Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, it is six o'clock. We will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Tonight, we have two of our lovely alternates joining us today, Commissioners Loretta Reyes and Commissioners Grady filling in. We will move on to the hearing of residents. Is there anybody signed up? No, okay. There'll be another opportunity for public comment on the individual cases. Moving to the consent agenda, the minutes for the May 6th regular meeting. Any comments from commissioners on the minutes, motions?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as submitted. I'll second that.

That was a motion to approve the minutes of the May 6th, 2026 regular meeting by Commissioner Outlaw, seconded by Commissioner McMaster. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven. Can we publish? That motion carries. All right. Item 5A, PLCPA-2026-0074, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan future land use map from local corridor to industrial hub on approximately 2.1 acres of land known as 6615 FM 482, specifically known as Comal County property identification numbers 428461 and 78974. City Assured's Comal County, Texas. Daisy.

Good evening. Commissioners, PLCPA 2026-0074, a proposed comprehensive land use plan amendment on 2.1 acres of land, Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner. Here's a subject property outlined in yellow. It is east of the intersection of FM 482 and Friesenhahn Road. It's two separate parcels. It's currently unplotted, and it currently has a residence in older commercial buildings. And this application is accompanied by the zone change application after this, PLZC 20260035. So it is currently designated as local corridor. That's that lighter pink you see in the image. To the north, it is designated as local corridor. To the south, we have local corridor, and then regional corridor beyond the railroad tracks. And then to the east and the west, we have local corridor as well. We sent out seven public hearing notices on May 21st. We did receive one notice in opposition. A public hearing notice will be published in the newspaper prior to city council and notification sign was posted by the applicant on the property. And this is tentatively scheduled for the July 7th city council meeting. So again, kind of looking at what's being proposed tonight, this area and around is designated as local corridor and the applicant is proposing industrial hub. So kind of showing you straight from the comprehensive land use plan what's being proposed and what's currently there. So local corridor is meant for local oriented commercial and entertainment areas. And from the images you see straight from the comp plan, think of those intersections on 3209 by the Walmart shopping area where you have a lot of retail mixed with restaurants together. And you have that in proximity to neighborhoods, and we allow things. We still allow residential uses in proximity to these commercial uses, but obviously with some transition in between that. Whereas Industrial Hub doesn't allow for any type of residential uses. It's meant for manufacturing, warehousing. It allows heavier zoning that would allow these really heavy type of uses. And when it comes to comprehensive land use plan amendments, staff looks at the criteria listed in UDC section 21460 for their criteria of approval. So the comprehensive land use plan has its own objectives and it's intended to be a rational and reasonable basis for making decisions about the community. And the UDC is intended to implement those intents and those objectives of the comprehensive land use plan to promote the general welfare of the community. What's being proposed tonight at the subject location to industrial hub doesn't implement the policies of the strategies of the comp plan because this property is actually part of the focus area five that was studied in the comprehensive plan and it doesn't implement those strategies that are listed. It's not compatible or appropriate with the uses in the area, which ultimately doesn't promote the general welfare of the community. And again, looking at what's being proposed tonight, looking directly at those objectives from the comp plan, One of the main objectives is to minimize potential conflicts between land uses. And then even looking at the market snapshot within the comprehensive plan, we want to incorporate retail with placemaking and destination to increase significance. So essentially, industrial hub land use designation permits light and heavy industrial uses and zoning. So if we look at the comp plan and it has industrial hub as the land use designation, staff would see GB2, M1, and M2 as appropriate within that area, kind of just looking at the zoning districts. That's kind of our starting point when looking at the criteria. In addition, it doesn't mingle with the characteristics of Focus Area 5, and it's immediately adjacent to residential uses and buildings. So the stars denote some residential uses in the area. To the north, we have agriculture. So that's currently cultivated year-round. And then above that, we have some rural residences still. And then to the west, we have John Paul II Catholic High School. And then under FM 42, that property is also owned by the Archdiocese of San Antonio. So ultimately the zoning districts that would be permitted by this comprehensive land use plan amendment doesn't minimize conflict between land uses, it actually increases it. And again, kind of showing you the closest industrial hub land use designation in proximity to this. So the subject property is outlined in yellow all the way in this top right corner. And the closest industrial hub, which is this brighter type of purple is about 2.5 miles away. all the way west of FM 2252. And if you think this is where, you know, STX Frio is going up, we have all that spec industrial warehousing going up. And again, kind of just looking at the area and the natural characteristics, the railroad tracks act as that physical dividing line for the comprehensive land use plan. As you can kind of see, it kind of follows the curves of the Union Pacific Railroad. The tent of the area and the local corridor is to utilize the major transportation corridors to provide that retail and commercial destinations, again, FM 309, FM 1103, but also to utilize the existing buildings to emphasize the character of the area to create a destination. Kind of going deeper into that, this is at focus area five that I was talking about earlier where this property is part of that This is the other area of shirts where we have those older buildings. So for example, that church, and we have some of those older buildings over there. Although they might not be designated, this is one of those unique area of shirts where we have some buildings with actual character. And as you can see in these two images on the right, these are actually buildings on the property we're speaking of tonight. focus area five recommended strategies to encourage restaurants and entertainment and really using these buildings to our advantage to create a destination, not only for current residents, but to create a destination for other people to come and spend their money in insurance. So not only for the people here, but to really bring people from the outside into our city and really create that destination. So again, the proposed industrial hub does not meet these focus area five strategies and it's not consistent with the comp plan. So the proposed amendment is not addressing any changing circumstances. It doesn't implement the comp plan policies better, and it doesn't address any errors or deficiencies in the plan. We have reviewed this proposed amendment and it does meet all UDC requirements. And this was sent to fire EMS and PD, and they did not provide any specific objections to this request. So the comprehensive land use plan feature land use map amendment to industrial hub on these approximately 2.1 acres at this location is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the comp plan. and does not correct any mapping errors or deficiencies in the adopted comp plan. So staff is recommending denial of PLCPA 2026-0074. And then the applicant is here with a presentation as well.

Thank you, Daisy.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Ethan Bracey, representing the property owner, Gordon Ward. You can't make it today. But for this, the property located 6615 FM 482. We're looking to do the land amendment change from local corridor to industrial just to allow the rezoning from PRE to GB2, which is the following rezoning case. For the proposed use we have, it's currently being used just for outdoor storage. And we want to just bring it into compliance with the SHERTS regulations for that. So, you know, that we'd have to rezone it, the GB2, to allow outdoor storage. So that would be the reason for the land plan amendment change. So the site operations, you'd have to go through and add paving to meet the SHERTS regulations, along with the privacy fence. And it'd just be used just for general construction material and machinery. and potentially using it as some of those existing buildings as an office building just for construction operations and admin use. And then the surrounding use, as she said, north is the agricultural district, and to the east to the left of us is that residential, and to the right is also residential but zoned PRE. And then past the railroad tracks, there is heavier M1, zoning for heavier industrial use than what we're proposing, including a Amazon warehouse in that area. And we did actually get support from some of the adjoining RA neighbors to the left. We do have a signed petition from them as well. The next slide from the 6691 FM 482 neighbor did voice support. And we did send out, I guess, a zoning petition for the rezoning of the land plan amendment. just to the surrounding neighbors as well. And we did get some signatures on that for support. And we did host a community meeting with the surrounding neighbors as well on May 14th, just to address any concerns and didn't have any opposition there as well. Then the economic impact would be just that property currently being used as outdoor storage. So we'd want to be able to keep it as that and just bring it into compliance with the use. And it just would help support just the contractors in the area and just general construction in the area as there's a lot of construction in the region there. And in conclusion, we believe that the rezoning and land plan change amendment would be reasonable just to allow the GB2 zoning to allow the property to be continued to be used for outdoor storage, and will help with just construction in the area, and just general contractor support there. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Sir? Well, we will move forward to the public hearing, so for anyone who's wanted to speak, just so you kind of get the idea how this runs, We'll open it up here in a second. You're welcome to come up and address and raise any concerns or issues or comments that you like. We're not able to respond to anything, so please don't. If you have questions, you're welcome to ask them. We'll take notes and we can ask staff, but this isn't a back and forth type of thing. So I'll go ahead and open it up. It is 6-12. We'll open up the public hearing. If anybody would like to speak, just come on up. If you were to state your name and address for the record.

Yes, Martin Friesen, 22900 Old Nacogdoches, New Brownfields.

Actually, just across the agricultural portion that you saw there.

