Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the development review commission meeting.

This is a regular meeting, November 18th, 2025.

And I am Andrew Johnson.

The development review commission is created to hold public meetings and hearings to provide an analysis and recommendations to the city council regarding general land use policies and application where the commission's where the commission has recommendatory power and to render final decisions on specified applications where the commission has final decision making power, including but not limited to all aspects of a proposed and future development.

Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the development review commission may file an appeal to the city council within 14 calendar days after the development review commission has rendered its decision.

Development review commission recommendations to City Council are not final decisions.

Tonight with us on the commission are all of our regular commission members.

To my far right, Commissioner Stefan Richter, uh Commissioner uh Larry Tom, Vice Chair Michelle Schwartz, to my left, Commissioner Joe Forte, Commissioner Linda Spears, and Commissioner Barbara Lloyd.

Tonight with us from staff, we have Jeff Tamolevich, Ryan Levake, Michelle Dalkey.

Oh, no, Michelle is not here.

Um, Diana Kaminsky, Lucas Jensen, Warren Rivera, Joanna Berry, and Jason Wolf.

For members of the public wishing to speak, please fill out a request card and bring it up to Miss Barry.

And you'll be giving up to three minutes to speak.

Staff will be monitoring that time.

Also, please note that the WebEx chat box is not monitored or moderated.

All right, tonight.

Um, I will go through our agenda real quick.

We'll have uh um consideration of our annual 2025 annual report, and then I will go through our consent agenda items that we reviewed in our study session when we agreed to put them on consent.

If um I will announce that consent agenda, and if anyone is here to speak on one of those items and wishes me to pull that so it can be heard, um I can do that at that time.

Umce we solidify our consent agenda, we'll vote on that and pass it all all in one, and then we will hear any of the other items that we have left.

Uh so first off, item number two, which is the consideration of our 2025 annual report.

Can I get a motion for acceptance of that report, please?

So moved.

Okay, so there's a motion to accept from Commissioner Spears.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Tom.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay.

Oh.

Yeah, you were.

That was for the year.

So that passes unanimously.

Okay.

Passes unanimously.

All right.

So on our next step is our cons consent agenda.

Um first item on our consent agenda is item 3A.

Again, if anyone here is here wishing to speak on one of these items from the public, please get my attention as I mention this.

Otherwise, it will be passed in um an acceptance.

Um, so item 3A, which is request a time extension for a development plan review consisting of an addition to an existing furniture furniture store for Ashley Furniture Edition.

Was anyone here wishing to speak on that item?

Okay, the next item will be item 4A on our consent agenda that is a request to use permit to allow two required parking spaces within the front yard setback for the Cubisco residents.

Okay, and the last item on our consent agenda is item 5B, which is request of recommendation for design and placemaking principles for Apache character area for plan.

This is updated November 2025.

Anyone wishing to speak on that item?

Okay.

Our consent agenda will remain as it is, as I have read it.

Uh can I get a motion for approval of our consent agenda?

Commissioner Richter.

Motion for the motion to approve the consent agenda.

Sorry.

Okay, so we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Richter.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Tom.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

All right.

Next up on our agenda is item 3B, which is the quasi judicial item to hold a public meeting for an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a minor development plan review for building elevation modifications for Kirene Commerce Plex.

Would the applicant please approach and provide us with your updates?

This is this was continued from our last regular meeting.

Good evening.

Evening.

And again, thank you guys so much for the opportunity to meet with the city of Tempe.

They were unbelievable.

They called a meeting within days, met with us over their lunch hour.

Can't see it's in there.

Met with us over their lunch hour, and it was like we had a real-time drawing review right there at the table.

Not like I'd ever want to experience that again.

I think I prefer just getting the drawings with red lines bleeding all over the place.

We took the information from that meeting and we took it back to our architect, and we basically held them accountable.

We said, look, the city's telling us that we're not making code on several items.

We knew about the light fixtures and we'd already been addressing the light fixtures.

But we were also brought to our attention that we were not meeting the 80% background to number configuration differential and the 50% uh contrast differential.

So when we went back to um Malwelc Mare Welcome, Malwelcome, whatever, WM, they came back at us and said, No, actually, we are in compliant.

