The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 granted petition 2024 UV1024A, a sign‑proximity variance, by a 3–2 vote to permit a pylon sign identifying Panda Express and an adjoining tenant at 4723 South Emerson Avenue.

Petitioner representatives described a multi‑stage negotiation in which the original, larger replacement sign was reduced several times. Attorney Joe Calderon said the new pylon would be similar in scale to a sign that historically identified extra‑space storage on the parcel; the electronic message center originally proposed was removed during negotiations and the final design reduced the height and square footage. “We are allowed up to 25 feet and we’re well under what is allowed for a pylon sign in terms of height,” Calderon said, adding the petitioner views the request as a limited replacement on a parcel developed for comparable signage in the past.

Staff recommended denial. Planners argued the prior freestanding sign had been torn down during site redevelopment and that the new, slightly different pylon sign cannot be treated as a straight replacement. Staff also noted the sign regulations’ proximity rules and explained that, depending on how the site and neighboring parcels are interpreted (lot vs. integrated center), the third freestanding sign within 300 feet may not be permitted.

Board members discussed whether the site is legally a standalone lot or part of an integrated center for sign‑separation purposes, and whether the petitioner had practical difficulty because the owner has no rights on neighboring parcels’ signs. After discussion the board recorded votes: David Duncan — yes; Jennifer Witt — yes; Peter Nelson — yes; Andrew Catona — no; Tom Barnes — no. The variance was granted.

The decision follows prior hearings in which petitioners reduced the sign footprint and height; part B of the overall sign petition was previously approved. Staff asked the board to consider that the earlier pole sign was removed during redevelopment and that the ordinance requires compliance by new development. The board nonetheless found the circumstances justified the variance as presented.