Zoning Board of Adjustments - Regular Meeting

Um, welcome everybody, uh, to the regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustments. It's Thursday. Uh, it is Thursday, July 16th at 6 PM. I call this meeting to order. Um, I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting due to the limitations of the Texas open meetings act. The board may not discuss items, um, uh, may only discuss items, uh, posted on tonight's agenda. All other inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The board will strive to ensure that the meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of intimidation, defamation, personal affronts, profanity, or other threats of violence. We'll move us into item two, roll call. If Lauren will lead that, please.

Cody DeSalvo.

Here.

Hayat Kuranful.

Here.

Maddie Roberts. Here. Daniel Summers is absent. Chana Temple? Here. And Andrew James?

Here.

And we do have a quorum.

Thank you so much. Item three of the agenda is citizen's comment period. Is there anyone signed up for citizen comment period?

There is no one in chambers or online.

Okay, great. We will now close the citizen comment period and move on to item four, which is the consent agenda. The one and only item on the consent agenda is considering an approval of the regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion? We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I second. Seconded. Um, is there any discussion, any corrections? Okay, great. If not, let's do roll call.

Hi. Yes. Maddie Roberts. Yes. China temple.

Yes.

Andrew James.

Yes.

And Cody DeSalvo.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thanks so much. We'll move to item five, the public hearings. The first item on the agenda is item 5A. This is related to a CEVM sign variance, and I'll ask staff to read out the presentation.

VR 2609, Mendez Elementary School CEVM signed variance. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Andrea Rojas on behalf of San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District for a variance to section 7316B of the San Marcos Development Code which states that no changeable electronic variable message signs are allowed within 350 feet of a residentially zoned district. and Section 7332A4A6, which states that freestanding signs over four feet in height shall not be located within 10 feet of any property line. To allow a CEVM monument sign over four feet in height to be located 299 feet from a residential district and five feet from the property line located at 1805 Peter Garza Street. And with that, I'll get introduced Lauren Clanton chief planner here to present this item. The property we're discussing tonight is about 23 acres. It's located west of Del Sol drive on Peter Garza street. And the property is designated neighborhood medium per the comprehensive plan. When we look at the surrounding uses of the property, we see some single family to the northeast, multifamily, the highway and the retail and services surrounding the highway, a medical clinic, and a self-storage facility. The existing zoning of the property is public. And tonight, we are looking at a request to several standards contained within our Chapter 7 sign requirements. So the first one deals with location. This is a requirement that CEVM signs must be 350 feet or more from a residential district. And we are also looking at a requirement for signs of a certain height. So within this section 7332, freestanding signs greater than four feet in height are not allowed within 10 feet of the property line and need to be further out. The request tonight by the school district, which you can see marked on the map, is for a CEVM sign located 300 feet from single family six zoning, so you see that to the northeast. And although this request was noticed as a sign zero feet from the property line, in communicating with the applicant, we received a revised exhibit, so the sign will be a little further from the property line and will be five feet from it. So here we can see, accompanying this new school building, we see the new sign, which is five feet, four inches in height. And we also see an exhibit submitted by the applicant, just illustrating the distance from the property line. In assessing the request, staff referred to section 2824, and found the following. So the request is consistent with criteria four, five, six, eight, and nine. Staff found the request inconsistent with criteria one, two, and three, and finally had a neutral finding on criterion seven. That concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions, and we also have the applicant present online.

Great. Would the applicant who is online like to make a presentation?

Yes. And it appears that we have AJ Rojas online, so we will go ahead and promote to panelists. And AJ, whenever you're ready, please feel free to give your name and address and you will have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Andrea Rojas. I am at 2601 Pinewood Drive. We are in Grand Prairie representing the Mendez Elementary School campus. We are requesting that the monument sign be a little bit closer and be a little bit taller than allowed. We are willing to compromise. We can move it back further if you would like, and we can make it shorter. This is just, again, our request. The CEVM will follow all regulations as we have previously applied for other campuses for the San Marcos ISD. And if you have any questions, I'm also here to answer them as well.

Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the chambers who wishes to speak on this item? Is there anyone who signed up online?

No, I think we're good.

Great. I will now close the public hearing. Let's start with a motion so we can get some discussion going. Does anyone have a motion on this item?

I motion to open a discussion.

And I'll modify that a little bit. So we'll attach an action to that. So motion to approve, motion to deny.

Just any motion to get us, either one of those to get us started.

Motion to approve.

Yeah, absolutely. I second. Okay. That does move us in discussion on the motion of approval. Does anyone wish to weigh in? Do you want to start us off?

