Zoning Board of Adjustments - Regular Meeting

It is 6.04 p.m., and we will call to order the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. This meeting is going to look a little different with our interim chair, Daniel Summers, and with that, we'll get started.

Thank you. Welcome to the regular meeting of Zoning Board of Adjustments. It is Thursday, August 20th. It's 6.05 p.m. I'd like to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. Due to the limitations of the Texas Open Meetings 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 threats of violence. Roll call, please.

Maddie Roberts. Present. Daniel Summers.

Present.

Chana Temple. Present. Andrew James.

Present.

And we have Cody DeSalvo and Hyatt Corenful absent. Furthermore, we have a quorum.

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

No one is signed up in chambers or online.

We will now close the citizen comment period. Item four, consider approval of the regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. Is there any discussion? May we have a roll call vote?

Daniel Summers?

Yes.

Chana temple. Yes. Andrew James.

Yes.

And Maddie Roberts. Yes. Motion passes.

Item five.

Yes. Moving into public hearings. Um, we will introduce item VR 26, 11. VR 2611, the point sign variance. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Allison Saltzman, Cardinal Group Management, on behalf of Point San Marcos Investments, LLC, for variance to section 73412 of the San Marcos Development Code, which states that the maximum area of a projecting sign is nine square feet in character districts. to allow a projecting sign to be 80 square feet. Well, good evening. Lauren Clanton, chief planner here to present this item. The property is approximately one and a half acres and the location is along a block of North Comanche Street. So it's about halfway down the west side of North Comanche Street between Lindsay Street and Pat Garrison Street. We have an aerial exhibit shown on the right, as usual, but I just wanted to call out the proposed location of the sign so you can see that gold star at the southeast corner of the property. The property is mixed-use medium. This is the designation per the comprehensive plan. And surrounding uses include Texas State University, fraternities and sororities to the south and west, a variety of residential options, including purpose-built student housing, multifamily, and some individual duplexes and multiplexes, and finally, a religious center. When we look at the zoning, we see that it's character district five downtown. So this zoning is, it gives kind of some background on why we're referring to the code section that's coming to the board tonight. So the development code has standards specific to character districts. So when you deal with a property in a conventional zoning district, you won't use the same signage standards as a character district. So when we look at the standards for a projecting sign in character districts, the maximum area allowed is nine square feet. The applicant is proposing a larger sign of 80 square feet. Here we can see an exhibit. It shows the visual of the sign and how it will look at the corner of the building. We can also see an image of it illuminated at night. And continuing on to the next exhibit, it just shows a little more clearly the dimensions of the sign, which are 20 feet tall and four feet wide. So in reviewing the request, staff referred to Section 2824A of the Development Code. The request was found consistent with criteria 4, 5, 6, and 9. The inconsistent finding was on criteria 2, 3, and 7, and staff had a neutral finding on criteria 1 and 8. And then one more thing I'll note is that notices were sent out 11 days before the meeting date. We did receive one response in opposition to the request, just noting the appearance of the sign and concern with how it would affect the neighborhood. With that, this concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions. The applicant is also here. And we'll invite them up at this time to give their input. And Mary, if you can do us a favor, as you walk up to the podium, you'll give your name, address, and you'll have three minutes to speak.

I'll get back. Good evening. My name is Mary Williams. I'm the president of Pinnacle Sign Team in San Antonio, Texas. My address is 4221 Clear Lake Drive, San Antonio, Texas, and I'm representing the management company and the ownership for this sign. Just a couple things that... First of all, we'd like to thank you for listening to our position on this and giving us a chance to make that known. This sign is important because we are at a real disadvantage for advertising. What we didn't mention was around the corner at 330 West Hutchins Street, there is a projecting sign the same size we're asking for. And so that student housing building is owned by the university, so they're not under the same ordinances that we're under. But it is the same size, looks fine, and nobody seems to have a problem with it there. So that's the first thing that is the hardship, is that how can they be competitive in attracting students when you don't even know what the building is, you know? The other thing is it's important that they have this location so that for EMS and for even the students to find their way back to their homes and just as a marker for where the property is. A building, commercial building without signs decreases in value. Now, I'd like you to take a look at, because we might have a win-win situation here, the last page of your packet has section 7.44. And that shows the example of a projecting sign. Now, the sign in that picture is not nine square feet. There's just no way. So it's not representative of a nine square foot sign. The other thing I would like to bring to your attention is it says that the quantity one per building facade. So one way we could look at this is the building has quite a few facades actually, but instead of putting a sign on each facade, kind of like a master sign plane, take that square footage and put it to one sign and then they're not allowed to put more, you know, projecting signs on it that way. So that might get us to the square footage near where, you know, the building, has projections in itself, so it depends on how you define a facade. But even at four, it would be nine times four, 36 square feet that they would be allowed to work with. We want to work with you, or we're hoping that we can come to some kind of an agreement where they're allowed to have a sign that can advertise their business. This is a nine square foot sign. It's two foot by four and a half. If you put that up 60 feet in the air, it's way too small to represent that building. And that's really it, short and sweet of where it stands, and we respectfully submit our request for a larger sign.

