Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

It's um it's now 6:00 p.m. 6 pm. This is the regular May 7th, 2025 regular meeting of the shirts planning and zoning commission. Item number one, meeting was called to order at 6 pm. Item number two, seat alternate to request uh to if required. Mr. Wallace is joining us again this evening. Item number three, hearing of residents. Anybody Anybody get to grab the sheet? Still in the back, I think. Nobody signed up. All right. And just as a point of uh point of order, you're not required if you're here for any of the public hearings, you don't have to sign that. So, all right. Moving on to item number four is our consent agenda. We have one item on that agenda. That is the minutes for the April 2nd, 2025 regular meeting. Commissioners, does that item need to be pulled for discussion? If not, can I have a motion to approve? Make a motion to approve. Second. Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner McMaster and a second from Commissioner Carbone to approve. No discussion. Please record your vote. Okay, I have seven votes. Do you publish that vote, please? We have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. All right. U item number five, public hearing.

Planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing related to zone change requests, specific use permit requests, and unified development code amendments within this agenda. The public hearing will be open to receive a report from staff, the applicant, the adjoining property owners affected by the applicant's request and any other interested persons. On completion, the public hearing will be closed. The commission will discuss and consider the application and may request additional information from staff or the applicant if required. After deliberation, the commission is asked to consider and act upon the following requests and make a recommendation to the city council if necessary. All right, we have four public hearings this evening. Before we get started with those, I've had a request from staff to uh move items 6, A, B, C, and D. Um after to uh move them up in the agenda to be considered before um item 5D, the recommended the proposed changes to the UDC. Anybody have an objection to that? All right. So we'll do uh 5 A, B and C and then we'll go down to six A B C D and come back to 5D. Okay. So item 5A, ELZC 20250055, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to reszone approximately 4.15 acres of land from general business district GB to general business district 2 GB2 generally known as 46 Masky Road and 44 Masky Road lots three and four block one of the Masky Road business park subdivision, more specifically known as

Guadalupe County, property identification numbers 1 199116 and 1 199117. Floor is yours, sir. Good evening, commission. PLC 20250055, a proposed zone change to GB2 on Masky Road, William Willingham, Planner. For your orientation, this is a subject property. You can see here to its sides uh these properties are jo zoned as GB general business and these properties are currently undeveloped at this time. Across behind the property you can see that these properties are zoned GB2 which are currently doing business as office warehouse or distribution centers. And then across the way is Masky Road which is currently categorized as a commercial collector. Notification for this property 11 public notices were sent out on April 25th, 2025. As of today, we've only received one response in favor of the zone change request. A public hearing notice will be published in the San Antonio Express prior to city council and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant. In addition to that, JBSA has also been notified of this zone change request as it is located within the APZ and JBSA has firm affirmatively recommended approval of the request. So, some background on this case. You can see here that this property is currently located in an area that is primarily characterized by either GB or GB2 zoning. Um, so this property is, you know, as it currently stands is a GB district and they're proposing to move to a GB2 district. Some more context for this site. So, as I mentioned before, this property is located within the APZ2. So, that is the accident potential zone. And so that APZ is established so that way there's compatible land uses between JBSA and the shirts and surrounding area. And so the purpose and effect the effect of the APZ2 is that we require

per our UDC that JBSA affirmatively recommend approval of a zone change request otherwise it will not come forward otherwise it's denied. Uh JBSA has affirmatively recommended approval. So the site in context you could see some of the site's current conditions. You see that the property is currently undeveloped at this time. Across the way, you can see that that's one of the soccer complexes that exists out there on Masky Road. And just from that aerial view, you can still see that this area is relatively undeveloped. However, you know, you see that development moving in in those GB2 zones, zoning, and dimensional requirements. So you can see here that between GB and GB2 the dimensional requirements are essentially the same and the primary differences exist between the permitted uses. So you can see that in the permitted use of GB2 the primary difference are going to be for example this is non-exhaustive but auto repair service major office warehouse or distribution center and a mini warehouse or public storage with an SUP. These would be permitted in a GB2 district whereas they're not in the current zoning district. UDC section 2154D criteria for approval. So when looking at these cases, we look at the comprehensive land plan. Right now the comprehensive land plan designates this location as industrial hub which is intended for manufacturing, processing and distributing uses. The requested use is a general business 2 GB2 and it's intended for light industrial developments to serve the entire community. So this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. two, whether the proposed zoning change promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the city. As part of promoting the health, safety, and welfare, the city should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. So, just as I was discussing previously, it is located within the APZ2 and for, you know, encouraging that general welfare and safety, we require that JBSA make a recommendation of affirmative approval

of this zone change request. And you can see there at the bottom that JBSA has provided that letter. Three, whether the uses permitted in the proposed zone will be consistent and appropriate with the existing uses of the immediate area. So just as I've discussed before, right now, you know, this area is currently developed and it's kind of moving towards that GB2 kind of industrial light industrial use. And so the applicant is requesting the GB2 zone. They're intending to build an office warehouse distributing center. And so this subject property is consistent with the surrounding area. whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. So all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed zone change and the shirts fire EMS and police departments have been notified of the zone change request and have provided no objections to the request. So, our staff recommendation due to the character of the surrounding area, the consistency with the comprehensive land plan, and the affirmative recommendation of the proposed zone change from JBSA, staff is recommending approval of PLZC 20250055. And the applicant is here. I believe they have a presentation. All right. Thank you, William. All right, sir. If you let us have your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate it. Welcome. Yeah. Uh, my name is Jesus Solana. Thank you very much, members of the committee. Thanks to the public. Um, yeah. So, we're going to go through these slides real quick. First of all, we wanted to introduce ourselves. Um, I'm a proud member of a family business that has been in business over 70 years in Mexico, building virtually in all North America, Mexico, the US, and Central America.

Um, my brother is here to with me. Uh, it's to to give you a a little of context. Uh it's mainly focused on uh building pre-fabricated steel uh pre-cast concrete, roofing systems, logistics and transportation and real estate development. Um we have a lot of experience in the area. Um we've done many projects for uh large companies, for small companies. Uh we like to be u anywhere in all the realm of real estate and we love the city of San Antonio. We love the greater area of San Antonio as well. Uh we've been presented with the city of church a couple of months ago. We've been liking a lot uh what we see here, the area, uh the people who live here. We already have many friends and as such uh well we we we found this place. We think is is an interesting place has a lot of potential and we would like respectfully to request for you to approve the zoning change of the lots three and four of this masky road uh from general business to general business 2 to enable faster and more impactful development of commercial and warehousing uses which is our intended use for this land. This is how the property looks like as of today. We have on the top corner on the left the plat of the property, the location of the property. You already know that this is how it looks like. These pictures were taken a couple of months ago. Um, and so basically, as you can see on the bottom left corner of the slide, we are intending to build something that it's pretty similar to what is already