Yes. I have a question to AJ. With the rendering that you all provided, it appears that there's a large flanking on either side with the brick facade. And I wanted to ask if there's a reasoning or if that's just a design and if this presents any visibility on that street or in the area for drivers and passerby apart just from the digital sign.

I'm sorry, ma'am, which part were you referring to?

Lauren, can we pull up a rendering of the sign again? Thank you. So AJ, can you see the image? Yes, ma'am. Wonderful. So when you're looking at the signage, there's a lot of square footage that's brick. And I'm wondering if that's... if there's a reason for that or if it's just the design that you all have proposed. And my second question is, because I have not gone in person to see the site and where this is proposed, is if this creates any hindrance to visibility for drivers as it is in a residential area.

It shouldn't create any problems with anyone driving or walking by, especially I know it's going to be close to a driveway that they're going to be putting in once construction is done. Again, we are more than happy to make the brick not as wide and we can absolutely make it smaller. We can move it back to 10 feet. However, the council feels is appropriate. We are more than willing to accommodate.

Thank you, AJ.

Lauren, do we have an exhibit that shows the proposed location of this sign or do I only have something that says current sign location, so I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right artifact. Okay.

And we, we can absolutely, um, this exhibit is available, which is pretty simple. We also have an exhibit that shows just, um, the distance from single family. If you like, we can pull that up. It would not serve to communicate anything other than the distance from that zoning district.

Yeah. Any other questions or items of discussion? Go ahead.

Yeah. I just, I'm trying very hard to, be neutral. These signs like there's one for Texas State that actually is very distracting when for me personally when I'm driving down Aquarena Springs. I don't know if y'all know what the one I'm talking about.

The one right by Strahan?

Yes, exactly. And it's just like It's very distracting. And really these large digital electronic signs make me want to avert my eyes. And I'm just wondering, like, what exactly is the purpose of, I know I did, I remember from one of the presentations, you know, if there was a safe, you know, if there was a safety issue going on, that that's a fast way you know people could learn about it but otherwise is that really where people are getting their information about goings on with the school like sitting there reading a digital sign i don't i just i guess i'm i just would like a little more clarity um about the purpose of these signs

And I might chime in here just to kind of remind us of some cases that were heard in 2025. So in 2025, there were two cases that sort of had a part A and part B that proposed CEVM monument signs for four different schools. These were approved by the board. in each case and there were no modifications to the dimensions of the signs. The proposed sign looks like a sort of standard monument and actually has some visual continuity with a sign a little bit to the west at the entrance to the existing school. It, the point of this is to share that there is some basis for why it looks like it does, why it has the led component that it does. It has actually shown up at the board before that doesn't rule out the possibility of voting differently this time or putting a condition on it this time. Um, but given that we've talked through it before and, and been pretty amenable to it, I just wanted to remind us of those four cases.

Thank you for that. I do wanna get Member Temple's question answered. AJ, I think to summarize the question and then Member Temple can correct me if I'm wrong is, can you talk about the justification for a sign of this type? Like why an electronic sign like this?

So when we did the four other signs back in 2025, we did receive letters from staff and parents of those campuses that did say they appreciated the CEVM because it did help them remember of afterschool activities, on-campus activities as well, sports events that are happening on campus. spring break, Christmas break, when they're supposed to be in and out of school. It helped parents because they don't always check their emails. They don't always pay attention to the notifications they're getting on their phones. And sometimes their student doesn't always remember to remind them. So we did receive a lot of feedback from parents and staff stating that the CEVM was very helpful to all members of the community.

Thank you. I would just like to chime in. I was not at the meeting when the Crockett sign was approved. However, I do recall, and Shauna can chime in as well, that we did deny that sign when it first came before us because of letters from the neighbors that are directly across the street to Shauna's point about it being distracting and disruptive in a residential area. So I just wanted to.

And I appreciate that background.

Question for staff. Did we receive any letters of objection for this sign?

No responses were received to the public notice either in favor or against.

Okay.

Any other discussion on an approval motion? I'll just weigh in with my perspective having sat on the board last year and been at the meetings where we approved at least two. I may have missed the third and fourth one, but I feel sort of compelled to approve this one because it largely covers the same ground as those applications. This board isn't bound by precedent, so that's not what I'm saying, but as an individual board contributor, I voted for those in those cases and feel comfortable voting for this one in this case. You know, we didn't receive anything from community members. That doesn't mean much. People get distracted by a lot of different mailings that they might get. So no one's showed up to object. And those other signs sound like they've proved out to be helpful to school staff and to parents. And if that's the case, then to me, I'm feeling pretty comfortable with approving a variance in this case. Anyone else have anything?

