there
is
no
sign
on
fluor
today,
so
we'd
like
to
use
the
sign
area,
that's
allowed
on
the
two
non-frontage
sides,
which
is
where
our
existing
signs
are
located.
So
you
know,
if
you're,
if
we're
looking
at
this
kind
of
globally
we're
not
asking
for
any
more
sign
area,
that's
on
the
building
now
than
it's
there
today,
we've
actually
provided
less
and
we
don't
want
to
add
any
additional
signs.
K
K
K
A
A
Down
hearing
none
we'll
we'll
close
this
portion,
did
you
have
one
more
thing
to
say?
No,
just
thank
you
for
hearing
me
out.
Thank
you,
of
course,
all
right,
we'll
close
this.
This
portion,
we'll
turn
to
the
public
comment
portion,
we'll
begin
with
any
speakers
who
are
here
to
speak
in
support
of
this
request.
L
Ready
ready
all
right
hi,
my
name
is
phil
garland,
it's
it's
p-h-I-l-g-a-r-l-a-n-d,
I'm
president
of
nesper
sign
at
4620,
j
street
southwest
cedar,
rapids
iowa
and
just
a
a
quick
thought
that
I
wanted
to
have
speak
to
the
board,
to
say
number
one
to
thank
you
for,
for
the
hearing
and
and
for
your
time
it's
something
that
that
our
company
doesn't
do
very
often
out
in
your
area.
We
try
to
work
within
the
code.
L
I
think
the
fact
that
the
signage
that's
up
there
now,
which
is
quite
a
bit
larger.
You
know
there
hasn't
been.
I
don't
think
any
public
outcry
about
that
through
the
years
maybe
speaks
for
itself,
but
we'd.
I
have
myself
and
ed
on
staff
here
that
are
also
listening.
If
there's
any
questions
regarding
you
know
any
of
the
light,
outputs
or
the
or
the
sizes
or
how
we
arrived
at
those
or
visibilities,
or
anything
like
that
work
on
on
stand
by
here
for
the
board.
M
Yeah
hello:
this
is
ed
petchey
with
nesper
sign
company,
4620,
j
street
southwest
city
rapids.
I
was
the
one
that
was
helping
heidi
on
getting
the
permits
and
working
on
all
of
the
the
calculations
and
and
so
on,
and
so
forth,
with
staff
recommendations.
Just
just
kind
of
reiterate,
one
fact
that
you
know
we
took
the
the
staff
recommendations
to
heart
and
we
we
slipped
underneath
that
in
square
footage
of
signage.
M
I
think
the
picture
that
you
have
is
the
the
one
small
window-
oh
yeah,
that's
the
that
shows
the
the
a
lot
of
it,
but
there
is,
if
you
go
down
just
a
little
bit
to
number
seven
there
I
believe
shows
a
little
bit
of
a
window
there
on
that
that
west
side,
but
that
sign,
is
much
more
visible
on
that
south
side.
So
once
again,
we
slip
the
the
sign
square
footage
underneath
the
staff
recommendations
and
would
find
it
much
more
beneficial
to
have
that
south
side.
M
A
A
A
A
D
Yes,
vice
chair,
this
is
justin
for
eric.
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
mind
around
this.
So
what
I'm
understanding
is
for
the
appeal,
the
type
2
zoning
exception
would
create
some
unallocated
square
footage
and
that's
why
the
city
offered
to
do
a
third
sign
and
what
the
appellant
is
offering
is
to
take
that
unallocated
square
footage
and
basically
spread
it
to
the
two.
Existing
sign
footage
is
that
right.
N
A
O
Mr
chair,
this
is
cindy
even
even
though
it
sounds
like
this
would
still
be
a
variance,
I
think,
they're
taking
the
best
approach
possible
to
accommodate
this
request.
You
know
they're
going
to
end
up
with
the
two
signs
on
the
north
and
south
they're,
taking
the
signs
off
the
banner
portion,
they're
not
going
to
put
a
sign
on
the
west
side.
C
P
You
know
I'm
going
to
go
along
with
what
cindy
was
saying.
You
know,
they're
doing
a
rebranding
here.
I
think
this
fresh
market
they've
got
these
facilities
around
town.
I
again,
I
know
we
struggle
with
this
sign
variance
and
we're
trying
to
do
a
one-size-fits-all.
I
think
the
concessions
that
they've
made,
along
with
just
some
of
the
challenges
of
location,
just
trying
to
create
kind
of
a
sense
of
arrival
for
their
for
the
customers.
This
is
out
in
the
parking
lot
of
a
pretty
big
strip
area.
P
So
here
again,
I
I'm
not
too
concerned
about
the
variance
whether
they
need
it
or
not.
I'm
trying
to
look
at
this
thing
from
a
business
perspective
and
what
what's
right
and
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here,
for
not
only
citizens
but
also
for
these
business
owners.
So
I
think
that
the
request
is
fine
and
I'm
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
propose
that
you
know
we
allow
for
it.
So
those
are
my
thoughts.
A
G
Voice
your
opinion,
that's
fine.
I
appreciate
that.
I'm
along
the
lines
of
dave.
I
mean
this.
Sport
is
here
for
a
reason.
If
we
just
stuck
hard
and
past
the
rules,
we
wouldn't
have
this
board
and
again.
Hyvee
is
a
very
strong
player
in
our
market,
provides
a
lot
of
jobs
and
gives
back
to
the
community,
and
I
am
inclined
to
allow
them.
You
know
the
not
the
variance
but
the
exception
level.
G
A
Thanks
very
much
so
I
think
everyone's
spoken,
except
for
me.
Those
who
my
fellow
members
of
the
board
will
not
be
surprised
to
hear
this
and
if
other
people
in
the
audience,
I'm
sure
staff
are
kind
of
sick
of
me
saying
this,
but
I'll
echo
a
bit
of
what
justin
and
marlas
said.
I
I
understand
that
it
can
be
frustrating
because
there
are
kind
of
common
sense
solutions
or
seemingly
common
sense
solutions.
A
But
unfortunately
the
variance
test
is
is
a
is
a
very
high
threshold
which
city
staff
read
earlier
and
I
think
I've
maybe
seen
one
sign
request,
or
maybe
two
of
my
course
or
my
tenure
here-
that
that
has
met
that.
But
this
one
does
not
meet
that.
I
I
would
personally
support
you
know
the
exception
level
requests
that
staff
is
recommending,
I'm
not
totally
convinced
them
the
third
sign.
They
don't
seem
to
want
it.