Thank you. Is there anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on this item?

And next, we'll move on to our second speaker who signed up. So this is also on the applicant side. We have Allison Saltzman, who we are going to promote to panelist. And Allison, if you can go ahead and accept, this will give you a chance to speak. You'll give your name, address, and you'll have three minutes.

Good evening. Thank you guys so much for the time and attention. I think the bulk of our case has already been stated. I would like to add one note, which is that there are several construction projects going on surrounding our building right now, which is increasing the need for sufficient signage for both EMS and students as well as delivery drivers to be able to locate the building. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

And thank you.

Is there anyone else in chambers who wishes to speak on this item?

And we will. So this is requiring some careful attention here. But we do have a couple more attendees who might be here to speak on the item. So we will go ahead and give them the chance And let's promote Forest, if you could help me with that. And Forest, if you're ready, we're ready for you. And I might, I see that you're muted, so let's see if you can unmute. All right, and I am seeing a phone number as well. Maybe if we give that phone number a chance to speak. And to the individual at the 212 number, if you are ready, we are ready for you. Well, unfortunately, we've had some technical difficulties there, and we will move on and continue the meeting.

Staff, do we have anyone signed up for this agenda item?

Besides the two speakers for the applicant, none, no one in addition to that.

Yep. I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

Motion to close the public hearing.

We're so close.

Motion to approve or deny?

Motion to approve. Second.

Is there any discussion? I mean, to me, it doesn't meet the staff's criteria for approval. I understand there are other buildings in that area that have larger signs. I don't know whether or not Texas State had to apply for a variance when they installed their building or not, or if it was approved by the prior ZBOA, but other buildings having larger signs do not present a standing decision to approve future signs of that size. There's a reason the city has decided to limit signs to... Nine square feet. An applicant asking for a sign that's about nine times that sign seems kind of pushing it. I feel like since staff regularly updates the rules and regulations and the ordinances for what they feel is correct for the building, they do take account of the size of the buildings and everything that are downtown and whatnot. if still chosen to limit the size of a sign to eight square feet. So I think it's better to defer back to their judgment, but that is my thoughts and feelings.

I mostly agree as well. I feel like especially with Criterion 9, the staff wrote about how it's not necessarily the minimum, but it makes sense with the size of the building, like it's proportional. So I feel like there's probably a middle ground of the area of the sign that we can come to, because as far as the look of the sign, I think it does fit the character, you know, the colors. It says San Marcos, like it's helpful for refinding. So I think the sign being there is good, but I do think we could find... maybe a different area or if it's possible to lower it because right now it's the bottom of the sign is about 32 feet high. Maybe there's a way to get it a little bit lower because that would also be more would help pedestrians more. But and then you could also reduce the area if you had it a little lower to make it still proportional.

Most of the applicants' reasoning for wanting approval for a larger sign do seem stem from a financial gain basis, which goes against what staff has in their criteria for approval. Also, generally, I don't believe very many students are going to forget where they live. And I know when I picked departments, I wasn't exactly looking for places I had a sign. I was looking around on the internet and stuff. With that, I have nothing else to add. Is there any additional discussion?

I did have a question also about the electronic part about it. Is that automatically, is that within criteria or is that also up for discussion? I don't know why there's two of me. Okay.

Jack Ruth, planning technician. The proposed lighting meets the land development code standards. So it would not be internally lit channel letters. It would be halo illumination based on the plans, which is one of the allowed lighting types in character district 5D. So that is not a portion that requires a variance.

