Apr 01, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission

BEEN OPERATIONAL FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT ANY SIGNAGE ON 35.

SO BACK TO 21, 11 15 C.

NUMBER TWO, UH, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES WITH THE SAME LAND USE THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE SAME PROVISIONS.

SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS NOT NECESSARILY UNIQUE IN LOCATION IN RELATION TO OTHER PROPERTIES ON IH 35.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, ARTICLE 11 IS IN PLACE TO ENSURE COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING COHESIVE SIGNAGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

THE SAME PROVISIONS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO MEET ARE THE SAME PROVISIONS THAT ANY NEW SIGNAGE ON IH 35 OR IH 10 WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET.

AND GRANTING THIS WAIVER FROM STAFF'S EVALUATION IS NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT CITY OF SHIRTS CORE VALUE.

SO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, WE WENT THROUGH THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE UDC BUT STAFF FEELS THAT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO KIND OF, UM, THAT WE WOULD, WE THINK THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER IN EVALUATING THIS WAIVER.

SO THE FIRST ONE IS IN RELATION TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.

SO THE PROPOSED THE HOME DEPOT CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT SHIRT STATION LOT 17 HAS ADDITIONALLY SUBMITTED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS ON ACTUAL LOT 17 ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

SO IF THIS WAIVER AND THE FOLLOWING WAIVER ARE APPROVED, THE HOME DEPOT WILL HAVE FOUR FREESTANDING GROUND SIGNS ADVERTISING THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

WE ALSO JUST WANNA REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THE HOME DEPOT DID RECEIVE A WAIVER FOR LARGER WALL SIGNS LAST YEAR.

UM, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID DENY THAT IT GOT APPEALED AND THEN ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE UM, SIGNED WAIVER REQUEST.

UM, IF THE APPLICANT DESIRED TO HAVE INCREASED SIGNAGE, THEY DID HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROCESS, THEY COULD HAVE WRITTEN THOSE ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, CRITERIA, THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR ANCHOR TENANT ADVERTISE ON OFF-PREMISE LOTS HAVING SIGNAGE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

ALL OF THAT COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN INTO THE PD D DESIGN STANDARDS.

THE NEXT ONE IS IN RELATION TO SIGNS WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS.

SO WE JUST WANNA PROVIDE KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT UDC SECTION IS IN PLACE.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT A NEW SECTION THAT WAS IN EFFECT BEFORE THE FULL REWRITE THAT WAS A CARRYOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS CODE.

SO THE REASON THAT WE HAVE, UM, THAT IN PLACE WE'VE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DRIVEN THROUGH OTHER CITIES THAT YOU SEE A SIGN THAT'S ADVERTISING SOME BRAND NEW BUSINESS AND YOU CAN TELL THAT THAT SIGN HAS BEEN THERE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME AND THAT BUSINESS IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.

WE DIDN'T WANT THAT IN THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

WE WANT TO HAVE THAT BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED.

WE KNOW THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THAT SITE IS GONNA HAPPEN BEFORE WE START ADVERTISING FOR A BUSINESS.

SO THE NEXT ONE IS IN RELATION TO THAT OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

AND WE WANNA GIVE KIND OF AN EXAMPLE ON THAT ONE AS WELL.

SO IF THIS CODE SECTION WAS NOT IN PLACE, LET'S SAY A BUSINESS ON 3 0 0 9, THEY COULD ADVERTISE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY OF SHIRTS, WHICH ULTIMATELY FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE IS NOT THE DESIRE OF OF THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

ADDITIONALLY, IF A BUSINESS SAYING ON 3 0 0 9 IS ADVERTISING ON I 10, WHEN THAT PROPERTY ON I 10 ACTUALLY COMES IN FOR DEVELOPMENT, IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE FRONTAGE, THEY CAN NO LONGER HAVE A SIGN ACTUALLY ADVERTISING THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

WE ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY BEHIND THIS LOT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS EVO ENTERTAINMENT.

IT'S A LARGE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT ESTABLISHMENT, DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON IH 35 AND HAS

[00:15:01]

THE NEXT ONE IS ABOUT A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AREA.

SO I WON'T HARP INTO THIS TOO MUCH.

I WENT THROUGH THAT EXAMPLE THAT THIS PREVIOUSLY WOULD'VE BEEN CONSIDERED A MULTI-TENANT WOULD'VE BEEN HINDERED AND UH, RESTRICTED TO 150 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WAS THEN INCREASED TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OF 250 IN THAT UM, SIGN CODE AMENDMENT LAST YEAR.

AND THEN AS A JUST A REMINDER, THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS FOR A 40 FOOT TALL 19 FOOT WIDE SIGN THAT'S A 760 SQUARE FOOT, UM, FREESTANDING GROUND SIGN.

IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 510 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED FROM STAFF'S ANALYSIS.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE ARE ANY ELEVATION OR VERTICAL GRADE CHANGES OR TOPOGRAPHIC CHALLENGES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD WARRANT A SIGN OF THAT MAGNITUDE.

AND THEN JUST SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IF THIS WAIVER AND THE SUBSEQUENT WAIVER ARE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL STAFF WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY THE UDC AMENDMENT ARTICLE 11 AGAIN, UM, BOTH FOR MAXIMAL ALLOWABLE AREA FOR ALL SIGNAGE AND TO LOOK AT THE SIGN WAIVER BDC REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, IN AN EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE CITY OF ASSURE IT'S CORE VALUES AND DO THE RIGHT THING, IF THESE WAIVERS ARE APPROVED HERE OR STAFF FEELS THERE'S NO UNIQUE CHALLENGES, THEN ALL BUSINESSES ALONG 35 AND 10 OR OTHER ROADWAYS SHOULD ALL ALLOWED TO BE, HAVE LARGER SIGNS AS WELL BASED ON STAFF'S EVALUATION.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT UNIQUE IN RELATION TO REQUIRING OR NECESS OR NECESSITATING LARGER SIGNAGE NOR THE NEED TO HAVE A SIGN PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE SITE OR ADVERTISING BUSINESSES NOT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE WAIVER.

IF IT'S APPROVED, THEN LARGER SIGNAGE AND THESE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED ELSEWHERE.

IF THE WAIVER WAS APPROVED, WHEN STAFF HAS PROVIDED CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATION OF A DENIAL AND THERE BEING NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE PROPERTY, THEN WHERE EXACTLY WOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL SAY NO TO A WAIVER REQUEST.

AND IF WE'RE JUST GONNA CONSISTENTLY, UM, WHEN APPLICANT'S DEVELOPERS COME IN AND WANT LARGER SIGNS AND GO THROUGH THIS WAIVER PROCESS AND IT ALWAYS GET APPROVED, THEN IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO POINT IN GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

WE SHOULD JUST ALLOW EVERYONE TO HAVE THE LARGER SIGNAGE.

AND WITH THAT BASED ON STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE THREE REQUESTS, THE SITE AND THE WAIVER JUSTIFICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED WAIVER.

AND WE DO HAVE, UM, MS. BRITTANY HERE WITH MERIT THAT WILL BE GIVING A PRESENTATION ON THE APPLICANT'S BEHALF.

SO WE NEED TO DO ACT ON ON LOT ONE, TWO AND THEN WE CAN GO.

BUT IT'S OKAY IF YOUR PRESENTATION ADDRESSES BOTH.

THAT'S OKAY.

IT DOES.

SO I THINK PROCEDURALLY, SINCE THE ITEM IS JUST FOR LOT TWO, I'M NOT GONNA LET EMILY DO THE LOT SEVEN PRESENTATION AND JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVE NEW PEOPLE AS WELL, I DON'T WANT TO START TO MIX IT UP.

SURE.

BUT, UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COVER A LOT BOTH OF 'EM AND YEAH, I THINK WE CAN TOUCH ON IT.

I MEAN MINE, IT'S JUST NATURALLY THEY GO TOGETHER.

IT'S RELATIVELY THE SAME REQUEST FOR BOTH.

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE MY PRESENTATION AND THEN YOU CAN GIVE YOUR LOT SEVEN.

Y'ALL CAN TAKE ACTION, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR LOT SEVEN PRESENTATION AND THEN, I MEAN WE CAN, UH, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, I MEAN YOU, I WON'T REPEAT THE SAME PRESENTATION TWICE.

DON'T WORRY .

WE'LL JUST DO THE DOWN ARROW.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? I'M THE ONLY ONE IN HERE, SO, UM, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS BRITTANY CHRISTIE, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT WITH MERRICK COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.

UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT SHIRT STATION.

UM, I WANNA TAKE JUST A QUICK MOMENT AND JUST SAY THAT I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF OUR REQUEST.

UM, AND THEN SPECIFICALLY I TRULY APPRECIATE CITY STAFF'S, UM, TIME AND EFFORTS OF JUST ONE GETTING US ON THIS AGENDA.