Really, all I was going to address is just a couple of concerns, because I know it's the industrial use. And I did go to that meeting that was presented, and they kind of mentioned a bit of what they were going to do with the property. what the use would be with storing of equipment and so forth. So I guess my concerns, and I'll just kind of mention those, the paving portion that they mentioned a while ago might alleviate the dust concern. There's always that concern. My house is a bit away from there, but the wind does blow that way, and I have that concern. Other concerns, the property is only two acres. So, you know, how many trucks are going to be stored there if that's the use it's going to be for and what size of trucks. So I didn't really get that at the initial meeting that we had. So that was kind of a concern because, you know, with a small property like that and the access coming in from 482 to turn onto that. Also, I don't know that it'd be a concern, but I always have that concern because I have fences there. And on the bottom other end of my property, there's been at least several occasions, where trucks turned around and actually backed into our fence. And of course, when they do that, they don't come and tell you, oh, we ruined your fence. Let's pay for the damage. They go. And so I have a concern on that, which again, it may not be based on the way the property is and the turning there. Lastly, it was mentioned earlier about the historical site. I know it's under the Schertz Historical District in the Kamau area. And there are several things that are listed in that. And the church that was mentioned, the cemetery, the general store, and then that was actually a blacksmith shop at one time. So the front of it really looks pretty cool in relation to the area. And there was some talk about possibly tearing that building down and stuff. So that's kind of a concern just because, I mean, you know, as a longtime resident, it's kind of just always been there. And it is part of that historical site. So anyways, those are just some of my concerns. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else? Going once, going twice. What is 615? We'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions? Mr. Alla.

Well, most of my questions are really aimed at the land use plan. I took a drive up 482 yesterday. from 2252 all the way to, I think Schwab is where I turned and came back up to 35. As you drive that along 482, there's already a mixture of, there's still some single family, you know, these large lots, probably leftover farm. And it's intermingled with, one of the first things you come to is the back gate to the concrete plant. And then there's two or three truck storage things along there. So I guess question number one I had was why did we decide on local corridor for 482? I mean, what do we see being, and a follow on is in one of your slides, you said support adjacent to residential areas. So what are we anticipating out there that we designated that local corridor?

So kind of just going off of that, there are some concrete batches in the area. You can see that's designated as green. I don't know if this is the one that specifically you're talking about, but these are outside of state of limits. They're in the ETJ. We don't have any jurisdiction over those. So those are designated as development deferment. If at any time, you know, they go out of service and we have to, they come in Addison to the city and the city essentially has to deal with that giant Brownfield that's there. But essentially, we wanted to take advantage of FM 42. So again, think of FM 309, FM 1103, where we want to take advantage of those tech stock roads. We do have some residential zoning more along FM 42 that is kind of waiting for infrastructure to come in. That's part of a larger EDC project. We do have some, so next door, the Saunders, they live here. We have Planning and zoning and city council both approved that residential rezone in 2024, just recently. So that's kind of a story of what's going on there.

Okay, well, the concrete I was talking about, I think is Vulcan materials or something. They actually face the front I-35, but they have a back entrance on 482.

Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about now. That is an older property that, was annexed sometime in the 80s via like three annexation ordinance, and that's a longer story, sir.

Okay, no, trust me, I've been here longer than you have, okay? But it wasn't about that specific use. It's about as you drive 482, it just doesn't look like local corridor to me. nor does it look, I mean, right now today, it's a mishmash of what you're gonna find as you drive along that road. And I wish you had a bigger picture of the land use plan here because to me it's really strange the way you start out there at 2252 and 482 is basically regional corridor and then all of a sudden it makes this big, you know, this big, you know, this big zag to the south and becomes local corridor. And I just, I'm not sure. So what I was trying to get out of you, Daisy, was do we expect a lot of, I mean, right now there can't be 50 people or 100 people that live on 482.

Well, it is a 10- to 20-year plan, sir, so maybe hopefully in the future we can get some action around here.

Well, you see, and that's where I have problems because I argue that all the time, that, yeah, I understand there's a lack of infrastructure here, but we had, I guess a year or so ago, we had a rezone request out on I-10 that I thought was perfectly... acceptable, but the argument was it didn't fit the land use plan and that site had been the way it is for the 37 years that I've lived in Shirts. And my question was how much longer do you, I honestly don't think anybody's gonna come along that's gonna meet the land, but everybody dug their heels in and I see the same thing going on out here. And yet if a developer came in tomorrow and said he wanted to change this to, you know, R6 or something, anyway. So I was just trying to understand why, and you look at this, the guy is probably, what, 100 feet from regional corridor? Of course, that's not what he's asking for. So here's another question for you. Is what he intends to do with the property, would that be allowed, can we have GB2 in regional corridors?

We would have to evaluate it based on its location, what's surrounding it, and the comp plan as a starting point.

No, I'm just asking in general. With the comp plan definitions of regional corridor, would that be consistent? Would GB2 zoning be consistent with regional corridor?

Probably not, sir. It also asks for some sort of mix of commercial and allows some sort of residential. Ideally, we do not want industrial immediately adjacent to residential or in close proximity without some sort of large transitional area. you know, area uses that build up to that use.

Well, here's where commissioner outlaw is coming from. In my mind, the city has done a very good job of separating residential and industrial using interstate 35 as a dividing line. And so, you know, with very few exceptions of any, You know, all of the GB and all of the M1 and all of that stuff is north of 35. And so I always thought the idea was that would be the dividing line. And now all of a sudden we want to use 482. And you see so much of this area out there is outside our ETJ. So I just don't see the residential development that's gonna support the need for local corridor. But by the same token, I'm not sure industrial hub is the right one to go in here either. And it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the new comp plan, land use plan. I don't know why we didn't take our yellow brush and paint this all, what is it, mixed?

Complete neighborhood.

Yeah, what was it?

Complete neighborhood.

Yeah. Um, rather than, uh, because I understand local, local corridors intended to be, um, retail and, you know, with, and I guess you can also have multifamily and some stuff like that in there. So, um, anyway, so as again, most of my concerns are with the comp plan. And again, unfortunately, we call it an industrial hub, but I'm going to say it one more time. You drive 482, and what the applicant wants to do on his property, you'll find at least four to five similar existing facilities on 482. Now, he wants to go GB2. And I know I'm always up here about stick to the topic. But we need to remember that today, if that zoning were to get approved, and he wants to use it for outdoor storage, but a year, two years, five years down the road, he sells that property, it's GB2. And anything on that list in GB2 could then be built on that property. So just keep that in mind as well. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Daisy, this is, on the major thoroughfare plan, this is a primary arterial, right? Primary arterial. I know it's not on the slide, I'm looking at it, okay. I mean, I definitely understand staff's argument and, I'm agreeing with a lot of the points. I think the biggest hangup is the proximity to the Amazon facility and the other uses. And it's not even like it's a, maybe you can clarify a little bit, Emily. But it's a primary arterial. I know it's the residential uses,

I would also just keep in mind that a lot of the businesses that Commissioner Outlaw mentioned that you're referencing, they have been there in some capacity. Maybe it wasn't Amazon, but it was a different distribution facility. A lot of those have been there prior to the city annexing those properties into the city. I think the fundamental question is, do we want to look at the future vision of shirts, or do we want to stick with what has... been there since prior to annexation, potentially, and the zoning that was established a very long time ago? Or do we want to, you know, what could this area, 482, this whole area, the divider between Union Pacific, the railroad, right, that clear land barrier between the existing industrial that's there and what could develop?

Gotcha. Okay. I did have one question for the applicant. You talked about the community meeting that you held. What was the, I mean, do you have like a head count of who all came or how many people in general, how many people showed up to that?

I believe it was the residential owners to the left of the property and of course the agricultural owner to the north.

Okay.

And I've a separate employee was hosting that meeting. But those two at least were there. Yeah, yeah.

Okay. That's all I had. Anybody else? No? Okay, well, I'll, oh, Mr. Outlaw.

Yeah. Sorry, I'm gonna jump in here one more time. Yes, I understand that the uses I pointed out are pre-existing. And what is on the property right now is pre-existing. What do you mean you're shaking your head? He showed us a photograph of equipment and stuff parked there.

The owners actually purchased that property not too long ago, and then they just started placing the equipment without going through the development process.

So that's not a non-conforming use. It's an illegal use, I guess, for lack of a better term. Okay. Thank you. I did not understand that. And I'm sorry, Emily, when you talked about the future vision and I snickered at you, that's been my... You know, I've been beating that drum. I've been beating that drum since I've been up here. And I've asked before, who's driving this ship? The city or the developers? Okay. Well, right now, I'd say it's not us. But that's a discussion for another day. Thank you, sir.