A
So
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
give
it
to
them,
but
I'm
I
would
be
open
to
that
and
to
put
a
a
mel
pens
style
comment
on
this.
This
is
my
as
a
proud
south
sider.
This
is
my
hyvee,
and
so
I'm
looking
forward
to,
I
have
always
appreciated
the
services
they
provide
and-
and
I
think
it
looks,
looks
nice
and
I'm
sure,
with
the
new
signage
it'll
continue
looking
nice
is
it
any
was?
A
H
H
H
So
they
they're
asking
to
adjust
it
to
allow
that
total
earning
exception
to
be
applied
to
each
of
the
north
and
south
walls,
which
would
end
up
a
variance
of
thirty
one
point:
eight
seven
five
over
the
the
the
earned
amount
of
fifty
percent
to
be
applied
on
each
of
those
walls.
Instead
of
just
divided
amongst
the.
H
I
C
A
All
right,
then,
I'm
going
to
move
hearing,
none
ready
to
jump
in,
at
least
at
this
moment.
I'm
gonna
move
that
we
deny
the
variance
requests
but
grant
exception
level
requests
for
the
the
two
requests
they
made.
Both
the
total
amount
of
square
footage
and
the
amount
of
square
footage
on
non-frontage
walls.
D
Q
E
O
A
All
right,
the
motion
carries
4-2
thanks
very
much
for
everyone
participating.
I
think
bree
will
probably
hear
from
you
again
soon
and
hopefully
you
know
hyvee
can
can
move
forward
and
accommodate.
I
think
that
the
city's
done
a
good
job
of
proposing
something
that
that'll
that'll,
fix
and
and
the
board
is
kind
of
acquiesced
to
that
compromise.
H
H
In
this
case
they
have
a
different
scenario
where
they're
they've
got
two
earnings
from
two
frontages
as
well,
so
they're
able
to
apply
earnings
from
two
of
frontage
walls
to
opposite
or
two
non-occupant
walls
or
are
transferred
onto
the
fuel
canopy.
So
in
this
case
they're
asking
that
the
original
request
was
for
a
type
two
zoning
exception
of
the
total.
Basically,
the
total
square
feet
based
on
the
signs
allowed
for
the
building.
H
With
the
72
foot
of
linear
frontage
along
the
east
park,
avenue
frontage
and
then
a
variance
of
44.36
square
feet
over
the
maximum
45
square
feet
of
signage
for
a
wall
mounted
sign
on
a
non-frontage
wall,
so
they're
they're
exceeding
the
size
which
they
want
to
place
on
the
front
of
their
entrance.
But
it's
on
a
non-frontage
wall.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Moving
through
the
staff
report,
staff
looked
at
this
with
the
same
lens.
Essentially,
although
this
is
different
because
of
the
scenario
with
two
street
frontages,
the
the
amounts
and
the
the
actual
appeals
that
they're
asking
for
or
not
not
the
same.
As
in
the
previous
scenario,
we
don't
find
that
they
meet
the
test
for
variances,
but
we
do
believe
there's
enough
practical
difficulty
in
their
placement
of
their
building
within
the
commercial
center
at
the
at
the
corner,
with
the
entrance
in
facing
interior
to
the
site.
H
H
K
K
K
A
A
G
A
C
C
A
H
H
This
is
triggering
concern,
or
this
is
triggering
the
need
to
get
variances
of
signs
number
of
signs
to
allow
four
over
the
maximum
two
wall
mounted
signs,
and
then
it's
a
zoning
variance
that
would
allow
111.22
square
feet
over
the
maximum
87.5
square
feet
of
signage
allowed,
based
on
their
70
feet
of
occupant,
frontage
towards
east
army
post
road
and
then
65.61
square
feet
over
the
maximum
43.75
square
feet
of
sign
area.
That's
allowed
based
on
a
non-frontage
wall
which
would
be
their
south
wall.
H
H
H
H
H
We
deny
the
variances
again
based
on
the
finding
that
there
isn't
a
demonstrated
unnecessary
hardship,
but
we
are
again
looking
at
the
practical
difficulty
aspect
of
this.
Given
changing
existing
sign
areas
and
allowances
based
on
new
branding
and
the
positioning
of
the
building
within
the
center
of
the
mall
complex,
it
does
earn
off
of
one
frontage,
but
there
is
also.
H
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
amended
appeals
for
type
two
exceptions.
To
allow
three
wall
mounted
signs
one
over
the
permitted
two
and
to
allow
proposed
total
sign
area
to
be
43.75
square
feet
over
the
maximum
87.5
square.
Feet,
earned
for
a
total
of
131.25
total
square
feet
and
then
to
allow
the
sign
on
the
south
non-fringe
wall
and
canopy
combined
to
be
no
more
than.
H
These
are
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
any
signs
shall
be
installed
in
compliance
with
a
sign
permit
issued
by
the
permit
development
center
to
assign
contractor
license
by
the
city.
Existing
local
signs
on
the
fueling
canopy
and
the
digital
pricing
sign
on
the
south.
Facade
of
the
building
are
removed
now.
H
In
order
to
get
three
signs,
assuming
they
want
the
two
mounted
on
the
building,
but
I'll,
let
them
speak
to
that,
but
I
just
did.
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
we
didn't
want
a
condition
which
sign
which
sign
they
wouldn't
use
in
this
case,
but
they
will
to
follow
the
exception
they
will
have
to
have.
They
would
be
limiting
to
three
wall-mounted
signs.
K
Thank
you
again.
This
is
bree
cooper
representing
hyvee,
director
of
retail
facilities,
5820
west
town
parkway
west
des
moines,
iowa,
five,
zero,
two
six,
five!
Thank
you
for
for
hearing
this.
Out
again,
we
have
reviewed
the
staff
recommendations
and
the
existing
sign
area
was
re-evaluated
and
reduced
and
signed
to
fit
more
in
line
with
the
the
calculations
necessary
to
fit
within
the
des
moines
city
ordinance.
K
We
are
planning
to
remove
the
pricing
sign
from
the
building,
but
would
like
to
include
both
pricing
signs
on
the
east
and
west
end
of
the
canopy.
However,
the
all
of
the
logos
would
be
removed,
so,
as
we've
been
walking
through
this
we've
agreed
to
remove
logos.
We
feel
that
pricing
signs
are
an
important
part
of
the
gas
business
which
would
which
would
be
a
critical
part
of
this
sign
package.
K
So
removing
the
one
from
the
building
is
a
concession
that
we
can
give
but
we'd
like
to
maintain
those
two
pricing
signs
on
the
gas
canopy
at
a
at
a
minimum.
