Zoning Board of Adjustments - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome, everybody. My name is Cody DeSalvo. I'll be the chair for this meeting today. Welcome to the regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustments. It is Thursday, April 16 at 6PM, and I call this meeting to order. If a little bit of a preamble that I'm gonna read verbatim here for compliance reasons. Due to the limitations of the Texas Open Meeting Act, the board may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All other inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The board will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of intimidation, defamation, personal affronts, profanity, and other threats of violence. Staff, will you please call the roll?

Cody DeSalvo? Here. Hyatt Kurunfel? Here. Maddie Roberts? Here. Daniel Summers is absent. Jonah Temple? Here. And Andrew James?

Here. Great.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Is there anyone signed up for citizen comment period?

None online either.

Okay. Great. If so, then we will now close the citizen comment period and move to the consent agenda. The first item is item four a, consider approval by motion of the 02/19/2026 regular meeting minutes. I move to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

It is seconded. Any discussion? Great. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Hyatt Kurunfel. Approve. Maddie Roberts? Approve. Or yes. There you go. Looking for a yay or nay. Mhmm. Shana Temple?

Yes.

Andrew James?

Yes.

And Cody DeSalvo?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay. We'll move on to discussion items, item five a. Think, Steph, you've got something to read out.

Yes. Thank you. So we have a discussion item that is unique to the beginning of a ZBOA term. So item five a is receive a presentation from staff and discuss codes and ordinances related to the zoning board of adjustments and meeting requirements and procedures. Good evening. Lauren Clanton. I'll be, delivering this refresher presentation. This serves just sort of to mark the beginning of the year. Some of you were recently trained. You might have heard this a month ago.

But we do this just to keep everybody up to date and kind of, you know, reset and familiarize ourselves with our ethics or Open Meetings Act, etcetera. And we'll start. Okay. So the zoning board of adjustments is, if we can go to that Texas local government code slide, the zoning board of adjustments is established through the Texas local government code. According to the code, the city is authorized to appoint a zoning board of adjustments to hear requests.

These include variances, appeals, and other cases. Our development code and the Texas local government code are pretty similar on what they prescribe. So, that's a board of five members and we also allow for alternate members. So, we have five members, two alternate members, and alternates serve in the absence of a member. Our development code says something similar.

One thing I'll note is that even though according to our city code, members shall serve for three years, because state law says that members serve for two years, we treat state law as the thing that controls. And for that reason, our terms are two years. You see a number of staff up here. We are authorized by the planning director to conduct the zoning board of adjustments. And, the director is an ex officio member who acts as a secretary and has, delegated that duty to the board liaison.

And I'm sitting right here. We comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act. So, this consists of two basic requirements. It's the idea that we must post advanced notice of the meeting. That's what happens when the agenda is posted.

And meetings must be open to the public. So, for example, that's why we're conducting this meeting in chambers. That's why we have cameras on, and it's just the idea of of making it open to the public. In terms of our ethics code, that is also part of our city code. And the the spirit there is just the idea of conducting yourself in a manner that presents the city well and presents the board well.

A big part of that is acknowledging acknowledging if you have a conflicting interest that might influence your vote. And even if that's the case, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's just a matter of disclosing it. And staff is available if ever you need clarification, if ever you have a question, if ever you need us to look something up. So it's it's a team effort to abide by those rules. In terms of rules governing procedures, we are following them today.

So for example, we did not begin the meeting unless we had a quorum of members and a quorum consists of four members. Another interesting thing about the zoning board of adjustments is that we need a vote of four members to approve something. So that includes a variance and appeal, a reinstatement of non conforming status. That might seem like a surprise. We could have a vote of three affirmative, two against, but we need four to vote something up.

It is different for a denial where we only need three. And then finally, I just want to cover a little bit on the authority of the board. The board does not make legislative decisions or zoning decisions. And if we continue on, the board does make decisions on variances, reinstatements of nonconforming status, and appeals. So because so many of our members were recently trained, I I actually did a count today.

Out of our six members, four were trained this year or last year. We're in a good place. We do not need to dive into the specific criteria around each of these decisions. This is just sort of a review of what we cover and things that are within the board's jurisdiction and things that aren't. So with that, that's about all I have for you. If you have any questions, I'm available.

Any questions from the board? I do actually have one, if we could put that slide back up just to refresh my memory, especially given the case we're about to have around the the nonconforming. I just wanna reread that really quickly. Okay. Actually, I don't have a question. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay. If there are no questions, then, we can move on to the public hearing, item six a. Lauren, I think you've got something to read out for us. Oh, no. Okay. Sorry.

Yes. And I will go ahead and read just introducing case VR2604. Okay. So this is San Marcos Toyota sign variants, hold a public hearing, and consider a request by Tina Arkuri on behalf of b k c k limited for a variance to section seven three one five a eight of the San Marcos development code, which states that animated signs are prohibited, Section seven three three two a four a one, which states that the maximum height of a freestanding sign is 42 and a half feet along IH 35. Section seven three three two a five a one, which states that the maximum area of a freestanding sign is 260 square feet along IH 35 to allow an animated pylon sign to be 69 feet six inches in height and four fifty seven 457 square feet in area, to allow a second freestanding sign to be 47 feet five inches in height and 470 square feet in area, and to allow two signs to be located on a street frontage located at 5101 South IH 35.

Great. I'll now open the public hearing and hear the presentation from staff.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jack Ruth. I'm a planning technician with the city of San Marcos. The property is approximately 19 acres. It is along I 35 and Posey Road, at that intersection.

It is designated as commercial and employment medium per the comprehensive plan. The surrounding uses include vacant land, single family homes like the Trace Subdivision, retail, and a fuel station. The existing zoning is general commercial, section seven three one five a. Animated signs are prohibited in the zoning district. Seven three three two a, on premise freestanding signs.

There is only allowed to be one per street frontage. The maximum height along I 35 is 42 feet six inches, and the maximum area along I 35 is 260 square feet. The request is for two freestanding signs along the I 35 frontage road. One is an animated pylon sign that is 69 feet and six inches. The other and it's 457 square feet in area.

The other is for a used car sign that is 47 and a half feet or 47 feet five inches, sorry, and 470 square feet in area. This is the animated sign diagram. This is the used vehicle sign diagram, and this is the locations of each sign. The personal notices for this case went out on April 3, and we received one citizen comment who had concerns regarding the height and animated billboard. Basically, their concerns were that having two signs this large in close proximity is essentially like having two, you know, billboards like you would have along 35 and that it is they feel is excessive to advertising the property.

Staff finds that the request is consistent with criteria five of the San Marcos land development code. Staff finds that the request is consistent with criteria one, two, seven, and nine of the San Marcos land development code, And staff has a neutral finding on criteria three, four, six, and eight of the San Marcos land development code. That concludes my presentation. I believe the applicant is here to speak.

Great. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Yes. Wait. And and what we'll encourage you to do is approach the podium. You'll give your name and address. Sure. You're welcome to step up, and you will have three minutes.

Name is TJ Kendall representing San Marcos Toyota at 5101 South IH 35. The main thing that we were trying to address in with the signed variance is the fact that when we purchased the dealership in 2020, I 35 was leveled to the ground and there was actually a Posey overpass. And then since that time, TxDOT has come in and raised I 35, so there is now an overpass over Posey Road. And so the roadway elevated 22 to 25 feet above the ground from where it was at the dealership. So our our original intent was we just needed to get taller signs, we effectively wanted to raise our signs by the amount that the roadway was raised in front of us.