UM, AND THEN TWO, JUST IN GENERAL, UM, THE COLLABORATION, UM, BETWEEN SHIRT STATION AND THE CITY OF SHIRTS, UM, WHETHER THAT BE AT THE STAFF LEVEL, AT LEADERSHIP LEVEL, UM, HAS BEEN REALLY AN INVALUABLE PARTNERSHIP.

WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY AND I RECOGNIZE THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, WITHOUT YOU GUYS, UM, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO, UM, WORK COLLABORATIVELY AND TAKE KIND OF LIKE A PRACTICAL APPROACH WHEN ISSUES COME UP, UH, SIMILAR TO THIS.

UM, AND SO I'M, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN PROCEED IN THAT SAME KIND OF SPIRIT OF COLLABORATION THROUGHOUT THE COMPLETION OF SHIRT STATION, UM, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, I'M GONNA KIND OF JUST GIVE A, I KNOW EMILY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, SO SOME OF THIS STUFF'S GONNA BE REDUNDANT, BUT QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT YOU GUYS.

SO, UM, SHIRT STATION IS A 72 ACRE MASTER PLAN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AT FULL BUILD OUT THERE WILL BE OVER 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SPACE, AS WELL AS 300 SINGLE FAMILY, UM, BUILD TO RENT UNITS LOCATED AT THE COLLECTION AT

[00:20:01]

SHORT STATION BY EMBRY.

UM, JUST ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON INTERSTATE 35 IN SI VALLEY DRIVE.

UM, INTERSTATE 35, AS I'M SURE ALL OF YOU KNOW, UM, IS ONE OF THE MOST HEAVILY TRAVELED CORRIDORS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REALLY BIG REASONS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO ATTRACT THESE BEST IN CLASS NATIONAL CREDIT TENANTS.

THEY HAVE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON SITE SELECTION AND THAT BEING ONE OF THEM.

UM, AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT MERIT, 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ALL OF YOU OR PRESENT TO YOU GUYS, UM, MERIT HAS VERY EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN RETAIL DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE CURRENTLY, UM, WORKING ON PROJECTS OF SIMILAR SIZE, SIMILAR PROGRAMMING, SIMILAR LAYOUT.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO ALL ACROSS THE, UM, STATE OF TEXAS.

UM, SO I, I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT IN EXPLAINING TO YOU GUYS THAT THIS REALLY IS A, UM, MARKET REQUEST, UM, THAT THIS ALIGNS WELL WITH EXPECTATIONS OF THESE TENANTS AS WELL AS JUST PROGRAMMING FOR A SITE OF THIS SIZE AND OF THIS LAYOUT.

UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DO COLLABORATE EXTENSIVELY WITH THESE NATIONAL CREDIT TENANTS.

THEY DO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON, UM, SIGNAGE VISIBILITY AND JUST SITE VISIBILITY FOR THAT MATTER.

UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BEING SAID, NOT ONLY, UM, ARE WITH DRIVEN BY THESE TENANTS REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THERE'S A COUPLE STATISTICS AND THESE ARE PULLED FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION SO THAT THE ISA, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY CITED RESOURCES AND PLANNING AND ZONING CASES RELATIVE TO SIGNAGE.

UM, THEY HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH THAT DI SHOWS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN INCREASED SIGNAGE, VISIBILITY AND SALES.

AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, ONE OF THE MOST NOTABLE, UM, I THINK STATISTICS ON THE SCREEN THAT YOU SEE HERE IS JUST THE 10, 10% INCREASE IN AVERAGE SALES ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND THAT'S DIRECTLY DRIVEN FROM INCREASED SIGNAGE VISIBILITY.

UM, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I PUT AN EXAMPLE OF HOME DEPOT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU GUYS JUST SO YOU CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE, THE MA AT A MACRO LEVEL.

THE BIG PICTURE HERE, AND THAT IS LARGER, MORE VISIBLE SIGNAGE EQUATES TO INCREASED TRAFFIC TO THE PROJECT THAT'S MEASURABLE, THEREFORE GENERATING INCREASED SALES AND AT THE BOTTOM LINE, AN INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY OF SHIRTS AND AT ZERO COST TO THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

SO I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT ON THE DEVELOPER'S END, UM, WHICH OF COURSE WE'RE WILLING TO DO.

UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ON THIS SCREEN HERE YOU'LL SEE AN OVERALL SITE PLAN.

THIS IS, UM, MASTER PLAN OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TWO PROPOSED PYLON SIGNS ARE LOCATED.

UM, JUST FOR REFERENCE AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, CURRENTLY TODAY, THE CODE PERMITS US TO PLACE A SIGN ALONG EACH PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, LOT SEVEN, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF 35 AND SIBO VALLEY DRIVE, UM, WE COULD HAVE A SIGN ON INTERSTATE 35 FRONTAGE, ONSLOW VALLEY DRIVE FRONTAGE AND ON STATION ROAD FRONTAGE BECAUSE THAT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

INSTEAD, WE ARE TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE OUR REQUEST INTO ONE SINGLE MORE PROMINENT SIGN, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE, UM, PROJECT THAT PROVIDES BETTER VISIBILITY, WHICH AGAIN, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ME SAY THIS A COUPLE MORE TIMES, YOU GUYS IS GOING TO DRIVE TRAFFIC TO THE SITE AND THEREFORE, UM, YOU KNOW, AN INCREASE IN SALES.

NOW, YOU KNOW, I HEARD WHAT EMILY HAD TO SAY AND THE CITY'S, UM, STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THIS SHIRT STATION LOCATION IS NOT UNIQUE FROM A TOPOGRAPHICAL OR AN ELEVATION STANDPOINT.

UM, AND HONESTLY I THINK I MIGHT HAVE DONE A POOR JOB WITH OUR APPLICATION FOR THIS WAIVER REQUEST OF KIND OF EXPLAINING THAT IN A BIT MORE DETAIL.

SO BEAR WITH ME, I'M GONNA TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A BETTER JOB TODAY.

UM, SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN IS A COUPLE SITE PLANS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PYLON SIGNS, UM, WITH A TOPO SURVEY OVERLAY.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU CAN SEE THESE CONTOUR LINES ACROSS THE SITE THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY SHOW YOU THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF EVERYTHING ON SITE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE LOT SEVEN SIGN, UM, SHOWS THAT IT IS SITTING AT A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 850 FEET, WHEREAS THE INTERSTATE 35 ELEVATION DIRECTLY AND ADJACENT TO THE SITE CURRENTLY SITS AT AROUND 832.

THAT'S AN APPROXIMATE 18 FOOT GRADE CHANGE, MAKING IT NEAR NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU WERE DIRECTLY ON 35 IN FRONT OF THE SITE TO TO SEE.

THERE'S NO LINE OF SIGHT THERE.

AND THEN SAME SITUATION WITH LAW TWO, JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, UM, GRADE CHANGE THERE AT APPROXIMATELY NINE FEET.

UM, TO BETTER ILLUSTRATE THIS, YOU KNOW, VISIBILITY CONSTRAINT, UM, I'VE GOT TWO GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES HERE ON THE SCREEN.

THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS SHIRT STATION.

SO THIS IS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE LOT SEVEN SIGN.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE,

[00:25:01]

THE 35 ELEVATION IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE, THE LOW THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE AND THEREFORE LOCATION OF THE SIGN.

NOW OUR DIRECT COMPETITOR ADJACENT TO THE SITE IS SLO CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER.

SLO CROSSING IS ON THE RIGHT.

THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO ELEVATION CHANGE FROM 35 TO THEIR SHOPPING CENTER.

UM, THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT MUCH BETTER VISIBILITY, UM, FROM THE INTERSTATE 35 CORRIDOR.

UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAVE CANDIDLY LOST A COUPLE NOTABLE TENANTS TO SYLO CROSSING.

UM, THOSE, A COUPLE EXAMPLES ARE OLIVE GARDEN AND PERRY'S PIZZA.

UM, JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, OLIVE GARDEN'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION, PERRY PIZZA OPEN.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND THEN MOVING ON FROM THERE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT AND IT'S A VERY ITERATIVE, PRO ITERATIVE PROCESS, UM, TO LOCATE A SIGN TO DESIGN THE SIGN.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS WHAT WE WANT.

IT'S, THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO INTO PLANNING FOR THESE SIGNS.

SO I'M JUST GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH QUICKLY WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE FOR US.

SO AT THE CONCEPTION OF A PROJECT TOWARDS THE CONCEPTION OF A PROJECT, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY THE SIZE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE CAN SIZE THE SIGN APPROPRIATELY.

WE DRAW UPON HISTORICAL DATA, COMPARABLE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON OF SIMILAR SIZE, SIMILAR LAYOUT, AND WE COME UP WITH A BASELINE DESIGN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE HERE, UM, AS ORIGINAL DESIGN ON THE LEFT.

