 to try and get my bearings for that. Seems like where you'd have a sight line to it, it's a long way away. That is one of the concerns is you may not even, people may not even know what it is. And so that we're still kind of, my wife says no. In terms of marketing dollars, yes, if she's like, How effective that is? She's like, my only argument to back to her or even to any, the whole reason I'm even considering it, we already have the sign. We've already spent the $7,000 on the sign. It's already there. It isn't going to cost me very much at all to move it to the back of the, of that building. And my question to my wife when she said no was, what are we going to do with this sign? You won't let me put it in the garage at home. So. So question to the board, whether anyone has any objections with that backside of the building and that signage going there. And it sounds as if it's meeting the city requirements. No objection. Perfect. Marcus, any concerns from your end? Not at all. Okay. So I think we're in agreement that that South sign, you're free to do, you know, it's not the South side. On the back of the building, whatever you'd like to there. Okay. Just make sure it's confirmed through staff before it proceeds. Can I ask one question? Would anyone have any issues if they decided to put it on the South side of the building by the driveway on the corner? Not saying that. Oh, no, I didn't mean to. But just in case, Mr. Fettig and I wanted to have any additional conversations if he looked at it and decided, hey, I may want to put it on the South side. I don't have any objections to the South or the rear. So I don't know if anyone else would. If they meet the requirements. Yeah, and I would leave that up to staff. I'm fine with that, Steve. Yeah. And that does seem like a much more visible potential location. True. So great. So then moving to the question of the main signage and the options presented. Any strong feelings on any of the options from our board members? I've got a concern with the giant sign as in like the most comical sense of one with the middle post. I don't think that's a good idea. But that's just fine. Take out. Thanks. I would agree with that, Marcus. I think option three of all of them, at least, was very static. But going on, that's one dynamic facade of the arch. It just was fighting more than the others. I think I liked the asymmetry of options one and two. Just to confirm, the white portion, I believe, was extending out to be deeper than the wood look portion. Yes. Just a little bit more depth. It gives like a 3D appearance to it. So I think then in option two, that's working well. And I think it was that depth piece that I was having a harder time with on option one. I think option one is possible. But I wondered if, still, if we were staying under the square footage requirements, if the white portion of that signage actually extended another foot or so so that on the left side, it actually comes to the center line where the transition is between the properties, that way that depth sort of wraps back to the building. And then I would wonder about the same thing on the other side to just break the line at the window. Those verticals just seemed very strong. And maybe breaking those up would just make it a little bit more fluid. But I could see that working. Or I think option two, as is, in my mind, would be workable. Thoughts from the rest of the board? Mr. Fedek. This is Jerry. Nope. Go ahead, Jerry. Bye, bad sir. Oh, yeah. My preference would be for, if which ranking, my preference would be two then one, two as is. One with the changes you outlined. Thank you. Dick, we have a motion. Do we also have a second? I did not hear the motion. Dick's option was to approve option number two as submitted. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Steve, are you all right with the option two, Mr. Fedek? Yes, I like option two. So we have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion on that? Otherwise, let's go ahead and vote. Steve, if you could make the call. Joe Clark. Aye. Marcus. Savaglio. Aye. Jerry Jones. Aye. Richard Lindy. Aye. And Robert Imrell. Aye. It is passed. Awesome. Thank you, guys. Works for you. So very much. That would be perfect. It would look great. Thank you for making adjustments and coming back. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you for your help. See you, guys. That moves us to item 3.2, the proposed revisions to the submittal for Popeye's restaurant at 3207 South Business Drive. If you wouldn't mind coming to the podium and introducing yourself and then maybe the best plan of attack is to kind of run through the comments previously and what you're choosing to change versus advocate to keep the same. My name's James Burkard. I work with Excel Engineering. So a couple of things that we did. We raised up the parapet at the entry, like was mentioned in the last meeting. We added the brick wanes coat around the entire base of the building. We adjusted the colors of the awnings to match the shutter color. We added the wood nichija around the freezer in the back to match the front. And then some of the coping colors changed as well. I appreciate the changes. Thank you. The one item that still stuck out to me was had been hoping that the fake brick could be upgraded to actual brick in keeping with most of the other development in that area. Presentation previously had indicated that might be a possibility. Is that still on the table, or is that financially just not an option? It's still on the table. We were hoping to maybe persuade you just to go with the nichija still. I brought in a couple of samples, just have you kind of take a look at. But real brick is definitely not off the table. We were just kind of hoping to still go with the nichija. The familiar with the product, and it's a good product. Just we've had a bias against the fake, especially the fake masonry. Trying to avoid a precedent that we don't want to get stuck with down the road. So if it is possible, I know I would certainly prefer to see the actual masonry there. But I do appreciate there's additional cost involved for foundations. But if that is something to consider, that is good to know. Other comments? Yeah, James, if I could add, and also I think the premise of keeping that proposed nichija product was just because going back to the franchisor, it is a little bit less complicated to get them to approve an expansion of the already applied product versus getting them to both approve an expansion of the use of the product and a substitution to another product. So I was trying to limit how much we're having to get the franchisor to override there, because it's their original design. So we do have some flexibility to push them to accept variances. We just try not to get too broad with those. So it's easy for me to get the parent company to approve the adjustment of just expanding the use of the product that they've already dictated versus getting them to approve an expansion and at the same time getting them to approve a substitution of a product as well. I believe that was Mark Rodriguez, correct, Mark? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Additional feedback from the board? So, Joe, deferring to you as the professional here, would it be more important for the actual product that they're using or the expansion? Which one would you prioritize? Both. It's the mind of me to say that. We had originally, I think, requested to do more of the actual brick, including that front section under the Popeye's sign under that window, where they have the vertical Nietzsche Ha siding. I would be fine leaving that Nietzsche Ha, but would really like to see that wainscote and those tower elements done in actual brick. If they can't do that, and I think keeping the wainscote as masonry, and then if we could keep a masonry wainscote at the towers, perhaps, and put the Nietzsche Ha vertical siding above that, but then we're starting to change a number of things. I like the consistency of the masonry and the tower elements just being a single vertical element. Breaking those up with a wainscote underneath, I don't know, would be great. I'm just concerned with that product in that location, how it's going to hold up long term. Yeah, that helps a lot, because from my perspective, it was more important to have the masonry to reflect the area around it than it was to have the expansion. That's just my two cents. To you guys or anybody? It's still not a huge fan of thin brick, but I would prefer that to the Nietzsche Ha panelized brick. I think that the detailing on that just is more in keeping with an actual brick finish. Dick, any comments from your end? Nope. So I think it's there. I would still be advocating for the actual brick in lieu of the locations called out currently as the Nietzsche Ha brick, but we would certainly entertain motions and see where we get to. Anyone? So, Joe, just to clarify, it's a little difficult remote, I apologize for that. Are we looking at changing to the brick, but are we expanding it or are we keeping it the same? So as it's currently shown, the Nietzsche Ha brick is the wainscote material and the vertical towers at the entries. I think that's that material labeled, I believe is number one. Anywhere it's currently a number one on the elevations. I personally would like to see it changed to the actual masonry. If we start to get more convoluted and break up those towers, I think that would probably require a resubmittal just to be able to see how that turns out. So they have expanded the vertical Nietzsche Ha siding around the freezer unit at the back. It was previously just the exposed freezer. Okay. So in my mind, it's just the material labeled number one and what that actually is, but I'm just one vote. So can motion what anyone else might like? For my purposes, I'd like to make a motion to approve as presented, changing number one to the brick in the areas that's labeled number one currently. Second. All right, we do have a motion and a second for that. Any further discussion? I guess from the owner's side, if that's something you go back to the powers that be and they can't do that. Is then brick okay? Did we say that was okay versus the Nietzsche Ha? I guess I would go back, Jerry, to your motion. Whether a thin brick would be acceptable as a substitute for the Nietzsche Ha or whether we're looking for a full course of actual brick. I prefer a full course, but just in my personal opinion, then brick would be fine. Yes, Seth. What's that? So perhaps if we leave the motion as is, knowing that we would like to see it as brick, if management isn't able to do that, to come back through staff, to then haggle to see if we'd be able to take the thin brick. I think the applicant might wanna say something, Mr. Rodriguez. Yeah, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to interrupt, but I think we're okay with going back to the franchise or under the pretense of asking them to approve it as real brick. I guess maybe it would like, for the sake of our development time window, seeing if maybe we couldn't get a acceptance of using either the Nietzsche Ha or a thin brick as an alternate if the franchise or isn't willing to approve real brick. But we're okay with it. I don't think from a cost perspective, it's a dramatic difference. I think it's more of a, the labor aspect of real brick is really the component that it's hard to calculate. But as far as the franchisee side of things, I'm perfectly okay going back to the franchise or and asking them to approve it as real brick. I would just, for the sake of time and not having to drag the approval processes out if I can get like maybe an approval to use that in the event that the franchise or won't approve it, I guess is maybe my question. Thank you, Mark. I think that's a good suggestion. So Jerry, if we could amend your motion to be approving as the actual brick with an understanding that we would accept the thin brick if management isn't able to approve the full brick. I accept that amendment. And Marcus, your second. That's fine with me. All right, so we have a motion and a second. We had plenty of discussion. Anything else to weigh in on that? And everyone's clear on what we're voting on. Perfect. Yes. Steve, if you could please call the roll. Sure. Joe Clark. Aye. Alderperson Savaglio. Aye. Jerry Jones. Aye. Richard Lindy. Aye. Robert Hymerl. Aye. Perfect. Then passes. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So what you guys could do then is just, you have it approved, you can go back and then if there's any changes, what you can do is resubmit the updated drawings and I can confirm it as staff, correct? Yes. Yeah, okay. Great. All right, Mark. Thank you guys so much. All right. Thanks, James. Thank you very much. Any other items the board would like to discuss before we adjourn? I have one item. Steve. Just wanted to let everyone know because of the election that just took place, we will be meeting the fourth week of the month, but the committees don't get set until the council meeting that Monday. So the meeting will be on Wednesday. I believe it's April 28th, if I'm not mistaken. So again, we'll highlight that on your agendas, but that just for this one meeting, it will be on Wednesday, April 28th, and we will have an agenda. Steve. Yes. When will you schedule this plan still for Tuesday? Yes, plan commission will, because the committees will be announced that Monday evening, plan commission will still meet on its regularly scheduled time and date. Thank you. All right, so then I would make a motion to adjourn. Can we have a second? Second. Let's just do a voice vote, all in favor of adjourning, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Then we're adjourned till the 28th. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.