Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Thank you. All right. Well, it's 6 o'clock. We'll go ahead and uh call to order this meeting of the shirts planning commission. It is uh Wednesday, April 1st. Uh tonight, we are joined by two um well, three new members. Uh we have Commissioner U Velasquez joining us and we also have Commissioners Loredo Reyes and Commissioners Grady um as our alternates tonight who are being seated. Uh it is time for the hearing of residents. Anybody? Nobody? Well, it's 6:00 and uh we'll go ahead and close the hearing of residents. Onto the consent agenda. Uh commissioners, any comments about the minutes from February 4th?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to discuss those for a possible correction. Go for it.

Um, according to my notes, um, on the consent agenda, item 4A on that at that meeting, the motion to approve was made by Commissioner McMaster and seconded by Commissioner Hughes. In the draft minutes, they have motion by Chairman Wallace and the second by Commissioner Hughes. So, um, unless anyone has anything else, I'd like to make a motion that we, um, we approve the minutes of the February 4th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting with that correction.

There a second. I'll second it. That was Commissioner Hughes. Uh, so that was a motion to approve the minutes from February 2nd with the correction on item is four. 4 A. Yes, sir.

4 A. Uh, as noted, second by Commissioner Hughes. If there's no other comments, um, please vote for our new commissioners. That black box is your voting. So, it's the yay, nay, or yes, no, or abstain. So that's your option. There are seven votes. Can we please publish that? That motion carries. All right. Moving on to the items for individual consideration. Item 5A PL VR 20260065 sign waiver. Consider an act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on lot 2, block one of the Shirt Station subdivision, approximately 1.84 acres of land, located at 18636, IH35 North, more specifically known as Guadalupe County, property identification number 203789. Emily,

good evening. PLV 20260065, specifically for lot 2, block one of the short station subdivision. Emily Delgado, planning manager. So to get your bearings, this is I35 Cibilo Valley Drive and lot 2, block one of Shirt Station is here identified in yellow. It is right in front of the um established EVO Entertainment and is part of the Shirt Station PD. This is the proposed sign that's in question for tonight. It is approximately 40t tall and 19 ft wide. This is a rendering of where that sign would be located on lot two block one bearings again 35 is down here and then that green is where that proposed sign would be located. And here are some renderings provided by the applicant of that sign um as if you were on the 35 access road or on 35. So, as you might remember, um, back in June of 2025, ordinance 25S024 was approved by the city council, and that was a full rewrite of article 11, the sign code. As part of that amendment, um, PNZ was given the authority to grant sign waiverss to anything within that article 11 ordinance. Tonight it is for this one sign, but incorporated in into that one sign waiver is actually a waiver to three different UDC sections. The three listed here, 2111 for freestanding sign, specifically maximum area, 21114 for a permit being required and 21116 for off-remise signs. And we're going to go through each one of those individually. So the first one article 11 section 211110 specifically the maximum area that is proposed to uh and it's requesting that waiver. So currently through the UDC a freestanding sign on IH35 would be permitted 250 square ft.

The proposed sign at 19 by40 is 760 ft. So in other words it's three times larger than what would be permitted in the UDC currently and exceeds that maximum allowable by 510 square ft. I know sometimes that's kind of hard to visualize, but I'm sure you've all seen the shirts billboard on 35 that we advertise Jubilee and things like that. For reference, that billboard is 672 square feet. So, the proposed sign for the waiver tonight is actually larger than the city of Shirts billboard on 35. The next waiver request is 21114 and that is for the general requirement, specifically the permit required. So the UDC states no signed permit shall be released by the city manager or his her designate until after the building permit for the principal building on the site has been issued. So what that really means is that until a building permit for the specific lot has been issued, we will not issue a signed permit. They're requesting a waiver to that section. As lot 2 is not currently under development. It's not going through the development process. um this would be considered um an off-remise sign and it's a sign being requested prior to a building permit. So then the last one is 21116 for prohibited signs specifically subsection K which is the off- premise signs in the UDC. It specifically lists that off-remise signs are prohibited and the proposed sign would be considered off- premise as it's proposed to advertise a development business that's not on lot 2. Specifically, this sign is proposed to advertise the Home Depot which is under construction at Shirt Station lot 17 which is behind this property. So when we look at sign waiverss in the UDC, we look at 21115B and the following considerations. Number one, the nature of the proposed use of land involved. So, as a reminder, this

property is within the shirt station PDD. That PDD did not request any deviations to sign codes and it would be bound to the current UDC requirements. Additionally, lot 2 has not gone through that site plan or building permit process. At this point, staff is unclear on the future development of that site. If it'll be a single tenant building, a multi-tenant building, you know, where that building and the parking would all be located. None of that can be evaluated at this point. Number two, the location of the property in relation to roadway classifications. So, as I mentioned, this property is on I35, which is that major freeway, that major roadway. Per the applicant's justification letter, they stated that due to varying elevation and vertical grade changes along IH35, visibility from the interstate is limited compared to similarly zoned properties along flatter roadway segments and that the increase will improve interstate visibility and provide clear identification for the development's national retail tenants. Um, in staff's review, we do not feel that the varying elevations and vertical grade changes that are identified, they're not unique to specifically just this site and would not justify an additional 510 square ft. Additionally, of note, lot six, which is approximately, 1100 ft west of this lot, has a multi-tenant sign that's advertising multiple businesses. It's classified as a freestanding ground sign and did meet the current unified development code. It did not request any waivers. Number three, the existing land uses of the vicinity. So again, the property is part of that shirt station subdivision which consists of multif family style housing in the rear, retail, restaurants, and additionally that this specific property is directly in front of the EVO site. Also in the UDC for sign waiverss, we look at 2115C for the additional considerations. Number one, that granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to public

health, safety, or welfare or injurous to other property in the area. So, we're looking back at the city of Sher's core values, and one of those is doing the right thing. And staff's evaluation of this, we do not feel that this proposed sign along with the additional waiver request are really doing the right thing for other properties along 35. Additionally, city council adopted that amendment of the entire UDC article 11 in June of 2025. And the intent of that was to allow greater flexibility and increased signage. So, you might remember prior to that amendment, we had two different sign classifications. We had a freestanding ground sign and then we had a multi-tenant sign. The sign that you're looking at back before that amendment would be considered a multi-tenant sign, which would have a maximum allowable of 150 square feet. So just within the UDC amendment in June of 2025, they already were allowed an additional increase of 100 square feet. Okay. Technology broke it. Oscar