Well, if there's nobody else, I will entertain motions.

I'll make a motion that we, let's see, I wanna make sure I, for PLCPA20260074, that we recommend denial.

That was a motion by Commissioner McMaster to recommend denial of PLCPA-2026-0074, seconded by Commissioner Velazquez. If there's no other commentary, please vote. And just for the commissioners, a yes vote is in support of the denial. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. Moving on, PLZC20260035, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 2.1 acres of land from Pre-Development District to General Business District 2, GB2 known as 6615FM482, specifically known as Comal County Property Identification Numbers 428461 and 78974. City Shirts, Comal County, Daisy.

Good evening once again, PLCC 2026-0035, a proposal on change from pre-development district to GB2 on 2.1 acres of land. Daisy Marquez, senior planner. Here's the subject property outlined in yellow. It is the property we were just discussing in the previous agenda item. It's currently zoned pre-development district. It has a residential building and older commercial buildings. So the north is FM 42 right of way. Beyond that, agricultural district and rural residences. To the south, we have the railroad tracks owned by Union Pacific Railroad. To the east, we have pre-development district with property still being used as residences in older commercial buildings. And then to the west, we have the single family residential agricultural district that's currently being used as a residence. And then farther along west, we have John Paula II. So we did send out seven public hearing notices on May 21st for the zone change. We did receive two responses neutral. There were concerns with the industrial uses that would be allowed within the GB2 zoning district. We did publish a public hearing note. I mean, a public hearing notice will be published in the San Antonio express prior to the city council hearing assigned was placed by the applicant. And this is tentatively scheduled for the July 7th city council meeting. Again, here's the subject property. It's currently zone pre-development district. It's two separate parcels. It's not plotted. And they're proposing general business district two for office warehouse. And then here is just a snippet of the dimensional requirements as per Article 5. And again, as you can see, pre-development district was quite literally meant as a placeholder for properties that were annexed so that if later on they wanted to zone it to something else, they can come in and propose something. And again, this is just a short list of some of the permitted uses in GB2. The full list is available in UDC Section 2158. So for zone changes, we look at the criteria listed in UDC section 2154D. Again, this subject area is designated as local corridor, which is intended for commercial and entertainment along medium to high volume roads. What's being proposed tonight of GB2 is not supported by the local corridor feature land use designation. The proposed industrial hub that the applicant was proposing does support GB2 and its permitted uses, but ultimately the proposed GB2 is not compatible with and is not in line with the intents of local corridor. And then engineering did review a TIA summary that was sent by the applicant and they came to the conclusion that the zone change will increase traffic, but the impact is minor and can be mitigated by our transportation system and it will keep functioning at an acceptable level. And then again, looking at the short strategic plan, it lists goals and objectives to effectively plan and manage land use. And again, one of the bigger things is to minimize conflict between land uses. And essentially, that's what we're always looking at when it comes to zone changes. And essentially, the proposed GB2 zoning and the uses that it permits within that zoning district and even what it would permit with the approved specific use permit is not compatible with what's adjacent and within its immediate area, which doesn't promote the effective management of land use. And then again, the proposed zone change is not consistent or appropriate with existing uses in the area. You can see the property identified by the yellow star here. Again, even as Emily stated, the Union Pacific Railroad acts as that physical barrier. And sorry, I tilted this a bit so you can see it more in a landscape type of view. But essentially you could have this large RA portion over here that I was referencing early on. And again, this is all owned by the school. This is owned public use district, and this is still that rural residential that hasn't changed. And again, the zone change does meet the UDC requirements and it was sent to fire police and EMS for review and no objections were provided. And staff recommends denial PLCC 2026-0035 due to the incompatibility with the comp plan and the use is permitted in the proposed zoning district. Thank you.

Thank you, Daisy. Did you wanna say anything?

Yeah, just for this, it's still the same thing that I presented in the last case, just to try to recommend it for GB2. That's the only reason for the industrial hub land plan amendment to do that. But if it could be done without the industrial hub land plan change as well, then that would be good too, just for the zone change and not that. But from my understanding from shirts is that that's not allowed. That would be it. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Well, it's a public hearing again. So it is 634. We'll go and open it up one more time. Yeah, come on up.

Mark Friesen on 22900 Old Nacogdoches Road on the agricultural portion right across from that. I guess really my comment on this is something that was mentioned earlier. And that would be a concern of mine as far as, and it's my ignorance is not, I need to go back and double check what GB2 actually can do. And my understanding of what is going to be done at the moment, that's one thing. But what, you know, about five years from now, if it does get sold two years from now, you know, is it going to be an asphalt mixing, you know, kind of batch plant, those kinds of things. I guess that would be my concern as far as that. I mean, you know, from what it is now and what it's being proposed at, but what happens if it gets sold? And I do need to check that general business district to see more, you know, what could be used as. So anyways, that's my concern. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Going once, twice. It is 635, and we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? Mr. Alla.

Okay, so just to be clear, outdoor storage is, I don't want to ask this question, is outsourced, sorry, I can't talk. I've got new teeth and I'm getting used to them, but...

Does outdoor storage require GB2 zoning?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

Okay, so it's not allowed in GB1. It's not, okay. How about something like a self-storage? How would that, would that fit? Number one, would that fit in local corridor? I'm just curious. That's a curiosity question.

So we have the mixed-use self-storage that is newer, and then we have the regular public storage that you think of your typical.

So if I understand what I've read and what we've been told, GB2 is incompatible with local corridor. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Did you shake your head yes to his question?

Oh, yeah, that GB2 is not compatible with local corridor. Okay.

Anybody else? Commissioner McMaster? No. Oh. Um... Okay, and just for the question that was asked, batch plants, it's a light manufacturing M2, correct?

So concrete batching plants require an approved specific use permit in M2, so that's heavy manufacturing.

Yeah, so it wouldn't, it'd just be flat out. Yeah, okay. Trying to get answers. Well, I don't have anything else. I'll entertain motions if nobody else does.

I'll make a motion that we recommend disapproval of PLZC20260035. Is there a second?

I'll second that motion. Commissioner Grady.

on the second. So that is a motion to recommend denial of PLZC20260035 by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Grady. If there's no other comments, please vote. There are seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. And Daisy, this will still move forward to July 7th, City Council, correct? Awesome. Perfect, all right, well, we will move on to the items for individual consideration. PLPP20260120, Waiver. Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to onsite sewer facilities for the preliminary plot of the Wood subdivision, approximately 2.7 acres of land known as FM3, I'm sorry, known as 7530FN482, more specifically known as Comal County Property Identification Number 75337, City of Shirts, Comal County, Texas.

Good evening, commissioners. How are you doing? PLPP 2026-0120. This is a waiver request for the Woodside Division Preliminary Platte. Seen here is a subject property. Like we said, it's approximately 2.7 acres located on the northwest intersection of FM 482 and Hubertus Road. This is Danville Middle School, if that helps you get acquainted. The applicant is proposing to preliminary plat, and as a result of that, they are required to connect and extend sewer services according to sections 25, 15, 3A and D of the UDC. And this application is a waiver to those two sections of the code. Seen here, we have the proposed preliminary plat. This is the waiver request submitted by the applicant. And here we have the engineering memo provided by our engineering department stating that the closest connection point to sewer is 2,506 feet away, but there is some planned development in the vicinity that will bring sewer near this property. So the engineering memo states that they recommend approval of the waiver with the condition that once sewer does become available, and that they connect to that and cease the operation of their septic. Staff's recommendation is aligned with that. We recommend approval with the conditions. The condition being that the applicant will connect to sewer and abandon their OSSF when the sewer becomes available to them.

Thank you, Brandon. So this is not a public hearing, so we'll move right into commissioner questions. Mr. Outlaw.

Well, I'm just gonna jump in here and make a motion. that we approve PLPP 20260120 waiver with the condition that the tenant connect to sewer once it is available.

I'll second that motion.

I have one quick question. When becomes available to them, is there a timeframe like they have 30 days to begin it or a year to begin it or? when to finish it?

So the engineering department, engineering and public works departments would work with the property owner on a reasonable timeframe. It wouldn't be a, an immediate, you know, we're cutting your sewer line today. You got to connect. They'd work with the property owner for a reasonable timeframe, but there's not a specific, um, at least within the condition that engineering stated timeframe.

Okay. But there is a process in place to ensure that they are reasonable. Yes. Okay.

Thank you, Emily.