I would like to see it approved with some amendments. And those would be, I'd like to see it back 10 feet. And I'd also like to see the footprint of the amount of brick facade reduced since it's sitting perpendicular to the road. I'd like to see less of a footprint to potentially block visibility. So if we would like to discuss, if you all are open to my proposal, measurements and dimensions that you all would be open, open towards.

Lauren, could you bring up or staff, can you bring up the current sign location exhibit? I think maybe that will show us a little bit of.

Yes. Give me just a moment and we can pull that up.

So from what I recall looking at it a moment ago, the width of the brick facade, if you add both sides together, would be wider than the sign itself. That's correct. Yeah.

By what percent do you want it to be reduced? Or do you have a very specific figure?

I would propose reducing two feet on either side.

Agreed. OK. Are you making a motion to amend? I want to. I wouldn't have an objection to that.

OK. What about online?

Um, I don't see an issue with the sign being placed. At 5 feet for the property line, because I think it improves visibility from the road. And I feel like 10 feet would put it in an awkward position. I also feel like the size of the brick is fine too. But I wouldn't be opposed to requesting them reduce the size of the brick. Honestly, as the variance is now, I'm. fine with approving it, but I'm open to hearing reasons for creating conditions to the approval.

What about you, Chana? Any thoughts on the width of the base?

Yeah, I definitely agree with those conditions. And the applicant has said that they're actually fine as well with conditions, is what I heard. So I think definitely conditions.

If you want to make that formal.

I make a motion to approve this project with the conditions that the sign is set back 10 feet from the road.

I'm going to recommend a change to the way your approach. The motion really should be a motion to amend so that we can deal with that amendment because then we've got another one to do. If we just go straight to the approval with that one condition, we won't be able to do your condition on where the sign is located. That's correct. So let's do, I know what you want, so I'll try to do it for the record correctly if I can. Move to amend the motion to add the condition that, and then what's the amount that you want? A reduction in two feet on either side of the monument sign of the brick face. Okay, there's a motion. Yes, sir. We're going to do that next. I want to try to deal with them one at a time. So that's the first amendment that we'll address. Is there a second for that amendment? Yes, I second. There is a second. Do we want to do roll call on that?

Yes, absolutely. So we have Maddie Roberts. Yes. Shawna Temple. Yes. Andrew James.

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo?

Yes.

And Hayek Carunfel? Yes. Motion passes.

Great. Now, I think the next thing that we want to talk about amongst ourselves really quickly is where the placement of the sign. You had a proposal. You want to talk about it really quickly?

Yes. My proposal is to increase the distance from 5 to 10 feet from the road.

I second. Okay. We're not quite there yet until there's a motion. Can we bring up the site plan again? I just wanna, like what is putting it back 10 feet closer to the building or to the parking lot that's gonna be there, get us?

Yeah.

So I do have a question and I'm sorry, AJ, Profile says, AJ, I bet I'm sorry, probably not using your name correctly, but what does moving the sign back into the property by another five feet do to the plan? You're saying it's already five feet from the road. We want to push it another five feet away from the road. Does it have any negative impact you can think of?

No, sir.

Okay. Any questions or comments on the potential motion?

Actually, I'm sorry, I do have one, if that's okay.

I can't remember. Is the presenter able to ask us questions at this stage?

And the presenter could provide additional clarification. We've been continually dialoguing, so that seems appropriate.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking the rules. Go ahead, let us know what you're thinking.

The only thing that I could think of is... when if there are parents and staff driving down the road, they would have to look further in, whereas they wouldn't see some, I guess I'm trying to say like they would have to look further in to see a sign and read it, whereas it would distract them just a little bit more if there are students and staff crossing the street, crossing the sidewalk, crossing the street, driveway leaving campus or in the mornings getting to school. But again, it's only an additional five feet. I don't think it's too much of a problem. So I'm just wanted to bring that up, but I think either way it would be okay.

Yeah. Thank you so much. And also just as a matter of discussion for the group, before we move into emotion, the real thing that I see the development code envisioning for this sign is to keep it as far away from residential zones as possible. And moving it into the property isn't going to do that. I mean, it isn't going to serve that purpose in the code. But if we move the sign further away from the residential property, I think that's a commercial lot on the other side of the road. My personal opinion is I don't I'm not worried necessarily about the signs placement inside or outside, you know, closer to the street or not, but really how far away from that neighborhood that sign is going to end up being. Right now it's about 300 feet. I can't remember what the code says exactly. I'm sure someone... 350. When I look at the site plan... When I look at the site plan and the current sign location document, I assume this is sort of the future state of the lot. Staff, you might have to correct me if I'm wrong. That is the future state of the lot, correct, of the property?