built over there. You can see all the buildings uh to the south of the property. And um yeah, we we think that it has a lot of potential to attract new tenants uh that are going to become new businesses that are going to operate in the community and are going to be uh part of the economic development of the city overall. This is an indicative use. This by no means uh is what we uh are seeing to develop. We're gonna follow all the guidelines of the city in terms of development, in terms of colors, in terms of heights and all. And this um it's just to show you what uh we can build in this lot provided the zone change moves forward. This is another another indicative images. Um we think we're as as William said uh we undertook this uh process of asking the JBSA uh because of of the APC2 zone uh for the change. they overall uh their their take on this is because we intend to to build commercial uses or or to use this land for commercial purposes. They see this in a good way. um they think there's less risk of of having accidents or uh harming the population if there is a commercial um commercial project over there as is there is a residential project. So um yeah they move forward with the recommendation to

to change the zoning. This is the JBSL letter. And well basically that's all. We wanted to have the opportunity to introduce ourselves uh and to answer all the questions you may have. Thank you. Right. Thank you sir. All right. It is um 6:14 and I'll open the floor for public comment. Anyone wishing to address the commission on this subject is welcome to step forward. Nobody went once, twice. All right, it is still 6:14 and public comment is closed. Commissioners, comments and questions, Mr. Wallace. So, idea has not responded. No. So correct, even though they're it's owned by ID schools, we don't know if they actually intend to build a school there. We, you know, we just look at it as it's just any other property owner. But I would say that a school would be contradictory to what JBSA Randolph

would want in the APZ2. Yeah, a little bit. Well, I have a quick one. If we uh I occasionally ride my bicycle down that area and as I go uh can we put the uh aerial back up, William? I brought up mic. that one. All right. Uh yeah. So, um just I I I I think in conjunction with your concept plan. So, um sometimes I come out the back and you see that roadway that connects those buildings with Masky. So, your property uh incorporates that that that existing roadway that's there that exists in the Yes. Yeah. That way. Yeah. Okay. That way is part of uh I mean it's not part of the property. Uh it's a common area shared. Okay. By Yeah. the property. All right. No, that was just I was just getting oriented a little better. So, thank you. Anyone else have anything? Go ahead. Yeah. In your uh excuse me, in your presentation you said that the JBSA provided a letter of recommendation. Yes, that's correct. Affirmative. That is correct. And in it, did they place any specific specifications of considerations? So, they just kind of outline what is intended in that area. They don't want to see anything that has a FAR ratio above two, I believe, is that answer. Um, we have the whole letter provided by you if you'd like to see that letter, but I can also provide it to you if you'd like. But that's just the portion of the top section right there. Okay. And in your presentation, you said that the recommendations would be considered. Is

that be considered or followed or you pick and choose which ones? the I would say um they provided as William said the general guidance uh for building and I mean they they're going to be followed they're not just going to be considered they're going to be followed overall provided they're also comply with the city's requirements and guidelines. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, uh this is a recommendation to city council and we can recommend approval. We can recommend to deny or we can recommend approval with conditions. If I could have a motion, please. Yeah, I'll I'll make a motion to recommend approval on PLZC 20250055. Second. Second. Am I on? I'm going to give that one to Miss Goldick. Okay, that's okay. All right. All right. So, um, we have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PLZC 20250055. Any further discussion? All right. An I vote is to recommend approval. Please record your vote. I have seven votes. Can we publish that, please? We have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Thank you.

Item 5B, PLZC 20250080. Hold the public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to reszone approximately 20 acres of land from predevelopment district, agricultural district, and single family residential/aggricultural district to single family residential district R2. generally located approximately 4,800 ft east of the intersection of FM 1518 and Lower Sigin Road, known as 12816 Lower Sigin Road and 12746 Lower Sigin Road, more specifically known as Bear County property identification numbers 3100027, 310026, and 310028. City of Shirts, Bear County, Texas. Good evening, commissioners. PLC 20250080, a proposed zone change to R2 along Lower Sig for approximately 20 acres. Daisy Marquez, planner. Here's a subject property outlined in yellow. It is to the east of the intersection of FM1518 and Lower Sigin. It is currently zoned pre-development district, single family residential agricultural district RA and then agricultural district AD. It consists of some rural residences. To the north we have lower sigin road which is our rideway and it is a secondary arterial and then to the south we have agricultural district. This is part of some of our uh recent annexations. It has agricultural and rural residences. To the east we have predevelopment district, single family residential agricultural district as well and single family residential district R2 and it is still some undeveloped and agriculture.

And then to the west we have our caramel ranch subdivision. It is single family residential. So again the the property that we are discussing tonight is approximately 20 acres. It is three unplatted parcels and it consists of rural residences. So we sent out 40 public notices on April 21st and as of today to today we received two in favor and a public hearing notice will be published in the pair paper prior to city council and a notice sign was placed along lower sigane and again uh the subject property is 20 acres. They are proposing residential development and they are proposing R2 or single family residential zoning district dimensional and design requirements for single family residential. What was there and what is being proposed? Um R2 is 70 by1 120 lots or one of our larger lot sizes with a minimum 8,400 square feet. So when staff evaluate zone changes, we look to UDC section 2154D for the criteria for approval. So one, whether the proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted comp plan and any other applicable adopted plans. So this area and the subject property is designated as complete neighborhood land use designation. This is meant for things like a mix of residential, neighborhood commercial to serve the residences adjacent to it. And when it comes to zone changes, we need to consider roadway classification, conflicts among land uses, and the undue concentration or diffusion of population. So the proposed zone change to R2 implements the policies of the comprehensive land use plan by providing a different lot size to add to the mix of residential within this area along lower sigin and the larger area. So two, whether the proposed zoning change promotes the health, safety, and general

welfare of the city. So as part of promoting as part of promoting the health, safety and general welfare, the city should encourage development compatible with the surrounding uses utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. So the proposed R2 does act as a transition to the smaller residential lot developments and to the large agricultural properties to the rearm. And three, whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the media area. So there are existing residential developments surrounding the subject property and this is kind of just to show you um just along lower sigin the subject property is outlined in yellow. We have Ryan Valley Saddlebook Ranch PDD. We have Carmel Ranch PDDD and then that Monterey Meadows that has straight zoning along lower sigame. So the Ry Valley PDD um consists of 447 residential lots. This is one of the more built out ones. 82.7% of those lots are 50 feet or 45 feet wide. So again, those smaller lots, what is being proposed would be larger than that. And then our starter book ranch PDD um consists of 633 residential lots. 79 79.6% of those are 60 feet wide or less as you can see by their dimensional requirements from their PDD. And again, um what is being proposed tonight would be larger than that. Carmel Ranch PDD 84% of those lots are 60 feet or 55 feet wide and 131 residential lots. So again, what is being proposed adjacent to them is larger than um 84% of the lots that that PDD contains. And then Monterey Meadows is straight zoning. They're proposing they have R2 and R six. So the R2 is equivalent to what the applicant is requesting tonight. And um what is being proposed tonight is larger than the 60x120 lots of R six in Monterey Meadows. And then just within the larger