And they showed us in what I'm gonna go over today is gonna show you where the address numbers have met the written code compliances.

So but I just wanted to say thank you guys once for the opportunity.

It was a great opportunity to have our drawing review in person with the city of Tempe.

And it has really got this thing moving forward.

I do have to say that a lot happened today, actually yesterday.

I think we both were burning the we were both burning the midnight hour trying to get this resolved.

So I'm I'm really hopeful that we can step out of here today with a win-win situation.

Per the year guys' spreadsheet, uh your presentation uh format.

I had to make some adjustments to my own presentation.

So the project we're talking about is 82040, 83080 South Kyren, and there's a site map showing the facility.

The discussion points that we'll be discussing today are going to be the main five topics.

Um, the lighting code, the 80% background coverage, the 50% contrast, location, and size.

Then to start with the easy one again.

Discussion point number one, lighting.

We have submitted a new code compliant fixture to Diana for her review.

Once she gives her a thumbs up, that will go to the city of Tempe for uh electrical permitting.

Number two, the 80% background.

Code requires a maximum side of a sign address numbers to be no more than 80% of the background area.

This is the diagram that was given to us by the architect showing that the box ratio, the area within the numbers versus the area within the score lines on the building, do comply to the 80%.

Our closest one is 78%, which is building 8240.

They all comply.

And then there's a blow-up of the table, which then will lead us into the next one.

The 50% contrast.

The 55% contrast is based on the on the differential on the color between the backdrop and the color of the address numbers.

And we have to make a 50% difference so that one the other stand out.

I can just go backwards.

So the calculations of the 50, oh, this one's these are better.

The calculations of the 50% differential are based on a ratio again of the colors, and a two to one is approximately 50%.

We Diana was up late last night.

She actually qualified our calculation ratios and did a lot of research.

So I know one thing that we do agree is that the code is going to need to be updated, modified, and I I hope that we are contributing to quite a bit of it.

And then there's the other buildings.

So for 8270, 803050, we meet the 50% ratio, 8370, was definitely meet the ratio.

So point number four is location.

And this is one of the areas that we're still kind of working, we're working through.

Address numbers shall be visible on outside of the wall that addresses where visible by public access.

So the location of our numbers are visible from Kyrene.

We meet that code.

Size code states that the number has to be at least four inches high.

Our numbers meet that code.

So the main discussion point is as our address numbers meet all the written codes that are there.

It is up to what the development reviews requirements are that the design enhance and that it's functional.

We can all agree that the numbers on the building are functional, they serve a purpose.

So it all puts it into attractive.

What is attractive to one may not be attractive to another, but there is no code requirement for uniformity in color, size, or location in an addresses.

So there is no written code to specify those three elements.

So let's talk about appearance.

And I'd like to believe, since there was only one neighbor that wrote a letter stating her preference, not liking the letters, I mean the numbers, and not liking the light, which we all agree with her.

That's being rectified, that the other remaining 300 do like it.

So as you go through the photos, you can see the appearance of the buildings.

The lighting is not flooding into it.

Majority of the lighting along the sidewalk, which by the way, when I walked this at night, I felt really safe.

The street lightings do project quite a bit of lighting on the sidewalks.

So it's good for night walkers.

And then that's the photo of the building that sets the most furthest back.

And then there's 838.

But what I'm gonna do, because sometimes a photo doesn't give a whole story.

So I went ahead and I made some video clips.

But with a day like today, it's out there raining, it's cold, and it's time to get cozy, and you're about ready to watch a video.

You can't do it without popcorn and candy.

So am I told it I was told I wasn't allowed to bring food in here, so I'll leave it to you guys for after the okay.

So here we go.

Click.

Here we go.

So this is me driving down the middle lane with my hazards on.

I don't recommend you doing it.

I luckily I did not get in trouble.

As you can see, the night vision of the building is actually not it's not bad.

Actually, you know, for an industrial complex, it's quite nice.

I've built quite a few in my last 20 years of being in this industry, and I have to say this is one of the prettiest ones I've seen.

So you can see as you come upon the buildings.

Even at the height that they sit at now, those trees have a canopy of anywhere from 15 to 20 feet.

That's fine.