So
in
the
end
we
still
want
to
have
what
the
the
staff
is
calling
for.
Four
wall
mounted
signs
on
the
building,
even
though
they're
they're
all
sort
of
different
signs.
So
we
can
concede
with
sign
areas
but
we'd
like
to
maintain
four.
C
I
K
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
I
I
do
have
a
an
additional
question
and
and
just
not
to
put
too
fine
a
point
on
it,
but
you
know
the
reason
that
the
item
number
two,
at
least
speaking
for
myself,
for
the
reason
why
I
didn't
support
that
variance
request
is
because
it
doesn't
didn't
meet
the
variance
test
and
the
variance
test
is
pretty
specific.
You
have
to
establish
all
three
elements
of
unnecessary
hardship.
A
A
couple
of
them,
frankly,
are
are
a
little
bit
in
the
eye
of
the
holder,
or
at
least
one
of
them
is
the
the
use
that
it's
not
going
to
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
of
the
land
in
question.
The
second
one
the
plight
of
the
owner
is
due
to
unique
circumstances
not
of
the
owner's
own
making,
which
often
occurs,
but
the
third
one
listed
first
here
on
the
page.
A
That's
up
on
on
the
screen
is
that
the
landing
question
cannot
yield
a
reasonable
return
from
any
use
permitted
by
the
regulations
of
the
district
in
which
the
land
is
located
and,
and
the
description
here
gets
more
specific.
It's
not
just
that
the
value
of
the
land
has
been
depreciated
by
the
regulations
of
the
city
or
that
a
variance
would
permit
the
order
to
maintain
a
more
profitable
use.
K
It
is
signs
are
an
essential
element
of
how
this
property
is
doing
the
business.
So
pricing
signs
is
and
has
been
a
standard
use
of
gas
station
properties
in
the
areas
and
so
they're
there
now
and
from
the
existing
conditions,
as
a
criteria
that
we're
evaluating
the
property
and
what
it's
being
used
for
should
be
a
way
to
evaluate
how
we're
looking
at
the
variance
request
moving
forward.
K
So
we're
not
asking
for
it
to
be
depreciated,
we're
just
asking
for
it
to
be
maintained
in
the
same
status
that
it
is
currently
I'm
not
asking
for
more
than
what
was
there
previously,
I'm
just
asking
to
be
maintained.
We're
not
asking
for
even
the
sign
to
be
changed.
It's
an
existing
sign,
and
so
this
fact
that
the
city
staff
has
called
out
the
pricing
signs
to
be
a
change
from
what
was
there
existing
is
part
of
what
we're
struggling
with
that's.
K
That
is
the
reason
for
the
variance
we
had
gone
in
and
all
the
logos
had
been
removed,
which
met
with
what
we
thought
was
the
intent
of
the
change
in
your
ordinance,
not
anything
to
do
with
the
pricing.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we're
we're
struggling
with.
Why
would
that
even
be
included
in
this,
since
it's
already
there
as
an
existing
condition.
A
A
C
A
L
Okay,
sorry
phil
garland,
that's
p-h-I-l-g-a-r-l-a-n-d
and
president
of
nesper
sign
advertising
4620
j
street
southwest
cedar,
rapids
iowa.
I
just
wanted
to
address
a
couple
issues
here
in
regards
to
the
variances
and
and
and
the
criteria
for
variances
and
and
I've
been
doing
this
close
to
40
years
now,
and
I've
helped
write
many
of
the
sign
codes
throughout
the
midwest
to
be
honest
with
you
and
obviously
on
a
daily
basis.
L
This
is
kind
of
one
of
the
things
I
do
is
talk
to
groups
like
yourself
and
city
councils,
all
over
the
midwest
and
it's
always
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
struggle,
and
especially
with
signage.
Just
a
couple
points
one
is
signed,
variances
or
sign.
Codes
in
general
are
pretty
much
put
together
by
ad
hoc
committees:
they're,
not
as
scientific
as,
let's
say,
a
fire
codes
where
they
can
say
a
certain
temperature
and
something
catches,
fire,
etc.
L
They
really
aren't
scientifically
put
together
they're
just
kind
of
we
like
this.
We
don't
like
that.
We
want
more
of
this
and
less
of
that
and
they
kind
of
get
these
arbitrary
numbers
together
and
we
get
all
done.
It
becomes
kind
of
a
chiseled
and
golden
tablets,
and
that's
that's
really.
I
just
I
wanted
you
to
make
aware
of
that.
These
aren't
necessarily
quantifiable.
L
This
is
good.
This
is
bad.
They
are
very
arbitrary
and
they're
very
hard
to
put
against
different
sized
properties
et
cetera.
I
know
you,
people
know
that,
and
I
know
you're
involved
with
it
every
day
and
have
an
appreciation
for
that
part
of
it
when
it
comes
to
that
variance
test.
That
was
out
of
some
supreme
court
tests
that
were
really
for
variances
that
were
not
signed
variances,
but
they
were
property
variances
and
the
one
thing
that
that
overlooks
that
is
unique
with
sign
variances
is
that
there
is
a
free
speech
element
of
signage.
L
But
I
do
think
that
that
needs
to
be
considered
when
you,
when
you're
getting
in
with
this,
you
know
very,
very
strict
adherence
to
a
to
a
variance
set
of
of
criteria
that
is
really
based
on
property
type
things,
and
it
does
not
account
for
that
part
of
it.
And
so
I
would
ask
you
just
just
bear
that
in
mind
a
little
bit
with
it
with
a
client.
That
is,
I
think,
very,
very
hard
trying
to
work
within
this
thing.
L
The
last
thing
on
on
the
gas
price
signs
that
I
find
across
the
midwest,
or
that
in
our
in
our
trade
area,
is
that
by
and
large
they're
required
to
post
prices.
That's
a
that's
a
big
thing
in
that
industry,
and
most
I
don't
know
if
that's
state
regulation
or
federal
regulation,
but
they're
required
to
do
that.
So
many
municipalities
don't
even
count
the
pricing
signage
part
of
it.
It
really
isn't
advertising.
L
I
just
throw
that
out
there
again,
as
I
think
for
something
unique
if
you're
looking
for
a
reason
to
grant
them
and
to
go
with
what
city
staff
has
has
thought
was
reasonable.