So if you look at the used vehicle sign right now, the current height is 19 feet three inches, which would actually put it three feet below the road. So it's doing the opposite thing that a sign is supposed to do when it's below the road. So the height request, while it is above what is allowed on 35, we're trying to get closer to what the original height difference was between ground level and the top of the sign to where the roadway is now and the top of the new signs. So that's what we're originally trying to address. And then the reason for the digital sign, it's not animated is on there a lot.

It's really just digital, and the the only reason it's digital is that we can change it. And what I mean by that is Toyota changes their incentives every single month, and to reskin a billboard cost about $1,500, and you can't do it fast enough. So when Toyota releases the incentives for that month for us on the second or third of the month, by the time we could get a new billboard skin put up and all of that stuff, it would be the next month into it. So we could never advertise what the current incentives are to customers. Second reason for it was in November '21 when TxDOT held the completion ceremony for the overpass on our property talking to the TxDOT engineers, One of the things and we were talking about our signage that they said would be helpful to them is because we are the very southern edge of of the city of San Marcos, we proposed to them that we would give them the bottom banner of the billboard so that they could put traffic and safety information for how long it is to 123 or 80 or whatever it is, the same way they do with the, I mean, the Texas highway information signs that are kind of the old school LED bulbs or whatever.

But we said we would give them the bottom 10% or bottom banner that they can change at any time. They can have 20 fourseven access to it to update whatever information they want, which they were really excited about. And from my perspective, it's a good thing too because if drivers coming into San Marcos are used to looking at the sign to get traffic information, they're also gonna see whatever the current incentives and offers are that we're we're doing at the dealership. So animated is not like we're gonna constantly be scrolling stuff up there. It's just I mean, y'all could even limit it to, hey. It can only change once a month. That's great. I just wanna be able to update it when Toyota changes the incentives and offers so we can let our local customers know. Great. I think I'm out. Yeah. I was trying to watch it.

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Yep. Yeah. If you'd come up to the podium.

So I'll since he had three minutes, I'll I'll think I'll need three minutes. Yep. One of the other things I

Just wanted to adjust just a second. Name and address.

Tina R. Curry, 5374 Greg's Landing, North Charleston, South Carolina. Great. One of the things I wanted to add is one of the issues that we were also approached with during the review is the fact that we're only allowed one sign. There are two signs there already. The property, you know, there were some changes, I believe, of when you guys bought the property that it was split.

It's it's

It was originally. Right. It was it was combined. It was multiple parcel parcels that were combined. So we feel like, you know, even though it was combined, it was originally three parcels, and that's why they were allowed the two signs. So we're not asking to add a second sign. We're just asking to maintain the two signs that are already there.

Great.

And that was yeah.

Thank you. Lauren, can you remind me when can we ask questions? Because I've got questions.

To begin discussion, need to have a motion on the So we would get a motion in a second.

And then be able to do the questions.

Correct.

Okay, great. Thank you.

And we can proceed with that motion.

Okay, great. Well, should we check to see if there's anyone else who wants to speak on the item really quickly? Okay. Yes, please. Go ahead and come to this podium. Name and address, if you don't mind.

Jason Cragg, 910 East Bluebonnet, San Marcos, Texas. The reason I I think you guys saw it. I I guess I I sent the email late because we got a guy back in town, and I'm representing the property owner who has some health issues. They can't come by here. And I guess y'all probably read their statement that we have, so I'm not gonna go through that.

But I wanted just the animated sign is really what kinda caught my guard, where it's really a digital LED display. And and these are the type of sign ordinances that New Braunfels and Kyle that are putting in place. So I just wanna make sure that we're cons you're considering an an LED. It seems a little bit of an excessive variance. It almost seems like something needs to be rewritten in the in the sign ordinance code if you start allowing digital LED displays all across San Marcos.

It's a, you know, it's a hot topic that's going on across the country, you know, as far as creating smart cities. I'm not against them. I just, you know, I I just wanna make sure that we're you know, I'm interested in in learning how this is gonna come forward. And like I said, we don't oppose their on premise sign, you know, single sign, 260 square feet. We think that's perfect. And we also understand each I 30 five is becoming so much taller in certain areas that, you know, you're gonna need a little bit more of an increase to see and to view your sign. We're not opposing that at all. We're just a little questioning the the whole LED digital side of it because it's that's not an anime sign. It's a it's a digital LED display. So and that's a that's it.

Okay. Thank you. Staff, is there anyone else signed up to to speak on this item? No. Okay. Great. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? I will move to approve to just get us started.

Second. Okay.

Is there any discussion on these these requests? I do have a few questions. I'll get us kicked off here. Let's start with the applicant, if you don't mind. I have an image of where the signs are gonna go, but I don't know exactly where they're located currently. Are you able to point them out for me?

If you go back two slide the the previous two slides are pictures of the existing signs on the property.

Yeah. Where is that? Sorry.

So that's the small pre owned sign that's at the very south western corner of the property. So right by the drainage easement that goes back to all the work that they've done at Trace for the new pump station and all that stuff, it's at that very corner. And then the other one, the taller one that is the main sign, that one is right at the the main I'm sorry. It's right between the the where the where the red awnings are. Uh-huh. And they come towards I 35 right there at the end of the awnings between the awnings and the service road is where the current sign is. And the new signs are gonna go right back where those signs are. We're literally They're not actually. Oh, okay. That's why yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That'd be fine.

Alright. So the the two signs that are

there now And we wanna show everyone. So

I can pull up the

Let's let's let's let's city staff Wait a minute.

Up the site plan on Can

you can you highlight for me?

And then you can draw You can draw on there. So I can help you with that. Great. Just so that way everyone online and

everyone Yeah. I like it. I like technology.

Is it this?

I don't wanna click, but maybe I can look at my PC. And I'll back up and say your

name again if you can.

And if you can speak toward the mic so people can hear you as well. Know I'm

So this existing sign, the the 1048, the certified used vehicle sign

Yep.

Is actually located right now in that parking where the the the cars are, the car display. Mhmm. When they redid this site, and they they built it, they when they rebuilt so it this is an old survey. So the site is currently the sign is now in the PUE. The new sign will be moved out of that public utility easement, and it's gonna be moved up where you can see it's outside of that display area. Okay. The other sign, the Right here. Think so. So it's located right there.

Okay.

And, again, it's in a public utility easement. Apparently

it back in

the nobody had caught that Okay. For years. He he caught it. So that's why we're showing the new sign is gonna be moved up and in. Great. So it will no longer be located in that easement.

And just for the public record, will you give your name and address again?

My name is Tina Arcuri, 5374 Greg's Landing, North Charleston, South Carolina.

Thank you. Great. That answers my question. I do have a few more. So let's talk about I'd like to talk about the hardship. I think you've already maybe talked about your position on it. But I'd like to hear a little bit more about why we would need to grant such a variance, what kind of hardship it it gives to Toyota so that we can consider that in our application.

TJ Kendall, 5101 South Ah 35, San Marcos, Texas 78666. The hardship is just the visibility. So, again, we're we're our intent is to get the signs the same elevation above the roadway that they were when the road was ground level. So it's we're we're not we're not within a few feet. So it needs to come down a few feet or but but the is basically to raise the top of the signs to the same height that they were above the roadway before the overpass was there.