I go put my flash drive back in. Yeah, it looks like it. Like maybe it didn't download

every time. That's the first thing they ask me. Sorry. Okay. So, back to 21115C. Number two, a strict interpretation of the provisions of this section would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties with the same land use that would comply with the same provisions. So the property in question is not necessarily unique in location in relation to other properties on IH35. Um, additionally, article 11 is in place to ensure cohesive development, including cohesive signage throughout the city of Shirts. The same provisions that this property is required to meet are the same provisions that any new signage on IH35 or IH10 would be required to meet. And granting this waiver from staff's evaluation is not in alignment with that city's core value. So, additional considerations, we went through the ones that are in the UDC, but staff feels that there's some additional items to kind of um that we would we think that the planning and zoning commission should consider in evaluating this waiver. So, the first one is in relation to the number of signs. So, the proposed the Home Depot currently under construction at Shirt Station Lot 17 has

additionally submitted for two additional freestanding signs on actual lot 17 on the subject property. So, if this waiver and the following waiver are approved, the Home Depot will have four freestanding ground signs advertising their development. We also just want to remind the commission that the Home Depot did receive a waiver for larger wall signs last year. Um, the planning and zoning commission did deny that. It got appealed and then ultimately city council approved the um sign waiver request. Um, if the applicant desired to have increased signage, they did have that opportunity when they were going through that plan development district process. They could have written those additional, you know, criteria, the ability to have their anchor tenant advertise on off- premise lots, having signage at different times. All of that could have been written into the PDD design standards. The next one is in relation to signs without building permits. So, we just want to provide kind of an example of why that UDC section is in place. And I'd also like to know that that's not a new section that was in effect before the full rewrite. That was a carryover from the previous code. So, the reason that we have um that in place, we've probably, you know, you've driven through other cities that you see a sign that's advertising some brand new business and you can tell that that sign has been there for a really long time and that business is nowhere to be found. We didn't want that in the city of Shirts. We want to have that building permit issued. We know that construction on that site is going to happen before we start advertising for a business. So the next one is in relation to that off- premise sign and we want to give kind of an example on that one as well. So if this code section was not in place let's say a business on 309 they could advertise across the entire city of shirts which ultimately from staff's perspective and what's written in the

code is not the desire of of the city of shirts. Additionally, if a business say on 39 is advertising on I10, when that property on I 10 actually comes in for development, if they only have one frontage, they can no longer have a sign actually advertising their own business. We also want to note that the property behind this lot is currently developed as Evo Entertainment. It's a large commercial amusement establishment, does not have frontage on IH35, and has been operational for several years without any signage on 35. The next one is about a maximum allowable area. So, I won't harp into this too much. I went through that example that this previously would have been considered a multi-tenant would have been hindered and uh restricted to 150 square ft. that was then increased to the maximum allowable of 250 in that um sign code amendment last year. And then as a just a reminder, the proposed signage is for a 40 foot tall, 19 foot wide sign. That's a 760 square foot um freestanding ground sign. It's an additional 510 square feet of signage than what is currently permitted. From staff's analysis, it does not appear that there are any elevation or vertical grade changes or topographic challenges that are unique to this property that would warrant a sign of that magnitude. And then just some additional considerations. If this waiver and the subsequent waiver are approved by the planning and zoning commission or city council, staff will be coming back to the planning and zoning commission with a recommendation to modify the UDC amendment article 11 again. Um both for maximal allowable area for all signage and to look at the sign waiver UDC requirements again in an effort to follow the city's core values and do the right thing. If these waiverss are approved here where staff feels there's no unique challenges, then all businesses along 35 and 10 or other

roadways should all allowed to be have larger signs as well. Based on staff's evaluation, the subject property is not unique in relation to requiring or necessitate or necessitating larger signage, nor the need to have a sign prior to building permits for the site or advertising businesses not located on the property. and therefore the waiver if it's approved then larger signage and these other considerations should be allowed elsewhere. If the waiver was approved when staff has provided concerns and recommendation of a denial and there being no special circumstances for the property, then where exactly would the planning and zoning commission or city council say no to a waiver request? And if we're just going to consistently um when applicants, developers come in and want larger signs and go through this waiver process and it always get approved, then it really seems like there's no point in going through that process. We should just allow everyone to have the larger signage. And with that, based on staff's evaluation of the three requests, the site, and the waiver justification submitted by the applicant, staff is recommending denial of the requested waiver. And we do have um Miss Britney here with Merritt that will be giving a presentation on the applicant's behalf.

So we need to do act on on lot two and then we can go. But it's okay if your presentation addresses both. That's okay. It does. seven. So, I think procedurally since the item is just for lot two, I'm not going to let Emily do the lot seven presentation. And just because we have new people as well, I don't want to start to mix it up. But, um, you're welcome to cover lot both of them. And yeah, I think we can touch on it. I mean, mine it's just naturally they go together. It's relatively the same request for both. So, I'll go ahead and give my presentation and then you can give your lot seven. Y'all can take action. you can take your log seven presentation and then I mean we can uh if we have questions

I won't repeat the same presentation twice don't worry we'll just do down arrow

awesome thank you okay can y'all hear me okay I'm the only one in here so um good evening my name is Britney Christie I'm the director of development with Merit Commercial Real Estate Um I'm here on behalf of applicant shirt station um I want to take just a quick moment and just say that I appreciate y'all's time and consideration of our request Um, and then specifically, I truly appreciate city staff's um, time and efforts of just one getting us on this agenda. Um, and then two, just in general, um, the collaboration um, between Shirt Station and the city of Shirts, um, whether that be at the staff level, at leadership level, um, has been really an invaluable partnership. We would not be here today and I recognize that. We recognize that, um, without you guys. um we've been able to um work collaboratively and take kind of like a practical approach when issues come up uh similar to this. Um and so I'm I'm hoping that we can proceed in that same kind of spirit of collaboration throughout the completion of SH Station um one way or the other. But with that being said, um I'm going to kind of just give a I know Emily did a really good job, so some of the stuff's going to be redundant, but quick overview of the project you guys. So um Shirt Station is a 72 acre master plan mixeduse development. Um at full buildout there will be over 250,000 square ft of retail and restaurant space as well as 300 single family um buildto- rent units located at the collection at Shirt Station by Embry um just on the back side of the commercial development. Um the project is located on Interstate 35 in Cibilo Valley Drive. Um Interstate 35 as I'm sure all of you know um is one of the most heavily traveled corridors in the state of Texas. That is one of the really big reasons why we are able to attract these best-in-class national credit tenants. They have very specific requirements on site selection and that being one of them. Um, and if you don't know a lot about Merit because I haven't had the opportunity to meet all of you or present to you guys, um, Merritt has