area, we do have Krueger Martin along uh Weir Road and that's R2 and R six as well. Um it's compatible with the R2 that already exists along Rear Road and it is larger than the R six um that is within that tract. So again, just kind of showing you it it's providing something different within the larger area. it's compatible with that but also immediately immediately along lower sigin it provides a larger lot than what a lot of these PDDs are providing. So for whether other factors are determined relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment the planning zoning commission and city council have not provided us any additional criteria for the proposal on change. Um, SEUISD was notified and we did provide the updated information um, information, the forecasting and demographic reports and fire, EMS and police were notified of the zone change request and no objections were provided for it. And then staff recommends approval of PLC 20250080 due to the proposed zone change compatibility with the comprehensive land use plan future land use map and existing uses. And then the applicant is here um if you have any specific questions for them. All right. Thank you, Daisy. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? Good evening. Uh not really a presentation, but generally Paul Lando with MTR Engineers here on behalf of the applicant. Uh the developer proposes a community that complements the adjacent subdivisions that have been recently developed. Again, 70 foot uh minimum single family development. Pretty small compared to the relative development in the area. Um so I'm available for to answer any questions

that y'all may have. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. It is uh 6:27. I'll open the floor for public comment. Anyone wishing to address the commission on this subject, welcome to step forward. Nobody. All right. It is still 6:27 and public comment is closed. Commissioners, comments and questions. I have a quick one just a curiosity. Um yeah, probably for you. Uh how many lots you think you'll you'll get on this 20 acres? Just maybe 50 around 50. 50. Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks. for the applicant as well. Yes, sir. Hey, um the the I'm sorry, Daisy. Can you go back to the map? I think my my question was, are y'all planning to connect to the It looks like there's some some uh Yeah, there's a rideway connection with the existing subdivision to the left. Are y'all planning on utilizing that or is that That's correct. We'll have a double access or a connection to Carmel Ranch and then we plan a northeast connection that will cross directly with Saddle Brook Ranch. Anyone else? No. All right. All right. Once again, this is a recommendation to city council. We can recommend approval,

denial, or approval with conditions. Can I have a motion? Make a motion recommending approval of PLZC 20250080. Second. All right. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PLZC 20250080. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please record your vote. All right, I have seven votes. Can we publish that, please? Seven eyes, none opposed. So that motion passes. Thank you. Item 7 C, ELZC 20250043. We hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to reszone approximately 62 acres of land from plan development district and pre-development district to single family district residential district R2 generally located approximately 3,800 ft east of the intersection of FM 1518 and Trainer Hale Road known as Bear County Property identification number 310054. a portion of 310053 and a portion of 310061, city of shirts, Bear County, Texas. Daisy, good evening. PLC 20250043, a proposed zone change to R2 along Trainer Hail Road, approximately 62 acres. Daisy Marquez, planner. So, this is a subject property outlined in yellow. It is located along Trainer Hill

Road. is kind of situated between Weir Road and FM1518. Um the subject property is currently zoned PDD. So it was part of that original Sterling Grove uh PDD development and MDP and it is also zoned pre-development district. This larger chunk up here and it is currently undeveloped and unplatted. To the north we have pre-development district. It's undeveloped in some sort of agriculture and residential closer to rear road. To the south we have single family residential district R1, predevelopment district and agricultural district. And again um kind of with the nature of this area it's more undeveloped agriculture and residential. To the east we have predevelopment district, agricultural district and single family residential district R2 all around this area. And then to the west we have the remainder of the Sterling Grove PDD and pre-development district. So, we sent out 13 notices on April 21st. As of today, we 396 Schaefer Road, Church, Texas, 78108, more specifically known as Bear County, parcel, identification number 308385. William, good evening, commission. PLPP2050053, waiver, a waiver request for the Bernett subdivision preliminary plat. So you can see Oh, you can see here in this aerial view. Did you There we go. Thank you. So you can see here in this aerial view, uh this is where the property is located. If this is looking familiar to you or this is already sounding familiar to you, this property came in last year for a reszone request to reszone from pre to RA. Uh so that's what's currently here at this time. This applicant is now coming in to request a waiver as there is an on-site sewer facility currently existing and they're looking to come into compliance with the UDC. So, you can see here once again just this property located here. It's

zoned as RA. Uh the it is located approximately 4,800 ft from the intersection of Schaefer Road and FM1518. It is approximately about 4,000 ft away from the nearest sewer connection and it already has an approved on-site septic facility. This is the proposed plat. And so, as I mentioned before, this is a waiver request for uh not connecting and not extending utilities to the property as there's already an existing sewer facility on site. And so, all lots within a subdivision are required to connect to public sanitary sewer systems and extend to wastewater lines per our UDC. And so per this waiver request by the UDC, the applicant is required to come to the commission and request this waiver to not extend and connect to the facilities. So staff analysis, this uh application was sent to our engineering department for their review and they support approval of the wafer request as the nearest sewer connection is 4,000 ft away and the site is already serviced by OSSF. So, our recommendation is that the applicant that the applicant does not intend to further develop what is existing on site. The site is already served by an on-site septic facility and the nearest sewer connection is over 4,000 ft away. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver request as presented and I believe the applicant is also here. You'd like to speak now. All right. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Uh, commissioners, anybody have any questions? Walls, are we able to consider the waiver and the plat at the same time or do we need to take those as separate items? Okay. No. Yeah. No, not not right now. The way it's set up, we do them one at a time. I can fly through the next one if you'd like.

Anybody? All right. We This is for our action. We can approve or we can we can deny. So, can I have a motion, please? Yeah, I I'll recommend approval on the waiver for preliminary plot 20250053. Second. All right. I have a um motion and a second to approve PLP 20250053 waiver. Correct. Any further discussion, questions? All right. Please record your vote. I have seven votes. You publish that, please. Have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Item 6B, PLP 20250053. Consider an act upon a request for approval of a preliminary plat of the Bernett subdivision approximately 1.89 acres of land located at 12396 Schaefer Roads, Texas 78108, more specifically known as Bear County property identification number 308385. William PLPP20250053, a preliminary plat of the Bernett subdivision. So once again, this is the aerial view of the site. And this is once again an aerial view of the site just indicating it's located within the shirt sewer CCN. There's an existing home on site. It's approximately 4,800 ft away from the intersection of Schaefer Road and there's already an existing on-site septic facility. This is the plat and the recommendation is the proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the applicable requirements of the property ordinances and regulations. The plot has been reviewed with no

objections by the fire engineering and planning departments and therefore staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as presented. All right. Thank you. So, I'm still getting used to doing things certain ways. The only reason this plaid is is this preliminary plat is here tonight is because they needed the previous preceding waiver. Correct. That's correct. So ordinarily, uh, staff approves plats. So I assume seeing this plat that if it wasn't for the OSSF, you would have approved it. That's correct. Anybody? No. No. Nope. Okay. We can approve or deny. May I have a motion? Who is that? Okay. Yes, sir. I I I I hear that a lot on council. I don't care for that. So, if you don't mind, please. Absolutely. P uh recom make a motion to recommend approval on PLP 20250053. Somebody beat you to it. All right. I have a I have a motion and a second from Commissioner Wallace and Commissioner McMaster to approve PLP 20250053. Any further discussion? Please record your vote. Have seven votes. You publish that, please. All right. I have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Item 6