So that's really the hardship is just that the I mean, literally the road raised. And therefore visibility of it from both the north and south directions is is much more limited. And there didn't used to be the concrete barriers on the side when it was at ground level. There was always in the middle, of course, but there wasn't concrete barriers on the side, which really applies on the the I would call it the northbound side, but the the eastern edge of the of the roadway now has the the concrete barrier there where there wasn't there before. There's nothing we can do about visibility for the vehicles, which customers used to be able to see going by the lot, But at least we can get the signage up where they can see the sign same distance above the roadway that it was previously.

Great. So So we don't have to shuffle back and forth any questions for the applicant.

I had a note on that one, actually. So the second sign is 47 feet and five inches. Right? That's the proposal that you'd like to have? It'd be raised that much?

No. The existing sign is 41 foot six. The new top of the top of the new sign proposed is sixty nine six.

Okay. And this

So it's 25 feet above.

And then the second proposed sign?

The second proposed sign is currently 19 point 19 feet three inches, and the proposed is forty seven five inches.

Is there a reason why you'd want the first proposed sign to be a little over 20 feet higher than the second proposed sign?

It's this well, that's the way they're set up now where the main Toyota sign is taller and then the the used car sign is lower just because we're a Toyota store, so we sell new Toyotas first and used Toyota second. So but it it's mirroring the the same difference in height between the two signs now, but, again, just taking them both up by approximately the amount that the roadway was raised.

Could it be that they could just be the same height to comment to, you know, make up for the fact that the roadway has been raised rather than the excess to 69 feet?

Well, but the the the the taller of the two is taking the the existing sign that's there and going up by the same amount. Does that make sense? So they're they they would both be getting taller by the amount of the roadway road height increase. Okay. Because I so our existing so the existing sign that's 41 feet six inches used to be 41 feet six inches above the roadway, but now the roadway's come up 25 feet. So the difference between the roadway and the top of that sign is diminished significantly. That's why we wanna take it up the same amount that it was previously.

Additionally, looking at the exhibits, I think that's the staff takeaway as well, about a 28 foot to 30 foot increase for both sides.

Yeah. And and we are I mean, this was, I would say, our our first like, we are totally happy to work with the city on this, but yet we had to put something out there for what we're interested in doing to get the conversation going. So it's not like it has to be this or we're not happy or whatever. We we just you know, again, our intent is to get get the signs the same difference between road grade and top of the sign, the top of the road now and top of the sign. And then beyond that, we we would love to work with the city. I mean, we're this is home. Yeah. Any other questions for the applicant?

I have a question. I have a question for the sake of clarity. So it says two animated signs. But would this would it be a double sided animation for the tallest sign? Is that what you mean by

I believe that's right. Two animated? It's actually It's double sided. Sign, but it's

double sided. Correct.

Yeah. And it's not two separate sides. It's just the two sided.

Right. Okay. And it's only the taller of the two signs is an animated one. The other one is a pylon sign just like not pylon. What do

you call those?

It's a pylon.

Okay. Sorry. It is pylon. A pylon sign like we have now.

So And then regarding the fact that it's animated, I know you said that you all are working with TextDot and had a verbal agreement that they could have 10% to have text. But how visual are you all thinking that you would have this animated sign? Would it be like car ads on a display, or is it more just text being displayed on this animated sign?

It would think of it like a billboard, but a billboard that I can chain once a month.

Okay. So would

be a static text.

We are completely open to working with the city on. I do not wanna distract drivers on I 35. That's

concern. Yeah.

For for us, it's if we're gonna spend all the money to put a sign up, we would rather have it where we can change the offers on the sign. And that's why I said, you could limit it to once a month, and I'd be totally fine with that. All it is is so that when the new incentives come out, I just wanna be able to say, Toyota's offering 2.99% on Tundras this month, or four point nine nine on Tacomas, or whatever it is that the And those incentives change every month from the manufacturer. It's just if we're gonna spend all the money to do new signage, I just wanna have it where I can update it. And so, again, I'm I'm totally open to whatever restrictions.

It can change once a day at two in the morning. It can change once every two weeks. It can change once a month. I'm not a rotating scrolling sign is not that's that's not what's important to us is to be constantly flipping messages or anything like that. North Carolina Furniture, just two miles up the road from us, they've got a digital sign. It I've it scrolls about every fifteen seconds. It's not very often, but we're not even asking for that. I I just want the ability to change the sign more frequently than I I and easier than it is to change a billboard. Because in the end, when we're spending all the money, we just wanna make it where it's more relevant to our customers.

Thank you. One more question. We've received, you know, a letter and from the owner and they would prefer a smaller sign. Is that something that you all would be open to?

For sure. Yeah. And I'm not quite sure how the square footage is calculated because it it the the shorter the two signs actually is a higher square footage in the calculation. I don't know if that's because it's rectangular all the way up as opposed to being a pole with the so again, we can work on the design of that. All of that we are open to. Sure.

A 100%. Tina Arcuri, 5 374, Greg's Landing, North Charleston, South Carolina. The smaller of the two signs, just so you guys know, the logo is the only part that lights up

Right.

On that sign. So the rest of it is really just kinda fillers, so it's not an ugly pole. I mean, we we look at it as almost like a pole cover, but it just it just looks so much neater and tidier than just a pole. And and this is and just these are standard Toyota brand signs. Right. It's, you know, it's it's this is it's a ten forty eight. It's, you know, ten forty eight is 10 by 48. That's that's what the what the numbers stand for. So they're just it's the standard signage that they have in their brand book. And yeah. So I just wanted to add that that only the low only the logo and the wording on top lights up. Thank you. It's awesome. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I don't have any questions. I just have a few other comments. Mhmm. The only reason I can see why to approve this is because the new sign would be outside of the easement, the public utility easement, and I feel like that's good. But because of code was recently developed you know, redeveloped and approved, I think we should prioritize making sure that new signs conform to the current code.

And as it is now, you'll have two signs that are out of code. I feel like it might just be better off to keep the two nonconforming signs rather than try to go for two signs that are nonconforming to the new development code. Those are, yeah, those are my main

thoughts. About online? Do you have any comments or questions? Just wanna check-in.

Chana Temple here, and I do agree with that last statement.

Thanks, Chana. Okay. Any questions for staff?

I do have one question. Yeah. The sign that you want to put up, it is LED. Is it a sign that can be turned into an I hesitate to use the term animated, but a video display? Is it something that you could I don't want to see a super racing down a racetrack across the sign. I love them, but I don't want to see that. I don't want to see the big animation coming in like that. I want to see a fixed sign. I don't really have a problem with that. I just don't want it to be something where the neighborhood behind sees bright shiny lights changing on a regular basis all night long. That's what I want to stay away from with it.

I would say I think the sign has the ability to do all of that. Okay. But then we obviously have control over that.

Right. So

Tina, if you have comments, we can just go to

the podium.

I'm sorry. I know that's not their intent. It does have the ability to do that, but that's not their intent. The Toyota dealership, their intent is just, like you said, just to kind of advertise their specials. If you guys give it a stipulation that they can change it once a month, once a week, whatever it may be, it's not gonna be something that's gonna be scrolling.

Just keep in mind, though, that if they're going to be giving that space at the bottom to TxDot, that will be changing on a regular basis because TxDot's gonna have actually control over that portion of the sign. If there's an accident, if there's a lane closure or whatever, that's what that part is going to be meant to do. And I great think that's collaboration with the Toyota. And I mean, it'll make things safer. But they're not looking to have it animated and, like you said, distract drivers. That's that's not what it's that's not what it's meant for.