FROM THERE, WHAT WE DO IS WE TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND WE ARE EVALUATING THE ACTUAL SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS FROM A VISIBILITY PERSPECTIVE.

AND HOW WE DO THAT IS WE GO THROUGH WHAT WE CALL A VISIBILITY ANALYSIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR SIGNAGE VENDOR, RIGHT? AND SO, UM, THEY'RE ABLE TO HELP US, UM, IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS DE DETERMINE WHAT THOSE VISIBILITY CONSTRAINTS MIGHT BE AND HELP US ANALYZE AND ADEQUATELY SIZE THE SIGN FROM A HEIGHT AND FROM A WIDTH PERSPECTIVE.

UM, NOT ONLY IS THAT IMPORTANT TO THESE NATIONAL CREDIT TENANTS, BUT ALSO JUST IN GENERAL, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY RESTRICTIONS.

SO THEY HELP US MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXCESSIVELY SI UM, OVERSIZING THE SIGN, WHICH NONE, NONE OF US WANT, RIGHT? LIKE WE DO WANT INCREASED VISIBILITY.

THERE IS A CORRELATION THERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A COST ASSOCIATED WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED SIZE OF SIGN THAT THE CITY IS NOT ON THE HOOK FOR.

WE ARE PAYING FOR OUT OF POCKET.

UM, SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING GOOD IN, UM, YOU KNOW, STEWARDS OF OUR INVESTMENT AS WELL.

SO IT, IT IS VERY, UM, SPECIFIC ANALYSIS.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT SIZE OF SIGN LOOK LIKE? UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, OUR, WE CONDUCTED THE VISIBILITY, UH, ANALYSIS FOR SHIRT STATION AND UM, WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN CODE COMPLIANCE FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE.

SO THE CODE RIGHT NOW DOES ALLOW US TO TAKE THE SIGN TO 50 FEET AND HEIGHT.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO EXCESSIVELY, UM, SIZE THIS SIGN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ADEQUATELY SIZE IT.

SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO, UM, GET COMFORTABLE FROM A VISIBILITY CONSTRAINT PERSPECTIVE WITH 40 FEET.

HOWEVER, THE OVERALL MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AS EMILY EXPLAINED, IS 250 SQUARE FEET.

AND THE WAY THAT THE CITY OF SHIRT STAFF IS CALCULATING THAT IS THEY ARE TAKING THE TOTAL HEIGHT MULTIPLIED BY THE TOTAL WIDTH, AND THAT INCLUDES NON ADVER, UM, SPACE THAT IS NOT BEING USED FOR ADVERTISEMENT.

SO THE MASONRY BASE THAT YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM IN THE FOUNDATION THAT'S REALLY JUST ADDRESSED OF FOUNDATION FOR THE SIGN IS NOT BEING USED FOR ADVERTISEMENT, BUT IT IS BEING CALCULATED INTO OUR OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

UM, SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.

UM, AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC, UM, PANEL DIMENSION LIKE ASPECT, RA ASPECT RATIO THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, MEET THESE STANDARDS FOR THESE TENANTS, BUT ALSO JUST STRICTLY FOR VISIBILITY.

AND SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU GUYS WITH, WITH A CODE COMPLIANT VERSION OF WHAT THIS SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THAT, UM, BUT MAINTAINING THIS ASPECT RATIO THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE VISIBILITY FOR THESE TENANTS.

UM, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A MATH EQUATION.

YOU'RE TAKING THE HEIGHT MULTIPLIED BY THE WIDTH.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THESE, UM, SITE SIGN PERSPECTIVES, THE CODE COMPLIANT VERSION OF THE SIGN IS SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERED AND SEVERELY INADEQUATE FROM A SIGNAGE PERSPECTIVE JUST DUE TO THE, UM, HINDRANCE ON HEIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH.

UM,

[00:30:01]

AND AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST A COUPLE SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES TO SHOW YOU THE PROPOSED SIGN VERSUS THE CODE COMPLIANT VERSION.

UM, TO, AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO JUST NOTE AND THAT THAT WRAPS UP THAT, BUT THERE ARE, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A COUPLE EXAMPLES ALONG SLO VALLEY DRIVE, ALBEIT THESE MIGHT NOT BE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

THESE SIGNS ARE OF SIMILAR SIZE FOR SIMILAR SIZE DEVELOPMENTS.

UM, WHILE THEY MIGHT NOT BE IN THE CITY OF SHIRTS, THEY ARE ALONG SIBO VALLEY DRIVE, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE 35 FRONTAGE AND THEY ARE STILL SIZED, UM, THIS WAY.

UM, BUT THEY'RE STILL A DIRECT COMPETITOR TO NOT ONLY THE SHIRT STATION PROJECT, BUT ALSO OTHER PROJECTS INSIDE THE CITY OF SHIRTS.

UM, SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU FOR ME TO REITERATE THAT THIS, THIS REQUEST IN FACT MARKET FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INTENTION REALLY IS TO HELP BOOST TRAFFIC TO THE PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, AN INCREASE IN SALES, BETTER VISIBILITY FOR OUR TENANTS, AND THEREFORE INCREASE SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A WAY THAT THE SEA OF SHIRTS CAN REMAIN COMPETITIVE IN, IN COMPARISON TO OTHER NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES.

UM, YOU KNOW, IN CLOSING YOU GUYS, I JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, REITERATE THAT THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT OF THE UDC, UM, NOR IS IT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE AND, BUT IT DOES DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE FOR OUR PROJECT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AT THE, A BOTTOM LINE IS, LIKE I JUST SAID, THE GOAL IS BOOST TRAFFIC, INCREASE SALES, INCREASE SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY.

AND I THINK FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE AND AT A MACRO LEVEL, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, UM, MAINTAINING AS, AS YOU GUYS TAKE A MOMENT TO, YOU KNOW, EVALUATE OUR REQUEST.

UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WELL, THANK YOU.

UM, SO I, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.

UM, WE'LL START ON THIS END.

DO Y'ALL COMMISSIONER HUGHES LOT TWO, HOW BIG IS THAT LOT? AND WITH THIS BEING CREATED, HOW MUCH OF THAT LOT IS GONNA BE GONE? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SIZE OF LOT TWO ON THE MOST RECENTLY REPORTED PLA DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU? SO IT'S 1.84 ACRES.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE BASE OF THE SIGN IS BEING INCLUDED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION? YES SIR.

IF THAT HELPS.

PERFECT, THAT DOES HELP.

UM, AND SO, AND I I THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I WOULD, I DIDN'T ADDRESS IT IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT I WOULD LIKE A SECOND TO, UM, THE CONCERN, UM, FOR AN OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE AND ALLOWING, AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ALLOWING US TO OBTAIN A SIGNAGE PERMIT TO OBTAIN A SIGNAGE PERMIT, SORRY, UM, FOR, UM, A SIGN THAT IS ON A LOT THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED.

I UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE ON, UM, RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

UM, BUT TO TRY TO SPEAK TO THAT RISK, UM, FROM A MASTER PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, LOT TWO IS DESIGNED FOR A SINGLE TENANT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT TENANT WILL BE AFFORDED SIGNAGE ON THIS PYLON SIGN.

SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MISS OUT ON THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SIGNAGE ON THEIR LOT BECAUSE WE HAVE PLACED THE PYLON SIGN THERE.

AND THEN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT REALLY WILL COME DOWN TO, UM, THERE WILL BE A SIGN EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH JUST THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT IS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE SIGN AND THEN A SMALL BUFFER FOR MAINTENANCE.

UM, AND THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN ANY LEASE AGREEMENT, ANY PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT.

IT'LL BE, UM, INCLUDED IN OUR, UM, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE SITE.

SO ANYONE WHO'S LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE SITE, IF IT HAPPENS TO NOT BE MERIT AND SHIRT STATION, THEY WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION FROM THE GET GO.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THIS SIGN IS VERY STRATEGIC TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPABLE AREA LEFT OVER ON LOT TWO.

UM, SO AS FAR TO THE CORNER AS POSSIBLE AND MAINTAINING, UM, THE EXISTING, THERE'S EXISTING EASEMENTS ON THIS SITE THAT CONTAIN EXISTING UTILITIES.

SO WE MADE IT VER A POINT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE LOCATING THIS SIGN OUTSIDE OF ANY EXISTING U UM, UTILITY EASEMENTS AND AWAY FROM EXISTING UTILITIES.

UM, WHICH WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS SITE WAS THIS CURRENT LOT TWO WAS UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR NOT.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH.

THE SECOND QUESTION IS, WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC, 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU CANNOT BE BECAUSE OF NEGOTIATIONS.

IS THERE AN INTERESTED PARTY THAT YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND, AND YOU WERE CORRECT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ACTUAL TENANT, BUT YES, THERE IS AND THAT'S WHY I FEEL CONFIDENT IN TELLING YOU TODAY THAT IT WOULD BE A, WHAT WE CALL A GROUND LEASE AND IT WOULD BE A SINGLE TENANT USER, SO A SIT DOWN FAST CASUAL RESTAURANT USER ON THAT LOT.