In
this
case,
I
think
there's
two
or
three
things
there,
hopefully,
that
I've
thrown
at
you
that
maybe
you
can
see
as
something
a
little
bit
more
unique
with
this
property
and
and
or
with
this
circumstance,
especially.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
A
M
A
M
M
One
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
on
that:
the
digital
price
changers
also,
is
you
know
I
I
always
think
about
if
I
was
trying
to
get
gas
in
des
moines
and
I'm
driving
north
on
southeast
widget
road
and
I'm
looking
to
the
left
and
seeing
the
gas
station.
But
I
don't
see
any
price
changers
you
know
or
or
I'm
I'm
traveling
east
on
army
post
road,
doing
the
same
kind
of
thing
and
not
seeing
any
price
changers
it.
M
It
really
makes
it
difficult
for
a
gas
station
to
operate
when
patrons
can't
see
the
the
cost
of
the
gas
that
you
know,
they're
looking
to
get
gas.
So
that's
that's
one
thing
and
also
you
know
you
always
you're
always
talking
about
safety,
or
at
least
we
are
always
talking
about
safety
and
ability
to
see
things.
You're
driving
on
a
busy
road
des
moines
is
always
busy,
and
you
know
you're
stretching
and
looking
for
for
these
for
the
price
on
on
the
gas
station.
M
I
A
J
I
do
nathan
thank
you.
This
is
judy
parks,
crews,
assistant
city
attorney.
I
appreciate
mr
garland's
comments
about
the
nature
and
the
source
of
some
of
the
requirements
that
relate
to
variances.
I
can
elaborate
on
that
just
a
little
bit.
Three
of
these
were
placed
in
the
iowa
code
and
then
because
of
subsequent
court
decisions,
specifically
talking
about
the
unnecessary
hardship
test,
we
have
additional
guidance
from
the
courts.
That
says
we
have
to
look
at
whether
there
is
going
to
be
any
economic
use
of
a
property.
J
If
a
variance
isn't
granted,
it's
not
whether
you
can
make
more
money
from
it
or
less
money
from
it.
It's
whether
it
loses
basically
any
kind
of
use
you
can
have
on
it,
and
it
is
a
very
high
test,
because
what
the
court
has
said,
what
you
are
doing
by
a
variance
is
allowing
someone
to
do
something
that
the
code-
and
in
this
case
the
ordinance
prohibits.
J
J
So
free
speech
is
one
of
those
things
that
was
mentioned
here.
Yes,
I
appreciate,
and
we
are
very
cognizant
of
signage
regulations
not
touching
on
content,
but
when
they
touch
on
the
amount
of
signage
and
do
not
speak
to
what
that
signage
says,
we
are
permitted
to
adopt
reasonable
regulations
and
that's
what
we
have
done
here.
It
may
seem
like
it's
a
very
hard
or
high
bar
to
meet,
but
it
actually
is,
but
you're
not
misreading
that.
J
D
A
H
I
think
that
isn't
the
case
with
this
particular
situation
and
I
think,
we've
sort
of
tried
to
get
a
little
more
contemporary
with
our
current
code
to
to
the
business
models
that
that
you
see
with
things
like
convenience
stores
or
banks
or
something
of
that
nature.
So,
but
we
do
count
them
as
a
separate
sign
and
we
do
count
them
as
part
of
the
earnings
in
terms
of
the
area
as
well.
H
In
that
situation,
we
did
not
want
to
dictate
that
they
removed
one
or
the
other
pricing
sign,
or
you
know
just
allowing
three
signs
with
the
earnings,
at
the
exception
level,
if
the,
if
the
pricing
would
be
the
most
important
aspect,
they
would,
they
would
retain
that
and
they
could
use
the
exception
level
of
area
on
the
front
sign
and
remove
the
rear
sign,
for
example.
So
we
didn't
want
to
dictate
how
they
use
that
number
of
signs.
A
P
P
The
and
I
know
some
people
are
strict
on
the
variance.
I
don't
happen
to
be
as
strict
on
the
variance
here
again,
I'm
trying
to
think
of
something
that
makes
sense
and
we've
got
a
basically
a
national
brand
in
hyvee,
and
I
feel
like
that,
we're
being
pretty
restrictive
for
a
pretty
reasonable
request
in
my
opinion,
so
I'm
I'm
I'm
I'm
in
a
position
where
I
I'd
grant
them
their
request,
but
I'm
interested
to
hear
what
everyone
else
has
to
say.
D
Vice
chair,
this
is
justin
gross.
If
I
may
just
speak
on
this
and
kind
of
along
the
lines
of
what's
been
already
stated
before
in
in
the
previous
items
that
we've
mentioned
about
today,
the
iowa
supreme
court
this
year
put
out
a
opinion
kind
of
in
regards
to
variance
tests,
and
it's
I'd
encourage
my
other,
the
other
board
members
to
maybe
look
at
it's
early
versus
the
board
of
edu
adjustment
of
sierra
gordo
county
and
the
point
I
want
to
make
and
I'll
just
read
a
little
bit
of
it.
D
It
says
the
board's
statutory
authority
to
grant
a
variance
is
limited.
It
is
fundamental
that
the
board
may
not
legislate.
It
exercises
only
the
administrative
and
quasi-judicial
power
strictly
within
the
limitations
of
the
statute,
so
I
just
bring
that
up
just
to
the
board
members.
Because
again-
and
I
know
I
sound
like
a
broken
record,
but
I
always
look
at
that
variance
test
and
it
is
a
high
burden
to
meet,
and
so
we
as
a
board
have
to
be
within
the
limitations
of
that
statute.
D
E
E
O
G
C
C
B
A
J
Yes,
I
agree
with
you.
I
was
looking
at
that
myself,
because
the
original
motion
included
both
the
denial
of
the
variants,
as
well
as
the
grant
of
the
exceptions
the
it
incorporated.
Everything
that
we
could
do
at
this
point
and
the
flip
side
of
that
which
would
be
not
voted,
probably
favorably,
would
be
to
grant
the
variance.
But
I
I
cannot
see
that
that
would
be
supported
in
a
different
numerical
breakdown
of
the
vote.
J
Well,
typically,
it's
not
unless
there's
some
change
in
circumstances.
I
am
looking
real
quick
at
what
our
provisions
are
and
I
have
I
will
apologize.
I
have
an
old
set
of
the
rules
in
front
of
me.
I
guess,
given
the
breakdown,
I
would
maybe
entertain
if
anyone
wishes
to
change
the
vote,
so
we
do
have
a
situation
where
at
least
the
applicants
would
be
able
to
get
some
relief
or
were
they.