Anybody else, any other comments, questions?

Well, there was a motion. It's a motion to approve. It's not a recommendation. We're just approving it. PLPP-20260120, waiver by Commissioner Outlaw, seconded by Commissioner McMaster with the conditions from engineering. Does that sound right? Yes. All right. Please vote. Can we please publish that? That motion carries. All right, moving on. PLPP20260120, consider and act upon a request for approval of a preliminary plot of the Wood Subdivision, approximately 2.7 acres of land known as 7530FM482, more specifically known as Comal County Property Identification Number 75337, City Shares Comal County, Texas.

Brandon. Good evening again, commissioners. This is PLPP 2026-0120. This is the preliminary plat for the wood subdivision that we just discussed, Brandon Elliott, planner. Again, here's the subject property. It is fronting FM 482 on the northwest corner of 482 and Hubertus Road, and this is Danville Middle School on the southeast corner for your reference. The proposed preliminary plat would be establishing one lot and one block at approximately, or at 2.69 acres. The current zoning is M1, and it would be taking direct access off FM 42. It's currently located in the city of Shirts Sewer at CCN, and there is an existing home on site that's already being served by an OSSF. Again, here's the proposed preliminary plat. And the proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the applicable requirements for the property and regulations. The plat has been reviewed with no objections by the engineering, fire, and planning departments. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as presented.

Thank you, Brandon. Again, this is not a public hearing, so we'll move right into commissioner questions, comments. Anybody? Mr. Outlaw?

Would you go back to your zoning? There you go, right there. So even though it's a single family there now, it's actually zoned M1, correct?

It is currently zoned M1, yes. Okay, thank you.

Is that not a plat requirement to meet the existing zoning or to have zoning match it?

the law itself meets the requirements, the dimensional requirements, which it does, it would be permitted. So essentially, the existing residential that's there now, it's considered legal non-conforming, it can remain, and it's bound to Article 7 of the UDC.

Gotcha. Thank you. Well, anybody else? No? Motions?

Make a motion to recommend or to approve... PLP20260120.

I'll second that motion.

That is a motion to not recommend approve PLPP20260120 by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Outlaw. If there's no other comments, please vote. I have seven, can we publish that? That motion carries. All right, PLVAR20260129, sign waiver. Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on lot seven, block one of the Shirts Station Subdivision, approximately 3.04 acres of land, located at 18406 IH 35 North, more specifically known as Guadalupe County, property identification number 203794, City of Shirts, Texas. Emily.

Good evening commissioners. PLVR-2026-0129, it is a signed waiver request for Shirt Station Lot 7, Block 1. Emily Delgado, Planning Manager. So here is the subject property outlined in yellow. You can see it's at the hard corner of Cibola Valley Drive and IH 35 and Northern Shirts and that Shirt Station larger development. It is currently zoned PDD as part of that Shirt Station development. This is the proposed freestanding ground sign that is being proposed for Lot 7, Block 1. It is 35 feet tall, 13 feet 6 inches wide for a total area of 472.5 square feet. Here is that approximate location of the proposed signage. So it would be located again on that hard corner of 35 and Cibolo Valley. So some background in Article 11, sign code amendment was completed in June of 2025 and adopted by city council. And as part of that overall Article 11 amendment, a new section was created granting waiver authority to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So that's why we're here tonight for the waiver request. And specifically this waiver is for a proposed sign that exceeds the maximum area for a freestanding ground sign. So you may be thinking deja vu, we've looked at a sign for lot seven block one before. So we did at the April 1st, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting, there was a waiver request specifically for lot seven. At that time they were requesting two waivers, one for the maximum area to exceed the 250 that's allowable and an additional waiver for an off premise sign. At that April 1st meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved their ability to have an off-premise sign. So remember, that's their ability to have businesses not located on lot 7 to advertise on lot 7. So the Home Depot that's in the rear can advertise on that lot 7 sign. But it was denied to have that maximum area increase. So it's kind of more of that planning zoning commission allowed that off-premise sign, but did not determine that there was the necessity to have increased signage past the maximum allowable. So the requirement currently within the UDC permits a freestanding sign on IH 35 to have a maximum area of 250 square feet. The current proposal is for 472.5 square feet, again, 35 by 13 feet, six inches, which does exceed that maximum allowable by 222.5 square feet. When we look at signed waivers within the Unified Development Code, we look at 21.11.15 for the considerations for approval. The first being is the nature of the proposed use of land involved. So this lot is part of that overall short station PDD, which again is a mix of retail, commercial, restaurants, and then the collection at short station, the multifamily in the rear. No UDC sign deviations were proposed as part of that PDD amendment, which again, during that design standards review, the PDD approval process, they could have requested deviations and asked for larger signage at that time. We also look at the location of the property in relation to roadway classification. So again, this property is on IH 35 in Cibola Valley Drive. Per the applicant's justification, the waiver is needed and the increased signage is needed due to varying elevation and vertical grade changes along IH 35. The increased sign area is necessary to improve visibility for the shirt station development and its national credit tenants while maintaining compliance with all height requirements. So again, per the UDC, they can have a sign that's up to 50 feet in height. They are proposing a shorter sign, but again, the area, the overall area of the sign exceeds. They also stated that the increased area is necessary to address limited interstate visibility caused by varying elevation and grade changes along IH 35. When staff evaluated the request and the justification, we do not feel that this site justifies or warrants that additional 225 222.5 square feet of signage. And then I wanted to remind you that lot six immediately adjacent to this lot, they have a freestanding ground sign that met all of the UDC requirements. And then another thing to note that since this lot is on a hard corner, they would be permitted to have three freestanding ground signs on just lot seven alone. We also look at the existing land uses in the vicinity. So again, all of the land that surrounds them besides the right away, is within the short station development, is designed to be retail and commercial. Lot 7 specifically has two multi-tenant buildings that are currently occupied with Panera, Cava, James Avery that's gonna open soon, multiple other additional businesses that are in the tenant finish-out process. We also look at 21-11-15C, the first being granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other properties in the area. So one of the City Assurance core values is doing the right thing. The proposed signage does not promote the core value of doing the right thing to other properties along IH 35 that have met those UDC requirements for signage for their business. Specifically, City Council adopted the UDC amendment in June of 2025, which actually allowed greater flexibility and increased signage from what was previously permitted. Prior to that UDC amendment, this would have been classified as a multi-tenant sign, which would have had a maximum area of 150 square feet. So just the UDC amendment in June of 2025 allowed them an additional 100 square feet right off the bat. We would also state that this sign could be injurious to other property in the area in relation to the visibility of other properties along IH 35 and Sybil Valley Drive. And speaking with the applicant, they are intending to have freestanding or ground signs, monument signs on every single lot that fronts IH 35. So that would be a total of at least seven freestanding ground signs along IH 35. Currently they have the signs that they do have do meet the requirements. This sign specifically is just asking for the increased area, but I wanted to kind of the bigger picture along shirt station and IH 35, they are intending to have seven signs. So the property in question, it's not necessarily unique in location in relation to other properties located along IH 35. The UDC Article 11 is in place to ensure cohesive development for all properties. And again, that same requirement that would be applicable for IH 35 would also be applicable for properties on IH 10 as well. Granting the waiver as requested by the applicant is an inconsistent interpretation of that UDC that favors one specific development over other developments as staff does not feel that there is adequate justification based off of vertical grain changes or the nature. So some other considerations, again, just reminding everybody that with that UDC amendment, they are allowed increased signage already. And then, so going back to that April meeting, so at that time they did request a 40 foot tall, 19 foot wide sign that was 760 square feet in area. So they did decrease that signage to the proposed 472.5 square feet. With that same varying elevation and vertical grade changes, a reduction of 287.5 square feet was able to be made. With that consideration, staff is unclear on why, if that same vertical grade, the vertical grade of I-35 has not changed between April and now, how that drastic of a change could be made, but not just being able to meet the 250 that's required. And then a little bit of my soapbox, if you will. If PNZ, the city council, feels that this waiver is appropriate, that we should have larger signage, then staff would recommend doing a full UDC amendment for freestanding signs on 35 and I-10. We need to be consistent. If we feel that larger signage needs to be permitted, then we should allow that for all businesses on 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 for increased maximum area of a freestanding ground sign. And the applicant is here to make a presentation as well.

Thank you, Emily.