very extensive experience in retail development. We are currently um, working on projects of similar size, similar programming, similar layout. this is what we do all across the um state of Texas. Um so I I'm feel very confident and explaining to you guys that this really is a um market request um that this aligns well with expectations of these tenants as well as just programming for a site of this size and of this layout. Um with that being said, you know, we do collaborate extensively with these national credit tenants. they do have very specific requirements on um signage visibility and just site visibility for that matter. Um you know with that being said not only um are with things driven by these um tenants requirements but also you know as you see on the screen here there's a couple statistics and these are pulled from the International Sign Association. So that the ISA if you're not familiar this is one of the most widely cited resources in planning and zoning cases relative to signage. um they have done extensive research that d shows a direct correlation between increased signage visibility and sales. And so with that being said, one of the most notable um I think statistics on the screen that you see here is just the 10 10% increase in average sales across the board. And that's directly driven from increased signage visibility. Um, for what it's worth, I put an example of Home Depot on the screen for you guys, just so you can kind of understand the the MA at a macro level, the big picture here. And that is larger, more visible signage equates to increased traffic to the project. That's measurable, therefore generating increased sales and at the bottom line, an increase in sales tax revenue to the city of Shirts and at zero cost to the city of Shirts, who I think is really important, but a pretty significant investment on the

developer's end. um which of course we're willing to do. Um you know uh on this screen here you'll see an overall site plan. This is um master plan of the development. You can see where the two proposed pylon signs are located um just for reference. And for what it's worth currently today the code permits us to place a sign along each public rideway. So, for example, lot 7, which is on the corner of 35 and Cibilo Valley Drive, um we could have a sign on Interstate 35 frontage, on Cibilo Valley Drive frontage, and on station road frontage because that is a public rideway. Instead, we are trying to consolidate our request into one single more prominent sign um for the for the um project that provides better visibility, which again, you're going to hear me say this a couple more times, you guys, is going to drive traffic to the site and therefore um you know, an increase in sales. Now, you know, I heard what Emily had to say, and the city's um staff's perspective is that this shirt station location is not unique from a topographical or an elevation standpoint. Um, and honestly, I think I might have done a poor job with our application for this waiver request of kind of explaining that in a bit more detail. So, bear with me. I'm going to try to do a little bit of a better job today. Um, so what you see here on the screen is a couple site plans showing the location of the pylon signs um, with a topo survey overlay. And what that means is you can see these contour lines across the site that very specifically show you the finished floor elevation of everything on site. For example, the lot 7 sign um, shows that it is sitting at a finished floor elevation of approximately 850 ft. Whereas the Interstate 35 elevation directly in

adjacent to the site currently sits at around 832. That's an approximate 18 foot grade change making it nearly impossible if you are directly on 35 in front of the site to to see. There's no line of sight there. And then same situation with lot 2, just a slightly different um grade change there at approximately 9 ft. Um to better illustrate this you know visibility constraint um I've got two Google Earth images here on the screen. The one on the left is Shirt Station. So this is on the frontage road directly adjacent to the lot 7 sign and as you can see the 35 elevation is significantly lower than this the low the elevation of the site and therefore location of the sign. Now our direct competitor adjacent to the site is Cibilo Crossing shopping center. Cibilo Crossing is on the right. They have little to no elevation change from 35 to their shopping center. Um therefore, you know, they've got much better visibility um from the Interstate 35 corridor. Um with that being said, it's one of the reasons why we have candidly lost a couple notable tenants to Civilo Crossing. Um those a couple examples are Olive Garden and Perry's Pizza. Um just for what it's worth, Olive Garden still under construction. Perry Pizza open. Um you know, and then moving on from there, I think it's important that you guys understand that there is a lot of thought and it's a very iterative pro iterative process um to locate a sign, to design the sign. Um you know, it's not always what we want. It's there's a lot of considerations that go into planning for these signs. So I'm just going to walk you through quickly what that process looks like for us. So at the conception of a project

towards the conception of a project, you know, we understand, you know, generally the size of the project so that we can size a sign appropriately. We draw upon historical data, comparable projects that we're already working on of similar size, similar layout, and we come up with a baseline design. That's what you see here um as original design on the left. From there, what we do is we take it a step further and we are evaluating the actual sightspecific constraints from a visibility perspective. And how we do that is we go through what we call a visibility analysis in partnership with our signage vendor, right? And so um they are able to help us um in many different ways determine what those visibility constraints might be and help us analyze and adequately size the sign from a height and from a width perspective. Um not only is that important to these national credit tenants but also just in general there are significant visibility restrictions. So they help us make sure that we're not excessively s um oversizing the sign which none none of us want right like we do want increased visibility. There is a correlation there but there's also a cost associated with a significantly increased size of sign that the city is not on the hook for we are paying for out of pocket. Um so we want to make sure that we're being good in um you know stewards of our investment as well. So it it is very um specific analysis and then in addition to that um we are able to determine you know what does that size of sign look like um and unfortunately you know are we conducted the visibility uh analysis for shirt station and um we were able to maintain code compliance from a height perspective. So the code right now does allow us to take the sign to 50 feet in height. However, again, we're not trying to excessively um size this sign. We're