A
So
so
maybe
a
way
to
handle
it,
assuming
this
is
legal
and
judy
if
you
find
out
otherwise,
please
let
us
know,
but
is,
if
any
of
the
three
no
votes
wishes
to
reconsider
their
vote
and
propose
that
same
motion
that
was
just
voted
down
or
you
know
I
you
know
hope
springs
eternal.
I
suppose
a
different
motion
could
be
considered,
but
I'll
give
a
few
seconds
for
folks
to
jump
in
if
they
want
to
do
that.
J
J
O
O
J
O
A
A
Spoke
up
as
well,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
it
correctly.
So
if,
if
we're
able
to
either
open
up
the
previous
vote
or
to
move
the
same
vote
move
the
same
kind
of
motion
which
was
staff
recommendation,
I
think
that
would
be
the
simplest
way
to
go.
But
if
necessary,
I
think
I
could
probably
come
up
with
another
solution.
J
Well,
this
is
unusual
because
I
I
don't
know
what
additional
or
alternative
sort
of
motion
would
be
acceptable.
Probably
if,
if
no
one
has
any
ideas
besides,
what
is
placed
in
front
of
them
in
the
staff
recommendation
then,
and
knowing
that
it
sounds
that
there
is
a
concern
over
the
result,
meaning
a
much
stricter
compliance
is
required
of
our
applicant.
Then
what
I
would
suggest
is
put
it
to
a
vote
again
and
I
guess
make
a
new
motion.
J
O
C
G
E
E
A
E
C
C
A
C
B
Yep
sure,
thank
you,
nathan,
members
of
the
board.
This
is
bert.
With
the
city
of
des
moines.
Number
five
is
a
request
from
the
mcdonald's
at
3610,
merle
hay
road,
and
they
did
withdraw
a
portion
of
their
appeals
yesterday.
So
today
we're
only
considering
the
appeals
for
four
wall-mounted
signs
on
the
building
and
then
the
appeals
for
four
signs
are
pertinent
to
a
drive-through
use
on
the
site.
The
appeals
that
would
have
allowed
for
four
driveway
signs
have
been
withdrawn.
B
Here
are
a
couple
photos.
You
can
see
that
the
mcdonald's
is
currently
under
renovation,
so
they
would
be
adding
three
signs
on
this
east
facade
and
then
one
on
the
south
side
facade
facing
the
parking
lot
and
then
they
would
also
be
adding
a
total
of
four
I'm
installing
a
total
of
four
drive
through
signs
in
this
area
here
to
the
north
of
the
building.
B
B
B
These
are
two
of
the
signs
that
would
be
on
the
east
facade
facing
rural
hay,
road
and
then
the
third
sign
on
the
play
place
also
facing
royal
hay
road.
This
total
signage
area
is
within
their
allowances,
so
the
appeals
for
the
wall
mounted
signs
are
really
only
to
have
two
more
than
the
allowed
two.
So
it's
a
variance
of
2
over
the
allowed
2.
B
B
This
is
the
first
display
board
that
would
be
installed
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
not
proposing
a
monument
base.
So
these
four
signs
for
the
drive-through
use
also
require
a
variance
of
the
provision
that
requires
any
free
standing
sign
to
be
a
monument
sign
with
a
minimum
two
foot
tall
masonry
base.
B
This
is
the
second
menu
board
sign
and
again
it
also
would
not
have
a
masonry
base
and
then
the
other
two
that
are
over
the
drive-through
lane.
Look
like
this.
This
is
the
first
one
that
would
direct
drivers
to
the
drive-through
lane
and
then
the
fourth
sign
here
is
actually
their
ordering
station.
So
you
can
see
the
built-in
microphone
is
within
this
post
here.
B
So,
as
I
alluded
to,
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
the
variances.
We
don't
feel
that
they've
satisfied
the
criteria
necessary
for
granting
of
variance,
as
you
well
know,
in
order
to
grant
a
variance,
you
have
to
prove
the
unnecessary
hardship
which
finds
that
there's
no
other
economic
use
of
the
property
without
it.
So
we
do
feel
that
it's
a
hard
bar
to
meet,
but
we
have
recommended
approval
of
the
maximum
type
two
zoning
exceptions
that
could
be
considered.
B
Those
would
be
the
exception
of
one
wall
mounted
sign
over
the
maximum
allowed.
Two
wall
mounted
signs,
and
then
we've
also
recommended
approval
of
an
exception
of
one
signs,
a
burden
to
a
drive
through
use
over
the
maximum
two
signs,
a
pertinent
to
a
drive-through
use
and
the
third
sign
or
the
third
appeal
here
is
not
necessary
since
they
withdrew
those
signs
yesterday,
so
we
only
received
one
comment
card
back
and
I'll.
Let
you
read
it
here:
it's
kind
of
in.
B
C
B
B
C
S
Hi,
I
am
miranda
kassins
with
chestnut
signs
located
at
971,
northeast
broadway
avenue
des
moines,
iowa
50313,
a
few
items
to
note
on
the
brick
bases
I
had
included
in
the
application.
I
did
not
realize
until
now
that
I
did
not
see
it
in
this
staff
report,
but
we
are
requesting
a
type
1
exception
to
allow
alternate
durable
materials
for
a
monument
sign
base.
S
So
on
that
one,
it's
more
just
we're
requesting
to
not
require
the
brick
base,
because
it's
kind
of
a
brand
standard
for
mcdonald's,
there's
multiple
other
mcdonald's
in
the
metro,
including
in
des
moines,
where
they've
used
this
look
on
their
drive-through
elements,
and
so
in
order
to
keep
things
consistent
recognizable
as
mcdonald's
they'd
like
to
go
with
the
aluminum
and
steel
materials
that
they've
proposed
as
their
durable
materials
for
the
monument
base,
so
that
I
would
like
that
to
be
considered.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
can
be
added
at
this
point
again.
S
B
To
I'll
go
ahead,
sorry
I
didn't
say
sorry.
This
is
bert.
I
can
address
that
since
the
appeal
was
noticed
as
though
for
a
variance
as
though
you
were
providing
no
base
on
those
signs,
it
would
be
under
the
board's
authority
today
to
consider
a
type
one
exception:
okay,
where
you
would
provide
somewhat
of
a
base,
just
not
the
two
foot
tall
masonry
case.
S
S
Would
that
still
be
considered
a
sign,
because
this
is
more
key
so
that
people
don't
drive
too
large
of
a
truck
through
the
drive-through
and
end
up
taking
out
their
truck
taking
out
the
canopy,
possibly
injuring
themselves
or
the
staff
at
mcdonald's?