The other slide is just driving the other direction.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Just in case you guys had questions, I guess I can get a little closer for you.

Oh, the clicker did work.

Yeah, but it was showing them.

Oh, that's right.

You guys had to watch it like that.

So one of the staff recommendations was to lower the numbers to the mid band.

And that recommendation, from my understanding, was because they believed we were not getting that 80% coverage where they were.

Well, we are getting the 80% coverage where they are, and we're not crossing the score lines.

And if we were to lower the numbers at the size they are, the only way we would make the 80% coverage would cross the score lines.

In addition, these are snippets of the city of Tempe's approved landscape plans.

These landscape plans require 23 additional trees along Kyreen.

So the video you just watched with the trees that are currently in place and are already in some form of fashion, limiting an actual clear visual of the building address, are going to multiply and by quite a bit.

And they're not just speculing simple trees, they're specifying the Palo Verde, the shoestring acacia, and the live oak.

The elevation of the building, which by the way, we got that snippet from the paint application, the minor the review for the elevation paint application.

And that was when some of the original numbers that were on that application that were re we requested to be removed by Alexander Arc, right?

Okay.

So that was some of the original confusion of this whole ordeal.

But we're getting there.

So as you can see, the middle band is about 20 feet.

It goes anywhere from 20 to 25 feet if I'm not mistaken.

With the trees being planted and where they're shown to be planted on the approved city of Tempe landscape plans, 824 would most definitely be obstructed, but the fact that it would be those 20 foot uh canopies would hit the underneath of the thing.

A palaverdi grows anywhere from 15 to 30 feet under optimal conditions.

We're gonna assume this is not an optical condition, so it'll at least get 20 feet.

Again, at 820, there's you can see where they're adding all the additional trees.

They're actually adding one, two, three, four, five, six, seven acacia right in front of that building.

And then again, at 838, there's a snippet of the landscape plans where they're actually gonna be planting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight trees as well.

And those two are the are the oaks.

That is an oak.

That's the tree they specified up there in the corner.

And that the live oak gets up to, I think that was on the other slide.

Nope, next one.

The live oak gets up to I lost it.

It's about 30 some feet wide and dense.

So that's gonna most definitely be an obstruction.

And there is a there is a code in the city of Tempe that we that BKM can be cited for trees obstructing their signs, their numbers.

Any both, actually.

So that's through the reason why we're very hesitant on lowering the numbers.

In the staff report, they state that we agree one that the staff acknowledges code requires clarity.

We agree 100%.

The next staff requirement is that the background building color and sign number color need to comply with the 50% contrast.

We agree, we comply.

Staff suggests uniformity in the color and numbers and placement being the safe background for color and continue.

Now, this is new.

Diana hasn't heard this.

We just got confirmation.

The owner is willing to change the color of all the numbers to the Connors Lake side, which we've talked about.

But in addition, there's one building, which I believe is 8370 that has a different color background, and they will change that background to make sure that all the backgrounds behind the Connors Lake side will be will be placed on 80 8370.

So that's one thing we just got authorization to do.

So we would we would meet that recommendation.

Staff agrees that the proposed lighting design done, submitted a new fixture, code compliant, we'll get our permit, get those all resolved.

Staff, so this is where we're we're hooked up.

Staff recommends lowering the numbers to the middle band to comply with the 80% background.

We're complying with the 80% background at the current height.

They do acknowledge that there is a burden for us to relocate the numbers and to reduce the size.

They do state that they accept the existing size akin upon other recommendations being met.

We believe that the other recommendations have been met.

Questions for the applicant?

Go ahead.

In prior versions, there was some monument signage at the roadway.

Does that still exist today with the numbers for the complex?

Yes.

So those are still in place.

Yes.

I have did I show up?

No, I have pictures of those on my phone and I can show them to you.

There's two monument signs that were presented.

And they both have it says Kyrene, and then it says the number of the buildings, and then on the base.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Richter.

The not really wall packs, but the other light fixtures that are on the building are the same color as the base color of the building.

What's the finish for the light that's hanging over the new light that's going to be hanging over the signs?

It will be that same dark color, which now will be more it'll complement the background as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions.

In the image, you have I can't help but notice in the lower right hand corner of that building.