Okay Brittany Christie I am the director of development with Merritt commercial real estate and I am here on behalf of the applicant short station Again, I saw almost all of you maybe with the exception of you Commissioner Hector So in staffs presentation, she's correct we Missed the appeal deadline after our last PNC meeting but with good reason Since we last met we took your feedback We reviewed it in detail. We reengaged our science consultant and I'm hoping this helps answer one of Emily's questions and staff's questions. But we reengaged our science consultant. We had them redo their visibility analysis. We reviewed it in greater detail just to better understand visibility constraints relative to roadway conditions, traffic, viewing distances, building placement, tenant placement, and the ability for motorists to view signage and the site from a reasonable distance and make good safety driving decisions. The time in the evaluation was absolutely necessary. The last thing that we wanted to do was either appeal and go to city council or come back to you guys like we are here today with something that we would consider an over ask based off of the feedback that we got from you guys last meeting. So with that being said, Emily did a really good job of generally describing the project as a whole. And all of you, with the exception of one of you, heard my spiel last time. But Shirt Station is a 72-acre master plan development. So we are here representing the commercial, but it's a partnership with Embry Development on the backside of the collection at Shirt Station. There's 300 build-to-rent units. And then it is located... along Cibolo Valley Drive and IH 35, which IH 35 is one of the heavily, most heavily trafficked corridors in Texas. As we all know, we send traffic on it all the time. You're looking at the site plan here. So the proposed pylon location that we're talking about today is located at the corner of Cibolo Valley Drive and Interstate 35. Emily mentioned that there are seven proposed signage opportunities along or across the 30 plus acre short station project and 10 commercial lots. That's true. There are three existing signs onsite today. On lot five, there's an existing multi-tenant sign servicing all tenants in that multi-tenant building on lot five. There's a sign located on lot six servicing the lot six multi-tenant building in those tenants and both lot seven multi-tenant buildings. and all of those tenants. And then there's a sign located on lot eight servicing the lot eight multi-tenant building and those tenants and it will serve the future tenants off of lot 14 and 15 at a future date. And then you see there are three proposed future signs on lot two, lot three and lot four that could end up being a single tenant sign or a multi-tenant sign just really depending on how the site plan plays out. All of which is permitted within code. Emily mentioned it, but I'm going to just reiterate and remind everybody that, yes, per code today, for lot 7, for example, we could have a sign located along all public right-of-ways. So what that means is we could have a sign along Interstate 35, along Cibola Valley Drive, and along Station Road, which is also a public right-of-way. Instead of littering the site with signage that might be unnecessary, we've decided to consolidate our request into one single proposed pylon sign. that has better visibility off of Interstate 35, that services our anchor tenants, which are those tenants that are interior to the site, Home Depot being a good example, Crunch Fitness soon to be a good example, and then future tenants that are interior to the site will be displayed on this pylon sign, pretty standard. Okay, so in our last meeting, we proposed the sign on the left, like I said, went through, I rewatched our planning commission meeting. I listened to your feedback. We did the best that we could by reengaging our sign consultant, having them rerun their visibility analysis. I mean, they're analyzing everything from traffic speeds, viewing distances from 35. It's important not only for tenant visibility, but safety concerns. So we're looking at everything. We did that. We took the time to do that. And we were able to feel comfortable reducing the size of the sign in good faith to try to meet the city in the middle, if not further than that, maintaining visibility for our tenants and to 35, but also trying to get as close as we could to a code compliance sign and still accomplishing both goals. So we felt that this kind of met in the middle. I think it's important also to notice that the, or just to note, that the requested variance really, it's driven by multiple things. Not only is it the elevation and grade change, which I'll get into in a moment, but also just generally how the city's calculating allowable square footage for signage. So they not only include structure, architectural components, what I would call project identification features, like the short station at the top of the sign, if I flip back, those are all calculated into the overall square footage. So 35 by, I mean, 35 by 13, six, you get 472 and a half square feet. Um, but if you're just looking at the tenant, advertizable space, the tenant panels, we are within the allowable square footage, just as a point, um, the project name shirts station. So that was intentionally selected as a way to promote the city of shirts as a premier retail destination along 35. As you can see, the proposed sign that we previously brought had short station along the side of the sign. That is consistent with the other existing signs on site. So we were kind of running with the same cohesive design here. Instead, we have opted to move short station to the top of the sign, decrease the size of the width of the panels and the sign in general. What that also does is it places shirts at the very top of the sign, which is the highest and best visibility off of the IH 35 corridor. I think that this revised design not only services the development and the tenants, but it also services the city as representing community identity, placemaking, and just recognition that Shirts is a regional retail destination. So through our design process, and reviewing of our visibility constraints, a strictly code-compliant sign would require maximizing tenant advertising panels while minimizing any kind of architectural features or placemaking elements. So the result would be a sign focused entirely on tenant logos with little opportunity for architectural features, project branding, et cetera. These attached examples are just to give you guys an understanding of what it would look like to meet the code requirement numerically while limiting any kind of aesthetic value, project branding, placemaking, et cetera. So such signs like this, they prioritize tenant panels over any kind of architectural value that might be offered to the project. If you were to calculate only the true advertizable square footage like I mentioned, and remind you guys, we would be within code. Emily touched on in her staff report the PDD process. I didn't get to touch on this in our last meeting, so I want to make it really clear that while that is true, the PDD process, and that's on the front end during entitlements and zoning on a project, where you have a conceptual understanding of what you're trying to do with the project, but you are not under design, you're just getting started, and that does provide an opportunity, she is absolutely correct, for you to bring up and identify areas where you might need to defer from code, and you document that in your PDD, but to be very clear, it is discretionary. While we can go through that process, it still goes before PNC, it still goes before city council, just like my waiver request is today, pieces of it or all of it can be denied, so it's really an iterative process. we did not understand the true scope of the project or the sign needs at that time. So that's why it wasn't included in the PDD. And that's why I'm here presenting a waiver request in lieu of that option. But through that zoning process, we have represented to the city, we have represented to the community that short station would be a project that was high quality. We were to be using better building materials, an elevated design, thoughtful landscaping, such design that you wouldn't see at the typical shopping center, right? And that commitment extends to signage. And so we're trying to deliver on that promise that we gave to the city and to the community. So I think the question really isn't, can we build a code compliance sign? We can, we have. I think the question really is whether the city would rather have a sign that is code compliant and it maximizes tenant logos, or one that combines signage visibility, architectural quality, and community identity. So again, staff report touched on one of our justifications, which really is the elevation and grade change between 35 and the shirt station project. As a reminder, lot seven, which is where the pylon sign is located and IH 35 have an approximate grade change of 18 feet. What that means is that the highway is about 18 feet lower than the shirt station site, making it nearly impossible to view the site and therefore signage. To better illustrate without just taking you all for a drive, The Google Earth image here represents middle of the highway directly in front of the shirt station site. As you can see, there's a very significant grade change. So I politely disagree that that's not a site constraint. It's very obvious if anyone has driven on 35 directly in front of this location. And that grade change exists not just directly in front of the sign, but for a pretty significant portion of the shirt station project. So finally, I'd like to highlight a couple signage examples for different reasons. So the city staff report referenced the City of Shirts billboard, and they presented this for a size comparison to you all. Respectfully, we don't believe this is an appropriate benchmark for evaluating our proposed sign. From both a design and a scale perspective, it's fundamentally different. And in addition to that, the signage size regulations that we are being expected to comply with, I mean, this that clearly exceeds. So I don't feel like it's a really good representation. The next example is the forum. This is one of two pylon signs serving the forum. During our previous meeting, it was brought up that Home Depot was not being advertised on pylons at the forum. They are clearly being advertised prominently at the top of two pylon signs along the highway. This is consistent with industry standards across retail development, right? Anchor tenants are afforded better visibility on pylon signs because they are typically situated to the rear of the project and do not have visibility to 35 from a signage perspective. Third example is Creekside and New Braunfels. This is just another example of a large commercial power center, shopping center, that represents anchor tenants on their pylon signage who do not have direct visibility to the highway in most instances, it just, again, reflects a common retail practice for shopping centers of this size where they afford the anchor tenants who are the traffic generators to the project the highest and best visibility on signage. Lastly, we included the shops at Civil O Bend. So this is a pylon sign that is notably larger than the sign we were requesting today. just down the road from our project. While I understand that this is in the city of Schertz and that particular sign is located in the city of Cibolo, I think it's impractical for us to just disregard it as a direct comparison from an economic development standpoint. So consumers do not distinguish between municipal boundaries when they're choosing where to shop, where to dine, and where to spend their money. Nearby retail developments are in competition with each other for consumers, for tenants, for investment, for dollars, regardless of the jurisdiction. As such, developments provide relevant context when evaluating visibility. This provides relevant context when you are evaluating visibility constraints in comparison with other projects. In our last meeting, a good point was brought up relative to why signage visibility still matters people are utilizing their GPS to find locations. Very valid point. I would say that GPS may direct users to a specific property or to a specific address, but it does not provide adequate real-time identification of specific businesses within a shopping center. Visitors, customers, delivery drivers, emergency responders all utilize signage as a confirmation that they have in fact arrived at the correct location. In addition to that, our visibility analysis, like I said, we went back through it. It proved that adequately sized signage or inadequately sized signage allows motorists to identify destinations with a reasonable period of time that allows them to make safe driving decisions. So when signage is undersized relative to roadway speed or traffic volumes or setback distances, drivers are more likely to make erratic decisions, right? sudden lane changes, abrupt turns, or just miss the entrance in general, creating just unnecessary safety concerns. Lastly, I want to touch on, in our previous meeting, something that we discussed, and that was that there's extensive industry research that shows a direct correlation between increased signage visibility and sales, right? So simply put, businesses that are easier to locate will generate more traffic and therefore greater sales. So regardless of anyone's individual preferences on particular tenants for this project, Home Depot is a good example of an anchor tenant that is a primary traffic generator for the project. So they drive a substantial number of visitors to the project, which in turn benefits surrounding tenants. That's called co-tenancy. It also increases overall consumer activity and then contributes significantly to sales tax revenue generated by the project. The success of short station benefits the city directly through this increased sales tax revenue. And in addition to that, job creation, it's just expanded economic activity. So for that reason, this request is not only a tenant and a development concern, It's an economic development consideration, and I do not want that to be overlooked in this conversation. I guess in closing, the requested sign area, the increase to the sign area, in our opinion, after we've heard your feedback and we've revised our sign design, is a relatively modest adjustment that can have a meaningful impact on the overall success of the project. It allows the development to effectively identify its anchor tenants, which are the major traffic generators, improve customer awareness, and then in the long term, increase performance and therefore sales tax revenue to the city. I appreciate y'all's time and reconsideration of our request. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you, Brittany. Real quick before I open it up to them, I did a couple questions and I think I'll be commissioner out loud to the punch here. So can you go back to your first slide?