So that is correct. Okay. And you may have noticed, for example, the aerial map accurately shows the site in development. Some of the other maps show aerial views from several years back.

Yeah.

And fortunately we have this exhibit that illustrates where the curb cuts will be.

Yep. So my question, AJ, is why not put the sign on the other side of the entrance and get it farther from the residential community that is on Del Sol? Drive?

We can absolutely do that.

OK. So I think rather than an amendment to move it further from the street, in my opinion, just my opinion, the real amendment that envisions better compliance with the code is to move it to the other side of that entrance. Online, what do we think?

That seems appropriate.

Member Roberts, what do you think?

Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking about as cars are turning in and out of this entrance, how that would affect their ability to read the sign. And if it were to be placed on the other side of the curb, they could probably still read it fine. Rather... I thinking about the turning motion turning in left into it coming east. Yeah, I think it's fine. It just it doesn't move it that far away from the residential and honestly, I just, I'm fine with just approving the variance as is within the five feet. But if we can all come to an agreeance on having a place another side and fine with that, too. Okay.

Absolutely, but I did see staff have something they wanted to weigh in here.

Hi, I'm Jack Ruth with Planning and Development. I'm a planning technician. I just had a concern about potentially placing it on the other side. Currently as it is, any drivers exiting would be turning right and wouldn't have any visibility issues turning. If it's on the left side, if you're trying to turn into the lane across, you could potentially have visibility issues for incoming traffic. So I just wanted to bring that up as a concern.

Meaning you might not be able to see the traffic that is coming through that intersection. If it's on the other side.

Where it currently is placed, you can turn safely wherever you're going. Thank you for that.

That was your question?

Please go ahead. The one other question I had in that, is that an entrance and exit? or is that entrance only, exit only, do we know for that driveway?

And AJ might be able to weigh in there.

It will be entrance and exit. And also the signs do come with auto dimming technology. And if council would like, we can also turn off the sign. If we leave it in the existing proposal at the 299 feet, we can also turn off the sign after a certain time and have it turn on at sunrise.

My understanding was that was already a condition that they had agreed to. Do we need to make that a part of the approval?

And this does have a little bit of history. So you will remember VR 2506, VR 2507. These cases were heard in 2025. And during the first meeting where they were heard, conditions were proposed, one of them being that the sign shall be switched to the off position from 7 p.m. to 6 o'clock a.m. This condition could be proposed this time around. It was not applied to the previous sign variances. During the discussion, when it first came, there were a lot of ideas thrown around. And then when it came back in July, the approval was so quick, no conditions were attached. However, staff would endorse the idea of having evening hours for the sign.

I think my thinking now is, given advice about safety from staff, that if we leave the sign where it is, five feet from the street, although we don't have to, we could still go back to that. But if we did do that or even if we moved it, the sign's got to come off in those time conditions because it's so close to that neighborhood. that would be another condition I would add once we sort of deal with the sign placement question, but let's deal with the sign placement question. Did you still want to do a motion to move the signs location?

I just have one other question, AJ. Uh, this is the rendering is from mega. So could you tell me, because I don't see it clearly here, how wide is that median that the sign is being placed on that we see here?

I'm sorry, ma'am, that's an engineering drawing from the construction company that's remodeling the campus. I do not have that number in front of me at the moment, but I can find out.

What was your question again, just so I can think about it?

What is this width?

Oh, yeah, okay.

Because I'm wondering if we did put it 10 feet, I mean, knowing the width here would really help. Yeah. But there's no measurements. have the lengthwise but not the width.

Yeah. Member Carinthal, do you have a motion?

This is still here pushed out to the...

It's only five feet from the street, yeah.

I'm still going to stick with my original proposal. Let's make the motion. So I motion to amend the proposal to 10 feet from the road versus the original proposal of five feet from the road.

Great. We have a motion. Is there a second on the motion? Seconded. It is seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?

I feel like the sign is fine five feet. Also, in the packet, it mentioned that there's an existing sign there that this new sign would replace. It's already, there's already a sign there and we could just approve this CEVM sign, um, at the existing sign location. And it wouldn't be awkward for drivers or pedestrians walking by to read it.

And staff will just add a little bit of clarification there. Um, so in speaking with the applicant, because there was a question about whether it's a new sign or whether it's being built on an existing base. The intent of the applicant's wording was to state that the base of the sign will be built first and will kind of remain there until the decision is made on the CEVM signage. Because of that phrasing, it might be misinterpreted that the sign is already there. However, it is completely new. And this has been confirmed. We did a quick site visit Okay, thank you for that clarification any other discussions on the motion to move the sign back to ten feet from the street All right, we have a motion by member current full second by member James and If we would like to do a roll call All right, so we have Chana temple Yes. Andrew James.