So
the
main
key
of
this
item
is
purposeful
and
not
really
a
sign
to
like,
say:
hey
where
mcdonald's
come
to
our
drive
through.
It's
let's
be
safe.
Let's
go
through
here:
let's
not
bring
equipment
through.
That
is
more
than
nine
feet.
S
So
that's
on
that
one,
and
then
the
order
here
again
is
not
really
again
what
I
would
consider
as
advertising
sign
or
anything
like
that.
It
is
more
their
equipment
for
ordering.
So
if
we
were
to
take
off
the
larger
order
here,
I
don't
know
if
mcdonald's
would
be
willing
to
do
so,
because
again,
some
people
might
be
confused
and
not
know
where
to
order.
S
So
that
is
the
consideration
there.
As
far
as
the
wall
signs
I
do
know,
mcdonald's
would
most
likely
be
willing
to
accept
the
three
signs
that
the
staff
has
recommended
and
not
not
have
four,
even
though
they
had
originally
requested
for
so
they're
willing
to
move
on
that
item.
But
the
the
drive-through
elements
are
pretty
important
to
them,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
there.
A
Thanks
very
much
miranda
and
I'll
just
note,
we'll
let
city
staff
weigh
in.
I
think
there
has
been
in
the
past
some
differences
of
opinion
about
sign
definitions
when
it
comes
to
drive-throughs
with
respect
to
the
board
and
maybe
what
what
staff
has
has
recommended
from
time
to
time
so
but
but
staff.
I
I
don't
know
if,
if
you're
able
to
and
whomever
can
speak
up
right.
B
B
S
R
J
I'm
wondering
this
is
judy
park's
cruise
is
it
it
still
talks
about
signage,
but
we
do
have
a
category
of
signs
required
for
public
safety
or
governmental
interest,
and
I
think
of
signage
when
I'm
like
bridges
and
those
kinds
of
things
which
simply
have
a
height
designation,
so
that
you
don't
have
vehicles
too
large
going
through.
I
wonder
if
it
can
be
categorized
in
that
manner,
but
again
it's
still.
It
still
falls
as
a
sign.
J
It's
a
little
bit
awkward
when
we're
asked
to
negotiate
in
the
middle
of
a
meeting,
because
it
sounds
like
they
have
some
different
thoughts
about
how
to
approach
this.
But
this
is
we
really
deal
with
a
fixed
application,
because
that's
what
we
are
required
to
give
the
public
notice
of
so
the
idea
that,
if
there
is
some
different
proposal
that
comes
along
in
the
moment,
that
is
harder
to
deal
with
in
this
kind
of
setting
where
we
actually
have
to
give
advanced
notice.
A
A
C
A
S
S
When
writing
the
variants,
I
told
them
that
we
would
ask
for
a
type
1
exception
on
all
just
in
case,
but
mcdonald's
themselves
does
not
believe
you'll
be
able
to
see
those
items
from
merle
hay
when
you're
coming
south,
obviously
sign
5
and
7.
You
can
see
because
they're
not
behind
that
garbage
structure.
So
that's
something
else
just
to
add
to
the
conversation.
A
A
R
A
B
B
Yeah
I'll
read
it
to
you
so
in
chapter:
one:
thirty
need
to
pull
it
up
real
fast
in
chapter
134,
section,
6.5
0.2.
It
lists
nine
different
types
of
appeals
that
are
eligible
for
administrative
type,
one
zoning
exceptions
and
the
fourth
one
listed
says:
exceptions
to
allow
alternative,
durable
materials
for
a
monument
sign
base.
B
That's
at
least
two
feet
tall
that
would
be
eligible
for
a
type
one.
I
don't
know
that
staff
would
necessarily
support
that,
but
the
board
can
most
definitely
grant
that
today,
but
in
order
to
it
still
says
it
needs
to
be
a
monument
sign
base.
So
it
just
says
exceptions
to
allow
alternative,
durable
materials
for
a
monument
sign
base.
So.
B
A
B
S
B
C
B
A
A
A
A
Okay
and
and
miranda
thank
you
for
offering
some
additional
color
and
answers
there.
I
we
didn't
really
receive
any
comments
in
opposition,
but
if
you
have
any
kind
of
closing
statements
just
because,
obviously
there
is
some
opposition-
that's
been
voiced
and
we've
had
kind
of
some
back
and
forth.
If
you
have
anything
to
button
up,
we'll
give
you
a
few
minutes
to
address
that
before
we
move
into
our
deliberation.
S
Yeah,
thank
you
again
just
for
hearing
these
requests,
I'm
not
sure
if
it
would
be
worth
voting
on
different
items
separately
in
case
some
people
didn't
want
to
approve
part
of
it
or
not
part
of
it.
If
we
could
look
at
like
the
amendment
for
the
wall
signs
as
one
thing
where
maybe
the
addition
of
the
drive-through
signs
is
another
thing,
so
it's
not
just
blanketed
that
way.
If
someone
didn't
want
part,
but
was
okay
with
the
other,
they
could
get
at
least
part
of
it
approved.
S
I
do
know,
since
it
is
currently
under
construction,
they're,
basically
waiting
for
this
meeting
to
be
commenced,
and
then
they
will
be
putting
the
signs
into
production
and
shipping
them.
So
I
know
time
is
of
the
essence
of
them.
So,
ideally,
if
they
do
not
have
to
come
back
to
another
meeting
to
request
different
things,
it's
going
to
be
super
helpful
for
them.
So
that's
why
I
ask
if
there
is
a
way
to
split
the
recommendations
up.
That
would
be
great
yep.
A
A
O
B
A
A
I
I
do
think
it
sounds
like
we
have
the
discretion
to
pretty
easily
allow
for
both
a
reduction
in
height,
if
needed,
with
a
type
one
exception
request,
but
also
a
a
a
change
in
the
material
they're
using
which
I
personally
don't
have
any
objection
to
this
alternative
material
that
they're
using,
especially
since
it's
kind
of
fits
with
their
what
they
use
in
the
rest
of
the
state
or
the
the
kind
of
metro
area.
I
you
know
my
feelings
just
to
respond
a
little
bit
on
these
signs.
A
Is
that
they're
not
signs?
I
understand
that
city
staff
disagrees.
It
does
seem
like
in
this
case.
We
do
have
an
opportunity
to
maybe
figure
out
a
solution
either
through
variances
or
they
were.