Like the very, very front.

Yeah. Oops. You get a picture of some of the existing signs is what I'm looking for.

Like this one?

Yep. You got it. So not assuming that each one of those is unique. So the one right there, as your mouse is on, it's got 12 spots. So hypothetically, each sign has 12 spaces. So with five existing signs along 35, it's a potential of 60 individual spaces. What blanket of advertisement does that not capture already that the increased signage would?

That's a good question. While the sign that we're referring to, you might be counting 12 spaces, that's because it's accommodating three multi-tenant buildings.

Yeah.

So lot six, all of the tenants in lot six building, which is 12,000 square feet, all of the tenants in the lot seven A and lot seven B building. So that's why it's necessary to have 12 tenant panels. And we make a good judgment based off of our historical data and our experience of how many tenants we think will end up in these multi-tenant buildings. And we provide signage panels accordingly. So because we were accommodating three different buildings, that's why there's 12 signage panels. The lot five sign is much smaller than that because it's only accommodating the lot five tenants, which is just a 12,000 square foot building. The lot eight sign that you cannot see on this photo is even smaller because again, it's accommodating less tenants. So I don't know if that answers your question, but we don't typically build signage unless there's a good reason for it. So we do try to document how many tenants need tenant panels and we build accordingly.

But so, with that, so like the picture, I don't know if it's your presentation, it might have been Emily's, where there was the proposed signs still. So I mean, hypothetically, if you're getting two signs along the frontage on lot seven, yep, that was it, you just passed it. Can you go back one? So you had five along the front here, let's say this one doesn't work out, and so you have two on lot seven, that six along the frontage on 35, two along lot eight, I didn't do my math for that. I had 108 hypothetical spots on the signs. I mean, is that not enough?

When you say too long on lot eight, you're referring to placing a sign on station road.

On lot seven, you'd have something along Cibola Valley and something along 35. And then realistically, if you did put something on station road, that's another. I mean, I'm using 12 as like that's how many you had on one. And you're sitting at a hypothetical maximum. I mean, there's not that many tenant spaces. I think it's, you know, what is the big hangup on the code requirement if all the other ones meet it?

Sure. So I think that the part of the question can be answered with the pylon sign is dedicated to anchor tenants. And also I'd like to mention if it would make the commissioners more comfortable and if this is allowed by city. Sorry, I'm looking for you over there. of approval with conditions that we would not place an additional sign on lot seven. We're comfortable doing that because when I tell you that we're trying to consolidate our request into one more prominent sign, and again, the lot seven tenants are already being represented on the lot six sign. That was the plan from the beginning. We're comfortable with that. We're not trying to litter the site with signage that's not even visible. So placing signs along station road, albeit we can per code, it's not really helpful to the project given that we're trying to increase visibility from the major thoroughfares, which is 35 and the Cibola Valley Drive as a secondary.

So for the visibility portion, I know you showed like an after photo, like after you're passing the site. Is there a visibility issue on the approach?

Both ways, actually. One is worse than the other, and I'm probably going to say it wrong because I do like every time I talk about this, but going southbound towards San Antonio is worse from an approach standpoint than going north towards New Braunfels, which is a little bit better, but directly in front of the site, like I showed you on the photo is, I mean, it's significant. You can barely even see the existing buildings.

I think that's my comments for now. Anybody else? I know Mr. Outlaw is.

Yeah, I have a comment. Do you think first responders are idiots?

I absolutely do not. I'm married to one. So he would be very upset to hear that.

You commented that we look at signs to make sure we're in the right location. This sign is going to advertise tenants that aren't anywhere near this sign. Sure. So that reasoning for this sign being big is completely bogus.

I understand your concern. I think that it doesn't put you directly in front of the store if we're advertising Home Depot on that sign, so I understand where you're coming from. And I want to be clear, I absolutely did not mean any offense. Again, my husband is a first responder.

You have two long-term first responders sitting on this board.

Absolutely, and I am in total support. That is not even part of the question. I can guarantee you that. I appreciate your comment, and it makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Commissioner Hector.

Yes, thank you. Hi. Sorry I missed the last time. I think I was out of the country. But so I will just, one, offer my own personal opinion because I've driven up and down 35 quite a bit here recently. as the construction was going on. And I can tell you that you absolutely lose visibility on the southbound side of 35. But my question one is, what is the number of panels that would be resident on this sign you're proposing?

Say that one more time, the number of panels.

Number of panels, the total number of panels?

So there would be five.

Okay. And the sign, the new currently proposed design, the size of it in comparison to the one that you showed on Cibolo Bend.

On Cibola Valley Drive? Or the one that Commissioner Wallace pointed out? The existing example?

No.

Oh, I'm sorry, on Cibola Valley Drive, yes. The size comparison? Yes. I don't have the exact square footage, but I did send our signage consultant out there to confirm that this sign was smaller, in fact, than that, if not comparable.

Okay. And then just a... a general statement regarding our, I guess, intentionality of what we want shirts to look like, what we want it to be. We've had this conversation in the past, and I really want to understand, ultimately, because I think it came up when we talked about Home Depot proposing more signage than I think the code allowed for in the beginning. And so one, is this the same question regarding no, or?

No, so previously the Home Depot itself got a waiver. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied it. It got appealed to City Council, and City Council approved larger wall signs. So Home Depot itself will have larger wall signs. This is specifically just for Lot 7. to have the larger freestanding sign. Okay. So even though this sign is intended to advertise for the Home Depot, technically they could advertise for any of the tenants throughout Shirt Station on this sign.

Okay. Okay. All right. Fair enough. And... They redid the design, and it's still, I guess, exceeding the code, right? That's correct. And I don't know that any consideration was given to the change in topography or the depth of the road going up and down and from where. But is this something that we do need to maybe look at going forward? Because I think ultimately we want to advertise for people to do business insurance, right? And it's not to say that if the sign is not increased or if we stick to our guns and don't allow the waiver that they won't. But I guess I'm not really sure what the differences would be. and if it's a safety issue then that's a different discussion but i don't know that i've heard anyone say that it is so so i would just say that for me i think you know being intentional about what we want you know sign into long 35 and i tend to look like uh it sounds you know it's a conversation that we need to have for sure

Agreed. And I would say when the UDC amendment for all of Article 11 went through, we had those conversations and we felt like 250 square feet on I-35 and IH-10 was appropriate. Now, if I know Commissioner Outlaw wants a conversation about Article 11 again, but if we feel that 250 square feet isn't large enough, then yes, we need to go through that amendment process. And we would want that amendment to be applicable for all properties on 35 and 10. if we don't feel that 250 square feet is large enough. But back in June of 2025, we did. City Council said that 250 square feet was large enough. We did look at the grade changes on 35, but those are not unique just to lot seven. Same change, you have that same site concerns on lot six immediately next door, but that one was able to meet the code requirements. It's not just for Shirt Station. 35 is where it is for all of the businesses along 35. So if we're concerned with the vertical grade of 35 and signage along 35, then we should look at it for all businesses, not just specifically this one.