just trying to adequately size it. So, it's really important to understand that. And so, we were able to um get comfortable from a visibility constraint perspective with 40 feet. However, the overall maximum allowable square footage, as Emily explained, is 250 square ft. And the way that the city of Shirt Staff is calculating that is they are taking the total height multiplied by the total width. And that includes non adver um space that is not being used for advertisement. So the masonry base that you see at the bottom in the foundation that's really just a dressed up foundation for the sign is not being used for advertisement but it is being calculated into our overall square footage. Um so I think that's really important to understand as well. Um and with that being said, the visibility analysis determined that there's a very specific um panel dimension like aspect aspect ratio that we need to maintain um to you know meet these standards for these tenants but also just strictly for visibility. And so in order to do that, I wanted to provide you guys with with a code compliant version of what this sign would look like and that um but maintaining this aspect ratio that we have determined is necessary in order to provide the appropriate visibility for these tenants. Um like I said, it's a math equation. You're taking the height multiplied by the width. So unfortunately um as you can see on these um site sign perspectives, the code compliant version of the sign is significantly hindered and severely inadequate from a signage perspective just due to the um hindrance on height because we're trying to maintain the width. Um and again these are just a couple signage perspectives to show you the proposed sign versus the code compliant version. um to and also I'd like to just note and that that wraps up that but there are I'd

like to show you you know there are a couple examples along Cibilo Valley Drive albeit these might not be located in the city of Shirts. These signs are of similar size for similar size developments. Um while they might not be in the city of shirts, they are along Cibilo Valley Drive, which is very important to know because they do not have 35 frontage and they are still sized um this way. Um but they are still a direct competitor to not only the shirt station project but also other projects inside the city of Shirts. Um, so I think it's really important for you for me to reiterate that this this request is in fact market for this type of development and our intention really is to help boost traffic to the project to allow for, you know, an increase in sales, better visibility for our tenants and therefore increase sales tax revenue to the city. And you know, this is a way that the city of Shirts can remain competitive in in comparison to other neighboring municipalities. Um, you know, in closing, you guys, I just I would like to, you know, reiterate that this does not violate the intent of the UDC. um nor is it detrimental to public welfare and but it does directly impact our ability to provide adequate signage for our project. And I think you know at the a bottom line is like I just said the goal is boost traffic, increase sales, increase sales tax revenue to the city. And I think from a practical perspective and at a macro level, that's what we need to make sure that we're um maintaining as as you guys take a moment to, you know, evaluate our request. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Well, thank you. Yeah. Um so we'll go ahead and move into commissioner questions. Um we'll start on this end. Commissioner Hughes lot two. How big is that lot? And with this being created, how much of that lot is going to be gone? Yeah, that's a great question. Um, I don't know the exact size of lot two on the most recently reported plat. Do you have that in front of you? So, it's 1.84 acres. Thank you. If that helps.

Perfect. That does help. Um, and so, and I' I appreciate this question because I would I didn't address it in my presentation, but I would like a second to um the concern um for an off- premise signage and allowing and not only that, but allowing us to obtain a signage permit to obtain a signage permit, sorry, um for um a sign that is on a lot that is not currently being developed. I understand the city's perspective on um risk associated with that. Um but to try to speak to that risk um from a master planning perspective, lot 2 is designed for a single tenant. In addition to that, that tenant will be afforded signage on this pylon sign. So they're not going to miss out on the opportunity for signage on their lot because we have placed the pylon sign there. And then to answer your question, it really will come down to um there will be a sign easement associated with just the amount of space that is necessary to construct the sign and then a small buffer for maintenance. Um and that will be included in any lease agreement, any purchase sale agreement. It'll be um included in our um covenants and restrictions for the site. So, anyone who's looking to develop the site, if it happens to not be Merit and Shirt Station, they will have that information from the get-go. And it's important to note that the placement of this sign is very strategic to allow the maximum developable area left over on lot 2. Um, so as far to the corner as possible and maintaining um the existing there's existing easements on this site that contain existing utilities. So, we made it very a point to make sure that we were locating this sign outside of any existing um utility easements and away from existing utilities um which would be a requirement regardless of whether or not this site was this current lot 2 was under development or not.

Did that answer your question? Yeah. The second question is without being specific because I know you cannot be because negotiations. Is there an interested party that you have at this time?

That's a great question and and you were correct. I can't speak to the actual tenant, but yes, there is. And that's why I feel confident in telling you today that it would be a what we call a ground lease, and it would be a single tenant user. So, a sit-down fast casual restaurant user on that lot. So, you're saying that the base of the sign is being included in the square footage calculation? Yes, sir. What's the square footage of the sign minus that base?

That's a great question. So, our actually initial calculation that we submitted did um calculate it that way because I I would like to note that most municipalities and that's why I I unfortunately was confused and did it wrong at first was they are only calculating what they call the signed cabinet which is just the advertising space um into that overall square footage calculation. I believe um it put us around 500 total square feet. So we are still exceeding code with or without the base um being calculated into that equation. So okay, thank you.

I'm looking at a 465 if you're just including the um the actual names of the businesses and not putting the short station portion of it. I calculated based off the drawings you presented at 465. So that's around close enough. Yeah, sure. And my apologies. We um had a revision after I initially submitted our waiver request to the um to the size of the sign to better um fit within the existing utility easement constraints and plus your math is way better than mine. Um are you good? Yeah,

good. Okay. Um a couple things. So Emily, can you speak to that? Do are so how we're calculating it with the base? That's correct because it's not actually the support portion of the sign. So, if it was um imagine a pole sign, right? You have the pole and then you have the sign. We would just calculate that sign. But this is a decorative feature part of that sign. Um typically the masonry columns that you're seeing on there, it's just for looks. It doesn't actually support the sign itself. Okay. So, so it would be calculated as part of that square footage. Gotcha. Um Okay. So on the applicant's first slide, they already it it showed that there were two larger signs by Yeah, right there.

So th those two are already existing. So are those in compliance? Yes. Okay. So what would prevent you from doing that more?