[00:35:07]

WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN MINUS THAT BASE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO OUR ACTUALLY INITIAL CALCULATION THAT WE SUBMITTED DID, UM, CALCULATE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT MOST MUNICIPALITIES, AND THAT'S WHY I, I UNFORTUNATELY WAS CONFUSED AND DID IT WRONG, UH, AT FIRST WAS THEY ARE ONLY CALCULATING WHAT THEY CALL THE SIGNED CABINET, WHICH IS JUST THE ADVERTISING SPACE, UM, INTO THAT OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION.

I BELIEVE, UM, IT PUT US AROUND 500 TOTAL SQUARE FEET.

SO WE ARE STILL EXCEEDING CODE WITH OR WITHOUT THE BASE, UM, BEING CALCULATED INTO THAT EQUATION.

SO.

I'M LOOKING AT, AT 4 65, IF YOU'RE JUST INCLUDING THE, UM, THE ACTUAL NAMES OF THE BUSINESSES AND NOT PUTTING THE SHORT STATION PORTION OF IT, I CALCULATE IT BASED OFF THE DRAWINGS YOU PRESENTED AT 4 65.

SO THAT'S AROUND CLOSE ENOUGH.

YEAH, UH, SURE.

AND, UH, MY APOLOGIES.

WE, UM, HAD A REVISION AFTER I INITIATE, INITIALLY SUBMITTED OUR WAIVER REQUEST TO THE, UM, TO THE SIZE OF THE SIGN TO BETTER, UM, FIT WITHIN THE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT CONSTRAINTS.

AND PLUS YOUR MATH IS WAY BETTER THAN MINE .

UM, ARE YOU GOOD? YEAH, YOU GOOD? OKAY.

UM, A COUPLE THINGS.

SO EMILY, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? DO ARE, SO HOW WE'RE CALCULATING IT WITH THE BASE? THAT'S CORRECT.

'CAUSE IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE SUPPORT PORTION YEAH.

OF THE SIGN.

SO IF IT WAS, UM, IMAGINE A POLE SIGN MM-HMM .

RIGHT? YOU HAVE THE POLE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE SIGN.

YEAH, WE WOULD JUST CALCULATE THAT SIGN.

BUT THIS IS A DECORATIVE FEATURE PART OF THAT SIGN.

UM, TYPICALLY THE MASONRY COLUMNS THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THERE, IT'S JUST FOR LOOKS, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE SIGN ITSELF.

SO, SO IT WOULD BE CALCULATED AS PART OF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

GOTCHA.

UM, OKAY, SO ON THE APPLICANT'S FIRST SLIDE, THEY ALREADY, IT, IT SHOWED THAT THERE WERE TWO LARGER SIGNS BY YEAH.

RIGHT THERE MM-HMM .

SO THOSE TWO ARE ALREADY EXISTING.

SO ARE THOSE IN COMPLIANCE? YES.

SO WHAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM DOING THAT MORE? THANKS.

UM, I LOVE, I LOVE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, AND SOMETHING I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IN MY, UM, UH, PRESENTATION IS THAT IN PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE, WHAT YOU HAVE ARE THESE PAD USERS, WHICH IS WHERE THESE ARE THESE THE FRONTAGE LOTS, RIGHT? THAT ARE ALONG INTERSTATE 35 WHERE YOU'VE GOT THESE MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS AND YOU'VE GOT THESE TWO SIGNS THAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED LOCATED NOW THE TENANTS, HOME DEPOT BEING A GOOD EXAMPLE, THAT ARE INTERIOR TO THE SITE.

THOSE ARE LARGER TENANTS, THOSE ARE ANCHOR TENANTS, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD CALL THEM.

AND TYPICALLY THEY, LIKE YOU SEE HERE, DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON 35.

THEREFORE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REALLY GOOD, UM, ONE OF THE POINTS WHY HOME DEPOT BROUGHT A SIGNAGE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BEFORE WAS BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY DON'T HAVE VISIBILITY OFF 35.

SO IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO INCREASE SIGNAGE WHERE THEY CAN.

SO THOSE PYLON SIGNS THAT WE'RE SEEKING WAIVER REQUESTS TODAY, UM, ALBEIT THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE FRONTAGE LOTS BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT THEM TO BE FOR INCREASED VISIBILITY.

THEY'RE MOSTLY RESERVED FOR THESE ANCHOR TENANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE VISIBILITY THAT THESE MULTI-TENANT TENANTS HAVE.

UM, AND THE MULTI, AND THIS IS VERY STANDARD AND TYPICAL THAT THE MULTI-TENANT LOTS HAVE A SMALLER, WHAT WE CALL MONUMENT SIGN, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE, UM, THAT EQUATES TO, YOU KNOW, SMALLER TENANTS AND, UM, LESS VISIBILITY BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY HAVE BETTER VISIBILITY TECHNICALLY.

'CAUSE THEIR ACTUAL BUILDING AND THEIR BUILDING SIGNAGE ALSO FRONTS THE 35 CORRIDOR OR THE SLO VALLEY CORRIDOR.

UM, AND IF WE WERE TO SIZE THE SIGN THE EXACT SAME AS THIS ONE, YOU CAN SEE MOST CLEARLY HERE ON LOT SIX FOR THESE PYLON SIGNS.

I MEAN, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THEM ADEQUATELY FROM THE HIGHWAY, UM, TO PROVIDE VISIBILITY FOR THESE TENANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE.

AND THEN I'M JUST GONNA SAY ONE OTHER THING THAT EMILY MENTIONED.

HOME DEPOT YES.

IS PLANNING TO PUT, UM, GROUND DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE ON THEIR SITE.

I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THESE ARE NOT PYLON SIGNS.

THESE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE MONUMENT SIGN SIZE THAT WE HAVE HERE.

UM, AND THEY WILL BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE SITE.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THESE SIGNS FROM THE HIGHWAY.

THIS IS REALLY JUST FOR DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC WHO TURNS INTO THE, UM, SHOPPING CENTER, MAYBE OFF OF RIPS K SL OR OFF OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD AND ONTO THESE STATION ROAD, UM, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE HOME DEPOT SITE.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.

I I DON'T, UM,

[00:40:01]

SURE.

BUT FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT SAYING THERE'S ANYTHING PREVENTING HOME DEPOT FROM PUTTING SIGNAGE ON SIGNS THAT ARE COMPLIANT WITH OUR CODE REQUIREMENT AND MAYBE SAYING KAVA, WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT YOU ON BOTH OF THESE.

YOU'RE ALREADY FACING THE, THE HIGHWAY.

SO THE, THE SIGN ON THE END WILL MAYBE PUT HOME DEPOT THERE.

SO SAY THAT AGAIN.

SO I, WHAT I, MY, MY POINT WAS YOU, I MEAN, THE SIGNS IN PLACE ARE ALREADY CODE-COMPLIANT.

CORRECT.

THE SIGN YOU SHOWED IS CODE-COMPLIANT AND HOME DEPOT SPACES IS ON THERE.

HOME DEPOT IS A BUILDING THAT I WAS ALREADY OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS REQUEST TO WHAT THEY WANTED.

UNDERSTOOD.

SO I, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S A BIG ORANGE BOX.

IT'S KIND OF HARD TO MISS.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I I I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON WHY YOU, I MEAN, YOU ALREADY HAVE CO COMPLIANT SIGNS.

I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GIVEN US A REASON TO SAY I NEED BIGGER, YOU KNOW, A AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT SCREAMS BIG ORANGES BOX THAT HAS AN ISSUE BEING SEEN.

UM, SO, SO THE TWO SIGNS ARE EXISTING.

SO REALISTICALLY YOU COULD DO ONE OF THOSE ON EACH OF THE LOTS, EMILY, AS THEY'RE BUILT OUT.

SORRY.

YOU'RE OKAY.

SO PER THE CODE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN, YOU CAN HAVE ONE PER LOT PER FRONTAGE.

SO EVERY LOT CAN HAVE A SIGN, A FREESTANDING SIGN, AND AS BRITTANY MENTIONED IN HER PRESENTATION, LIKE LOT SEVEN THAT HAS MULTIPLE FRONTAGES.

IT CAN HAVE MULTIPLE FREESTANDING SITES.

AND EACH ONE OF THOSE, I MEAN, I, I'M, I DON'T HAVE THE PLA IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THERE'S MULTIPLE LOTS ALONG THE FRONT EDGE, RIGHT? CORRECT.

CORRECT.

SO, UM, AND REMIND ME, EMILY, THE, THE 250 SQUARE FEET, I KNOW WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST YEAR MM-HMM .

SO THAT, THAT WAS A COUNCIL PUSH, RIGHT? FOR THE 250? I DO BELIEVE SO, YEAH.