C 20250091 waiver. Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to on-site sewer facilities for the final plant of the Monroe subdivision block one lot 2 approximately 12.39 acres of land located approximately 750 ft east of the intersection of Sigin Road and Bayic Drive more specifically known as Bear County property identification number 619166. William Good evening, commission. PLFP 20250091, a waiver request for the Monroe subdivision, lot 2, block one. This is an aerial view of the site. If this sounds familiar, if this is looking familiar already, the applicant has come in to the planning and zoning commission previously to request a waiver as this lot specifically is not located along the wearin frontage road and they needed that waiver request approved so that way they could have that connection along that property. So the applicant is coming in today to request a waiver for on-site sewer facilities. The property is located within the APZ2. As I mentioned before, it has access to wear sigin road via 30-foot ingress and egress easement through the adjacent property which is owned by the same owner and the site is currently undeveloped at this time. This is the proposed plat. Right now we're just looking at lot two, block one. uh lot one block two will be platted at a later date. So the waiver request here is for on-site sewer facility. The applicant is proposing well is intending to develop a single family home on this property that they've purchased and our UDC requires that all lots within a subdivision are required to connect to public sanitary sewer systems and extend wastewater

lines. the property or the applicant is requesting a waiver of OSSF per our UDC. They are required to come to the commission to request this waiver for approval. So, our staff analysis engineering had a review on this waiver request and they are supportive of the waiver as the nearest sewer connection is approximately 2,000 ft away from the property and it is not connected to services at this time and they're only intending to develop a single family home at the moment. So, our recommendation because the applicant intends to construct one home, the nearest connection is over 2,000 ft away and the subdivision will be required to connect to sewer system once it is available in the area. Staff recommends approval of the waiver request as presented. And the applicant is here. Correct. All right. Thank you, commissioners. Nothing personal. I'm going to use this as a chance to pull out my soap box. Unfortunately, I think uh the culprit has disappeared. Okay. Um it it just makes me wonder because the current shirts model is not to extend sewer service but to have developers do that. And so, um, I think this is where the model where that model kind of falls on its face that, um, you know, short of a, you know, a developer bu buying the surrounding property and running a sewer line, uh, there probably never will be one to your property. Okay. All right. Enough said.

commissioners. And again, I apologize. I just like to throw stones every once in a while. Okay. I make a recommendation to approve PLFP 202250091 waiver. Second. All right. Commissioner Car uh Commissioner Carbone has made a motion seconded by Commissioner Goldick to approve PLFP 20250091 waiver. Any further discussion? Please record your vote. All right, I have seven votes. Would you publish that, please? We have seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Item 6D, PLFP 20250091. Consider and act upon a request for approval of a final plat of the Monroe subdivision lot 2, block 1, approximately 12.39 acres of land located approximately 750 ft east of the intersection of Wigane Road and Bonig Drive, more specifically known as Bear County property identification number 619166. William PLFP 20250091 final plat of the Monroe subdivision lot 2 block one. So once again we see here the same site that was now has the approved waiver. We see here that property once again it's located within the APZ2. It's zoned as single family residential agricultural district and has access to the property with an approved waiver of a 30-foot ingress e eress easement through the lot adjacent to it under the same ownership. Once again, this is the final plat. They're just looking to plat lot 2 block

one. The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the applicable requirements for the property ordinances and regulations. The plat has been reviewed with no objections by the engineering, fire, and planning departments. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the final plat as presented. All right. Thank you. Um, I've just got a couple of quick questions. Um, what's the current zoning out there on this property? This property specifically, lot two, block one, has RA on site. Okay. And because we're not changing the zoning, we don't we don't ask Randolph about it. That's correct. Okay. Anybody questions, comments? No. Would you like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve PLFP 20250091. Second. All right, Commissioner Goldick has made a motion with a second. I'm sorry, Commissioner Carbone. No, I Yeah. Uh, yes. All right. Right. So, we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Goldick with a second from Commissioner Carbone to approve PLFP 20250091. Any further discussion or questions? Record your vote. And I have seven votes. Can you publish that, please? All right, we have seven eyes and none

opposed. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. I was hoping you were going to forget about it. No way. All righty. So, now we're going to jump back up to item 5D, a public hearing. PLUDC 20250090 conduct a public hearing workshop and discussion and possible action to make a recommendation on amendments to part three of the shirts code of ordinances unified development code to article 11 sign and advertising devices article three boards commissions and committees section 21.33 planning and zoning commission article 7 non-conforming uses lots structures and article 16 definitions. I didn't bring my pillow, so all right, Sam, go ahead. Promise you this will be exciting. PLUDC 20250090. Samuel Hos senior planner. So, staff is bringing forward these amendments in conjunction with all the workshops that city council has been doing on temporary signs lately. Uh this started in November. Um PNZ did see those uh proposed amendments to uh the temporary signs on December 4th and then it went back to city council five additional times after that. So they really hashed out the temporary sign piece. Uh the last update to the entire article was in 2017. So staff felt that it was time to maybe update the article and just look at some things and see if we can polish up some uh items. So staff's approach was really in three um separate ways. So number one was we kind of were looking at editorial changes uh

make helping kind of clean up the article to convey information better reorganizing the sections when we could removing any redundant or unnecessary language if we could. Number two was create consistency with the UDC and other policies and number three was actually adjustments to the code. So here's an example of conveying information a little bit better. So when we have to the left is our current code. You see all these kind of wordy paragraphs and where when we were able to we created nice punchy uh itemized list here. And not to go into the details, we'll go into that later. But you'll see we kind of we split that apart and created it nice uh equal nice um uh information that was conveyed a little easier. Another thing we did is reorganizing. So when we were able to, we proposed some combining some sections. Um the price per gallon display we moved up to made a little more sense. Uh and then we actually moved non-conforming signs to our actual non-conforming section in the UDC. So eliminating some redundancies. One good example of this is the current UDC in article 11 has a whole section about licensing. Uh we also have that in our code of ordinances that you are required to be a licensed contractor and to have insurance things like that. So that is you can see these I highlighted these in different colors the similarities. So in red, the license required. You're still allowed to do that. You actually see right here where my cursor is. It it requires in the code of war ores to if you're going to build signs to be registered. The insurance requirement is also in the code of the electric electrician registration is also in the code of so staff actually proposed to remove this whole section because we're basically covered already again with the consistency. Uh, one common theme that we've been doing a