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo.

No.

Hi, I had current full. Yes. And Maddie Roberts. No, we have a three, two vote, which is enough to approve.

Great. I will make a motion to amend the approval of the variance to add a condition. that the sign will be shut off between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. every day. Is there a second?

Second.

It is seconded. Any discussion on the topic of that condition? Seeing none, we can move into a roll call vote, please.

And we'll start with Chana Temple. Yes. Andrew James.

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo.

Yes.

Hi. Yes. And Maddie Roberts. Yes. And this passes.

Okay. Now let's go to, uh, back to discussion on the main motion, which now has the three conditions that we have passed. Um, I'm going to ask Lauren, will you, will you just quickly read through those for the record, the conditions that have been added?

Yes. So we had an amendment proposed by Member Carunful. This is a width reduction, removing two feet on either side of the sign, which we have passed, as well an amendment to position the sign 10 feet from the property line. And finally, a motion to limit the hours of the sign such that the sign is off from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. And we have all three passed and we are all packaged up.

Any other discussion on the main motion or at this time for approval with those conditions? Doing a quick glance online. I don't think I see any other topics or any other discussion. Great. Let's go for a roll call, please.

Andrew James.

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo.

Yes.

Hyatt Carunthal. Yes. Maddie Roberts.

Yes.

And Chana Temple. Yes. And motion passes.

With that, motion passes. Congratulations. Okay, we are now gonna move on to item 5B on the agenda. This is a case related to an off premises sign variance and I'd like to ask staff to read the brief please.

BR 2610, Home Depot off-premise sign variance. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Austin Edelin Kimley Horn on behalf of Samir Malradia 135 McCarty Real Estate LLC for a variance to section 7333E of the San Marcos Development Code, which states that a new off-premise sign can be constructed only if an existing off-premise sign of equal or greater area is removed. and section 7333D4, which states that off-premise signs along the highway shall have minimum spacing of 1,500 feet to allow a new off-premise sign to be positioned 655 feet from an existing off-premise sign along the IH 35 frontage road located at 3000 block south IH 35.

Okay, well now, open the public hearing and let staff begin their presentation.

Well, good evening again, Lauren Clanton, chief planner. Um, the property that is addressed by this request is about 23 acres. It is located about 900 feet Northeast of the IH 35 and McCarty lane intersection. According to the comprehensive plan, the designation is commercial employment medium, and surrounding uses include the San Marcos Conference Center, which we are all familiar with, a recycling center to the north. Across Leah Avenue is the Amazon Fulfillment Center. Additionally, the U.S. Army Reserve Center is to the north, and the property is surrounded by vacant land and some ongoing commercial projects. So we see here from the zoning map, the zoning of the property is general commercial. As noted on the presentation, the Home Depot development is currently in development review and has a plat application in process as well as several other supporting permits, including a site permit and building permit. We see the location of the sign called out with the star and the variance request tonight is to section 7333 off premise signs. So in your agenda packet, you received the application along with the responses related to the criteria and several supporting letters. This is a two part request. So first to install a new off-premise sign, according to the code to install a new off-premise sign, first removal of an existing sign of equal or greater area is required. And then also we're noting that minimum 1500 foot spacing requirement, and that is for any off-premise sign along the highway. The request is to construct an off-premise pole sign which will include content for the Home Improvement Center as well as three adjacent pad sites to IAH 35. And additionally, the site will be located 655 feet from an existing billboard to the northeast. One note on what makes this sign an off-premise sign, according to the development code, an off-premise sign is defined as any sign that refers to a product or business other than what is on the lot. So because this is a multi-tenant sign that covers several lots, it's defined as an off-premise sign and that's why it falls under this code section. Here we can see a visual submitted by the applicant. So this is a 42 and a half foot sign, 200 square feet in area, which is consistent with the height and area maximum for off-premise signs. And continuing to this slide, we can see the location of the sign. We can also see that 655 feet. So the proposed spacing is indicated on this exhibit. In reviewing the request, staff applied the criteria of section 2824 and found the request consistent with criteria four and five. An inconsistent response was given to criteria one, two, three, seven, and nine, and a neutral finding was given on criteria six and eight. That concludes the staff presentation. We are available for questions, and we also have the applicant available in person.

Excellent. Thank you so much for the presentation. Would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time? Please go ahead. State your name and address, please, and at the mic, if you don't mind.