AND WE, I MEAN, DID WE CONSULT WITH, WITH, UM, SO WE LOOKED AT SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES, OUR TARGET CITIES, UM, AND THE 250 WAS ABOUT AVERAGE.

AND WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, UM, I THINK THE CITY OF SHIRTS HAS HAD THIS HISTORY AND STANDARD OF, OF HOW WE WANT THE CITY TO LOOK AND WHAT SIGNAGE WE WANT THE CITY TO LOOK LIKE.

AND I THINK WE CAN ALL SIT HERE AND IN, IN THE BACK OF OUR BRAIN GO, WE DON'T WANT SHIRTS TO LOOK LIKE X CITY BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY HAVE.

SO WITH THE UDC AMENDMENT LAST YEAR, IT WAS AN INCREASE, BUT WE FELT THAT IT WAS AN INCREASE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND WOULD STILL KEEP THAT SHIRT'S FEEL.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

SO I, I MEAN, I'M GONNA BE HONEST, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SHOWN, I I DON'T THINK A VARIANCE IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THE SIGNS THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE FINE.

I THINK THE EXAMPLE YOU SHOWED IS FINE.

UM, I DON'T THINK HOME DEPOT WILL HAVE ANY ISSUES DRAWN.

I MEAN, IT'S A, IT IS A, I MEAN THERE'S THE LOWE'S, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A, IT IS A STORE THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY KNOW WHERE IT IS IF YOU'RE IN THE AREA, UM, OR IF YOU'RE GOING SOMEWHERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND LIKE LOOKING FOR SIGNS, YOU'RE PULLING IT UP ON YOUR PHONE, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOUR WAY AHEAD OF TIME.

UM, JUST TO ADD, I, THIS IS A PERSON ON A, I, THE UGLIEST PICTURE I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME IS THE SIX LANE STRODE, UH, OF SUPPO OF JUST ANY CITY IN AMERICA WHERE IT IS THE LARGEST SIGNS TO ANY NATIONAL CHAIN LITTERING THE SIDES OF THE ROAD.

UH, AND THAT'S WHAT I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

UM, SO I, I DON'T THINK THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE THE WAY YOU'VE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS SET OUT WHERE EACH OF THESE LOTS IS, IS ALLOWED A, UM, A SIGN, THE SIGN MAXIMUM IS 250 SQUARE FEET.

AND THAT, THAT'S THE SIZE REQUIREMENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I I I WOULD SAY GET CREATIVE AND, AND WORK OFF OF THAT.

'CAUSE YOU'VE, I MEAN, THEY'VE CLEARLY ALREADY BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.

I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU NEED BIGGER THAN THAT.

SO I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER ALLWELL HAS SOME POINTS, SO I'LL, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.

UM, HELP ME OUT HERE.

EMILY.

THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, WHAT IS THE CLEAR AREA ON THE LEFT? THERE ARE, ARE THOSE ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE LOTS OR WHAT IS, WHAT IS THAT HERE? YES.

SO THAT'S THE SPACE BETWEEN SHIRT STATION AND THEN 3 0 0 3 0 9 35, PAGE 35 IS OFF THE PAGE THERE.

TEXT TEXTILE RIGHT OF WAY.

TO, UM, HEAR THAT APPEAL.

UM, LEMME GET THIS ONE RIGHT OUT.

UH, IS THERE AN APPEAL PROCESS TO THIS DECISION? THERE IS.

SO IF, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, UM, DENIES THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT CAN, UM, APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN IT ULTIMATELY AT CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION

[00:45:01]

AND, UH, I DID THE MATH A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER HUGHES.

I, I INCLUDED THE C SHIRT STATION AND I CAME UP WITH 570 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS TWILL STILL OVER TWICE WHAT'S ALLOWED.

UM, SO JUMPING BACK UP TO THE TOP OF MY LIST, QUITE FRANKLY, I'M TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT HOME DEPOT .

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE, THE 800 POUND GORILLA IN THE PROJECT.

SURE.

BUT, BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THEY ALREADY RECEIVED A WAIVER TO THE ORDINANCE, UM, WHICH I, I WILL TELL YOU I SUPPORTED BECAUSE IT'S STANDARD.

IT WAS STANDARD HOME DEPOT SIGNAGE.

UM, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH FOR 'EM THOUGH.

UM, I KIND OF VIEW THESE SIGNS AS WAYFINDER SIGNS NOT, AND NOT, NOT DRAWING THE TRAFFIC IN OFF THE INTERSTATE.

KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, IF YOU'RE GONNA GO TO HOME DEPOT AND SHIRTS, YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S AT.

YOU DON'T NEED A 50 FOOT SIGN ON I 35 TELLING YOU, HEY, THERE'S A HOME DEPOT HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, AS THEY SAID, I DON'T DRIVE DOWN THE ROADS.

I WONDER IF THERE'S A HOME DEPOT AROUND HERE.

OH, THERE'S ONE.

UM, SO I, I VIEW THEM MORE AS A, A, A WAYFINDER SIGN THAT, THAT, UH, SAYS, HEY, IF YOU WANT GO TO HOME DEPOT, TURN IN THIS DRIVEWAY.

UH, THE FORUM DRIVES ME CRAZY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN THERE, BUT YES.

BUT THEY'VE GOT MUCH SMALLER SIGNS, BUT, UM, THE BUSINESSES THAT THEY HAVE ON THAT SIGN AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO WHERE THAT SIGN IS.

AND IT JUST, IT, IT, IT HELPS ME.

UM, DOESN'T HELP ME A BIT.

UM, AND I, I, I WAS, I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A HOME DEPOT AT THE FORUM, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A BIG SIGN IN THE, FOR, I THINK THEY'RE JUST ON ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE LITTLE BITTY I THINK THERE'S ONE, BUT RIGHT OUT YOU THINK SO, AND I THOUGHT MAYBE CREEKSIDE, BUT I PULLED UP GOOGLE MAPS AND LOOKED AT A STREET VIEW AND YEAH, APPARENTLY CREEKSIDE HAS A, HAS A BIG SIGN.

UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE, I'VE, I'VE DRIVEN, DRIVEN A LOT OF PLACES IN TEXAS AND, UH, I, I THINK SHIRTS IS BEING VERY GENEROUS.

UM, AND, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF SLO, BUT THIS ISN'T SLO IT'S SHIRTS TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, WE, WE'VE BEEN KICKING THIS SIGN THING AROUND FOREVER AND A DAY, UH, WHEN WALMART WANTED TO DEVELOP, THEY INSISTED ON HAVING THAT MONSTROSITY THAT THEY'VE GOT ON 3 0 0 9.

AND I WAS POINTING OUT, HEY, GO DOWN TO, UM, DRIVE HIGHWAY 16 SOUTH OF, UH, I 10 INTO THOSE AREAS, AND YOU WON'T SEE A SINGLE SIGN THAT'S TALLER THAN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX FEET FOR ANYBODY.

SIGNS WHEN YOU PUT IT IN A PLOT? YES.

AND YET PEOPLE SEEM TO FIND THE BUSINESSES.

SO THIS IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS NEW ORDINANCE IS, IS, IS FINALLY I THINK BRINGING MY VISION OF, OF SHIRTS AND SIGNAGE CLOSER TOGETHER.

UM, NOW I WILL SAY, I THINK I COULD SUPPORT TWO PIECES OF THIS WAIVER.

THE, THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE, UM, WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE? UM, THE OFF PREMISE, THE OFF, OFF-PREMISE, BECAUSE IT, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN I THINK, THAN TRYING TO DO A SINGLE LOT.

AND YOU DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S GONNA GO IN THERE OR NOT.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS, AS SHE POINTED OUT, THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

AND SOONER OR LATER, AND, AND EVEN IF NOBODY EVER COMES AND BUILDS ON THAT LOT, THEY'RE STILL ADVERTISING EXISTING TENANTS.

SO I VIEW IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

SO I THINK I WOULD BE WILLING TO, TO, UH, SUPPORT AT LEAST THOSE TWO PIECES OF THE WAIVER.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS, AS, AS FAR AS THE, THE, UH, SIGN AREA, UM, I THINK IT'S, UM, AGAIN, AND I, I THINK I KNOW WHO'S DRIVING THAT SHIP AND ENOUGH'S ENOUGH.

SO THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THE END? COMMENTS ON THE END? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT FOR EMILY.

UM, DO WE HAVE A MINIMUM STANDOFF FOR ALL THESE SIGNS? I MEAN, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK IN THE UFC, I MEAN, SORRY, I'M KIND OF PICKY ABOUT IT, BUT I'M SO SORRY.

I'M LIKE HARD OF, CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR ME? DO WE HAVE STANDOFF DISTANCE FOR THIS SIGN? STANDOFF MINIMUM STANDOUT, LIKE THE M-U-T-C-D HAS FOR

[00:50:01]

NO, MAYBE THE MINIMUM SETBACK.

THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM 35.

SO IT'S 15 FEET, 15 FEET.