lot lately is anytime we have an opportunity to include city manager or his or her design, we put that in there. Um, we updated some language to match uh some uh definitions in article 16. Uh, we also another good example is there's a fee section in the sign code. Uh, we changed up a little bit how that works. The existing code has this language about doubling fees, but that's not actually how our fee schedule works for the signs. So, we just put some language in there said that, you know, fees if you're if you're working without a permit, your fee is not doubled. It actually just says what the fee schedule says. So, we're creating a little bit of consistency there. So, here's the meat and potatoes of this actual um UDC amendment, the adjustments to the actual sign code requirements. We're really doing this in three sections. Wall signs, freestanding, and temporary. So, wall signs. So, under the current code, when we get a permit for a wall sign, uh, we basically look at our the square footage requirements for that as per sign. And what we're proposing is that we give a business an allotted amount per facade. And the reason why we do that, I'll show you right here. Under our current code, the arrows that you see here, this is three separate signs. Now, Walmart's been there for a long time, so they have a non-conforming status. But the way our current code would read it, they would not be allowed to do this because we only do it as one sign at a time. So, you're only allowed one sign per wall, right? So, the way staff is proposing it is say, "All right, you have 250 square foot of signage available for your facade. You can put that in there however you see fit." So, under what we're proposing, as long as they're under the the square footage that they're allotted, they can be allowed to do this. And really, we

are we put this in there for like the HBS. HB has signs all over the front for our, you know, any sort of other big box stores that might potentially come in. That was done with the intent of that, but it also relates to the smaller businesses as well. If somebody wants to create several different sign components to their main, you know, signage, they can do that. whereas now you can't. Another thing that we did, you'll see how areas with limited access, unlimited access, and all other streets. So, a lot of times people come in and say, "What the heck is that?" We have to go back into article 16, and we have to show them what it is. So, what we're proposing now is just to lay it out for what it actually is. It's relating to the roadway classification. So, interstate and farm tomarket roads, you get x amount of square footage. all other roads you get one you know x amount of square footage. So another thing that we did is uh in our current code shirts parkway is considered the same roadway classification as all our FM roads. We actually brought that off of these proposed amendments because we staff feels that shirts parkway is developing um a little different than FM39 or 11:03 or something. So um actually we're we're decreasing some of the requirements on Shirts Parkway or so some of the maximums I should say. Another thing we did with wall signs. So you'll see here in uh in the current code where my cursor is right now, we have this provision in the UDC that if you're in a manufacturing district M1 M2 or a PDD with that base, then you're allowed a little bit bigger sign as long as you have 300 linear feet of it's a a bit of a complicated, you know, sort of uh provision there. But what the the spirit and intent of that provision is really for very large buildings. So, we left uh this provision in the code or we're proposing to put a new provision in that basically says

buildings over 100,000 square feet are allowed an additional 100 square foot of signage area. So, if you're on if you have a really large building on Tri County Parkway for instance, you can get a little bit extra signage because those are large warehouses. So, we feel that that's fair. Same thing with the interstate or farm tomarket roads. If you have an extremely large building over 100,000 square feet, then you get a little bit extra signage square footage. Uh the roof line limitations staff put that in there. We uh basically were able to streamline that and put it as one sentence uh rather than all these other stuff that's in the current code. Uh again, the we made a requirement that you cannot your wall sign cannot project in your acquired building setback. the uh if we left the provision in there if your wall sign's facing if it's within 150 ft of a residential property, you cannot do that. So, we left that in there as well. And we created this new uh uh regulation here that says basically if your property is on Main Street and you're not you're facing FM78, technically you're abuing a railroad. So, you know, there might be some gray area as to what you're actually a budding like can are you classifying as a railroad or is it So, we just decided to clear that up and say we're treating it as facing 78. You can have all the signage that people on 78 get. So, a special B for Main Street essentially. Um, one thing that we adjusted to is in the current code, you get a primary wall sign at the full 100% allowed square footage. Every other signage after that has to be 75% of that. So it's less. So you get a primary sign and we have these secondary signs that we have currently in the code. Staff is proposing that we get rid of that and we just allow everybody to do signs and keep it easy. So um the next section freestanding signs.

So this will be a new section in the code. Currently we have four separate sections in the code for these signs that you see before you. We have this is considered a freestanding ground side. This is considered a monument. This is a multi-tenant sign. And this is considered an electronic sign. Staff looked at this and said, "Well, these are all basically the same thing. They're all freestanding signs." And so we're proposing to combine all these things into one section. And so in our existing code, I'll just kind of briefly go over the bullet points of these, but the max height and your freestanding ground side currently is anywhere between 20 and 50 feet. Your area is 32 to 250 and you get one per lot frontage. Our monument signs, you're only allowed a maximum of 5.6 and or 5'6 in. Your maximum area is 50 square feet, one per lot frontage. And there are some material requirements for monument signs as well. Max and on your multi-tenant signs, you're only allowed up to 20 feet high and you're only allowed a maximum area of 150 square feet and you're again one per lot frontage. And the electronic sign, maximum height 18, maximum area 50 square ft, one per lot frontage as well. So all these kind of basic requirements we have just combined into one and we're saying that you get 15 your your setbacks 15 uh feet which is normal which is what we have currently your maximum area is 250 and your maximum height is 50 for interstate and farm tomarket roads all the roads being 150 and 50. And again we're keeping the one per lot frontage requirement. So for freestanding ground signs really no difference. So, it's essentially the same thing for monument signs. You know, we're basically getting rid of that. You can still do a 5'6 inch monument sign with that's only 50 square feet, but you're no longer restricted in the maximum. The multi-tenant signs were actually increasing a little bit. We're

making allowing applicants to go a little bit taller and a little bit bigger. That made sense to staff as you have a lot of tenants that you need space for. So, it seemed to us to make sense to allow them to go a little bit bigger. and some. So, in the current code for electronic signs, you only allowed 100 square feet, 50 square feet per sign face. So, you only get two sign faces, 100 50 square feet each. We kept that in there. We made it a little easier to understand by just putting bullet points in there, but we kept that. The additional requirements for electronic signs being, you know, the sunset and sun uh sun sunrise and sunset requirements and you can't have like really fast copy going to distract drivers. We kept that in there as well. So, we're not changing that. We kept that in. So, for multi-development, multi-tenant signs, again, like I mentioned, uh we thought it made a little more sense to go allow them to do bigger, uh a little taller, if you will. We added a provision that said uh no tenant shall have more than 50% of the allowable area. This is our you know what we're effectively calling our anchored tenant uh restriction. So if you have a you know a Walmart or or some other big box store they can't take up more than 50% of the sign. That way it leaves it has it requires them to leave space for their other tenants if there are other tenants. And so in the current code, it just says the developer shall be responsible for determining the adequacy and size necessary to meet uh that requirement. So it basically gives it to the developer in the current code. And right now we're saying let's just make a hard and fast rule say nobody gets more than 50% of that sign. Temporary signs. I'll just kind of breeze over this because this is really this has been hashed out a bunch in city council. Um really the big the bullet items on this one is balloon inflatable signs are not permitted. There's a 14-day uh restriction on feather flags.