I
I
felt
like
mcdonald's
being
or
miranda
they're
representative
as
being
pretty
flexible
with
respect
to
the
drive-through
items
and-
and
maybe
I'm
not
sure
how
we
could
proceed
there,
but
I'm
open
to
hearing
suggestions
on
the
first
on
the
wall-mounted
signs.
A
It's
I
I
don't
think
they've
met
the
variance
test
and-
and
I
personally
wouldn't
be
supportive
of
that,
but
I
think
having
three
wall
mounted
signs
as
an
exception
level,
request
is
appropriate,
so
I
would
would
support
that
for
the
four
drive-through
signs.
I
question
whether
a
couple
of
them
especially,
should
even
be
considered
signs,
given
their
purpose.
G
O
Well,
I
totally
agree
with
what
you
were
saying
nathan
and
I
just
think
that
the
drive-through
signs
it
makes
sense
to
me
that
that
we
approve
what
they're
proposing
I
my
recall
is
that
that's
what
we
approve
for
southwest
ninth
and
as
far
as
being
able
to
see
those
signs
off
of
merle
hay
road
they're
tucked
behind
you
know,
I
mean
I
go
to
this
mcdonald's
and
a
couple
of
them
are
tucked
behind
and
I
don't
I
don't
think.
Having
forcing
them
to
have
a
monument
signed
for
a
drive-through
really
makes
that
much
sense.
O
I
mean
they
look
their
top
quality
signs.
They
look
good,
they
work
the
the
one
sign
that
says
you
know,
don't
drive
a
truck
or
a
vehicle
in
here,
that's
more
than
nine
feet.
I
mean
that
one's
needed
I
mean.
Maybe
they
could
take
the
verbiage
off
that
maybe
we
could
request
they
take
the
verbage
off
that,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
you
know
people
don't
always
pay
attention
to
those
either.
J
O
J
If
I
might,
could
I
just
suggest-
and
this
is
judy
parks
cruise-
don't
try
and
take
this
as
all
one
comprehensive
fix
all
parse
them
out
and
do
separate
motions.
So
those
pieces
that
they're
in
agreement
with
and
you
believe
that
you'll
have
the
votes
for
take
those
as
separate
motions.
Is
that
helpful.
O
A
All
right,
that's
a
good
starting
point,
so
cindy
has
moved
that
we
deny
the
variance
request
for
four
wall
mounted
signs,
but
go
with
staff
recommendation
which
would
allow,
for
an
exception
of
one
over
the
maximum
two,
which
would
total
three
wall-mounted
signs
earned
for
the
frontage
along
merle
hay
road.
Is
there
a
second.
E
F
C
O
A
D
What
you
want
can
we
have
a
little
more
discussion
on
that
real,
quick
sure
sure
I
mean
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud
here
with.
If
you
took
out
the
drive-through
and
just
the
verbiage,
even
the
clearance
language
I
mean
having
the
bar
there,
doesn't
that
itself
sort
of
prevent
and
and
and
help
with
safety.
A
It
just
seemed
like
there
was
a
danger
that
staff
was
still
going
to
determine
that
to
be
a
sign
even
with
possibly
even
with
no
wording
at
all.
But
even
if
you
had
just
just
said
clearance
nine
feet,
it
seemed
like
there
was
a
possibility,
and
I
personally
am
not
I
I
don't
agree
with
that
determination,
but
also
I'm
just
not
comfortable
with
kind
of
going
through
that
path.
I'm
just
not
satisfied
that
if
we
didn't
allow
the
drive
through,
you
know
verbiage
on
there
that
that
would
be
a
solution.
G
G
G
D
No,
I
I
just
I
I
struggle
with
yeah
the
fact
that
if
we
could
take
off
the
word
drive
through
it,
it's
clear.
It
seems
clearly
that
it's
more
of
a
public
safety
measure-
and
I
just
can't
I
don't
know
I
wish
we
could
kind
of
get
around
that
somehow,
because
I
don't
think
it's
a
sign.
I
don't
think
it
should
be
by
definition,
a
sign
if
it
just
says,
clearance
nine
feet,
but
I
don't
have
probably
the
legislative
support
there
for
that.
G
A
I
mean
we
can
say
that
in
our
discussion.
I
don't
I
don't
know
that,
because
my
understanding
is
because
it
was
not
noticed
as
a
kind
of
like
a
appealing,
a
determination
by
the
zoning
enforcement
officer.
We
actually
aren't
able
to
to
make
a
decision
today
on
whether
that's
a
sign
or
not.
Our
options
are
either
to
grant
a
variance,
grant
an
exception
or
deny
both
of
them.
A
You
know
the
the
practical
effect
of
granting
the
variance
request,
would
kind
of
mean
it
doesn't
really
matter
whether
they're
determined
to
be
a
sign
or
not
right.
They
can
do
what
they've
requested
and
it
would
not
require
the
the
implication
would
be
that
they
would
not.
We
wouldn't
have
to
re-notice
this.
We
wouldn't
have.
They
wouldn't
have
to
stop
their
construction.
We
wouldn't
have
to
come
back
in
a
month
to
essentially
determine
the
same
thing.
J
G
S
I
would
probably
say
yes,
because
currently
their
drive-through
is
open
and
they
currently
do
have
a
drive-through
clearance
bar.
But
I
know
that
during
the
changeover
when
they
put
in
the
new
footings
for
all
the
other
drive-through
signs,
they'll
be
putting
in
the
footing
for
the
clearance
bar,
which
will
be
removing
the
old
clearance
bar,
and
they
only
plan
on
having
the
drive-through
closed
for
a
very
short
time
for
that.
S
So
once
they
have
those
footings
in,
they
would
open
that
drive
through
up
again
and
they'd
be
driving
without
a
clearance
bar
at
that
point,
which
would
cause
that
safety
issue
because
of
the
location
of
where
it's
going
to
be.
They
can't
leave
it
in
the
old
one
in
and
have
the
new
footing
in
at
the
same
time.
If
that
makes
sense,
because
it's
basically
going
in
right,
where
the
other
one
is.
A
E
D
Q
F
G
B
I
A
B
Sure
all
right,
thank
you.
Vice
chair
members
of
the
board,
again
bert
drost
planner
for
the
city
of
des
moines.
The
proposed
sign
would
require
two
variances.
This
item
is
proposing
a
sign
on
the
fourth
floor
of
a
building
downtown
for
a
fourth
floor
tenant.
Our
sign
code
only
allows
tenants
within
the
first
second
or
third
floors
of
a
building
to
earn
signage.
So
since
this
tenant
that
would
have
the
sign
is
within
the
fourth
floor
of
the
building,
they
earn
zero
wall-mounted
signage,
so
they're
proposing
two
signs.