SO IT HAS TO BE 15 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE, FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? GO FOR IT.

COMMISSIONER HUGHES, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FLYOVER GOING INTO THAT AREA, ARE THESE SIGNS EVEN GONNA BE BLOCKED OR VISIBLE? BECAUSE IF THEY START BUILDING 30 AS, AS TEXDOT CONTINUES TO GROW, AND THAT'S WHERE IT'S GONNA TAPER DOWN, THOSE SIGNS MAY NOT BE, BE BLOCKED EVEN IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED JUST BY TDOT'S CONSTRUCTION PATTERNS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE FLYOVER IS GONNA SUPPOSEDLY STOP NORTH, IT'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY CONTINUE ON AND THOSE SIGNS MAY BE TOTALLY LOST IN THE, IN THE WHOLE VISION OF WHAT TDOT WANTS TO DO WITH 35.

SO ARE THOSE, ARE THOSE REALLY VALUABLE LONG TERM VERSUS SHORT TERM? AND I'M NOT, I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF WONDERING RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS THE VISIBILITY WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT'S IT'S COMING THAT WAY.

CAN I, CAN I TALK TO THAT JUST QUICKLY? YEAH.

UM, SO ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THE TXDOT, UM, RIGHT OF WAY EXPANSION ALONG 35 IS COMING.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO OUR BEST ON THE FRONT END TO GET ACCESS TO, UM, PRELIMINARY PLANS THROUGH TXDOT.

AND SOMETIMES YES, YOU KNOW, AT A CERTAIN POINT THEY MAKE THOSE PUBLIC.

UM, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO PULL OUR RESOURCES, WE HAVE ENGINEERS THAT WORK CLOSELY WITH TDOT SO THAT WE CAN GET OUR HANDS ON THE, UM, SCHEMATIC PLANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

AND, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT, THEY'RE NOT GO, THE FLYOVER IS NOT GOING TO DIRECTLY IMPACT, UM, THE SHIRT STATION PROJECT.

UM, BUT I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

THE EXISTING, UM, RIGHT OF WAY IS ALREADY IN CONFLICT WITH THE VISIBILITY, WHICH IS JUST THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE REQUEST POINT.

BECAUSE EVEN WITH THAT CONFLICT BEING THERE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK, CONSIDER THAT WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND EVERYTHING ON THAT SECOND LEVEL THAT MAY TOTALLY OBSCURE THIS SIGN AND MAY JUST BE A WASTED ENERGY AND A WASTED EFFORT WHERE A SIGN THAT'S MAYBE LOWER AND MAY HAVE THE, A BETTER VISIBILITY CHANCE AS THE, AS THE UPPER LEVEL BEGINS TO INCREASE.

I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT WRONG IF THE PLANS PLAY OUT IN THAT WAY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO TODAY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE, UM, DIRECTLY IN RELATION TO THE CHURCH STATION PROJECT, BUT VERY VALID POINT.

COMMISSIONER ALLAH, UH, EMILY, UM, UH, AND, AND, AND MAYBE YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

WHAT, WHAT ARE, HOW BIG ARE THE EXISTING SIGNS, THOSE TWO THAT ARE UP THERE NOW? HOW BIG ARE THEY? SO I BELIEVE THEY MEET, THEY, THEY MEET THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, SO THEY'D BE 250 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.

SO THEY MAY BE LESS THAN 250 SQUARE FEET.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T REQUEST ANY WAIVERS AND THAT THEY MET ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIMENSIONS OF, OF OKAY.

THERE'S NOT JUST THE SIGN THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PICTURE.

THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ONE FURTHER DOWN, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO ONE ON CI VALLEY THAT IS CONSTRUCTED OR IS UNDER CONSTRUCTED.

IS CONSTRUCTED.

SO THE FIRST ONE, THE 21, 11 10 IS FOR THE AREA 21, 11 4 IS FOR THE PERMIT PIECE, 21, 11 6 IS FOR THE OFF-PREMISE.

AND, AND I I, I HATE TO SAY MY LAST QUESTION BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAY BRING SOMETHING UP, BUT IS THIS AN ALL OR NOTHING, UH, ISSUE? DO WE, DO WE, UM, AS I SAID, I, I WOULD SUPPORT PARTS TWO AND THREE, BUT, BUT MAYBE NOT PART ONE.

CAN WE DO THAT OR DO WE ACCEPT OR REJECT THE WHOLE THING? SO I WOULD SAY YES, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LIKE THE OFF-PREMISE AND BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT AND YOU WOULD SUPPORT THAT, BUT NOT THE AREA.

I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT.

BUT I WOULD LOOK AT BRITTANY TO KNOW WITHOUT THE INCREASED AREA, IS THE OFF PREMISE AND THE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, ARE THOSE EVEN STILL RELEVANT OR WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE A ALL OR NOTHING? SO THEN DEPENDING ON HOW IT GOES, YOU CAN MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNSEL.

GOOD.

UH, GOOD QUESTION.

AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, IT, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, I WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE, UM, OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR A PORTION OF THE REQUEST.

UM, IT WOULD DEFINITELY LEAVE US IN A POSITION WHERE WE NEED TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON WHAT THOSE SIGNS LOOK LIKE.

UM, BUT IT WILL ABSOLUTELY STILL BE NECESSARY TO HAVE THESE TWO SIGNS.

UM, SO YES, I, UM, WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

AND IT'S NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING, UM, SITUATION IN MY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

I THINK IF WE ARE GONNA GO THAT ROUTE, THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE MOTION JUST NEEDS TO BE REALLY CLEAR.

SO I'LL PUT, UM, THIS IS PROBABLY, WE FIND THE BEST SLIDE FOR YOU TO KIND OF GO OFF OF THERE.

SO THOSE ARE THOSE THREE UDC SECTIONS.

[00:55:02]

SO IF THAT IS THE PATH FORWARD, IF WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION IS REALLY CLEAR ON WHICH ONES ARE IN FAVOR AND WHICH ONES ARE, DOES THAT MAKE YOUR SEASONED, YOU GOT THIS TALKING TO ME.

OH, OKAY.

UM, I'VE GOT ONE QUICK QUESTION.

OH, YES, GO FOR IT.

UM, THE MAXIMUM AREA THAT YOU'VE SAID, UH, 40 FEET TALL, 19 FEET WIDE, IS, IS THERE ANY COMPROMISE ON THAT AND, AND HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT EXACT NUMBER? GREAT QUESTION, AND I PROBABLY DIDN'T DO A GREAT JOB OF TRYING TO LIKE, WALK THROUGH WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.

I WAS TRYING NOT TO BORE EVERYBODY WITH THE MINUTIA OF IT ALL.

UM, BUT THERE IS A, A REALLY KIND OF LIKE A ANALYSIS THAT REQUIRES, UM, NOT ONLY LIKE A, WE PUT TOGETHER KIND OF LIKE A VIDEO DRIVE BY SITUATION.

WE ARE ANALYZING, UM, SPEEDS ALONG 35 SPEEDS ALONG, UM, THE FRONTAGE ROAD, HOW MUCH VISIBILITY, UM, LIKE, UH, YOU HAVE A, I THINK IT'S LIKE APPROXIMATELY THREE SECONDS OF VISIBILITY AT A, UM, UH, AT 50 MILES PER HOUR.

LIKE, SO THAT GOES INTO THE EQUATION.

AND WE REALLY DO LEAN HEAVILY ON THE EXPERTS IN THIS, UM, SITUATION.

AND THAT IS NOT ME, THAT IS OUR SIGNAGE CONSULTANTS.

AND SO THEY HELP US, UM, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH THAT EQUATION TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT PANEL DIMENSION LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT'S REALLY NECESSARY FROM A VISIBILITY STANDPOINT, UM, FROM THE HIGHWAY GIVEN, UH, YOU KNOW, ROADWAY SPEEDS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO IT'S BASED ON VISIBILITY AND NOT ON STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS.

UH, THERE IS OF COURSE STRUCTURAL SOUND CONSIDERATIONS.

YES, MA'AM.

UM, ABSOLUTELY.

SO WE ARE LIMITED IN SOME REGARDS, UM, DEPENDING ON HOW TALL WE WANT TO TAKE IT FROM A WIND LOAD PER SPEED, UM, UH, WIND LOAD SPEED PERSPECTIVE MM-HMM .

UM, SO THAT'S WHERE THE ENGINEERS GET INVOLVED.

RIGHT.

UM, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, UM, EMILY MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE FOUNDATION BASE, UM, THAT WE'RE SHOWING AND REPRESENTING AS MASONRY, UM, TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS ACTUAL MASONRY, THE SAME MASONRY STONE THAT WE ARE USING ON THE BUILDINGS, IT'S NOT A FACADE, UM, FOR SHOW AND IT IS BEING CALCULATED AND UTILIZED FOR A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS OF THE SIGN.

UM, IS IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? COMPLETELY, PROBABLY NOT.