Something is also there.

And we don't have a problem doing that as well.

Okay.

The address is also in the lower right hand corner in addition to the large artistic 200 in the upper right hand corner.

I'm guessing that the lower 200 is the one that probably is the compliant version of the address.

But doesn't hurt my feelings to have something big and creative also on a building.

I I was not concerned with the colors.

But I appreciate you presenting, and we'd like to hear from Ms.

Kaminsky now.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Good evening, Chair, Commission Diana Kaminsky, Principal Planning for Community Community Development Planning.

We've got a hard act to follow.

I have no food to bring in.

Sorry.

We're full.

So this is an appeal.

Thank you.

Um I'm going to go through these fairly quickly.

You've heard the applicant's response to these.

And there was a lot of questions about 50% contrast.

This is something we will be addressing in a code text amendment.

It really depends on which calculation you use and how you determine that ratio as a percentage in the getting the contrast.

We determined that all of the colors that they had do meet that contrast.

So our recommendation based on the input from you last time was simply that they provide uniform colors.

And the applicant was in agreement with doing that for the large numbers.

So we're not asking them to repaint the suite numbers or the numbers over the bay doors, just the large numbers.

So that was we're in agreement with them in making that change.

So we are in agreement with that.

So that is not why we're making the recommendation to go to the lower height.

And I do want to spend a little time talking about that.

Our position was that the numbers were too large.

We agree that a 12-inch number, which is our standard for commercial buildings, 12 inches would be too small for the size of these buildings.

So as a compromise to them having to rebuild all the numbers to a smaller size, we requested that they lower them on the building to reduce the visibility from the neighborhood.

And that includes the light fixture.

So as you lower these numbers to the established sign band, which were this is shown is within the established sign band for all of the other signs on the building.

That would allow the light to come down and it would be less visible from the neighborhood.

To the concerns about the landscaping.

Trees can be strategically placed to help mitigate conflicts with signs.

We do that all the time through our development plan review process.

Looking at the Palavardi Sonoran Desert Palavirdi is what I consider a relatively transparent tree.

It's an ideal tree to be able to see numbers, especially if they're seven feet tall and illuminated.

I don't see that as being a problem behind a palaverdi.

The same with the uh Wellow Acacia, it's a relatively transparent tree.

And I think with strategic placement, that could also be mitigated.

So our recommendation remains to lower the numbers to the sign band, but giving the concession that they could keep the size of the numbers that they have.

There isn't as was mentioned, there's no code requirement for uniformity when you have multiple buildings.

We're in agreement on locating the numbers at the same vertical height, whether that's up at the top or at the bottom, that's a uniformity.

Locating them horizontally, some of them on the back of the building were vertical, and they are willing to relocate those to be horizontal.

We've talked about the background colors, so that would allow both the numbers to be the same color and the background of the building color to be the same.

That I didn't have checked because I didn't know they were going to do that on all the buildings.

Using the same number color and then the size using the same number size with the recommendation that we would change them to three feet.

We were going to accept the back building because of its distance from the street and the width of the building.

And that may be the wrong address there.

Sorry, I had a lot of numbers in my head last night.

So the applicant's requesting to keep the numbers in the existing location with them all located horizontally with the same background plane, and they agree to make them the same color, but they want to keep them the same size.

And to address visibility, these street show views show the buildings prior to painting.

This is taken from Google Street.

I did not have time to drive the site.

But at the intersection of Kyrene and Carver, you can see where you would be able to see that lower sign band from the street.

From Kyrie north of the driveway, anticipating a turn because you're using your GPS, you could clearly see that sign band prior to making the turn into the drive.

If you were approaching the second driveway, you could clearly see the lower sign band to the right there, and then lower left, it's showing the distance and the the entrance point to the last southernmost drive with those numbers and why they probably need to be up higher as they are currently located on the building.

So these are the recommendations for all of the buildings fronting Kyrene.

The color difference there is just to show what it would look like depending on which color scheme they picked, whether it was the Connors Lakeside or the other color from their background white duck.

And this is the building in the back, 8370 with the numbers in the location they're currently located.

Staff recommended the number size to be reduced to three feet, but conceded to keep the size.