Okay. And am I correct to understand that this is the only sign of this size that's being proposed for Shirt Station?

Currently, yes. But I would say that there would be nothing prohibiting them from coming and requesting a waiver on a different lot to have a larger signage. At the April meeting, they were requesting larger signage on two lots, not just this one.

Okay. Sorry, I missed it. Okay. I think that answers my question. Thank you.

Anybody else? Mr. Velazquez, Commissioner Velazquez.

Do you guys have the elevation of I-35 coming from San Antonio to New Grand Falls versus the Cibolo Road, Cibolo Creek Road? What is the difference in elevation between when you come from I-35 going north?

I specifically do not know that.

I know that every day.

So it's a, because the roadway is flat, so on both lanes, going north and south, directly in front of the short station, there is an 18-foot grade change.

If you take the elevation after you pass the bridge, I can see it because you're using the grade of A12 versus A35. Got it. But that's not the final grade of I-35, unless you can show me that that's the final grade of I-35.

I don't know if this exhibit does any job of that.

You got A12 is after the bridge of Cibolo Creek Street, and that's the grade...

I'm sorry, you're seeing 832?

You got 850 versus 832. In the middle of I-35. That's in the middle of 835?

That is correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

And then it's 850, which is highlighted, which is directly in proximity to the proposed sign.

After you pass the overhead pass in Cibolo Creek Valley.

I'm sorry, let me see if this, there we go, the mouse. 850 is what I'm referring to here. That's on site in relation, and that's where we're getting the 18-foot grade change.

So sure, it's here. After the bridge.

Going north?

Going north.

That is correct, yes, sir.

Okay, thanks.

No problem. And if I can, do you mind if I just say one thing? Just to clear, since Commissioner Hector wasn't here, that is correct. We did present two signs, two pylon signs at the last PNZ meeting. We went back through and again, we heard what you had to say and we were trying our best in good partnership with the city to try to meet in the middle. And with that being said, we are no longer, and I'm happy to document this in any way we need to, but we are no longer seeking a variance for the lot to sign. Any sign that is built on that lot, whether it be a single tenant sign or a multi-tenant sign, will comply with city code. This will be the only sign that Shirt Station is seeking, only freestanding sign along 35 that Shirt Station is seeking a waiver request for.

Go for it. On your original sign that we recommended denial of, you had four Tenon areas. You've got five tenon areas on here. So if you do away with one of those tenon areas, lower shirt station down and do away with the maintenance on the bottom, you'll drop another hundred square feet off of your sign.

That's very true. The problem is we are trying to maintain the 35 feet in height from a visibility standpoint from 35. And doing that and it not looking funny, that's also one of the reasons as we reevaluated how we could design it, still accomplish, you know, tenant panel visibility, give us flexibility there and visibility. We moved the shirt station to the top of the sign to try to balance it out a little bit better because otherwise as we shrink the sign, but we still need to maintain a ratio on the panel dimensions, it really limits us. It's kind of a puzzle. but it's the height that we're trying to maintain. We cannot, we presented a 40 foot sign, 35 feet. If you saw in the quick like Google earth exhibit that I provided you guys due to the elevation change, it's, it's not great 35 feet. But again, we heard what you had to say and we're trying to meet in the middle and still provide as adequate of visibility as we can for these anchor tenants who do not have visibility signage visibility off 35 and they will be featured on the pylon sign. So 35 feet was the maximum or the minimum height that we felt could accomplish that.

I'm just saying that you can drop 100 square feet off of your sign by doing away with the bottom tenant sign and the masonry and just putting it on a pylon.

And I understand that. And that's why I tried to give some visual representations of pylon type signs. It's not that we could not do that, but it doesn't do a good job of representing what we have promised to the city. And that is this increased architectural elements, higher end building materials. A pylon sign would be cheaper. That's for certainly sure. Instead of placing real limestone at the base of the sign, just as we did on the buildings. But we're just, we're trying to deliver on the promise that we provided to the city. Okay. Thank you.

Real quick, you did say one thing. So the tenants on the sign, you said they wouldn't have visibility anywhere else?

No, along, no signage visibility along 35 or Cibola Valley Drive.

So they wouldn't be on it? Okay, no, no. From a signage standpoint. I got you, I got you.

Just because the building's set back and any other signs that they might have will not be along.

I thought you were saying they wouldn't be on any of those pylon signs. Oh, no.

Okay, cool. That's the plan.

Anybody else? Mr.

Outlaw? It's funny that my colleague brought up the emergency response because I was just, I think I was talking to my wife the other day, and it really has nothing to do with signs, but as an emergency responder, Of course, things are a little bit different now. We've got computer-aided dispatch and computers in the trucks and all that. But they would dispatch us to an address. And one of the first things I'd do was say, do you have a business name? because I might not know where 18501 IH 35 is, but you tell me it's Panera Bread, I know where that's at. Okay, so where do I start? I've got questions for everybody here, okay? Let me start, you know, as Emily mentioned, I've asked for a workshop to... to rehash, I guess it's section 11, as you pointed out. And so right now, they're shirt station. The only identity is on those, is sideways on those signs along the front, correct?

Yes, the existing signs.

So this would give us right on the corner, a big sign, well, I don't wanna say a big sign, a medium-sized sign that immediately says, hey guys, this is Shirts Station. And that does a lot for me because there was a time when we first moved to Shirts, I used to tell people that I think everybody that lived north of Live Oak Road thought they lived in San Antonio. You had the express news when HEB opened, it was Northeast San Antonio. They didn't say shirts. And even today, I think we have an identity problem because you look at Cibolo Valley Drive and, you know, I want to say south, but it's anyway, whatever. But on one side of it is the city of Cibolo. And right on the other side, Shirts Station, that's the City of Shirts. And, you know, you got people who are like, well, you know, they don't know. And I don't know if they even care. But I think this sign would help provide some, a little bit more identity for shirts itself and tell people that when you're eating at Smokey Moe's or Portillo's, you're in shirts, not Zibelo. I would argue that yes, when we redid the sign ordinance, I don't know that we were really thinking, you know, we used the word unique. And I'll give you a comparison. The concern here for the developer is visibility for their major tenants that really don't front the roadway. They're in the back of the development. And so I would argue that Schurz Station is different than this brand new retail development up here off of Widerstein on 3009. Because everything in that development is facing 3.009. There are no properties in the back. What you see is what you get. So in that workshop that we hope to have, a couple of the kinds of things I wanted to discuss have been brought up here. Number one is should we give some consideration to large development properties like shirt station, um, should, and, and particularly those that have, um, tenants, not on the primary, not, not with no visibility. I don't want to say, cause they are visible. I mean, I'm sorry. Home Depot sticks out like a sore thumb, but they're interior to the site, but they're interior to the, to the road. Yes. Um, and then the sign area itself, One of the things I'd like to talk about in that workshop is do we include the entire sign or just the advertising part of it? Because again, what the developer's trying to do here is put together a pleasant, a nice looking sign. with a nice frame, masonry base, and again, good, you know, here you are, you are in sure station. And yeah, when you look at just the tenant list, just those five panels, it's 240 square feet, okay. So that was one of the kinds of things I'd like to see in the workshop, okay, because I think there are differences between large-scale projects like this and just like down the street here along Church Parkway, everything there is facing, it's not an issue. What you see is what you get. I was joking with my wife one time we drove by there that you folks put up those nice multi-tenant signs. which are really nice until all those trees the city made you plant mature. And then I don't think you're gonna see them anymore.

I hope that's not true. We tried to do our best to balance the two.

I think it was just depend on how high they grow. But anyway, I'm curious to see how that all went. But not to mention it's also gonna, I think those trees are gonna hide the building signage.

Okay.