And this might, given that there was so much emphasis on the staff report, this might be a good chance to provide a little more context. So, although this did not come across, this is the most positive assessment that staff has had for a sign in a while. The thing that was clarifying of just the appropriateness of the sign, at least from my perspective, was a site visit out to the corner of the building where the sign would be located. It is true that the sign would be about 20 feet tall. You're looking at about a six-story building, so it would take up about two of those stories. It is something to consider. This is not a small sign. This is a sign that has six letters on it and all of those are backlit. There is the possibility to, if the board wishes to just not move forward with it, that's fine. But there is also the option to just do something less than 80 square feet. And then I just wanted to put that option forward because when you think of a building that is pretty significant in height, 20 feet of extension is a little less than you think. And also offers a little bit of a sense of like being a landmark for that part of downtown. So, you know, take it or leave it, but that, that was kind of staff's take on it.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

I don't really have a problem with the sign being there. I do think it seems rather large when I look at the artist renderings that are supplied. I absolutely do not like the, uh, the one that we're comparing it to on Hutchinson. Um, the one that is the comparable that we're getting from the university, but no, we don't have a choice on that. So I don't want to set a standard where that becomes the new standard. We do not set standards. That is correct. I'm sorry, but I don't want that to be something we're judged against each time that we're judging based on what the university is doing. May we have a roll call vote?

All right, on this motion to approve, we will start with Chana Temple. No. Andrew James.

No.

Maddie Roberts. Yes. Daniel Summers. No. Motion fails, three to one. And that opens up the possibility now for a new motion.

I motion to deny.

Would you all want to explore maybe making the sign smaller? Or, sorry.

I'll withdraw my motion to allow for discussion.

Maybe we can propose the sign be a smaller square footage. Or is the opposition more so because the sign exists solely, or is it mostly about the size they're asking for, do you think?

I think the size seems exorbitant. I would vote for something smaller. And then the lighting also, I just, I think I'd be fine if it was smaller. It's just that much lighting, 20 feet of lighting up there, seems like that is going to be a landmark at night. It is a large building.

I'd be willing to approve a sign double what staff already allows for. So a 20 foot sign, which would make their sign roughly two foot by 10 foot. So motion to approve a sign at two by 10.

Can I ask a question to the applicant? How much lower or would that change where this the sign is on the building to make it still look proportional to the building? Or would it still be roughly 60 feet high?

And if the applicant wants to come up.

So the sign can be lowered some. I mean, I think where it is is the best visibility. Like I did bring up, your code does allow us to have four signs, four nine-square-foot signs. So, four times nine, if we put those together instead of doing four signs, we do one larger one, that might be a way of interpreting the code and you win, they win, and make it a smaller sign. So, that's like a 40-square-foot sign versus 80. Well, nine times. Four is a little bit less, but we'll round up.

Thank you. When this code says facade, does it just mean the front? For clarification, can there actually be four signs on either side of the building?

And a facade is equivalent to a side of the building.

So, sorry, go ahead.

And to recap, we sort of had a motion in progress. So, members Summers put forward a motion with a condition.

I think I said 20 square feet.

That the sign shall be maximum of 20 square feet. That motion is open for a second.

I did have one more question for the applicant. If they would be willing to not have it lit.

The lighting is the code, right? I mean, that's, and the reverse lit lighting is the code. We're doing that according to code. Oh, gotcha. But I think we would want it lit. At night, we would want it lit. That would help EMS get there at night as well.

And that's a perfectly okay response.

I second the motion.

Is there any additional discussion?

I'll just add that I'm in favor with this 20 square feet, just because I am also in favor of the sign in general existing. But I'm also not opposed to it being the 80 square feet. But yeah, that's all I'll say. CHRIS RODGERS.

May we have a roll call vote? CHRISTIE WOOD.

And we'll start with Andrew James. Yes.

CHRISTIE WOOD.

Maddie Roberts. Yes. CHRISTIE WOOD. Daniel Summers.

Yes.

Chana Temple? Yes. And the motion passes four to zero.

Item number six is question and answer with press and public. The board and staff may respond to questions related to items on this agenda. Is there anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on this item?

We're not seeing anyone.

Is there anyone, staff do we have anyone signed up for this agenda item?

And we'll check the Zoom to make triple sure no one is signed up.

May I have a motion to adjourn?

I have a motion to adjourn.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

May we have a roll call vote?

All right. And we have Maddie Roberts. Yes. Daniel Summers?

Yes.

Chana Temple? Yes. And Andrew James?

Yes.

All right. We are adjourned at 6.32 p.m. It's been a pleasure working with you. This is going to be my last one.

Thank you, Lauren.

All right. Take care, everyone.