of the elements affecting the lighting itself. But again, you're looking at a -- as Ms. LaMar
points out, you're looking potentially at a more substantial structure at that point, but you
are also looking at a structure that's larger that may be able to, given the scale of the
property, signage of that particular size, 288 square feet and 35 or 40 feet tall,
proportionally when you look at the scale of the property, that is not that out of proportion.
It actually would make sense when you look at a commercial development, and there is,
again, all of the uses are under one ownership, therefore, the sign, in and of itself, it may
have multiple tenants on it. It would be similar to what we could consider a shopping
center sign where you could take that allocation of sign area and divide it up amongst
your anchor tenants, if you would like, or you can divide it up amongst your inline tenants
however you want just as long as you don't exceed the maximum.
MR. MINCHEW: I guess what I was thinking, though, is like in some of the other
things that we had -- you know, recently we had a coffee shop that wanted to go in on
Providence. And -- and if we said no, then there's no coffee shop there. So in this
instance, they're asking for a variance on the type of sign that they're going to put in. If
we say no, if we voted no as a Board, they're still going to put a sign in. The sign is still
going to be lit, so it's not as if we say, well, we just don't want any more light and any
more, you know, light traffic out there. We don't want any more disturbance as you're
going down MoDOT. We're going to get it. We're going to get something lit, so really it's
-- I mean, I guess in my mind what I'm questioning is, what looks more presentable,
what's -- what's more effective, and I do appreciate what you said about, you know, all the
car dealers are going to be at your office the next day after that goes up going we want
one of these digital signs. I think there's some justification to it, given the size of the
property, the number of businesses, what we are -- how many signs we're eliminating by
allowing them to put one sign up as opposed to multiple signs. So I think there would be
some rationale to -- to a yes, and given the fact that we're -- even if we said no to that,
they're still going to put large face lit or backlit signs. We're going to get a whole variety
of signs out there for each one of the businesses or a kiosk with multiple signs on it, so --
MR. ZENNER: That is a -- that's a very correct statement. I would like to reiterate,
and our law staff may do this as well, The decisions that this Board makes are not
precedent setting. They are specific to the facts to the case that you have before you.
So as just raised by Mr. Minchew, this particular site may have attributes that you feel
are defensible, whereas if we were to go into and just using the Machens Toyota
dealership lot, for example, that particular location may not have the same set of facts
and therefore, what works in this location may not be applicable in another. And that is
also to support what Ms. LaMar has indicated, that this particular parcel may be unique
in the respect that it does maybe warrant a slightly different treatment. But the Board
does not set precedent. It makes decisions based upon the facts that are site specific.