So your pylon signs or your ground signs become even more important. And I'd like to point out one big difference between what Sure Station is doing and the forum. If anybody's gone to the forum, And you come off a 35 there, and not Olympia, but that next, that lower exit. Anyway, and you make a right turn, and there's a pylon sign that advertises somebody that's, you know, way the heck up in the far corner. Or, you know... In other words, the tenants that are on that sign are nowhere near, they're not, you know, to me, they do absolutely nothing for the shoppers to help you know where you need to go in the shopping center. Whereas a short station is at least with their individual lot signs, they're only advertising the businesses that are on that lot. So let's see. So hypothetical, they could just put, what's the height limit up there? 50. So theoretically, they could take a 250 square foot Home Depot sign and put it on a pole as long as it didn't exceed 50 feet. And then we have no project identifying, no city identity. Yeah. So you answered another question here for me. I wrote down here because knowing you had that second one, you asked for two last time. And yeah, there's not, even though all your assurances and they're really, I can't think of a way that would, the only thing that would keep you from getting a second one is sitting right here. And I think, you know, so, but that's okay. Okay, so let me see, I'm working down the list here. I talked about that, I talked about that. The timing of the PED and I'm sorry, excuse me just a minute. The timing of the new sign ordinance and the PDD. Was that new sign ordinance in effect when they did their PDD? So if they'd asked for anything, it would have been, okay, amending or asking for variations to the old.

Okay.

Now, we keep talking about visibility and you keep bringing up the grade change from 35. but you've got your sign oriented perpendicular to 35. So how is that going to do anything? How's that going to provide any visibility from 35?

To approaching traffic. So as you're driving past the site, when you're looking at short station, are you looking at signage? Like, you're probably not looking at it. I mean, safely, you're probably not looking at it. When you're directly perpendicular to it, you're looking at it in advance for oncoming traffic. So if it was facing directly perpendicular with 35, albeit you would be able to see it as you passed more clearly than if it is parallel, like you said, or I just flipped those two. It's really for oncoming traffic. And that's generally how we orient our signs. The other signs located on our other lots are situated the same way.

Well, but I understand that because you're really looking at those from the access road, not from the industry.

I know, because you can't see them from 35 because they're too small.

Okay. But, again, I understand. And, you know, I'm very familiar with the risk of setting precedents. And I used to make decisions all the time. And setting a precedent was always a consideration. And I always made sure that I had a valid articulable reason for doing what I did. So that when the next one came in and I said, no, I was able to say, well, no, it's not the same. here's why I made this decision on the previous one. And I think we are all perfectly capable of doing that. But I also agree with Emily, it would be nice to not have to deal with a series of waivers. And yes, we should be fair to everybody. But again, so that's why I've asked for a workshop, whether or not anything's gonna come of it, you know, who knows? But... And again, we need to be fair. So what we need to do is set, again, some criteria. Now, one thing, again, I'm gonna say it one more time. I like their new proposal for several reasons. Number one, it gives the location itself some identity. It provides city identity. And when you only look at the tenant advertising area, it is less than the allowable signage area. And it's a very nice looking sign compared to some of the others as you drive around. So thank you, sir. Absolutely.

Anybody else? Good. All right.

Well, I think Commissioner Hector.

Oh, okay, I just saw you reaching for it. I don't think I have anything else, so. I'll open it up to motions.

I'll make a motion to recommend approve of the waiver in relation to the freestanding ground sign on lot seven.

And I will second that motion, but this is an action item for us, not a recommendation, which is to be.

Commissioner Velasquez, do you have something?

I saw your, you pushed the- Is there is a chance to put a tentative postponement of this requirement until we see Article 11?

I mean, approving a waiver, we gonna go like- So you could, well, a motion has been made. A continuance is a motion that we could take to continue the item to a later date after that discussion has happened. I mean, do you have an idea of when that workshop might happen?

the earliest that workshop would be July and that wouldn't be for like actual recommendation City Council so we're looking at end of summer early fall before any UDC amendments would be done

So.

Because I understand what the commission was saying about how nice it looks and all the stuff it promotes. But we're going outside of our normal UDC just to approve something. And then all those people behind that are approving signs with the 250 will say, well, if that's the case, I can submit waivers for everything.

So I would say that is the other property owner's rights. They can come in and request waivers as well. I mean, with the UDC amendment, the waiver section was put in place so the Planning and Zoning Commission could hear property owners and business owners, you know, request. So I don't necessarily know that Shirts Station and Brittany would want to wait and postpone this until the fall for action. We'd rather just take action and see what happens.

Is that in here, okay. All right, well a motion has been made, so let's take action on that. That was a motion to approve PLVAR20260129, the sign waiver for lot seven, block one, by Commissioner Hector, seconded by Commissioner Outlaw. So if, I will add a comment, you know, I will agree with both sides that was said tonight. I think the points by Commissioner Outlaw and the reasoning for it, and then the allocations made to bring it down, I think are gonna be appropriate. With that, go for it. Go ahead and vote.

I have a comment.

Oh, you have a comment as well. Go for it.

I'd like to add a condition to your motion.

Can't do that? So we need to take action on the motion first, and then for some reason if this fails, then we can take that up after.

Point of order, I'm not sure, I believe he can propose an amendment to my motion.

So, hold on one second. Do we wanna, is Brian?

And I'm sorry, I should know all this stuff. I've looked at it many times, but it just never comes up. But yeah, no, I think there's a motion on the floor, and I think if someone wants to propose an amendment, that they can do that. And then we have to, the order then would be to deal with the amendment and then come back to the primary motion. Yeah, we don't deal strictly with Roberts. We've kind of set our own. Now, I think they're probably based on Roberts, but we've kind of written our own rules.

Oh, yeah, I know everybody sets their own rules. I just know that in accordance with Roberts' rules of order, you can amend a motion.

Well, they're trying to find it over here, if you don't mind, just, Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Do we need a recess for a minute?

Well, don't give me a challenge. It appears to me that, yes, you can amend the motion if it is agreeable. And then we were just checking to verify that the waiver can actually have conditions added. I know there was just another point. I would be specific on the conditions, and I think the conditions need to be limited to only Lot 7, so not conditions to prohibit increase signage on other lots or anything like that. It would need to be specific to lot seven.

So you can amend a motion after it's been made and second.

So we're gonna, we still have to vote on the amendment. So the way this is gonna play, so Commissioner McMaster, are we, we're good to amend or to add conditions to the waiver? Okay, so Commissioner McMaster, if you'd like to propose your amendment,

My amendment would be to impose the condition that they have no other freestanding signs on lot seven as they said they were agreeable to earlier.

Is there a second on that condition?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Okay.

There's a condition. And we're gonna vote on the condition.

I don't know if anybody, if there's any discussion on that.

Do we, does anyone have any comments in relation? Commissioner Velazquez?

No, I'm good. It's only lot seven and only way before that lot, we're good to go.

Okay, great, okay. Well, okay, so the motion right now is for the condition to amend the original motion with the condition for... for only one freestanding sign on lot seven. That's by Commissioner McMaster, seconded by Commissioner Outlaw. Go ahead and vote on that.

Oh, well, time out here. Do you not already have a sign on lot seven?

There's no current multi-tenant sign, freestanding signs on lot seven.

The lot seven tenants are on the other sign.

On lot six, directly adjacent. Yes, sir.

All right, thank you.

Yep, anything else? Anybody, no? Okay, we'll go ahead and vote on that. So this is just for the amendment. Oh, there they are, okay. Okay, I have seven, can we publish that? So that motion carries. So the new motion is for the approval of the waiver with the condition for only one freestanding sign on lot seven, made by Commissioner Hector, seconded by Commissioner Outlaw. Clear this, all right, vote on that now. Can we publish that? That motion carries. All right. Moving on to requests by commissioners. Emily, was there an update on the last request on adding data centers as a use to our matrix?

So we're hopeful to have both of the requested UC MMMN workshop at the July meeting. That is our goal.

Thank you. Anybody else, any other requests? No? Announcements? Nothing? Staff announcements?

I have one announcement. I'd like to introduce you, or if you have never met, Christina Timke. She's been a Permatech with the City of Shirts for several years now and is now our new administrative assistant. So you'll be seeing Christina come to PNZ meetings, you'll get emails from Christina, all of those things. So just wanted to introduce Christina.

Nice to meet you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I look forward to serving you any way possible. So just let me know if I can do anything for you. Officially starts on the 13th. But I've been with the city for three years.

Thank you so much.

Patrick, she's one of us. She's married to a retired battalion chief. One of my good friends.

Thank you.

All right. Well, all the other information is available in your packet. It is 752. Go Spurs go. Pass the meeting. Thank you.