Thanks. Um I love I'd love to speak to that. Um, and something I probably should have mentioned in my um, uh, presentation is that in projects of this size, what you have are these pad users, which is where these are these the frontage lots, right, that are along Interstate 35 where you've got these multi-tenant buildings and you've got these two signs that you've just mentioned located. Now, the tenants, Home Depot being a good example, that are interior to the site, those are larger tenants. Those are anchor tenants. that's what we would call them. And typically they like you see here do not have frontage on 35. Therefore, that was one of the really good um one of the points why Home Depot brought a signage waiver request to the um planning and zoning commission before was because again they don't have visibility off 35. So it is in their best interest to increase signage where they can. So those pylon signs that we're seeking waiver requests today, um albeit they are located on the frontage lots because again that's where you want them to be for increased visibility, they are mostly reserved for these anchor tenants who do not have the visibility that these multi-tenant tenants have. Um and the multi and this is very standard and typical that the multi-tenant lots have a smaller what we call monument sign which is what you see here. um that equates to, you know, smaller tenants and um less visibility because again they have better visibility technically because their actual building and their building signage also fronts the 35 corridor or the civil valley corridor. Um, and if we were to size the sign the exact same as this one you can see most clearly here on lot six for these pylon signs, I mean, you would not see them adequately from the highway um to provide visibility for these tenants who do not have frontage. And then I'm just going to say one other thing that Emily

mentioned. Home Depot, yes, is planning to put um ground directional signage on their site. Okay, these are not pylon signs. These are not even close to the monument sign size that we have here. Um, and they will be located interior to the site. You won't be able to see these signs from the highway. This is really just for directional traffic who turns into the um, shopping center, maybe off of Rip's Crueler or off of the frontage road and onto these station road um, public rideway so that they understand, you know, this is the Home Depot site. So, I just want to make that very clear. I I don't um I I understand what you're saying, but frankly, I don't think so. You're not saying there's anything preventing Home Depot from putting signage on signs that are compliant with our code requirement and maybe saying, "Cavo, we're not going to put you on both of these. You're already facing the the highway." So, the the sign on the end will maybe put Home Depot there.

So, say that again. So I what I my my point was you I mean the signs in place are already code compliant. The sign you showed is code compliant and Home Depot spaces on there. Home Depot is a building that I was already opposed to the previous request to what they wanted.

So I you know it's a big orange box. It's kind of hard to miss. Um, so you know, I I I don't think there's any reason why you I mean, you already have co-compliant signs. I I don't I don't think you've given us a reason to say I need bigger. You know, again, I you know, there there's nothing here that screams big orange box has an issue being seen. Um, so so the two signs are existing. So realistically, you could do one of those on each of the lots, Emily, as they're built out. Sorry. So, per the code for a freestanding sign, you can have one per lot per frontage. So, every lot can have a sign, a freestanding sign. And as Britney mentioned in her presentation, like lot seven that has multiple frontages, it can have multiple freestanding signs.

Yeah. Okay. And each one of those, I mean, I don't have the plat in front of me, but there's multiple lots along the front edge, right? Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, um, and remind me, Emily, the the 250 square feet, I know when we talked about that last year. Yeah. So, that that was a council push, right, for the 250? I do believe so. Yeah. And we I mean did we consult with with um so we looked at surrounding municipalities our target cities um and the 250 was about average

and we also you know um I think the city of shirts has had this history and standard of of how we want the city to look and what signage we want the city to look like and I think we can all sit here and in in the back of our brain go we don't want shirts to look like X city because of all of the signage that they have. So with the UDC amendment last year, it was an increase, but we felt that it was an increase that was appropriate and would still keep that shirts feel.

Okay, that's what I was looking for. So I I mean, I'm going to be honest, based on what you've shown, I I don't think a variance is appropriate. I think the signs that are in place are fine. I think the example you showed is fine. Um I don't think Home Depot will have any issues drawing. I mean, it's a it is a I mean, there's the Lowe's, but outside of that, you know, it is a it is a store that people generally know where it is if you're in the area. Um, or if you're going somewhere, you're not going down the highway and like looking for signs. You're pulling it up on your phone. You're you you know your way ahead of time. Um, just to add, I this is a person the ugliest picture I have seen in a long time is the sixlane strode. uh of just any city in America where it is the largest signs to any national chain littering the sides of the road. Uh and that's what I feel like you're asking for. Um so I I don't think the code requirement is inappropriate. I think you know what we have the way you've the the development or the development code is set out where each of these lots is is allowed a um a sign the sign maximum is 250 ft and that that's the size requirement. So, you know, I I I would say get creative and and work off of that because you've I mean they've clearly already been able to do it. I just don't see how you need bigger than that. So, I think uh Commissioner Outlaw has some points. So, I'll I'll turn it over to him.

Um, help me out here, Emily. This this particular photograph, what is the clear area on the left there? Are are those additional buildable lots or what is what is that here? Yes. So, that's the space between Shirt Station and then 30 page 35 is off the page there. Text our rideway. Okay. Thank you. Um, let me get this one right out. Uh, is there an appeal process to this decision?

There is. So, if if the planning and zoning commission um denies the request, the applicant can um appeal the decision to the city council and then ultimately at city council's discretion to um hear that appeal. And uh I did the math a little bit different than Commissioner Hughes. I I included the C shirt station and I came up with 570 square feet which is twill still over twice what's allowed. Um so jumping back up to the top of my list quite frankly I'm tired of hearing about Home Depot. Okay, I understand they're they're they're the 800 pound gorilla in the project

but but as was pointed out earlier they already received a waiver to the ordinance. Um, which I I will tell you I supported because it's standard. It was standard Home Depot signage. Mhm.

Um, it just doesn't seem to be enough for them though. Um, I kind of view these signs as wayfinder signs, not not drawing the traffic in off the interstate. kind of like, you know, um if you're going to go to Home Depot and church, you know where it's at. You don't need a 50-ft sign on I35 telling you, "Hey, there's a Home Depot here." Because, you know, I don't you know, as they said, I don't drive down the road saying, "I wonder if there's a Home Depot around here." Oh, there's one. Um, so I I view them more as a a a wayfinder sign that that u says, "Hey, if you want to go to Home Depot, turn in this driveway."

Uh, the forum drives me crazy. I don't know if you've ever been there, but but they've got much smaller signs, but um the businesses that they have on that sign aren't even close to where that sign is. And it just it it it helps me um doesn't help me a bit. Um and I I I was I was curious about um you know there's a Home Depot at the forum and I don't think there's a big sign in the for I think they're just on another one of those little bitty. I think there's one, but right out You think so?