If the numbers are lowered to the building sign band, we recommend uniformity in the color, and we recommended uniformity in the background, and we were recommending uniformity in the horizontal orientation of the numbers, and that the code required lighting be met.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I don't expect there's anyone from the public here to speak on this item.

Okay.

Um so we will uh open the public comment period and quickly close it.

Was there anything the applicant would like to respond to based on the the staff's um presentation?

I just I wanted to comment on the locations.

Well, they did a nice job PDFing it.

Um I actually ran some calculations and to lower the larger numbers down to the mid band without crossing the score line, which you're supposed to stay within the score line, two of them don't meet the 80% background.

The only way that the letters would work on two of the buildings, I believe it's 8240 in um 8238.

I don't get my spread, my my paperwork.

Um, and but you would have to pass the score line, which is usually not recommended, and again, um I would love her to study the landscape plans because they are really dense.

It's 23 trees, so there's gonna be a tree every 30 feet, regardless.

There's no moving it, it's the code all the way down the length of Kyrene in addition to what is already there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I I do have a question, so the oh, Ms.

Kamitsky, please.

Sorry, Chair Johnson Commissioners.

I wanted to clarify a few things.

Um, first of all, the part about the 80 percent uh requirement is part of the code, but it also says there is to the discretion of a development plan review to change that um so we have the authority by condition of approval to lower it to the band below and and that would be covered.

The requirement for street trees is not a ratio of one for every 30 feet, they can be clustered and moved in different places, so um that can also be accommodated through the development plan review process.

Okay, and I'll ask you my question that I had then because this is a quasi-judicial item.

Um, if we are voting, um I'm curious how voting will happen on this item.

If if we agree, if the commission decides we agree with you, and um the applicant is not agreeing with that.

Um, is that something we're still voting on?

Um, or are we just denying the I believe that a decision of the appeal if if there was disagreement in the outcome could be appealed to council?

Is that correct?

Yeah, uh the request before you is from the the original applicant, so they're seeking you to make a decision on the denial for the for the address signs.

They they agreed to come back and provide some level of compromise.

Uh the applicants provided the compromise packages they presented, and I think uh the staff has one some couple minor changes suggestions.

So it's up to you all whether you favor the the applicant's decision or or any conditions that would favor uh the uh staff's recommendation, but it's only up to to this commission on approving that decision.

Okay, so for example, if we agree to everything that the applicant wishes, with the exception of moving those those numbers down, um they agree to the request in whole or in part, it's up to you all.

Okay.

Questions for I have a procedure question that's a good idea.

So if we the motion would be to approve this request per the applicant's request, correct before us today is a denial from staff.

Correct.

They've appealed, so our motion would have to be to approval the appeal.

Thank you.

Or with conditions, they can do conditions you may include conditions.

Correct.

Yeah, it's commissioner spears.

Um you talk one of the considerations is aesthetics, and to me, having the numbers at the top of the building is certainly more pleased.

Having the numbers at the top are certainly more pleasant to the eye than in the middle.

And could you explain why it's okay for 200 to have their number at the top and why this is not.

Well, I wasn't part of the design review on the 200.

I don't know if it was considered signage or if it's behind the glazing.

But we we determined at the last meeting that addresses are not signage.

No, it's it's it is a sign type.

It's not considered part of their sign package, but it is a sign type.

Did I hear that differently at the last meeting?

No, I think there was confusion, but I think what Ms.

Kaminsky is saying is was also communicated with the last one.

And um I know you weren't part of the review for 200, but um I do see that they have the 200 at the lower right as well, which I assume is part of the address, and the 200 behind the glazing at the top is just uh I can't speak to that anymore.

Artistic feature of some sort.

It looks like it's inside Commissioner Forte.

I I just wanted to piggyback off of um Commissioner Spears.

Is this a subjective view of why you want it lower than higher?

Or no, I think we were looking at um where the sign sign band on the building was located, so all of the other signage is located there, and trying to mitigate the concerns of neighbors and wanting to have it be less visible from the neighborhood.

So in lowering them to that sign band that's the established sign band for the buildings, it provides the uniformity for all of the the signage and would reduce the visibility from the neighborhood.

Okay.

I have a question.

Commissioner Tom.