BUT WE MADE A REPRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SHE TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO DO OUR BEST TO, TO BUILD TO A HIGHER STANDARD FROM A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STANDPOINT.

UM, THAT MASONRY IS, IS NOT CHEAP.

I MEAN, AND WE'RE REALLY DOING THAT BECAUSE WE WANNA HAVE THIS ELEVATED LOOK THAT'S COHESIVE ACROSS THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT MA IT RUNS IN LINE WITH OUR MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS, THE EXISTING SIGNAGE, THEY ALL FOLLOW KIND OF THE SAME SUIT.

SO, UM, WE KIND OF TRIED TO MAINTAIN THAT WITH THIS, UM, SIGN DESIGN AS WELL BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

LISA OFFERED A GREAT SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE WE TAKE THIS ONE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONE WAIVER REQUEST, BUT WE ACTUALLY DO THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS ON IT.

SO WE'LL ACT ON EACH OF THE WAIVER PIECES SEPARATELY.

SO IT'S VERY CLEAR ON WHAT EVERYONE'S VOTE IS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL PIECE.

MAKE SENSE.

AND EMILY, I JUST, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO CAN YOU GO, DID YOU HAVE AN OVERALL SITE PLAN IN YOUR PRESENTATION FOR THE, LIKE THE, LIKE TOTAL SHIRT STATION? I KNOW THERE WAS THE, ON THE, IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A, LIKE A, LIKE A LEASING MAP.

THAT MIGHT BE EASIER TO PULL UP.

I DON'T, THAT'S IT.

SO JUST IF WE'RE SAYING NO TO THE BIG SIGNS, WHAT IS REALISTICALLY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER THAT THEY COULD HIT ON WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED RIGHT NOW? SO ON LOT ONE CAN HAVE, LOT ONE CAN HAVE A SIGN.

LOT TWO CAN HAVE A SIGN, LOT THREE CAN HAVE A SIGN, AND THEN LOT FOUR CAN HAVE A SIGN ON 35 AND ON STATION ROAD.

LOT 5 35 AND STATION 6 35 AND STATION.

LOT, 7 35 SBO VALLEY AND STATION.

LOT EIGHT SLO VALLEY AND STATION.

SO IN STAFF'S, TUR IN, I, I GUESS IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD STAFF PREFER SMALLER SIGNS VERSUS, I MEAN, I, I, I GUESS MY, I I AGREE WITH, WITH MR. OUTLAW THAT NO TO THE BIG, JUST FLAT NO TO THE SIZE.

UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO, TO, TO, TO TO THINK IF, IF WE, IF, IF THERE'S IF WE SAY NO TO THE, TO THE LARGER SIGN AND THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE THEY'RE WITH, THEY WOULD STILL, I MEAN THEY WOULD STILL GET A DECENT AMOUNT OF SPACE TO THEN ADVERTISE

[01:00:01]

TENANT SPACE.

SO ASSUMING THEY BUILD A SIGN ON EACH LOT, CORRECT? I WOULD SAY YES, BUT THE THING THAT I WOULD POINT OUT, SIMILAR TO THE LOT TWO AND LOT SEVEN REQUEST, RIGHT? SAY HOME DEPOT WANTED TO BE ON OTHER LOTS, WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK HERE AND DO THE OFF PREMISE SIGN.

WELL, IF, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? WELL, I WILL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY A WAIVER TO UDC, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21, 11 10 FREESTANDING SIGNS, SPECIFICALLY MAXIMUM AREA TAKE ON THAT MOTION.

OKAY, SO THAT WAS A GIMME ONE SECOND.

LEMME LEMME MAKE SOME NOTES.

SO THIS IS, UH, 21 11 10.

UH, AND THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, CORRECT? SECOND? YES.

SO, UM, THAT'S THE MOTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE MOTION? QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

AND AGAIN, A A YES VOTE IS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL A NO VOTE OR NOT, IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION, IT IS ACTION.

SO A NO VOTE IS TO DENY THIS ITEM OF THE APPEAL.

ALRIGHT? A YES VOTE IS TO DENY THIS ITEM OF THE APPEAL.

A NO VOTE IS TO GO AGAINST THAT, RIGHT? DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? OKAY, SO THE WAY THAT THE MOTION WAS MADE, UM, FOR 21, 11 10 FOR MAXIMUM AREA WAS TO DENY IT.

OKAY? SO IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU ALSO WANT TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR MAXIMUM AREA.

IF YOU VOTE NO, THEN YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THEIR WAIVER REQUEST TO INCREASE MAXIMUM AREA.

EVERYBODY CLEAR? AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GONNA DO THIS.

AND WE'RE GONNA DO THIS FOR THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, CORRECT? MM-HMM .

UH, WE ARE STILL MISSING VOTES, SO IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED, ALRIGHT, I HAVE SEVEN VOTES.

CAN WE PLEASE PUBLISH THAT? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

SO NOW WE ARE ON THE NEXT ITEM.

SO IF THERE, THERE, IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE NEXT BID? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE A WAIVER TO UDC, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21 POINT 11.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS SUBSECTION A PERMIT REQUIRED.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

THAT WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER? YES.

YES.

SO THAT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL, UH, FOR SECTION 21 POINT 11.4 FOR THE, THIS IS THE, UH, SIGN WITH AT BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT, UH, BY COMMISSIONER OUTLAWS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? MOTION COMMENTS? OKAY.

IF YOU CAN PLEASE VOTE.

CAN WE PUBLISH THAT? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AND THEN CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, THERE WE GO.

PERFECT.

SO THEN CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THE THIRD ITEM? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE A WAIVER TO UDC, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21 POINT 11.6 PROHIBITED SIGNS SECTION SUBSECTION K OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY, SO THAT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL FOR SECTION 21, 11 0.6 SUBSECTION K FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT OF BUSINESSES NOT LOCATED ON THE LINE.

RIGHT? SECOND.

AND THAT WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER.

SO, UM, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? UM, AND JUST FOR COMMISSIONERS, WAIT TO VOTE, UM, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ABOUT THAT ONE? ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

WHAT'S THAT? OH YEAH, GO FOR IT.

YEAH, SO, SO THIS IS SAYING THAT MUL A A SIGN THAT'S GOT MULTIPLE SIGNS WE'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE.

THIS IS A, SO THE, THE SECTION WE'RE APPEALING IS FOR, UM, THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A BUSINESS THAT IS NOT LOCATED ON THAT LOT.

SO IN THE EXAMPLE, THEY HAD ALL THOSE LOTS ALONG THE FRONTAGE, BUT HOME DEPOT IS ON ITS OWN LOT MM-HMM .

SO IF IT, IF THIS WAS, IF WE APPROVED THE APPEAL UNDER THIS SECTION, THEN HOME DEPOT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE ON SIGNS ON DIFFERENT LOTS.

NO ONE COULD ADVERTISE ON IT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH.

SO FOR THE LOT, ANY BUSINESS TWO RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY A, IT'S USED FOR SINGLE TENANT OR SINGLE BUSINESS, IT WOULD ONLY BE BUSINESSES ON LOT TWO.

CORRECT.

SO SINCE THERE'S NOT A BUSINESS THERE,

[01:05:01]

SO IF THE APPEAL WAS APPROVED, THEN OTHER BUSINESSES COULD ADVERTISE ON THE SIGN ON LOT TWO IF A SIGN IS PUT THERE.

COOL.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD AND VOTE THEN.

THAT WAS A FOR APPROVAL.

CAN WE PUBLISH THAT PLEASE? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AND THEN LEMME MAKE SOME NOTES REAL QUICK.

AND THIS WAS, UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT IF, IF WE COULD, UM, JUST TO CLARIFY MY NOSE, UM, THE, THE BUILDING ON THE, THE OF THE SIGN ON THE LOT THAT'S NOT BEEN BUILT YET.

THEY NEED TO BUILD SOMETHING THERE FIRST.

I AGREE WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENT, SO ASK FOR THAT.

ALRIGHT, SO DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ITEM? IS THAT CLEAR? WE'RE GOOD.

CLEAR.

FORWARD, ITEM FIVE B-P-L-V-A-R 2 0 2 6 0 0 6 6.

SO MOVING

[B. PLVAR20260066 Sign Waiver- Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Schertz Station Subdivision, approximately 3.04 acres of land located at 18406 IH 35N, more specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Number 203794.]

SIGN WAIVER.

CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER IN RELATION TO A FREESTANDING GROUND SIGN ON LOT SEVEN BLOCK ONE OF THE SHIRT, SAFE AND SUBDIVISION, APPROXIMATELY 3.04 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1 8 4 6 IH 35 NORTH, MORE SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS GUADALUPE COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 2 0 3 7 9 4, EMILY, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

PLVR 2 2 6 6 6.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR LOT SEVEN BLOCK ONE OF SHIRT STATION DELGADO PLANNING MANAGER.