And I thought maybe Creekide, but I pulled up Google Maps and looked at a street view and yeah, apparently Creek Side has a has a big sign. Um, but um, you know, I' I've I've driven a lot of places in Texas and, uh, I I think Shirts is being very generous. Um, and and I appreciate your photographs of civil, but this isn't civil. It's shirts. Oh,

and um, you know, I we we've been kicking this sign thing around forever in a day. Uh, when Walmart wanted to develop, they insisted on having that monstrosity that they've got on 39. And I was pointing out, hey, go down to um drive Highway 16 south of uh I 10 into those areas and you won't see a single sign that's taller than about five or six feet for anybody. Okay? And yet people seem to find the businesses. So, this is kind of, you know, this this new ordinance is is is finally, I think, bringing my vision of of shirts and signage closer together. Um, now I will say I think I could support two pieces of this waiver, the the building permit and the um what's the other one? offremise

the off premise because it this is a little bit different than I think than trying to do a single lot and you don't know if anybody's going to go in there or not. You know, this is as she pointed out, this is a planned development and sooner or later and even if nobody ever comes and builds on that lot, they're still advertising existing tenants. So, I view it a little bit differently. So, I think I would be willing to to uh support at least those two pieces of the waiver, but um you know, as as as far as the the uh sign area, um I think it's um again, and I I think I know who's driving that ship, and enough's enough. So, thank you.

Any questions on the end? Comments on the end? I just have it coming for Emily. Um, do we have a minimum standoff for all these signs? I mean, I was trying to look in the UFC. I mean, sorry, I'm kind of picky about it, but I'm so sorry. I'm like hard of Can you say that one more time for me? Do we have standos distance for this sign standoff? Minimum standown like the MUTCD has for signs when you put it in a plot. Yes. No. Maybe the minimum setback. The minimum setback from 35. So, it's 15 feet. 15t. So it has to be 15 ft from their property line from all property lines. Thank you. Anything else? Anything else? Go for it, Commissioner Houston.

With the addition of the fly over going in that area, are these signs even going to be blocked or visible? Because if they start building 30 as as Texto continues to grow and that's where it's going to taper down, those signs may not may be blocked even if they're if they're constructed just by text dots construction patterns because even though the flyover is going to supposedly stop north, it's going to eventually continue on and those signs may be totally lost in the in the whole vision of what Tex wants to do with 35. So, are those are those really valuable long-term versus short-term? And I'm not that's what I'm kind of wondering right now as far as the visibility with the additional construction because it's it's coming that way.

Yeah. Can I can I talk to that just quickly? Yeah.

Um so, absolutely that's a great point and you're right, the text um rightway expansion along 35 is coming. Um you know we do our best on the front end to get access to um preliminary plans through Texot and sometimes yes you know at a certain point they make those public um but also you know we try to pull our resources. We have engineers that work closely with Texot so that we can get our hands on the um schematic plans for future development and you know from what we have looked at they're not go the flyover is not going to directly impact um the shirt station project um but I mean what you're saying is absolutely true the existing um ride ofway is already in conflict with the visibility which is just the whole reason for the request Because even with that conflict being there, you have to look consider that with the traffic flow and everything on that second level, that may totally obscure this sign and may just be a wasted energy and a wasted effort where a sign that's maybe lower and may have the a better visibility chance as the as the upper level begins to increase. I mean, you're you're not wrong if the plans play out in that way, but unfortunately what we have access to today, that's not the case. Um, directly in relation to the church station project, but very valid point,

Commissioner Allah, Emily, um, uh, and and and maybe you know the answer to this question. What what are how big are the existing signs? Those two that are up there now. How big are they? So, I believe they meet they they meet the current regulations, so they'd be 250 ft or less. Okay. So, they may be less than 250 square feet. I don't know exactly, but I do know that they didn't request any waivers and that they met all of the code requirements. I don't know the exact dimensions of of Okay, there's not just the sign that you see in this picture. There's an additional one further down and then there's also one on Cibilo Valley that is constructed or is under construction. Is constructed?

Yeah. And and I I I hate to say my last question because somebody may bring something up, but is this an all or nothing uh issue? Do we do we um as I said, I I would support parts two and three, but but maybe not part one. Can we do that or do we accept or reject the whole thing?

So, I would say yes, you can. You know, if you like the off- premise and before the building permit and you would support that, but not the area, I think you can do that. But I would look at Britney to know without the increase area is the off- premise and the prior to building permit issuance, are those even still relevant? or would you like it to be all or nothing? So then depending on how it goes, you can move it forward to council. Good

uh good question and I appreciate the opportunity to uh speak to that. Um it it would be important. I would be appreciative um of your support for a portion of the request. Um it would definitely leave us in a position where we need to kind of go back to the drawing board on what those signs look like. Um but it will absolutely still be necessary to have these two signs. Um so yes I um would appreciate that and it's not an all or nothing um situation in my from my perspective. I

think if we are going to go that route the recommendation or the motion just needs to be really clear. So I'll put um this is probably me find the best slide for you to kind of go off of there. So those are those three UDC sections. So the first one, the 211110 is for the area. 21114 is for the permit piece. 21116 is for the off- premise. So if that is the path forward, if we can just make sure that the motion is really clear on which ones are in favor and which ones are. Does that make seasoned? You got this. Talking to me. Okay. Um

I've got one quick go for um the maximum area that you've said 40 feet tall, 19 feet wide. Is is there any compromise on that and and how did you come up with that exact number?

Great question. And I probably didn't do a great job of trying to like walk through what that process looks like. I was trying not to bore everybody with the minutiae of it all. Um but there is a uh really kind of like a analysis that requires uh not only like a we put together kind of like a video driveby situation we are analyzing um speeds along 35 speeds along um the frontage road how much visibility um like you have I think it's like approximately 3 seconds of visibility at a um uh at 50 miles per hour like so that goes into the equation and we really do lean heavily on the experts in this um situation and that is not me. That is our signage consultants. And so they help us um you know come up with that equation to determine what that panel dimension looks like and what's really necessary from a visibility standpoint um from the highway given uh you know roadway speeds and so on and so forth.

Okay. So it's based on visibility and not on structural soundness.