So if that's the case.

Currently, there's no code requirement for this address number on the maximum size.

Correct.

Or location.

Correct.

So but we've asked them nicely.

Can you move it down?

Yes.

It wasn't there, there's no code requirement that says you have to move this at this location.

Right.

So if they're up at the top, there's they would still be code compliant to the current code until we rewrite it.

Yes.

Okay.

And it's something that we've potentially overlooked in other cases where we've had large numbers on buildings and not looked at it as a design review issue, correct?

Without doing a research on each individual site, I can't confirm whether they were approved or not.

Okay, but we we do have buildings in City of Tempe that have large numbers.

Yes.

That didn't get a sign permit because it's not a sign.

I do no, I don't know what process they went through.

So I I can't speak to the other cases where there are address numerals of a large size because I don't know what process they went through or if they went through any.

Okay.

But in this case, if they had come in first before building them, the comments that we provided them would have been the comments that we would have given them.

So we're giving them what would have been like a standard review, as was mentioned earlier, prior to the installation of the numbers.

But you would provide them comments based on what?

Based on what code requirement?

Code and aesthetics, the criteria of a development plan review, which was part of the review that we gave in our justification for denial.

Compatibility with the area.

Scale, proportionality.

Okay.

And we became aware of this.

Through a code the the lighting issue.

We had an email that said who approved these really large numbers.

Okay.

Yes.

Does the um revised lighting plan solve the issue from regarding the visibility from the neighborhood?

The well, not I mean, I understand the letters will still be visible.

Yeah, but letters shouldn't be offensive if lighting is addressed.

I haven't had time to review the lighting.

Um I thought that the lighting that they've proposed was acceptable.

It is a standard fixture.

Yes, but I haven't, I mean, that's as much as I know.

I've seen the spec.

Oh, okay.

It still has to go through the process, the approval process for just again, since my memory doesn't appear to be correct.

Um I thought it was the lighting that was the issue for the neighborhood and not the size of the numbers.

I mean, I didn't hear anything from the neighborhood, any of the comments or anything that would indicate that.

So if that's why they came to you, that was not communicated to us.

It was the lighting of the numbers that was the issue, and the new lighting should take care of that.

So from my recollection, um the it was the light that that was focused on during the the meeting.

Um from what I recall.

Um and I know the the the size of the numbers was discussed at length um as not being something that would have been approved through if they would have gone through the normal process, but my recollection is seeing photographs of from deep inside of the neighborhood with those things lit up at night, um, being clearly visible and um yeah, not something that neighbors necessarily wanted other questions.

Thank you.

All right, um I think the applicant would like to respond.

Can I say actually slides?

I have the two extra slides that I need to name.

Okay, that's not what I want.

So um this wasn't something we were trying to uh hide or anything like that.

We actually prepared the package with the address numbers on it for the paint package, and we were told to remove them for painted the package.

So it wasn't like we were kind of sneak these through anything.

We actually put them on the pay package that was dated like 328 thing.

We were told by Alexandra, who was the reviewer, take them off because this isn't paint.

So we took them off and the paint package went through.

And so that's that's one of the things is we did we did show them at some point for review, and we were basically told take them off.

So yeah, I understood that there's some confusion in submittals and reviewers are giving it.

So many submittals.

Yeah.

To get a comprehensive package through, and that was we did talk about that in our meeting, and we I appreciate them listening to us on that.

So understood.

Yeah, and I have a question for you.

So um if you were to move the numbers, what what is involved with that?

They they have no internal um electrical, I assume, because there's no backlighting.

So they're just pair of the building, they are attached to the concrete um what do you call it?

Uh tilt up panel.

There are good there's gonna be damage to all those panels to come down.

Um have to move them down, re-amount, remount them, move all the electrical down.

Right now we can probably just use the same feed for the new light that is completely that is a lower wattage and compliant.

So pretty big expense, and then repaint everything to fix every all the damage and all to the building.

So that's one of the reasons I think why the owner is really um would like to keep them where they are.

And to have um a uniform paint color on all the numbers, which I think you guys have agreed.

We agree to do that, yes.

We'll do that.

We'll paint the we'll paint the numbers the blue color that you'll do that in place favorite.