K. Great. Thank you. Does the board have any question for the applicant? And what about staff? I do have one question for staff. We've there's been so much construction on '35. I don't, like, particularly remember this particular project. When was the the when was the the highway raised? Do we remember when that was done and by how much? Can you validate? If not, it's okay. I bet I can Google it. But Well,

the the the ground The when they did the the ceremony on the property celebrating the overpass being completed, that was 11/16/2021.

Okay. Can staff validate how how much it rose?

Well, I I could tell you. I've got pictures that the the under the the clearance signs that they put on there is 18 feet.

Okay.

Yeah. Is the is the is the Right. Yes. You gotta add the roadway and the girders and all that stuff above that. But the the clearance height sign for underneath it is 18 feet.

Okay.

And to add a little more. Yeah. We because this change in elevation is so relevant, staff reached out to our CIP and engineering team and actually viewed the plans for the overpass. Mhmm. So, of course, the overpass is on sort of a bell curve. The the height Yeah. You know, varies. But the highest point appears to be 25 feet.

Okay. Okay. I don't have any other questions for staff. Anyone else on the board? Well, we've moved past comments, so we're gonna stick with our questions for now. Are there any questions for the applicant or the staff?

Okay. Yeah.

Go ahead. No more questions. Yeah.

Just have more slides. Let's do it.

I feel most inclined to only approve with conditions for one sign and no animation and maybe allow for a height increase to account for the raised highway.

Yep. Maybe we go round robin and just hear everyone's thinking. Do you wanna go next? I

also would prefer to not see more animation along I 35. I do understand the business concerns and the changes due to the increase in the the height and the overpass and just general business concerns of wanting to take care of business. At the same time, I think the concerns of the owner are very valid and important, and for a good business relationship should be acknowledged and considered moving forward. So, yeah, I would prefer to not see animation. I think that the existing used sign is attractive and that it has a uniform width all the way up, and I'm okay with that for the proposal.

But the square the square footage of the proposed animated sign is concerning for me that it's so large. And I'll pass I'll pass the baton along to the next person.

Anyone else wanna make comments?

I lean towards wanting to have it be a little bit smaller for the larger billboard as well. I don't really have a problem with the two signs. I recognize your need for that in that location to help customers get in and out of there appropriately. I do recognize that. Height wise, I'm on board. I don't really have a problem with the height. I just I don't want animation that moves on a regular basis. So if we have the ability to dictate that, I don't know if we do or not.

Yeah. Just as a note, for animated signs, we have the definition for that is some sort of LED or CEVM is, you know, what you see those text dot signs of just the text moving. We define that as a image or some other type of display that changes once every, I guess, less than a minute. So if it changes more frequently than once a minute, we consider it animated. So it's less like how they were describing.

It's less about actually moving parts because in general, signs are prohibited, but that is the definition is changing more frequently than once a minute. So Okay. Just as a note, when you're thinking about how we are, I guess, regulating those, that's our definition for it.

Okay. So let me ask

It seems that it seems that they wouldn't need relief in that, in that they're indicating they're just gonna change it once a month. So there's no need for a variance as far as the animation, their own testimony and staff's testimony. Didn't know anything about this but from my opinion would be that we don't need that in our motion.

Don't need a variance for Right. Sign and

that the would prevent them from doing it constantly if they don't have To that

give a perspective from staff, the display is a we might be able to sort of both give input here. Because we also designate signs as CEVM signs, so changeable electronic variable message signs

Thank you for that because I didn't know what the acronym was. Yes.

Just my the way that that strikes me from the perspective of the code is that we have also processed variances for CEVM signs. We would probably not consider a an electronic sign with an LED display to be equivalent to any other sign.

Yeah. To, sorry, to add on to that, when we get CVM signs are usually very specific in comparison to, like, these LED potentially animated displays. So the idea is if we see something that could be animated, that is where the problem lies. So if they were wanting to change it, that's what this variance would be for. However, if you want them to not change the sign and just like the describing, have it just be still messages that they change once a month or however long, then that is that would mean that they wouldn't need the variance for that portion.

But I just wanted to, you know, kind of make sure that we're familiar with that. Those are different, the CVM and animated.

Okay. So I guess I need to know what kind of sign are we dealing with in this case? Is it a CVM sign or an animated sign according to code? How's staff defining

it? The variance, the notice that was sent out referenced that the variance is to the section of the code dealing with prohibited signs.

Okay. Okay.

Female And that was the eighth bullet of that section

Great.

That mentioned animated signs.

So it is animated?

According to our notice and according to our staff assessment, yes.

So we need we do need to consider a variance on that subject to sort of help them know what to install, frankly.

May may I comment as

well

Yes. Since we were going around? I just wanna say that I'm a Toyota customer, and I do visit there regularly. I know exactly where it's located. Yeah. In this day and age of GPS, I honestly don't understand the obsession with digital signs. I just wanna make a case for the neighbors that live in Trace. If I lived in Trace, I would be very frustrated by a gigantic digital bright sign, you know, so close to home.

Just wanna put that out there.

Anything else? No? Okay. So my position is I don't like the idea of having an LED or sort of an animated or bright sign either. I don't I don't mind the idea of two taller signs in those locations that have been proposed.

It's really the fact that the the sign will be lit, and it has the animation capability. I don't see that there's a hardship there to rectify, but I do agree that new taller signs are probably worth permitting in this case and granting a variance in terms of size. We have a motion on the floor to approve. I don't know if at this stage, Lauren, can we do conditions on an approval or do we need to So

mover and the seconder would need to amend the motion.

Okay.

You as the mover, if you

made Yes. The

Then you would propose the amended motion and your seconder would give approval and that would allow a vote on it. Okay. Under Robert Schrollz.

Okay. Great. So so I guess you and I have to decide. Do is my so my idea of having both approving both signs at the height but not the digital. So the the thing we would change is not allowing the digital nature of the sign. Is that acceptable?

Yeah. I I would not want to allow the digital

Yeah.

Aspect of it either.

But And I'm using digital broadly. Like, anything animated or anything lit up like that.

I I understand that there are two existing signs there now, and it's just to replace them. But I still feel like there should just be one sign because it would conform to the new development code. Okay. And

Okay. So we'll need to go with her interpretation for a vote.

Yeah.

I I think we're I think we're there's there's a few other options we're gonna we have to explore, but let's

I just wanted to address the I

don't know if you heard

Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead.

I don't know. Oh, sorry. Tina Arcuri, 5374. Greg's Landing, North Charleston, South Carolina. I don't know if you heard him say the reason why there were the two different signs, because they have both the new dealership and the certified used dealership there. So one is indicating you know, the the main sign indicates that they're selling brand new cars, and the other sign is indicating that they sell certified used vehicles as well, which is another portion of their business. So that's the reason why there's the two signs to begin with. And I know that they combined the properties, the parcels into one parcel, therefore making two signs nonconforming because it's now one parcel. But essentially, that's the reason why they had the two signs to begin with, was just to identify the two different portions of the business.

Tina, may I ask you a question?

Sure.

Is it possible that you all could put that wording and branding on one sign?

It it doesn't work that way. Yeah. No. It it's too because the main Toyota logo is that main sign, and then there are specific signs that and it's you if you look at it, the logo is different. It says certified used vehicles. It's you know, the Toyota branding is that those are two separate entities. Mhmm. So they they identify it differently. Yeah. And and I mean, I permit and I handle these Toyota dealerships all across the country, and it's it's the same thing, you know, everywhere. They have the two different if they have certified used vehicles on the property, they have two different signs.