B
B
B
It's
a
four-story
building
that
backs
up
to
a
parking
garage.
So
here's
a
sign
that
they're
proposing
for
the
fourth
floor,
and
this
is
how
it
would
appear
on
the
building.
So
you
can
see
here.
This
frederickson
sign
represents
a
tenant
within
the
third
floor
of
the
building
and
the
sign
is
on
the
third
floor.
Then
the
proposed
sign
up
here
would
be
on
the
fourth
floor
and
it
would
again
represent
a
fourth
floor
tenant,
and
this
is
a
view
of
so
that
last
one
here.
B
B
B
This
is
another
view
looking
to
the
south,
then
the
applicant
supplied
these
signs.
That
show
are
these
photos
that
show
signs
on
the
fourth
floor
or
higher
of
buildings
just
showing
that
the
proposed
sign
would
not
be
out
of
character
with
the
neighborhood,
but
I
point
have
to
point
out
that
these
signs,
while
they
are
above
the
third
or
fourth
floor
of
a
building,
they
do
represent
an
occupant
of
the
entire
building,
so
the
signs
are
still
on
their
occupant.
O
B
Well,
if
you
remember
our
retired
code,
we
only
allowed
first
and
second
floor
tenants
to
have
signage
so
with
the
new
zoning
ordinance.
We
recognized
especially
downtown
it's
fairly
common
for
upper
level,
tenants
to
want
signage,
so
we
did
up
it
from
the
second
floor
to
the
third
floor,
but
I
guess
the
reason
for
limiting
it
is
third:
is
we
don't
want
to
create
a
situation
where
there's
a
sign
on
every
floor
like
a
high-rise
building
downtown
and
again,
you
know
where
it's
a
fourth
floor.
G
I
B
B
B
B
G
B
I
can,
let
me
do
the
math,
so
I
think
it's
comparable,
but
in
order
so
if
they're
proposing
a
total
of
53
square
feet
of
signage
and
they
earn
1.25
square
feet
per
lineal
foot
of
frontage,
that
means
they
would
need
42.4
foot
feet
of
frontage,
which
I
don't
think
that
would
be
hard
to
achieve
or
hard
to
have
42.4
feet.
So
so
to
answer
your
question.
Yeah
these
signs
of
side
sizes
of
signs
would
likely
be
allowed
on
the
first
second
or
third
floors
of
the
building.
G
A
S
S
They
do
have
64
feet
of
tenant
frontage
along
the
grand
there,
so
they
would
actually
be
allowed
up
to
80
square
foot
of
tenant
fridge,
so
the
signs
are
actually
smaller
than
they
would
be
allowed.
So
we're
trying
to
keep
within
the
look
of
the
building
and
the
area
and
not
go
overwhelming
with
the
signage.
S
A
I'm
sorry
sorry
to
interrupt
this
is
nathan
blake
and
I
I
just
wanted
to
you.
You've
sat
and
been
very
patient
throughout
this
process.
Obviously
you're
well
versed
in
the
signage
department
and
have
been
good
to
work
with
on
this
last
on
the
last
item
I
did
want
to
know
for
the
record.
There
are
only
five
members
of
the
board
present
and
it
requires
an
affirmative
vote
of
four
to
pass
anything
when
there
are
only
five
members.
B
J
Right-
and
this
is
judy
parks,
cruz
legal
counsel-
we
started
out
with
one
fewer
member
than
we
normally
have,
and
then
we've
lost
the
subsequent
one.
So
it
puts
it
puts
a
lot
of
pressure
on
those
who
are
left
to
understand
to
get
a
final
vote
for
you.
They
have
to
count
count
their
own
hands
as
to
how
many
are
left.
We
hate
to
put
applicants
in
that
position
of
having
to
wait,
but
we
want
to
give
you
that
opportunity
as
well.
S
T
Go
ahead,
great
tim,
ripma
part
of
111
east
grand
would
it
be
possible
to
kind
of
have
a
conversation
with
the
board
and
and
see
if
we
can
kind
of?
If
there's,
if
there's
direction
before
making
that
decision,
I
mean
I,
I
guess
we
kind
of
thought
it
was
a
simple
sign
request
that
just
fell
in
between
the
cracks
several
buildings
around
the
property
that
have
signage
higher
than
three
levels.
Ac
hotel
is
another
one
that
we
didn't
show
photographs
of.
T
T
J
N
A
But
if,
if
you
were
to
take
the
position
that
you
could
just
kind
of
want
to
hear
it
out,
I
think
it's
much
less
likely
that
we
would
grant
the
continuation.
I
don't
think
people
want
to
sit
and
hear
the
presentation
and
then
vote
for
a
continuation
based
on
your
kind
of
assessment
of
where
our
board
might
be.
I
think
you
just
need
to
make
the
call
whether
to
to
ask
for
that
continuance,
now
kind
of
prior
to
presentation
or
or
wait.
I
I.
T
A
N
A
E
A
All
right
any
discussion,
the
only
item
of
discussion
I'd
have
is
that
I
I
would
anticipate
that
mel's
going
to
be
back
in
charge
next
month,
so
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
whatever
I
can.
They
can
push
off.
The
the
burden
of
speaking
is
much
higher
on
the
chair
than
the
normal
participant.
When
I'm
I'm
usually
sitting
back
popping
bonbons
most
of
the
discussions,
all
right
tyler,
you
want
to
call
us
through.
E
A
E
C
A
D
C
C
E
A
B
I
just
had
a
couple
quick
things
I
wanted
to
mention.
I
know
before
I
had
told
everybody
that
we
were
going
to
be
returning
to
in
person
in
july,
but
as
of
209
this
afternoon
I
got
an
email
confirming
that
we're
actually
having
to
push
that
back
a
month
to
august
they're
getting
some
new
sound
equipment,
that's
going
to
be
installed
in
the
boardroom
at
the
municipal
service
center
in
july.
B
Okay
and
so
then
the
other
thing
I
was
going
to
mention
is
that
this
is
eric
lundy's
last
meeting
serving
in
the
current
his
current
capacity
as
a
senior
city
planner.
I
believe
you
probably
saw
the
email
that
he
was
recently
given
the
opportunity
to
take
the
zoning
enforcement
officer
role,
so
he'll
be
taking
over
that
effective
june
1st.
So
over
the
next
few
months,
suanne
will
be
transitioning
away
from
this
board
and
then
eric
will
be
transitioning
in
to
take
over
her
role.