Uh there is also a reoccurring event permit. Um so you can get uh up to 15 times a year. A re this is meant for like the the church events that happen every so often, things like that. And then staff added a couple additional signs. So development signs and real estate signs had their own section in the current article 11. Staff felt that effectively these are temporary signs. So we just put those in here. We combined them, if you will. The uh the regulations are still the same. So if your real estate sign it can't be um taller than 6 feet, more than 32 feet, that's already in the code. We just kept it. We just decided to put it right here. So the other thing that staff is proposing is a new section for waiverss. uh right now when there are some circumstances or some an applicant feels like they need a bigger sign for some reason uh there is no avenue for us to really treat that. So what they do is they they apply for a variance. So they just keep applying for variances and it's not technically a variance. So this doesn't happen often but it happens enough for us to kind of address it. So staff's proposal for that is to create a waiver process similar to like you guys saw tonight for the platting. Staff is proposing to give planning and zoning commission that waiver authority. So if somebody feels like they need a bigger, taller sign for whatever reason, they're going to bring that waiver before the planning and zoning commission and the planning and zoning commission can decide if they do or not. Can hear their case, if you will. Um doesn't mean you have to approve it. Gives you total discretion. So that is a basically just a a new section for staff to help process those rather than assembling the board of adjustment and doing variances. So So that's really it for the for the uh presentation on the changes. When

staff is looking at UDC amendments, we look at 2147D for the criteria for approval. So whether number one, whether the proposed amendments promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the city. So the city is striving to make our development code more logical, more easy to understand and more consistent. And this helps us with enforcing it and administering it. And article 11 is more user friendly. Now we feel like these proposed amendments makes article 11 a little more user friendly for residents, applicants and city staff, thus promoting health, safety, general welfare. Number two, the proposed amendments is consistent with the goals, objectives and policy of UC UDC and the city. So these proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and desires of the city council through the sign workshops that they've been doing. Also in the strategic plan, I will mention that one of the goals and objective is for a thriving economy by supporting business retention and recruitment. We feel like allowing for easier to understand and a little more flexible sign code helps our business community here in the city of Shirts. Number three, the proposed amendments corrects an error, meets the challenge of changing conditions or is in response to changes in state law. So the amendments are in response to issues that residents and applicants have had with article 11. So and so this is staff's efforts to make it simpler and easier to understand and certain sections do reflect changing conditions such as there's provisions in there where we're um trying to promote public art with murals things like that or the change in uh classification search parkway and number four other factors which are deemed relevant and important in consideration of the amendment. So staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met. The city attorney's office has also been assisting us to ensure state law compliance and this public hearing provides an opportunity to introduce additional considerations. The proposed amendments will help promote the healtha safety and general w of the city. It aligns with city policies and it helps meet the challenge of changing conditions. Staff is therefore recommending approval of PLUDC 20250090. All right. Thank you,

Sam. Okay. This is um this is a public hearing and it is uh 7:14. Open the floor for public comment although everybody's left. So my spiel anyone wishing to address the commission on this subject may first Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. Nobody. Okay. It's uh 7:15 and the public comment is closed. Commissioners Wallace. Yeah. Um everything you presented I generally agreed with. The one thing that I I felt like would be slightly concerning is the inclusion of the 50 foot height on the FM roads. Um, I mean, I understand the rationale on lumping it in in everything else. I was is it just for consistency that we're we're including the FM with it? Um, just because it seems like considering 309 and 78. Um, and even I mean even kind of to 11:03, it just doesn't seem that it would be appropriate to have the same standards as you would along the interstate. Uh, yeah, I think staff looked at that and just said, you know, the way that it's developing, it seems to be these corridors are, you know, becoming commercial hot beds and that, you know, 50 feet doesn't mean everybody's going to come in with 50 feet signs. Yeah, there are cost considerations on the private end, but staff was comfortable with that. If planning and zoning commission is not, that is something that staff can make an adjustment with. Okay.

Would we do it through a motion? Yeah, it's okay. Can you go back to that slide real quick? I'm sorry. Um, we'll do that one. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? Yeah, I'm just questioning what is it exactly? Are you saying not to have that the 50 foot? Yeah, I I think my my big point would be and I I understand that like 39 and 78. I mean, they are are not Yeah, 78 are are more commercialized. It just seems inappropriate to have signs the same height potentially as the interstate. And I understand It's a It's a maximum and not everyone's going to hit it. Um I just can't imagine you would have like a lollipop sign in the middle of 39 the same height that you would have along the interstate. Um I it just seems out of character for to lump them all in as one. I think that's the one thing I disagreed with was that inclusion. Um, and I get it like that. It's it's a hypothetical. Someone could never do it, but it's the one time that we allow it to happen that you're then stuck with it essentially. I think there's two that I know of right now. The double double A or AAA plumbing, it's set on Main Street where the traffic light is coming from underneath aviation and then going up. Okay. When you come from Pat Booker down aviation and you come up, there's that huge billboard up. Yeah. And then the other one may be civil, but they're not they're scarce. And it doesn't look to me it doesn't look odd. I notice one all the time because it's always a real estate agent, but it's closer to uh it's on the other side of 1103 actually. So you see

them a little further down between Cibilo and Marian. I just can't imagine they would be popping up a lot, you know. Yeah. In the shirts proper along 78. But they don't look Yeah. I mean, it's I don't know. I think it's I always think back about the one in San Marcus along the highway that's like giant and exists and is going to essentially exist forever. Um, and I know I mean it's along the highway. It's a little different, but I think it it's just the consideration of that's my one thing. But if I'm the one naysayer, I'll send it out. I just think they're very very rare. And just hang on a sec. Okay. It is very expensive to advertise on those two. Oh yeah. And I I mean it's something that could never happen. It's just I would hate for it to be the the one that goes up because we're you're allow as it stands now. Could they do it ex as the code is currently written? So, as the code is currently written, FM78 and like 309, it would beund Oh, I'm sorry. Let me go back. So, they could do 40 feet right now. So, we gave them 10 extra feet. didn't think it was that big of a deal. But if if the planning and zoning commission feels like we need to further delineate between interstates and farm tomarket roads, then that is a recommendation we could take forward to council. But right now, they can do 40. So, we just thought why not just keep it easy and do it today. Okay. I don't I don't hate your idea. No, now hang on a sec. Oh, okay. One one at a time, please. Well, no. I'm I'm done. That was it. I think it was it was the the 40 that exists. It feels more reasonable. Okay. But and then Judy, were you finished? Did you have