Yeah. They don't ever have one?

Not for both. No.

Okay.

Yeah. Since we can't agree to an amendment to our standing motion, I would like to proceed to a vote on the motion to approve, and then we can decide where we wanna go from there.

That's appropriate.

Okay. I will now take a vote. So to fully approve. To fully approve. That's the motion.

Maddie Roberts? No. Jonah Temple?

No.

Andrew James?

No.

Cody DeSalvo? No. And Hayek Currentle?

No. Okay. So what do we think our next steps should be? My my yeah. Go ahead.

Now might be a good time to just kind of provide some structure to kind of mold this next motion. Yeah. So the same way that a motion can be amended and you can add your asks as conditions on the motion Mhmm. It's possible to motion to approve and then list your exceptions there. Yeah. So motion to approve the signs except that there shall be

Yeah.

X height limit. There shall be x limit on animation, etcetera.

Do we need a motion to negotiate what the motion should be? Because I I I'd prefer not to go through 13 rounds of changes if we could determine what we all sort of agree. Should the motion should be? Is there a mechanism we can use?

Well, I think now that you've had the motion, I mean, you can discuss it now basically. Now that you've already voted on it. You can discuss it without having a motion on the floor as to what you'd like at least.

So we're back in discussion and we can talk

a I little would say that's okay at this point.

I'd like to hear from the board first, and then we'll we'll come back. Does someone have an idea of how to proceed? My my position remains that I'm okay with the sign the two signs. I'm okay with their height. I don't want a lit up digital animated sign. That's my sort of red line on this one. I don't think there's enough hardship in the variance request at this stage. That is clear to me. I don't know what our our sense is of that proposal.

I don't have a problem with it being a digital sign that's limited in scope. If it can only do certain things, if it's not high res four d photographs, if it's not very bright, intense light, if it's just showing a screen with the interest rates on cars. I don't have interest rates on certain models. I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want it to be something that is very the intensity is one of the things I'm concerned about.

So a flat screen like the one that the warehouse has, the furniture warehouse has, I don't have a problem with that because it's not distracting, but it is visible. So I don't have a problem with it being digital to save you money. So you can change it on a regular basis without having to have somebody climb a pole. I don't really have a problem with that. I just don't want to see the animation aspect of it. I don't wanna see things moving on it, and I don't want high intensity lights at night. Yeah.

Lauren, can you please pull up either the plat or one of the examples of the signs, please?

Yes. We can.

Thank you. Chana, I wanna check-in. Do you have anything you wanna add right now?

I mean, I'm I'm just opposed to the whole digital lit up aspect. Okay. And I and I'm pretty much in accordance with everything that you said Okay. Cody.

And I I to be honest, there's there's no hardship that the applicant's showing at all. I I don't think there's legal support for that that digital variance. The the the road height is is grounds for it. But just as your counsel, I don't see any evidence of hardship.

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. What slide would you like? Oh, yeah. I have the two slides.

You. Yeah. These are great. Okay.

Yeah. You see that there.

I'm also opposed to digital signage. I'd like to come at to a consensus with the board, but that's my stance.

Then I I think, please, if you have more you wanna add, I'd like to hear your voice.

I'm rereading the criteria for approval that staff wrote, and I was looking at criteria one where they said that there's no special circumstance arising from the location, of the existing 42 foot sign because it's still visible from the highway. Is that's true. Right? Both of them are still visible from the highway? Both 42 foot signs?

And I'll allow our case manager to chime in.

So one of them is are you asking you're asking about the current and the proposed? The current 41 I believe it's 41 or 42 and a half feet. Let me see the original a 41 and a half. So from depending on where you are on the highway, it is visible. In some areas, it is less visible.

For example, if you're heading in the opposite direction and you're on the other side of the highway, it's very hard to see. Whereas if you're on that other side of the highway closer to it, you can still see it, but the overpass definitely does affect its visibility. And that is for the, obviously, the 41 and a half. The 19 foot sign is definitely not visible from basically any portion besides the frontage road.

Okay. And the 19 foot sign is the used vehicle sign?

The original used vehicle sign. Yes.

And when people are driving over, the like, if they're at the peak of the overpass, it's and they don't see the signs for the two Toyota, it's not really the worst thing ever because if you're driving in headed towards the Toyota lot And what would really draw you in to exit is if you saw it before you went over the overpass. So I don't see much reason for it to be much taller over the overpass as you're driving over because it's not like you can exit right after you see it unless you were gonna make a u-turn after.

Thank you. That is a good point. Well, if there isn't anything, I in order to, like, get us to proceed, I'm gonna make the following motion. I move correct me if I do this incorrectly. But I move to approve the request with the following stipulation that the the digital aspect of the request is denied.

K.

Is there a second?

Can there be a stipulation added on the amount

I will withdraw my motion, and we can add one more if I if I like it, I guess. Or you can make the motion. Up to you.

And I I wrote that down. I agree with the first part of your motion

to not allow for the digital aspect of the signs. I'd also like to add that only one sign be up that accounts for the difference of the highway. Or if there was a second sign, that it could account for the used sign vehicles being taller to see from the other down slope of the highway. Because the current one, I guess, isn't seen at all now, which I understand can pose a burden to the property owner. But if the first one that's existing, the larger sign that shows that it's Toyota is already visible, I say they keep it.

It's already out of current code, and I feel like they're benefiting from that as it is now.

You're you're effectively saying approve the Toyota brand name sign sans digital component only?

Steph can help you

here. Okay.

So that motion, I what we have here is a motion by member Roberts, to approve the signs with some kind of modification. What what might be missing is a little bit of a conference between the team to talk about who wants to see the hype brought down, who wants to see the area brought down, who wants to see no digital, who wants to see only one sign. I'm gonna almost let you freeze that motion. Maybe we can talk a little bit more Yeah. And we can arrive.

Let's do it. Let's yeah.

I'd like to let let's do it sign by sign. Yeah. But let's kick in with the used car sign.

Yep. And

what are our thoughts on that?

So I'll My my I don't have an objection to the used car sign at all and would and would approve it flat

out. Okay.

I would as well.

I would too.

Yeah. Same. I don't have an issue

with it. No. And because I understand

that the area accounts for the entire thing, so it wouldn't make much sense to make it a poll,

I guess.

Yeah. Aesthetically, it's better the way it is. And as I said, they cannot combine the used and the regular Toyota sign into one.

Right.

So that's not an option.

Shana, what do you think?

I agree with the consensus.

Okay. So so what I'm hearing from everyone is if this was stand alone, if they were just bringing us taller sign, we would approve it.

Yeah. We

would just use the car the

used car. For the used car sign.

And the sec and it is at the minimum height needed to account for the highway increase. Right?

Based on what staff said, it's 25 and something.

And they're going up less than

that. Okay.

Okay. So then let's talk about the primary Toyota brand sign. My only objection to the primary Toyota brand sign is the, like, digital aspect of it. It's sort of like a trust but verify thing. I don't want a sign that has the ability for them to animate it at all up there. And part of me wonders if we had specs on the sign, if it might help us a little bit. But that's my primary objection. I don't mind the height increase. The size change doesn't really bother me. The digital aspect is what is throwing me off.

Agree. Because there's a large trust component with these signs, and if it has the capacity to perform a certain function, you're essentially basing it on trust or, you know, the honor system and having to do damage control after the fact if one were to So the trust component is huge.