Hey, good evening. Austin Edelen, 1100 Amber Park Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia. Good evening, board members. Thank you for your time this evening and for allowing me to speak with you. My name is Austin Edelman and I'm here from Atlanta representing Home Depot as the applicant for this project. Home Depot is requesting a variance to allow for a shared pull sign among users of a common development. The San Marcos Code currently does not have a provision for shared pull signs among a common development, therefore that's why this is an off-premise sign. Home Depot is proposing to build one shared pole sign for all the users. The owners in the common development would then forfeit their right to additional pole signs. Each parcel is currently allowed by code to have one pole sign per public street frontage. And as you can see in the sign exhibit, it's surrounded by public roads. So along those out parcels at the front, that would include a total of eight total pole signs that is allowed by code. Additionally, if you refer to the single-tenant pylon signage exhibit that I think is in your packet, it shows a street view from the frontage road. On one of them, it has just the Home Depot sign, and on the other, you can see what it would look like with eight other potential signs that the code allows. Do you all have that one in your packets? We've received it electronically. We've seen it. Okay, great. So with this variance, the allowable pull signs would reduce from eight total that you can see in that exhibit to just the one proposed. What Home Depot and this development are proposing is what we think is a common sense variance request that meets the intent of the code to reduce total signage. It'll benefit the users of the common development by allowing all parties signage along the frontage road. But more importantly, it's going to benefit the city by reducing the total signage and reducing the clutter, the signage clutter along the frontage. The code restriction of off-premise signage is believed by us to be intended for commercial billboards, not for common developments. And by approving this request, the board will make a common sense decision to follow the intent of the code that will benefit all parties involved. So thank you all for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the chambers or online who wishes to speak about this item?

Good evening. Pam Medeir, Jackson Walker, 100 Congress, Austin, Texas. I'm here as the attorney for the applicant, and I'm just here to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you so much. Staff, do we have anyone signed up to speak on this item?

No, we have no one signed up online.

Okay, great. I'll now close the public hearing. We do need to start with a motion. Does anyone wanna start with our two or three options, approve, reject, approve with conditions?

I make a motion that we approve as written.

Okay, there's a motion to approve as written. Just to get us started, I will second the motion. We'll now move into a discussion about that motion. And I do have some questions. First, staff, if you wouldn't mind, if you've got it, the exhibit that the presenter was talking about that shows us sort of the 3D rendering of the future state as proposed under the variance. I think we're calling that the sign plan exhibit. Thank you. So if this is, and I want to confirm something with staff, if the variance isn't approved, this would be a compliant way to do the signs?

And given that we have a well-versed planner in signs, I'll allow Jack Ruth to answer that.

Jack Ruth, a planning technician with the city of San Marcos. So... we would allow this provided that they meet, you know, it might not look exactly like this. I'm sure that this is demonstrative of the amount of signs that would be there. They would solve to meet setback standards and dimensional standards, which these look smaller than what would potentially be allowed. But basically, yes, they would be allowed, assuming that these are all different lots. They're allowed one per lot per frontage. So if they have two frontages, they'd be allowed two on one lot. The standards are a little different between the Highway 35 corridor and then the smaller roadways leading up there. But it would still stand that there would be an abundance of signs larger potentially than what is proposed.

Okay. And again, I'm just asking a technical question. I'm looking at the variance exhibit application submittal from 6-3-26, where it looks like Kim Lee Horne has noted where those signs probably would be placed on the site plan. Is that exhibit roughly accurate to what, if we didn't grant a variance, would be permissible?

Let me see.

Yeah, it's a Kim Lee Horne exhibit. I don't know how easy it is to get to it. Yeah, that one.

That looks roughly accurate to what would be allowed. I'm trying to see, yes, because that roadway over on the, I guess, my left side of the exhibit there. Yeah, that looks pretty much accurate to what we would allow. Again, I don't know all the setback details of these, but yes.

Rough estimate, yes. So then my next question for staff is the presenter said that the other businesses on this site plan would forfeit their right to put up a poll sign that might otherwise be approved under code. Is there anything in the site plan or documentation that holds them to that commitment, or do we need to add that as a variance to the approval?

Yes, and from the perspective of parliamentary procedure, in order to add any kind of provision that there would be a consolidated sign, it would have to be conditioned. Otherwise, there is nothing that guarantees that that will happen.

Okay.

So you do have the option to amend and you would make the motion in second as you've been doing.

Okay. Thank you. Did you want to add something to the attorney?

No, I just wanted to clarify that that's accurate that as, as written, um, they could add more signs later, but if you make it clear that they're forfeiting that and build that into the, or make an amendment, that would be the best option.