anything else? I don't think so. Okay. What is this? Well, let me ask one question. What is the standard? I have a billboard on 78. What is the standard height? Is it about 30 feet, 20 or 30? We're not talking about time out here. We're not talking about billboards. Yeah, billboards are different technically than what we're talking about here. This is more like Think of like the Murdoch sign or the Or I'll go back. Murdoch. Like think of like one of these. Yeah. Oh, I see. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I see. You wouldn't see that. Okay. Ah, I gotcha. Yeah. I was a little confused. I'm thinking explaining her question. I'm thinking billboards. Yeah, I got you. Mhm. Okay. Anything else? Rodri, you've been waiting patiently. Oh. All right. Go ahead, John. I tend to agree with you. I think there should be a delineation between a interstate thorough fair. I mean, let's be honest, everybody knows a Bucky sign from 5 miles away. I wouldn't want to see something like that on a, you know, 11:03 or 78. So, we have it at 40. I think you leave it there. Um and and even if we never get to it, so what? Let's just leave it at 40. That way there is a clear delineation between an interstate and our roads around here and local shirts. The uh slide that you have up here, Sam, do you have any idea how tall that SAS sign is? Uh I don't, but the Murdoch sign was Oh, no. That was too long ago. Um, okay. I want to say it's similar to the Murdoch sign. I I want to say that was close to

40 or 50 feet. Close to what? 40 or 50 feet. It's on It's right next to shoes actually. Yeah. Old garden rich water. Yeah. Okay. So, um Yeah. Um I have never been a big fan of um tall signs like SAS and Walmart. And um you know u when Walmart was being built um I was I was not on the commission. I was still a a city employee. Uh and Walmart was doing the old well if you don't if you don't let me do that I'm gonna take my ball and go home. Well, I'll tell you folks, go drive around um where's a good example? Georgetown, Round Rock. Uh go down and drive Highway 6 in the Houston area. You don't see these signs. Walmart has a 4-foot pedestal sign. That's all they're allowed. And guess what? Walmart is still there. Okay. Uh but I agree with uh Commissioner Wallace and and Commissioner Carbone. I think 50 foot is too high um off the interstate. You know, the interstate has some um I guess I can say unique requirements. You know, traffic's moving at 70 miles an hour. In a lot of places, the the roadway is um is depressed below ground level. Um and and so in order for the signs to be seen, they need to be a little bit higher. I don't think we have that situation with 39, 1518, 11:03, or any of the other streets. Uh I think 40T is too high. Uh I' I'd like to I'd like

to see them even smaller uh everywhere except the interstate. Um but I've got a couple other questions. Um somewhere you got a uh all others is 100 square feet, right? Ball sign. Uh, I I really have no concept of of how that relates to signs. And my question is, is that enough? Did you go from 250 to 100 square? Is 100 square feet enough? It is more than they currently get? Okay. So, all their streets currently get 80 square feet. So, we're actually upping it a little bit. Um and then where where you say uh this is you can leave it here. So um all others would get 100 square feet of max area three per building or tenant. Is that 100 square feet divided between those three signs or is that three signs of 100 square feet? So, the way that we're proposing to do it now is you have per facade, you get 100 square feet of signage. Now, if you're on a multi-tenant building and all you have is a front and a rear, you could do two. If you're on the end cap of that multi-tenant building, you can do three because you get, you know, three sides, right? And the same with the building. So, if you're a single tenant building, then you can do three per building. So basically one per facade and that's how our current code is. So as a single tenant you can do three right now and then as a multi as a multiple multi-tenant like a strip center or something technically you can only do two and staff said effectively even if we allowed for three per tenant we're

basically allowing the endcap tenant to have one additional because there's no way there another one's you can put another wall when there's not another wall there. Okay you you may have answered my question but I missed it. Okay, sorry. So, well, let me let me repeat my question real quick. Okay, so looking at this chart right here, all others would be allowed a max area per facade of 100 square feet, right? Max Okay, I'm I'm starting to see it now. Maximum number of facades. So, they could only they could only do that on three sides of the building. Yeah. So your your your front side could have 100 square feet. Your this side can have 100 square feet. Okay. Yeah. All right. That answers that question. Um and slide 76 21.11.10. Okay. What I was seeing here freestanding signs all others. For some reason I wrote down not consistent. So back up to to just the freestanding signs this one or well maybe go forward one. Well go back go on up to 76 and let me let me show you. So this this is particularly um multi-tenant signs correct or just this is freestanding. So yeah, multi-tenant is going away. They're all called freestanding. Correct. And here you get 100 and all others get 150 square ft. Correct. But if I guess the 100 square feet is if

you're putting the sign on the building. Correct. Okay. Yes. And I didn't write it down, but I think the other thing I I would take exception with is the is is Main Street. Okay. um they don't face the railroad. They they front Main Street. And I see no reason to allow them um to put up a a um a 50-foot sign just because they back up to the railroad. I disagree. Pardon? I've been there. I disagree. I've been there for five years. If we didn't have signage on the back, people would not know that our coffee shop existed. I I I hear you, but u you know it just um I'm surpris Have you run this past the main street committee? Are they okay with this kind of thing? Maybe I could clarify a little bit. So for your general, so if you're if you want a wall sign on Main Street, you're considered all others for the side facing Main Street. So you only get 100 square feet. But if you're facing FM78 across the railroad, we're saying in this provision here that you can have a sign of 250 feet, but only on the one facing 78. Okay. So, it's not a freestanding sign. It's a wall sign. Correct. Correct. Okay. I'm sorry. I I misunderstood. And that 150 square feet would only apply to the side facing the railroad. Yep. Okay. See, sometimes you just got to hit me up alongside the head, you know. I just I apologize. I really just did not understand that. So, um, anybody else? Oh, you're blinking. Well, see, nobody ever uses that, so I don't look at it. But go ahead, Mr. Blinker. You're knock yourself out. It's your turn. Go ahead. [Laughter]