And you've already voted on the digital aspect. You voted to deny that part already, correct? We're focusing on the size at this point and the height. I

do have a question regarding the size of the main sign. Yeah. As we were saying, like, it's kind of hard not to see, you know, what that what the new proposed that is not digital would look like. Like, if it's increased that much, is it gonna have to be a lot wider as well to support that height increase, or what would that be like?

Shana, would you restate and then we'll see if the applicant can answer. Oh, she can't hear me. Chana, will you restate your question, and we'll see if the applicant can answer the question.

Okay. With such a big height increase in the main sign, would that I mean, would it be the same shape as what we're seeing but non digital? Like

You're you're asking if the new sign if this image is really reflective of the proportions that we should expect when it's installed?

Yes. And and given that we are know, I think we're in consensus of denying any light up component. Like, would this still be the size and shape?

I see. So I think the question, just to help restate is and, Chana, you can stop me is, look, I think the digital sign is probably not going to come through. So if we said no to the digital aspect, do you need to redesign this sign in some way to be smaller or bigger? Or how does it impact the thinking? Yes. So the answer was yes. I don't know. Yes. We

we would redesign it. We would remove the digital aspect of it. It might the top of it might change slightly. It might not be a square. It might be maybe possibly a different shape, but it would say Toyota and San Marcos. Okay. Yeah.

Do we want to bring this back then? If they're going

to have to was just wondering that. Is there an option for us to let them work with staff and submit another proposal after our because of our feedback, or should we just proceed with some sort of vote?

And I think what might in order to answer that question, I I also wanted to just make sure we're all on the same page of motions that have already been made. So we had a motion to approve, which failed. Yeah. We had a motion to approve with no digital aspect, which was made by the chair and withdrawn. Yep. So at this point, we are kind of starting over.

Yep. Well, there was also a motion to deny the digital aspect that was unanimously passed.

Correct? We that was just a conversation. We didn't I didn't make a motion. No one made a motion. I'm sorry.

I would like to make a motion of that, if I could.

I'll step in here. So we are we technically have a a motion in process from member Roberts, Maddie Roberts. So I I think we might need to see that withdrawn. I think what we're trying to do here is massage that motion

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

So that we're back to the

to her. Can I just can I just add one one thing? So if you guys and I just wanna because I know this is a discussion, and we're all trying to figure this out. And, you know, and for the ease of review and planning and all that stuff, if you guys are not opposed this is what I was I've been hearing is that you're not opposed to the height or the size, but you don't want the digital aspect. If we remove the digital aspect, the size is going to change smaller. It's not gonna get bigger. It's gonna get smaller. So if you guys are not opposed to the height and size of this sign now, sans digital portion, then it's gonna be smaller than what it is now. So I would say you guys are probably okay with it.

If that's

if that's what I'm hearing.

And

and yeah. It might make it easier to make the motion.

I would really appreciate that. Do you mind withdrawing your motion?

Yes. Could I add could I just say another thought?

Or Yes.

I am happy to hear that it'd be smaller. Can the first, like, large Toyota sign be reduced to similar height as the used car sign? Could they not be the same height?

Can the primary branded sign be the same height as the used car sign, the proposed used car sign?

If we're going to allow for an additional sign

And excuse me. We are if you don't mind, we'll work out what we wanna do here. And then if we have any questions for you, we will ask you to come up. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. If we're if we're already going to allow for an additional sign on the lot despite the fact that it's only allowed to have one, maybe we can request that they'd be the same size

Yeah.

Both the same lower height as the used vehicles sign.

Do you wanna withdraw your motion so we can Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Withdraw motion.

Okay. Let's go back to your methodology. We've got agreement that the used car sign at the proposed height, the new proposed height, is is acceptable by all of us. So back to the primary Toyota brand sign, the aspect I'm hearing there's two pieces here. Some of us all of us don't want the digital aspect.

Some of us are still concerned about this the size. I think there's a I think there's a majoritarian consensus against the digital sign aspect. So I would look for some some advice from the board or from staff on how we structure a motion so that we can decide whether or not the sign at size is acceptable, but the digital aspect is not. I wanna I wanna get rid of the digital aspect so we can move on to whatever is next in terms of in terms of size and if we want it to be the same size as the the used car branding. So is there some advice we can get on how to proceed?

Could we and this is a question for a legal. Could we do motions on different signs? Like, could we do sign one, which is Used car. The used car, and then a motion for sign two just to separate? That way it's easier. Or do you recommend just for it all to be in one motion?

I'd recommend it all be in one motion as to what relief you're granting. Yeah. But it doesn't really matter. It's not illegal, but it's

better to

have

it just all wanted wrapped make sure. Because then you just sign a single relief.

So in light of that, even though it might be tempting to make a motion just to sort of get the shorter sign out of the way, I think a better way to look at it would be, you know that will be one condition of your motion. It might not happen with a vote, but the idea is that we're forming the motion and we have one bullet down.

Yeah. Okay. So then then I think if if I made the motion, the thing that I can agree to is to get rid of the digital aspect, but I don't mind the size.

And can I request that you speak into the microphone? So

we're really looking at three components, which is the digital nature

Yeah.

The size, and the height. Am I missing anything? No. Okay. So we're we're it's a unanimous decision right now on the digital nature. Digital nature. Okay. Let's discuss size. Myself, personally, I would like it to be no larger than 260 square feet. What are y'all's thoughts?

What's the basis of the 260 just so that I can look at

That was the maximum, that the owner stated that they would be they would be agreeable to.

The person who sent us a letter?

Yes. And that comes from the development code, the maximum sign area along IH 35.

Thank you. You. How does staff calculate that? Is it included the pylon in that calculation? The

So in this portion? For this sign specifically, it's only including the actual advertisement on the square like, the square top portion. The other sign is calculated a little bit differently based on the type of signage it is. The area of that sign is the whole thing is technically as a part of the sign, whereas this specific animated pylon is propped up on the pylon itself.

Right. The pole that's lifting it up into the air to get visibility is not being included in Not included square area. Yeah.

So Okay.

But that's a significant reduction in size.

Correct. From the original proposal.

Yeah. So that's effectively denying the variance because it's so significant. It's halving it.

Yeah. It denies it. It takes it back to what our code is.

Right.

Mean, it seems akin to me to keeping it at the level that Maddie's proposing of keeping it at the height of the other sign.

Yeah. I also agree that it should be reduced to what the development code would allow, which is two sixty square feet.

Okay. Well, in that case, then there's no way for us to get to an approval. So we need to have a motion to deny.

A clarification there. That would be another so if you think about it, you are approving the motion. And as you add conditions, that's sort of scaling back the request. So at this point, you have removed the electronic portion and you have brought the area back to the code, the amount that is allowed in the code. Two remaining parts of the variants are still there for you to discuss. Height. If you choose, the height and the presence of two signs along the frontage road. So you can continue. You can figure out which of these you want to select.

Josh? And sorry, Lauren, just to clarify that and just maybe this would help you all. If they're okay with the used vehicle sign, it would still be a motion to approve, but the conditions of that approval would be that the animated pylon is reduced in area and height. Yeah. Thank So it wouldn't be a denial. Yeah. It would be an approval with that condition.

Yeah. Thank you, Jack.

Approve yeah. Approve the used car sign.

Okay.

And then the primary branded sign deny the area variance?

Yes. Yeah. Make it to be compliant with the code. And I I my opinion is also to make it the same site as the used car if we're also allowing there to be two.

Yeah. Let's do the two. Let's talk about two signs then because that's the next real variance here.