There is of course structural soundness considerations. Yes ma'am. Um absolutely. So we are limited in some regards um depending on how tall we want to take it from a wind load per speed um uh wind load speed perspective um so that's where the engineers get involved right um the structural engineers um and you know um Emily mentioned earlier that the foundation base um that we're showing and representing as masonry um to be clear that is actual masonry the same masonry stone that we are using on the buildings it's not a facade um for show and it is being calculated and utilized for a portion of the structural soundness of the sign. Um, is it absolutely necessary completely? Probably not. But we made a representation to the city of Shirts at the beginning of this project that we were going to go do our best to to build to a higher standard from a construction material standpoint. Um, that masonry is is not cheap. I mean, and we're really doing that because we want to have this elevated look that's cohesive across the development. It m it runs in line with our multi-tenant buildings, the existing signage. They all follow kind of the same suit. So, um we kind of tried to maintain that with this um sign design as well.

So, before we move forward, Lisa offered a great suggestion that maybe we take this one even though it's one waiver request, but we actually do three different actions on it. So we'll act on each of the waiver pieces separately so it's very clear on what everyone's vote is on each individual piece. Make sense? And Emily, I just I have one more question. So can you go did you have an overall site plan in your presentation for the like the like total shirt station? I know there was the on the in the applicant's presentation there was a like a like a leasing map. That might be easier to pull up.

I don't That's it. Okay. So, just if we're saying no to the big signs, what is realistically the maximum number that they could hit on what would be permitted right now? So on lot one can have lot one can have a sign lot two can have a sign lot three can have a sign and then lot four can have a sign on 35 and on station road. Okay.

Lot five 35 in station. 6 35 in station. Lot 7 35 CBlo Valley in station. Lot 8 CBO valley and station. Okay. So numerous amounts.

Yes. So in staff's tur in I I guess in your opinion would staff prefer smaller signs versus I mean I I I guess my I I agree with with Mr. Outlaw that no to the big just flat no to the size. Um, I'm just trying to to to to to think if if we if there's if we say no to the to the larger sign and this is what they're they're they're with, they would still I mean they would still get a decent amount of space to then advertise tenant space. So if assuming they build a sign on each lot,

correct? I would say yes. But the thing that I would point out similar to the lot two and lot seven requests, right? Say Home Depot wanted to be on other lots, we we would have to come back here and do the off-remise sign. Okay. piece again. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Well, if um are there any other comments, questions? Well, I will entertain motions. Mr. Chairman, uh I'd like to make a motion that we deny a waiver to UDC article 11, section 21.11.10. 10 freestanding signs specifically maximum area. Take on that motion.

Awesome. Okay. So, that was a give me one second. Let me make some notes. So, this is uh 21 1110. And that was uh that was Commissioner Velasquez, correct? Second. Yes.

Okay. Okay. So, um, that's the motion. Any other comments about the motion? Questions about the motion? If not, please vote. And again, a a yes vote is to recommend denial. A no vote or not re it's not a recommendation, it is action. So, a no vote is to deny this item of the appeal. A yes vote is to deny this item of the appeal. A no vote is to go against that.

Right? Does everybody understand? Okay. So, the way that the motion was made um for 2111 for maximum area was to deny it. Okay. So, if you vote yes, you also want to deny the request for maximum area. If you vote no, then you want to support their waiver request to increase maximum area. Everybody clear? And and that's what the understanding that we're going to do this and we're going to do this for the other two items. Correct. Okay. Uh we are still missing votes. So if you have not voted. All right. I have seven votes. Can we please publish that?

That motion carries. So now we are on the next item. So if there is there a motion for the next bit. Uh Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve a waiver to UDC article 11 section 21.11.4 general requirements subsection A permit required. I'll second that. That was a second by Commissioner McMaster. Yes. Yeah. Yes.

Okay. So, that was a motion to approve the appeal for section 21.11.4 for the This is the uh sign without before the building permit uh by Commissioner Outlaw, second by Commissioner McMaster. Are there questions about that motion? Comments? Okay. If you can please vote. Okay. Can we publish that? That motion carries. Okay. And then can we go back to the There we go. Perfect. So then can we get a motion on the third item?

Uh Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve the waiver to UDC article 11 section 21.11.6 prohibited signs section subsection K off- premise signs. I'll second that. Okay. So that is a motion to approve the appeal for section 21.11.6 subsection K for the advertisement of businesses not located on the lot. Right. Second. And that was a second by Commissioner McMaster. So, um any questions about that? Um and just for commissioners, wait to vote. Um questions, comments about that one. All right. Go ahead and vote.

Was that Oh, yeah. Go for it. So, this is saying that m a sign that's got multiple signs. We're not going to approve. This is a So the the section we're appealing is for um the advertisement of a business that is not located on that lot. So in the example, they had all those lots along the frontage, but Home Depot is on its own lot. So if it app if this was if we approved the appeal under this section, then Home Depot would be allowed to advertise on signs on different lots. Okay, that make sense? Yeah. So for the lot two right now, it's only it's used for single tenant or

it would only be businesses on lot two. Correct. So since there's not a business there, no one could advertise on it. So if the appeal was approved, then other businesses could advertise on the sign on lot two if a sign is put there. Okay. Okay. Cool. Anybody else? All right. Go ahead and vote. And that was a for approval. Can we publish that, please? That motion carries.

And then let me make some notes real quick. And this was uh this was brought up by council members that if if we could um just to clarify my nose um the the building on the the of the sign on the lot that's not been built yet. They need to build something there first. I agree with the code requirement. So ask for that. All right. So do we need to do anything else on that item? Is that clear? We're good. Clear.