All right. Thanks for explaining Main Street. I had the same question. Uh, what happened to right of entry? That that disappeared. Is that covered someplace else? Right of entry. And what do you do you have a section in front of you? You can 21113 administration. It has been removed. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. This is the enforcement. Yeah. So, we're the code of ordinances and this is something that we ran by legal, too. But there's there's provisions in the code of ordinances that allow us right of entry for So, it's some place it's someplace else. Okay. Uh, yeah. Not that I need it. God forbid. Um, did we did we ask for or did we receive any input from local businesses, any criticism or anything? We did send this to the chamber. Uh, they had some comments about feather flags, but seeing as how that section was really hashed out with city council, we decided not to make any adjustments. But that was their only comments. Okay. So we so we did get input from from the chamber. That's good. Uh and then the the uh the discussion about Walmart. So suppose we adopt all the all your red lines as you have written them. Would Walmart be the same if they built tomorrow as they are now? Uh no. So the way that Walmart currently is, I think it it was built long before this sign code. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they received a variance as well because of that. But the if for instance right now, like I said, we would consider these three signs. So they wouldn't technically be allowed to do that. Is are you referring to the wall signs or something else? Well, they they actually have more. They

have another one. Yeah. Yeah, another one further to the left or two more to the left. And I I guess my question is what's wrong with that? It It's not unattractive. It's not overly staff bothering me. It it it seems to me that, you know, I like it at Walmart because I know which way to go. I I agree personally. Staff felt the same way. Uh we thought that we wanted to make sure that someone like Walmart could do this. So, we're proposing to let this be okay because under the current code, it's not clear whether or not this is three signs or one sign. And so, we want to make that clear. So, how many can they have on their front facade? What we're proposing is that you get 250 square feet of signage on your facade. If you want to as long as what is added up here does not exceed that, then you're okay. Okay. Yeah. So, what what would this be? You have any idea? Yeah, I I actually looked at Walmart in this instance. Uh everything that they have on the front of Walmart currently, I know this is only a portion of it, but everything they have is 225 square feet. Really? Yeah. Okay. So, if they built this today, they could have what they currently have on the front. Okay. And they could also have it on three sides or four? So, they can technically do it on three. Okay. All right. Uh, let's see. Covered covered that. Um, and I I I don't own a business, so I I don't know, you know, how critical it is to have a sign. I guess that, you know, they all have their interpretation of what they need according to their business plan. But it it seems to me that with the advent of almost everybody

having a GPS that you pretty much know where the where the business is. And so the need for gigantic enormous signs I think is kind of going away. And from a business standpoint, it seems like it would it would lower the expense of having a business if you don't have to build such a a huge sign. But I don't know if that entered into your uh computations or editing what we have now, but it seems that most everybody has a GPS and they can find where they want to go. What do we need a big sign for? So, I mean, I could that's kind of rhetorical, but I I don't know what I don't know the answer to that. It It could be for those that are just passing by, right? They might not know that they want to go there until they see the sign. It's like, "Oh, I didn't know it was one of those there." Exactly. Let me pull across traffic and drive in there. Like brand recognition or just knowing, oh, there's a candy store or whatever. It's like you have a GPS, but you want to go to someone's house, you need the address to get there. My GPS never lands me directly in front of where I'm going. Same concept. I think that's all I have. I'm not done yet. Have a light. Yeah, I got a light. See, I can No, mine doesn't work. I'm just in an argumentative mode. See, I'd argue that that's three different facades. No, I know what the intent is. Three sides. Yeah. Of a building. Okay. I think there's a difference between a

facade and a side. Just saying. All right. Um yeah, you know, we make and and and uh they're including the waiver um provision. Um and and we've we've handled some of those in the past. The one that pops into my mind is for uh EVO because they sat because they sit so far off the off the roadway. Uh we agre we we u we allowed a waiver to make their their letters or their sign bigger so it was visible. Um so there's always there's always provisions like that. You look like the cheshure cat down there, you know. Or Yeah. No. Huh? All right. So, um, again, this is this is a recommendation to city council. Uh, we can recommend they approve. We can recommend they deny it. Uh, we can recommend um approval with conditions. And I just want I remember one you talked about feather flags. I'm sorry. At one point they wanted they didn't want them they didn't want to allow them at all. Yep. Right. So, yeah, they're back. Anyway, so those are your three options. If um uh if somebody would like to make a motion Uh, yes. There you go. All right. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of all UDC amendments uh except for the freestanding science

table um to break the farm to market roads off from the interstate category and set a max height of 35 ft. 30 35 ft for clarity. And just another for clarity as well. And the max not not adjusting the max area. The area is fine. Correct. Okay. Are fine. Just the height. Max height. 35 ft. Unless anyone else would like to adjust the area. No, that's that that's your motion. We'll we'll see what happens to it. So, Commissioner Wallace has made a recommendation to uh or a motion to recommend approval with uh with the condition or or with a change to uh I guess it's the freestanding signs uh re remove the move the farmtomarket roads to their own line. Correct. I guess and limit the height to 35 ft. Correct. Does that sound pretty good? That's it. Okay. So that's the motion. I'll second that. And Commissioner McMaster has seconded it. [Laughter] All right. So is is everybody clear with the motion? Does everybody understand what the motion is? All right. Any further discussion? Anyone like to amend that motion to include something else or change it? Righty. So, um, please record your vote. Okay. I have seven votes. Can you publish that? Seven eyes, none opposed. That motion passes. Thank you all.

Now, just to clarify, any existing 40 foot sign would be grandfathered. Yeah, they'd be non-conforming. Yep. Uh let's see. So, that's uh we're done with the public hearings. We've done all the individual considerations. Uh requests and announcements. I'm sorry. Yeah. Request by commissioners to place items on a future planning and zoning agenda. Commissioner Wallace Anybody else announcements? Anybody have anything? Go ahead. My new office is in uh Common Ground Real Estate Co-op and we are having our ribbon cutting on May 22nd with the chamber. There's uh three real estate brokers and a real estate lender in there. And so we'd like to invite everybody out. We're going to have snacks, drinks, and the actual cutting of the ribbon. 816 Main Street. Sweet. E. All right. Go ahead. Uh this week is teacher appreciation week and so many of your children and yourselves have had great teachers in the past and if they're still around do yourself a favor and tell them thank you. Okay. And real quick, um, I received an email from the city,

so I assume the those of you I I was unable to attend the volunteer appreciation dinner, and they always have a a gift for us. And, um, this year it was uh, the email said it was some kind of a collapsible cooler. Um, so um, in case you didn't get that email, um, you just swing by the by the um admin building back here. Um and uh picked that up from the city secretary's office. Yeah, it sound like it was going to be and unfortunately grandson birthdays take precedent. So, yeah. All right. So, anybody uh commissioners, anything else? staff. You have what's going on over there? We're just having the giggles. No, nothing from staff. Okay. Uh so 7C in your packet there's a status of of um uh what's going on at city council. Um, I have not had a chance to watch last night's video, so I don't know. There I think there was at least one of our items on the agenda last night, but I have I haven't watched it yet, so I don't know how that turned out. We got to be careful how much we Yeah, see me after. Okay. All right. All right. So it is uh [Music] 7:43 and this meeting is adjourned.

What was the Oh, the one out on I 10. [Music] I'm sorry. That's just