I'm okay with two signs.

I don't mind two signs.

I'm fine with two signs.

With two signs.

Shauna, you're okay? Is that what you said? Yes. Okay.

Yes. Okay. Okay. Prove

Okay. So we're all good with two signs?

Two signs. And then so then we need to deal with height?

Wait. Wait. Before we go to height, size, Andrew, just for clarification, were you in agreement about no larger than two sixty?

They're I'm afraid they're gonna have to redo everything on it. So they're going to be back at us again. So I guess that's probably what we need to do today to get an approval that they can move forward with. I guess if I was looking at it, I would take both signs up and just increase the size of the signs they have now and approve that in an instant. But that is a very different design platform than what they have right now. I have no problem with two signs. I have no problem with the height. I just don't want the animation. So the new sign is gonna have to be redesigned. So that's up to them to come back and tell us what they want it to look like.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you would be okay with the square footage that has currently been proposed proposed as long as it was not an animated sign.

I would. Yeah. I would. Me too.

Okay. But it's okay. We can we can proceed with something that's in the middle because they're gonna have to redesign all of it anyway.

And, Chana, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. We know how you feel about digital. What do you think about the signs in this conversation about February?

That I mean, the code was thoughtfully considered, so I I am normally for sticking with the code. I do understand the change in the highway height. I hate to say it. I'm a little bit on the on the fence on that.

And and that is the only reason I I think a larger sign is is something that's necessary is because of that angle. I drove past it and took a look. It needs more signage.

So we may have a four member majority in favor of the sign's height.

Oh, I thought we were still talking about the size of the

Oh, the area.

We're on

the No. The height, I have no

Okay. Sorry.

Area. Let's go to height, and then we can

it seems height. I did size.

I think we have four.

I Yeah. Yeah.

You know what? Yeah. I will amend that. I'm I'm good with height as well, but overall size, yeah. If it's Reject. Safely possible a design that could do could do that, then I prefer to stay with the code. Okay.

I still feel like the height should be just just at the minimum it needs to see from part of the highway, which is the height of the used car sign at the proposed 47 feet five inches. K. But it seems that y'all agree that it's fine, but I just wanted to put my Yes. Opinion out there again that I think it should be lowered to the minimum. And then as far as the area goes, yeah, I think it should be compliant with the code. It's two sixty for both of them.

K. We're on

the same page about five. Fauna I'm sorry. Go ahead. You were on the fence. I just it's been a minute. What are your thoughts about size?

I do lean towards what Maddie's saying. Again, I just think this is not really the way people locate things. I mean, I I understand. Like, businesses are still kind of in this mindset for some reason, but, yeah, I I would lean towards, like, let's just stick with the the code and do something that aesthetically looks normal, you know, because it is gonna be kinda wonky to have this giant skinny sign. So, aesthetically, I think it's going to look better and be more proportional to stick with the size and that the code says.

Okay.

Let me recap. So we've got a a majoritarian consensus on approving the two signs to grant that variance. We have majority majoritarian consensus to reject the variance for the digital signage component. We have majoritarian consensus to approve the used car sign and its associated variances, but we reject the requested variance for area of the primary branded sign.

Or both?

Branded signs to be reduced to two sixty.

The double sided sign. It's one sign, but it's

This primary branded one or the I'm just remember, I'm trying to deal with them. Got two sort of signs, I want make sure I know which one we're talking about.

So the used sign is going

be static. There's no digital display. But then the other one, it's two digital displays facing both directions.

Yeah. Yeah. But the digital display has been rejected. So what are we what are we I wanna make sure, Mehdi, I'm understanding.

Yeah. Because the second one, they're both outside. They're both, like

They're out of variance. Yes.

Yeah. Like, with the the area that they're requesting for both signs is greater than 260 square feet, which is what's allowed in the code. Right. And I think they should both be within the code

of

260. And, also, the current signs existing are out of compliance with

the Oh, yeah. Okay.

This is

why we have a problem. I don't agree. So I can't make the motion in good faith because I can't I'm not gonna vote for it. So someone else will need to construct it. So And then so that we can proceed. Does that make sense? Just give it give us we will in just a second. But give us just just one moment. Before you. No. We won't make the motion until we hear from you. But but that's where we're that's why we're I'm having a hang up because I can't in good faith. In fact, I think Robert Truls, like, says I can't if I know I'm gonna vote no for it.

So And just a little I think, you know, I'd really what I'm trying to say here is perhaps we should shift the attitude a little bit here toward making a motion. Yep. Keeping in mind want keeping in mind that Texas Open Meetings Act exists.

Yep.

And that we make our decisions in front of the public.

Right.

It would be a good idea to put forward a motion. The honest truth is not everybody agrees.

Yeah.

But we might wanna kind of hone in on something.

Yeah. I agree.

I don't yeah. I mean, I just don't mind the requested size, the area variance. If they want larger for all, both of the signs. Okay. I I don't mind the fact that variance, they have convinced me of a hardship there. I would like to grant the variance beyond the the the code's permitted area. But in but I agree with y'all in every other aspect. But I can't say right now that I would vote for a motion that denied the variance based on the the area. So I don't think I could, in good faith, make the motion.

I gotcha. Should I Lauren, should I make a motion that includes my strict opinions on it and then see what happens? Should

are welcome to Let's make any

do it and see where we go. Oh, we will hear from

So it's kinda the chair's discretion as to allow which member to make a motion at this point.

You can can make whatever but let's hear from Tina first so that she can

have it. Okay.

Tina Arcuri, 5374 Greggs Landing, North Charleston, South Carolina. I just want can you bring up the slide of the proposed digital sign that's no longer going to be digital?

And we'll go back to that tall pylon sign.

There we go. Thank you. I don't know. You guys is another is there one with just the digital sign, Not the existing and the proposed, just the proposed? Don't think I

don't think so.

Oh. It's in the packet.

Oh. Well.

Yeah.

Yes. Let's look.

Is there.

Y'all have it?

Yeah. Oh, yes. It's right here.

Okay. So I would like you guys all to just take a look. Oh, is that me? Sorry. Yeah. It's all good. Oh my gosh. If you look at the measurement of the digital portion of that sign, and we talked about, like, if we would just remove the digital aspect. Right? The digital portion of that sign is 200 no.

It's actually less than that. It's less than it's under 220 square feet. But let's say we just took out that whole middle section and just created the sign that said Toyota San Marcos without that middle section. You're talking about removing 220 square feet from that sign, which makes that sign only roughly, I mean, 22 you're talking about a 160 square feet? You could still remove the digital. What?

You could remove the digital and then accommodate that to still be within the code and at 260 square feet. Even though it reduced, as you're saying, to about a 180, you could adjust the proportions of the signage to make

it two sixty. To meet two sixty. Absolutely. So the other sign though, the the the because you keep going back to saying you want both signs to be the same, both sides you know I mean? The problem is these two signs are calculated completely different.

So the tall sign, it's only that top portion of the sign that is calculated in the square footage. Because of the design, and you said it aesthetically, it's just a much nicer looking sign to then rather than to have two big, you know, pole signs. Because it's designed as a monument sign, it's the whole sign is calculated as a square footage, whereas only that top logo lights up. That's the only the wording is really the only and every jurisdiction is different. Some jurisdictions calculate the whole sign like you guys do.