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I just have one other comment. Um, the applicant stated that this would typically be considered a multi-tenant sign for you know, adjacent businesses as part of a common signage plan. We do have a mention of common signage plan within our code. However, currently as it stands, it does not apply to this situation. And we have had other common signage plans in the past that have done exactly what this is doing. If you think of where the target and everything are, they have exactly this. Currently, as it's written, and the amendment, I don't know the exact date, but in 2018 when they did the big code updates, that was changed and the wording was changed to only allow it on parcels or lots. And because these are separate parcels and lots, it would not apply. So that is just kind of the context of why they're asking for what would typically be approved as part of a common signage plan.

Understood. Thank you for the context. I actually don't have any questions for the applicant, because I just wanted to verify some things I read in the application and heard from the applicant. But does anyone else have questions for staff or applicant? OK, I'm going to continue. Oh, go ahead.

I do have a question. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Just so that I can kind of wrap my head around visually what it would look like, is it approximately the same size as that Target one? that we were talking about.

And because we seek to be as prepared as possible for you, so when thinking about another sign that's 42 feet tall, you may have seen the sign at Tanger Outlets with the new blue branding. So in checking that, the height of that sign was 41 feet. So the proposed height of this sign is pretty close, 42.5, and would be comparable in height to that newly installed sign.

Yeah. I would also add to answer that question that the standards that they are, I would assume that they have made this under would be the on-premise freestanding sign section. And this meets that height and area requirement of what you would consider an on-premise freestanding sign that would be approved as part of a common signage plan.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Member Temple, did that answer your question or do you have other questions?

I had one other one. And so the target one is not electronic, correct? I do not believe so.

I don't believe it has an electronic component.

And is this one supposed to have an electronic component?

It doesn't have CEMV. Yeah, do you mind going and answering the question? Does he need to restate his name and address?

We're familiar with you, Austin.

Great. Thanks, Lauren. So the sign will be, it'll have like an LED background, so it'll be illuminated but not changing, if that's your question. I think it is. Okay.

Member Temple, does that answer?

I mean, it does. To the extent, though, is it, does it have to stay in all the time, like? Is there a way that it can be dimmed after a certain hour?

Home Depot and the users would prefer to stay on at all hours, I think, which is allowed by code for signs along the interstate to be turned on.

And that is consistent with the code. A sign is allowed to be internally illuminated.

And it's allowed to be internally illuminated all day, 24 seven.

And there is, so this, um, is a little bit of, of guidance from staff, but, um, I think we should think of the limitations on the sign from the perspective of the public good it would create. Um, we see many signs around the city that are illuminated throughout the night. Um, a, uh,

just it might not provide any rational nexus to use the legal term to limit the hours of the sign okay member temple any other questions no other than the fact that i mean i just always think of the res any residential nearby and you know the light adds up so yeah i have a question i just thought of while you are while we're discussing this

Austin, I know the light is intended to be on all the time, but during daylight hours when it's sunny, is it still on even though it's daylight?

Yes, it's still turned on. It's the same standard sign that you see for, you know, driving here from the airport. I drove past probably five different Home Depot signs and it looked the same as that. So it's like a standard Home Depot pole sign.

Of course. I just was wondering if they're still being lit, if electricity is still being used during daylight hours. It's just a...

Yes, I believe so.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks. Any other questions? What about you, Member Roberts? Anything?

Yes, I had a general comment and a question too. Overall, I'm feeling good about approving this variance because it's already in compliance with the square footage and area required. And also, I like how it consolidates the signs that are already permitted to be at each plot or plot. My one question is, if there's maybe any justification for why the distance from the other sign is 655 feet and not the required 1500 feet. And yeah, maybe the applicant wanted to share why they wanted to reduce the distance between the signs.

Yes. And member Roberts, your volume was a little low. So I'm going to restate what I think your question is just so everyone knows it, which is, You've really got two signs in this variance request. One is the taller sign and one is a smaller monument sign. They're only spaced about 655 feet from one another. What the justification for that lack of compliance with the distance requirement is.

And to revise that a little bit, as stated in the packet, the monument sign request, it was included in the application. That request was almost... more than needed to be said. An off-premise sign and an on-premise sign are allowed on the same lot. And while the code permits both signs to coexist, making that request number three unnecessary, it is also advisable to not talk about the monument sign yet because no sign permit is in. And we will get a chance to assess it whenever a permit is submitted.

Okay. Should we retract the question as non-relevant to the case, or how do you want to handle it?

And we can still inquire about that 655-foot spacing between the proposed off-premise sign and the existing billboard.

Okay. Rephrasing the question for the record.