Okay. So, moving forward, item 5B, PLV 20260066 sign waiver. Consider an act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on lot 7, block one of the shirt station subdivision, approximately 3.04 acres of land located at 18406 IH35 North, more specifically known as Guadalupe County, property identification number 203794. Emily,

good evening. commission PLVR 202260066. This is specifically for lot 7 block one len of shirt station and my doggado planning manager. I am going to breeze through a lot of this because it is going to be a wash and repeat of the lot two from the staff's perspective. So I'm just going to hit the items that are just applicable to lot 7 if everyone is comfortable with that. So to get your bearings here is lot 7 highlighted in yellow. So it is at the hard corner of Ciblo Valley Drive and I35 and it is currently um developed with two multi-tenant buildings. There's existing tenants in there um Panera Cava um multiple different tenants in that building currently. Here is the proposed sign. So it is exactly the same as that lot 2. It's a 40 by19. Here is that proposed location. So, as I mentioned, it is on that hard corner of 35 and Silo Valley. The dark line is their property boundary. And here is some renderings from the applicant from that lot 7 sighting site perspective. So, this waiver request is only for two sections. So, UDC article 11 section 2111 that maximum area and for 21116 for the off-remise signs. It does not have that additional third because there are buildings on site already. So building permits have been issued. So that is not applicable for this one. So similar to the last the maximum allowable from the UDC is 250. They're proposing 760 foot. You can see here. So again, they do need that off- premise sign waiver request as they are the goal is to advertise for the Home Depot on this property as well, which again, it's not on lot 7, it's on lot 17. So in terms of the considerations, it's

it's all very similar to um lot two short station's part of that PDD. It went through that development process. um staff does not feel that there's the varying elevation vertical grade changes to warrant that 510 square foot sign area increase. And then we've talked a little bit about that sign, but lot six right is immediately adjacent to lot 7 and did meet all of the code requirements in terms of sign area. And with the note that we've talked about that lot 7 can actually have multiple multi-tenant signs because it has the um multiple frontages. So again it's part of Shirt Station. Um if you've been to Short Station recently you might have stopped into into this lot. Panera Cava. This is where the James Avery is proposed. That's what's kind of going in these two buildings here. In terms of considerations from 2115C, um, again, we feel that the UDC article 11 amendment last year was appropriate. That's the the vision and and what the the city council and the planning and zoning commission as recommendation um wanted to see from those freestanding signs along 35. Again, all this is very similar number of signs again, right? If the waiverss were all approved, the Home Depot would have four free sanding signs. Um, the off- premise signage, again, we typically don't allow that per the code. So, we're not having businesses advertising that aren't even necessarily associated with the overall development. the maximum allowable. Um, from staff's review, we do not feel that that additional 52 510 square feet of signage is truly necessary for the site constraints that this property has on the hard corner.

And then just kind of my spiel again that if we're going to allow larger signage here, then to be consistent, we should allow larger signage all along 35 and 10. So based on staff's evaluation of the request, the site and the waiver justification submitted by the applicant staff is recommending denial of the requested waiver. Britney, I don't know if you wanted to say anything. I think I'll save everybody the time. My presentation pretty much happy to answer any additional questions.

Okay. Well, thank you. Um, any questions or comments about this case, Mr. Outlaw? No, it pretty much um part two. Same comments and questions. So, I don't think there's anything else. So, I learned 10 motions if nobody has anything. And I would say on this one if we'll do the same do the same thing. Yeah. All right. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we um deny a waiver request to UDC article 11 section 21.11.10 10 freestanding signs specifically maximum area. Second.

So that was a motion by Commissioner McMaster to deny the appeal. I'm sorry. Commissioner by Commissioner Motion by Commissioner Outlaw to deny the appeal uh under section 21.11.10 for the maximum size area. Second by Commissioner McMaster. Uh and if there are no other comments, please vote. Can we publish that please? And that motion carries then if we can go back. Okay. Um any comments about the off- premise signs or motions?

Oh, Mr. Chairman, if can I have one more one more question?

Oh, yeah. Go for it. Absolutely. So in your in in your notes you had said that uh this that changing these could possibly require additional changes to um our current documentation. Uh does does that include the prohibited signs off- premise signs? So, I would say that kind of the staff spiel at the end, for lack of a better word, um, is if if we're totally if if the planning and zoning commission was okay with the maximum area increase and allowing the off- premise and allowing, you know, all these deviations from code, then staff would come forward to the planning and zoning commission and recommend changes to article 11. So, these these waiverss do not change the UDC. the UDC is still in place and is still applicable for all other, you know, developments. Um, it was just if if a not if not a no here, then are we going to say no to increase area? Um, and if we aren't, then everybody should be allowed that right to have larger signage. But I will say at the end, uh, Chairman Wallace will ask if the commissioners want to have anything on a future agenda. And that is a time where if you want um staff to do a presentation on all of article 11 and talk through those code requirements again and maybe propose changes um it would be at the end. Okay.

Commissioner. Yeah. I was just going to summarize what what Emily is saying is that we have these are the these are rules and if we don't want to enforce the rules then we should probably change the rules. Does that basically sum it up? Yeah. Okay. Perfect. And if nobody objects to me finishing this out, I would make a waiver that we approve the waiver request to UDC article 11 section 21.11.6 prohibited sign subsection K off- premise science.

Again, I'll second. That was a motion to recommend approval from Commissioner Outlaw to recommend approval or not to recommend approval to approve the appeal under for section 21.11.6 for the off-remise signs second by Commissioner Master. Um was there any other comments, questions?

If if I could add uh a quick comment u Mr. chairman. Um part part of what I see us doing here is um while I just said rules are rules and if we're not going to follow the rules, we need to change the rules. I think what in my opinion what I've proposed tonight is that we have articul you know we have we can articulate the reasons that we that that um that I can articulate the reasons that I re that I wanted to approve um the these different subsections uh because I do believe these are in this in in these particular instances these are unique situations unlike the maximum area. So,

okay. Thank you, sir. And just to I just to to counter that, I I know my record on the voting is um I think this is something they should have if they wanted these things, they should have worked it into the PDD. So, they had the opportunity. Um if there are no other comments or questions, go ahead and vote, please. Can we publish that please? That motion carries. Okay, moving on. Uh item number six. So, this is a opportunity for commissioners to uh place items on any future planning and voting agenda. Does anyone have any Mr. Outlaw?

No. Oh, okay. Saw you reach over and push it. Um any requests, any comments? Uh I I do have an announcement. I would like to thank um Miss Judy Goolick, who is no longer with us for her time on the planning commission, and uh we wish her the best on any future ventures. Uh did you have an announcement, Mr. or Mr. Outlaw? Yes. Uh, well, I I just wanted to express my appreciation to um the the chairman, the interview committee, and city council for allowing me to serve another two-year term on this body. I appreciate that. Thank you.

We're always happy to have you. Anybody else? Any announcements? Uh, city staff, announcements, comments? All right. Um, there is additional information in your packet on current events and current projects. And with that it is 7:17 and we are adjourned.