Other jurisdictions literally just calculate that top portion of the sign, which if I'm not mistaken is oh, I don't know off the top of my head. It is 10. It's it's about a 100 square feet. So where the actual wording and we call it the swoosh, not to, you know, duplicate Nike, but you're talking about that top portion of the sign, you include the logo and the certified used vehicle wording, is about a 100 square feet. If you include the swoosh, you're talking about there's about a 100 and if you include all, it's about a 150 square feet of actual signage.

But because of how that type of sign is calculated, it comes up as 480 square feet because they have to calculate the whole thing. Okay. So I just wanted to because you just kept kinda coming going back to it, so I just wanted to make sure you understood the calculations of the sign.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep. Thank you, Eric.

Yeah. Maddie, you wanna make a motion to get us kicked off?

Okay. I'm gonna try to word this correctly. K. Motion to approve with conditions not to allow for the digital component of the sign, reducing the area of the main Toyota sign to 260 square feet, and reducing the height of the main Toyota sign to 47 feet and five inches.

Those are code compliant. That

yes. Well

No. Just keep

going. And then the used Toyota sign allow for the variance in the total area and Okay. Allow for the variance in the height, which is 47 and a half. Or sorry sorry. 47 feet and five inches.

Okay. And we'll I figure it wouldn't hurt to just repeat, what the essence of that is. So the variance is to approve. There is no adjustment to the 47 foot five inch sign located more south on the property. There is an adjustment to the large pylon sign to remove the digital component to reduce the area to 260 square feet and to bring the height of the sign equivalent to the second sign so that both are 47 and five forty seven feet and five inches tall.

And that is what we have on the table.

There's a motion before the board. Is there a second? Yes. It is seconded. Do we take a vote now or do we have a discussion?

You do have the option to discuss. Okay. And eventually, we will arrive at a roll call vote.

Great. Just wanted to make sure. Any points of discussion on the motion from the from the board? Jonah, anything from you? Just wanna make sure we hear your voice. K.

No. Thank you. We're good.

Okay. Let's proceed to a vote.

Jonah Temple? Yes. Andrew James?

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo? No. Hayek Krentfel? Yes. Maddie Roberts? Yes. Motion passes four to one. Great.

That was good teamwork, by the way.

Thank you, chair.

Thank

you so much for the time today. Appreciate you joining us.

Thank you. Yep.

Okay. I've gotta pull up my agenda here and get us to the next thing. We do have one more. Where is it in my list here? Yeah. Oh, here it is. Okay. We have our next item on the agenda, item six b. If, the staff would please read the caption.

VR 2605524 Harvey Street, Carport setback variance, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Michelle Donnelly for a variance to section 4,414 of the San Marcos development code, which states that within single family 4.5 zoning, the minimum setback from the interior side property line is five feet to allow a carport to be located one foot from the property line located at 524 Harvey Street.

Great. Lauren, before we proceed, do we need to hold them so that they can get their letter?

We do have a decision form that will be signed after the meeting and will be delivered by email

to Just the making sure. Thanks. Fantastic. Let's sorry. I lost my place again. Yeah. Let's would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Staff will go ahead and

Oh, and start us off. Very good. Yes.

Alright. Glad to be back with you. Lauren chief, Lauren Clanton, chief planner. The property is approximately point one seven acres. It is located on Harvey Street between Blanco Street and Moore Street and is designated as neighborhood medium per the comprehensive plan.

Surrounding uses include single family residential, duplex and multiplex, a church, and a couple personal services as you get closer to the transition into downtown. Giving a little background on the property, the existing zoning is single family 4.5. The variance request refers to section four four one four. So these are the standards for the single family 4.5 zoning district. Particularly, we're dealing with the five foot side setback.

And the way a side is defined in our code is a portion adjoining another property that is not the front, is not the rear, and is not for example, you could have a secondary street if it's a corner lot. So this is just the property line between two lots. The request is for the carport to be positioned one foot from the property line, and we'll continue to look at some exhibits. So here we can see the wood and metal carport. The height will vary and will be anywhere from seven feet to just under nine feet, and we can also see the location of the carport relative to the home.

Here we have a photo of the existing driveway, and this is where the carport is proposed to be located. In assessing the request, staff referred to section two eight two four a of the development code. Staff found the request consistent with criteria one, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of the San Marcos development code. The request was found to be inconsistent with criterion three and neutral pertaining to criterion two. That concludes our presentation. Staff is available for questions, and we also have the property owner and applicant here.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And will you give us your name and address for

the record?

David Donnelly. 524 Harvey Street, San Marcos. This carport would allow us to get from our car to the house without getting rained on. That's the primary reason for our request. When we originally purchased the property, there was a garage in the place where the carport is intended to be put.

The garage was very old and was removed at the request of the bank that was funding the mortgage. And so but yes, so so that's our primary reason for asking for the variance. The neighborhood there is very old and the houses were all built before a lot of the city codes were established. And so things are a little tight there, and and that's why we're asking for the variance.

Great. Thanks, David. Okay. Is there anyone in the chamber or online who would like to speak on this item? Not hearing anyone. Do we have anyone signed up, Lauren? We do not. Okay. Great. Do I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? I will make a motion to approve based on the grounds that there's really only one inconsistency noted by staff in the variance request. Is there a second?

I second.

There is a second. Now, open to discussion. Anyone have any items they'd like to discuss? Chana, anything? Okay. I think we can move on to a vote. And

we'll start with Andrew James.

Approve.

Alright. Can we get a yay or nay from Cody DeSalvo?

Yes. Yay.

Hyatt Kurunfel. Yay. Maddie Roberts. Yay. And Chauna Temple.

Yay.

Motion passes. Fantastic.

We will move on to item seven, election of officers. I'm gonna read verbatim just in case it, like, makes its compliance thing. I'll now accept a nomination for chair of the zoning board of adjustments. Are there any nominations?

And you have the floor to make that nomination.

Anyone can make a nomination. Chair starting with chair. I nominate. And then we've got vice chair, then we yeah. That's it.

I nominate

you, Cody. Chair. For chair. Okay.

Any other nominations for chair?

I'm so sorry. I couldn't hear.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry. There was a nomination, for me for chair. Awesome. Okay. Any other nominations for chair? Okay. Since we only have one nomination, staff, will you please call roll?

Yes, indeed. Cody DeSalvo?

Yes.

Hyatt Kerenfel? Yes. Maddie Roberts? Yes. Jonah Temple? Yes. Andrew James?

Yes.

Congratulations to our new chair.

Thank you.

Yay.

I will now accept nominations for vice chair. Are there any nominations for a vice chair? And you can self nominate if you're so inclined.

I'll nominate my I'll nominate myself. Okay. Great.

Other nominations for vice chair?

I'll nominate myself too.

Okay. Great. Mhmm.

And that that brings us to a situation where we'll still do that roll call vote, and we will I'll kind of adjust here. So when your name is called, you will give the name of the person you are voting for as vice chair. Great. Hyatt Currenfel? Myself. Maddie Roberts? Myself. Jonah Temple?

Oh my goodness.

I know.

You're both great.

Can I go can I go last?

You there's no cutthroat politicians at this dais.

We really there's no reason we cannot return to you. Andrew James?

Hi.

Cody DeSalvo? Maddie.

Did I tie us?

Did I

tie us? Yes. Did.

I wasn't even counting. That's what tells you that.

And and Charlotte Temple. I mean,

it doesn't matter. Right? Because we have to do we have to do four?

No. We No.

Oh, we don't? No. This is worse now. You're making me decide.

I know. Yeah. Could there be

two chairs? We've we've got

Can we have Okay.