Great. Thanks, Oren, for clarifying. So the Home Depot parcel is not or the the common development is not long enough to meet the 1500 foot requirement and then from there a variance was going to be required no matter what and home depot and the users all prefer it to be just located centrally to the development as just most most signed plans are that makes sense thank you thank you remember roberts did you have anything else while austin's up

No, but it looks like Jack Ruth wanted to say something.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry, you already covered it.

I don't need to say anything else.

Yeah, then I had no other comments.

Great. Member Temple, I saw your hand.

I'm sorry, this whole light thing, but do we happen to know the Home Depot's in Austin? There's one on Brody Lane, for example. Is that one... That one's... low as I recall and not necessarily backlit. Is that correct or am I misremembering that?

I don't think anyone, I don't know if anyone feels they can answer that question in the room. Does anyone know?

So we would have to visualize that sign and take a look at it before providing that information?

Yeah. Member Temple, I don't think anyone in the room knows.

Gotcha. Because I appreciate the comments about signs on I-35, but there's more and more residential along I-35. So it's not like it's just near an airport. People are actually living in that area. So just to keep that visually in mind, I would ask that the company kind of consider the neighbors in that case. about thinking about aesthetics.

Any other topics of discussion or questions before we move into an amendment that I'm gonna make? Okay, I move to amend the approval to add a condition such that the, and correct me if I need to change the language to be a little more accurate to our expectations, but that the tenants in the development forfeit the right to add additional pull signs on the site? Does that cover it? Or do you need better language than that?

And so, Maybe, first of all, that is a sufficient amendment, the forfeiting of any freestanding on-premise signs that could be built. Yep. So that works. The premise for them being able to build more is that one on-premise freestanding sign is allowed per street frontage. Mm-hmm. So because the three pad sites have I-35 and two new streets on either side, that's why there's a variety of signs that could be built. Just providing some context there, but the amendment is perfectly okay and is open for a second.

Yeah. Let me, before we do that, let me talk about intent and then you can maybe think about whether or not that motion's going to cover it. If we pull up... If we pull up the exhibit, the sign plan exhibit by way of demonstration, it was very eye-opening to me what could be permissible under the code and what I would prefer to see there in terms of a variance as a member of the community. And the variance actually is, from my perspective, the more aesthetically and more conducive to the community. And granting the variance has a certain value in reducing the total number of possible lit signs that end up in this development area. And so I just wanna make sure the motion I've proposed will eliminate the chance that there'll be eight other lit signs that can be in a year put up on this site.

Correct.

Okay.

Understood, and we'll particularly note that the right is forfeited to those other signs.

Okay, I appreciate it. So that's the motion. Is there a second?

I second.

It is seconded. We'll now move into discussion on that amendment to add the condition. Is there any discussion on the amendment? I'll give it a second. Looking around, I don't see anyone raising their hand online. So we can move into a roll call vote.

All right, we'll begin with Cody DeSalvo.

Yes.

Hayek Karunpal.

Yes.

Maddie Roberts. Yes. Chana Temple. Yes. And Andrew James.

Yes.

And the amendment passes five to zero.

Thank you so much. We're now back on the main motion. Are there any other questions on the main motion with the one condition we have or any topics of discussion related to that? Okay. We can now move into a vote on the main motion with the amendment.

Hi, at current full. Yes. Maddie Roberts. Yes. China temple. Yes. Andrew James.

Yes.

And Cody DeSalvo.

Yes. Motion passes. And with that, the motion passes. Congratulations. Um, Okay, we're now moving on to item six, which is question and answer with the press and public. The board and staff may respond to questions related to items on the agenda. Is there anyone in chambers who wish to speak on this item? And staff, do we have anyone signed up on the agenda for this item?

None.

And I have a technical question, but it may not be appropriate for this section, so you can shut me down if you want, but I have a Robert's Rules of Order question, and We oftentimes find consensus in this board and I'm wondering if we're permitted under the law to do approval by consensus without doing a roll call vote for certain motions.

I think there was a decision made years ago that it's better to do a roll call vote. Okay. I don't remember. I hope it came up, but I think for now, I can talk to Sam about that, though.

Okay. Just like when we know we've got a yes from everyone, it might be a little faster if we could do by consensus. But if not permissible, then that's fine.

I've thought that same thing, and again, I don't remember the reason why, but that was what I was told.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think that's it for item six. Item seven, may I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

It is seconded. Can we have the roll call, though? Good example of without objection would make it faster.

Of course. So we have Maddie Roberts? Yes. Chana Temple?

We didn't hear you. You're muted, my friend.

Sorry. Yes. Andrew James? Yes.

Yes.

Cody DeSalvo?

Yes.

And Hayat Kuranful? Yes. And we are adjourned at 7.10. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.