Uh I think they can do that.

I'm we have to ask the signage vendor.

I'm okay.

I'm not that expert at it, but I think I think they can mask them and paint them in place.

Okay.

Okay.

Other questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we'll move on to commissioner discussion.

Um, and I'm assuming that we will need to come up with a slate of conditions of approval, since there were none that were proposed in the report.

Maybe neither grant the appeal or not.

Doesn't have to have conditions if we don't so we're all right.

Uh Commissioner Spears.

Um, I'll make a motion.

I move to grant the appeal of the um Kyrene cock commercial commerce plex with the um revisions as submitted by the applicant.

Okay, there's a motion.

Um is everyone clear on on what the applicant has provided and proposed.

Commissioner Tom?

Before I make a second, I just wanted to be clear they were gonna change the light fixture, change the color.

Um keep the same height.

Correct.

Is that what you understood?

Yes.

I'll second.

Okay.

Well, uniformity was emerging.

Yeah.

Uh everything except lowering them.

Correct.

Okay, so all the staff's recommended recommendations with the exception of lowering them the numbers.

Actually, is that correct?

Actually, the applicants uh what the applicant has agreed to do, which were enumerated with the color, the lighting.

Um all the same color.

Right, painting them all the same.

So the all of those, so what doesn't is not included is lowering the numbers to the mid panel.

Okay, so can we agree that it's the one item that they did not agree with that was recommended by staff was lowering the numbers?

Okay, so the only item that um will not be included is lowering the numbers.

Or to change the size.

Correct, which I think the staff agreed with that.

Well, only oh, that's right.

If it was that's correct, yes.

So yes, that is one difference.

Um that was a conditional um statement, but we are that is my understanding of how we're gonna do that.

Okay, okay.

Okay, all right.

So everybody clear.

I just had a question.

Commissioner Richard.

If we're having a discussion, um, I don't actually have anything, I don't find anything wrong with the the signs with the discussion that's been held so far, but we kept talking about uniformity, and the one thing that pops out on here is the finish of that light fixture.

I was wondering that stands.

Yeah, because all the other light fixtures are the same color as the building.

So maybe it brings a little less attention to it.

Maybe that gets finished in the same manner.

So are you asking the I'm bringing it up as a point of discussion?

Okay.

Um what color are the new fixtures?

What goes best with the can also be painted, I believe.

Most fixtures can be.

Are they paintable?

I don't that I don't know.

Okay.

Usually they're badly finished.

You want that you want the light picture?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

I think I think my understanding here is that that light would match the background of the building, so it doesn't stand out like a big eyebrow.

So right now, four of the five backgrounds are the best stories.

Sorry, if you're yeah, if you can approach this is out of control, sorry.

So four of the buildings already have the darker background, only one has the lighter background.

So we'll change that lighter background to be the darker background, and then all the address numbers will be the Connors Lakeside, which is the blue teal color, which is the preference.

The light fixture then can be a darker grayish color to tie into that background.

If you like, we can bring up the presentation.

I could show you some of the elevations.

I think the dark gray is is good enough.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Commissioner Spears.

And I do believe that is one of the conditions that they submitted is that they would change the background so they're all the same color.

So take care of it.

All right, so we have a motion and a second.

Um let's go ahead and vote.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay, and um those uh uh against okay.

So um all commission members voting uh in favor with the exception of Vice Chair Schwartz.

All right, so that motion passes.

Um we will go ahead and move on.

And um, I hope we can make clear in the future that um address numbers need to go through an approval process so that we don't have extended debate on um numbers on a building again.

All right, um next item is commission um announcements.

Any commission member announcements?

Commissioner Spears.

Um, I would just like to remind everybody out there watching Channel 11 that the Fantasy of Lights Parade will be the Saturday after Thanksgiving on Mill Avenue begins at six o'clock.

Uh it's a great community event.

Hopefully, we'll see everyone out there.

And thank you to all those on channel 11 for watching.

Um city staff announcements.

No additional amount announcements other than our next meeting agendas for December 9th, and we've got 11 items for that agenda.

Great.

All right, I will just reiterate our next scheduled meeting date is December 9th, 2025, and we are adjourned.

Thank you.