I AM GOING TO BREEZE THROUGH A LOT OF THIS BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A WASH AND REPEAT OF THE LOT TWO FROM THE SAS PERSPECTIVE.

SO I'M JUST GONNA HIT THE ITEMS THAT ARE JUST APPLICABLE TO LOT SEVEN IF EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

SO TO GET YOUR BEARINGS HERE IS LOT SEVEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

SO IT IS AT THE HARD CORNER OF SUBO VALLEY DRIVE AND I 35 AND IT IS CURRENTLY, UM, DEVELOPED WITH TWO MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS.

THERE'S EXISTING TENANTS IN THERE, UM, PANERA KAVA, UM, MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TENANTS IN THAT BUILDING.

CURRENTLY HERE IS THE PROPOSED SIGN.

SO IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT LOT TWO, IT'S A 40 BY 19.

HERE'S THAT PROPOSED LOCATION.

SO AS I MENTIONED, IT IS ON THAT HARD CORNER OF 35 ANSIBLE VALLEY.

THE DARK LINE IS THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND HERE IS SOME RENDERINGS FROM THE APPLICANT FROM THAT LOT SEVEN SITE SITE PERSPECTIVE.

SO THIS WAIVER REQUEST IS ONLY FOR TWO SECTIONS.

SO UDC, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21, 11 10, THAT MAXIMUM AREA.

AND FOR 21 11 6 FOR THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS, IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL THIRD BECAUSE THERE ARE BUILDINGS ON SITE ALREADY.

SO BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

SO THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS ONE.

SO AGAIN, THEY DO NEED THAT OFF-PREMISE SIGN WAIVER REQUEST AS THEY ARE, THE GOAL IS TO ADVERTISE FOR THE HOME DEPOT ON THIS PROPERTY AS WELL, WHICH AGAIN, IT'S NOT ON LOT SEVEN, IT'S ON LOT 17.

SO IN TERMS OF THE CONSIDERATIONS, IT'S, IT'S ALL VERY SIMILAR TO UM, LOT TWO SHORT STATION'S.

PART OF THAT PDD, IT WENT THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

UM, STAFF DOES NOT FEEL THAT THERE'S THE VARYING ELEVATION, VERTICAL GRADE CHANGES TO WARRANT THAT 510 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AREA INCREASE.

AND THEN WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT SIGN, BUT LOT SIX RIGHT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LOT SEVEN AND DID MEET ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SIGN AREA.

AND WITH THE NOTE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT LOT SEVEN CAN ACTUALLY HAVE MULTIPLE MULTI-TENANT SIGNS BECAUSE IT HAS THE, UM, MULTIPLE FRONTAGES.

SO AGAIN, IT'S PART OF SHIRT STATION.

UM, IF YOU'VE BEEN TO SHIRT STATION RECENTLY, YOU MIGHT HAVE STOCKED INTO INTO THIS LOT.

PANERA KAVA, THIS IS WHERE THE JAMES AVERY IS PROPOSED.

THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF GOING IN THESE TWO BUILDINGS HERE.

IN TERMS OF CONSIDERATIONS FROM 21 11 15 C, UM, AGAIN, WE FEEL THAT THE UDC ARTICLE 11 AMENDMENT LAST YEAR WAS APPROPRIATE.

THAT'S THE, THE VISION AND AND WHAT THE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDATION, UM, WANTED TO SEE FROM THOSE FREESTANDING SIGNS ALONG 35.

SO AGAIN, ALL THIS IS VERY SIMILAR NUMBER OF SIGNS AGAIN, RIGHT? IF THE

[01:10:01]

WAIVERS WERE ALL APPROVED, THE HOME DEPOT WOULD HAVE FOUR FREESTANDING SIGNS.

UM, THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE, AGAIN, WE TYPICALLY DON'T ALLOW THAT PER THE CODE.

SO WE'RE NOT HAVING BUSINESSES ADVERTISING THAT AREN'T EVEN NECESSARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, UM, FROM STAFF'S REVIEW.

WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THAT ADDITIONAL 500, 510 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE IS TRULY NECESSARY FOR THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS ON THE HARD CORNER.

AND THEN JUST KIND OF MY SPIEL AGAIN, THAT IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW LARGER SIGNAGE HERE, THEN TO BE CONSISTENT, WE SHOULD ALLOW LARGER SIGNAGE ALL ALONG 35 AND 10.

SO BASED ON STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST, THE SITE AND THE WAIVER JUSTIFICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED WAIVER.

BRITTANY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING.

I THINK I'LL SAY WE'RE ALREADY THE TIME, MY PRESENTATION.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY, WELL THANK YOU.

UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS CASE, MR. ATWELL? NO, IT PRETTY MUCH, UM, PART TWO, SAME COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, SO, WELL, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE.

SO I'LL EARN 10 MOTIONS IF NOBODY HAS ANYTHING.

AND I WOULD SAY ON THIS ONE IF WE'LL DO THE SAME, WE'LL DO THE SAME THING.

YEAH, SAME THING.

ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, DENY A WAIVER REQUEST TO UDC ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21 POINT 11 POINT 10 FREESTANDING SIGN SPECIFICALLY MAXIMUM AREA SECOND.

SO THAT WAS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER TO DENY THE APPEAL, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BY COMMISSIONER MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OUTLAW TO DENY THE APPEAL, UH, UNDER SECTION 21 POINT 11 POINT 10 FOR THE MAXIMUM SIZE AREA.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCMASTER.

UH, AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE VOTE.

CAN WE PUBLISH THAT PLEASE? AND THAT MOTION CARRIES THEN IF WE CAN GO BACK.

A QUICK COMMENT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, PART, PART OF WHAT I SEE US DOING HERE IS, UM, WHILE I JUST SAID RULES ARE RULES AND IF WE'RE NOT GONNA FOLLOW THE RULES, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE RULES.

UM, ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS OR EMOTIONS? NO.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF, UH, CAN I HAVE ONE MORE, ONE MORE QUESTION? OH YEAH, GO FOR IT.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

SO IN YOUR, IN, IN YOUR NOTES, YOU HAD SAID THAT, UH, THIS, THAT CHANGING THESE COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO, UM, OUR CURRENT DOCUMENTATION.

UH, DOES, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PROHIBITED SIGNS, OFF-PREMISE SIGNS? SO I WOULD SAY THAT KIND OF THE STAFF SPIEL AT THE END, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, UM, IS IF, IF WE'RE TOTALLY, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS OKAY WITH THE MAXIMUM AREA INCREASE AND ALLOWING THE OFF-PREMISE AND ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE DEVIATIONS FROM CODE, THEN STAFF WOULD COME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND RECOMMEND CHANGES TO ARTICLE 11.

SO, OKAY.

THESE, THESE WAIVERS DO NOT CHANGE THE UDC.

THE UDC IS STILL IN PLACE AND IS STILL APPLICABLE FOR ALL OTHER, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS.

UM, IT WAS JUST IF, IF A NOT, IF NOT A NO HERE, THEN ARE WE GOING TO SAY NO TO INCREASED AREA? UM, AND IF WE AREN'T, THEN EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED THAT RIGHT TO HAVE LARGER SIGNAGE.

BUT I WILL SAY AT THE END, UH, CHAIRMAN WALLACE WILL ASK IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

AND THAT IS A TIME WHERE IF YOU WANT, UM, STAFF TO DO A PRESENTATION ON ALL OF ARTICLE 11 AND TALK THROUGH THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS AGAIN AND MAYBE PROPOSE CHANGES, UM, IT WOULD BE AT THE END.

COMMISSIONER OUTLAW.

YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SUMMARIZE WHAT, WHAT EMILY IS SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE THESE ARE THESE, THESE ARE RULES AND IF WE DON'T WANT TO ENFORCE THE RULES, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THE RULES.

DOES THAT BASICALLY SUM IT UP? YES.

PERFECT.

AND IF NOBODY OBJECTS TO ME FINISHING THIS OUT, I WOULD MAKE A WAIVER THAT WE APPROVE THE WAIVER REQUEST TO UDC, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21 POINT 11.6 PROHIBITED SIGNED SUBSECTION K OFF PREMISE SIGNS.

AGAIN, I'LL SECOND.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER OUTLAW TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR NOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO APPROVE THE APPEAL FOR SECTION 21.1 0.6 FOR THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MASTER, UM, WAS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? IF, IF, IF I COULD ADD, UH,

[01:15:01]

I THINK WHAT, IN MY OPINION WHAT I'VE PROPOSED TONIGHT IS THAT WE HAVE ARTICULATE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE CAN ARTICULATE THE REASONS THAT WE HAVE THAT, THAT, UM, THAT I CAN ARTICULATE THE REASONS THAT I REC, THAT I WANTED TO APPROVE, UM, THE, THESE DIFFERENT SUBSECTIONS.

UH, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THESE ARE IN THIS, IN, IN THESE PARTICULAR INSTANCES, THESE ARE UNIQUE SITUATIONS UNLIKE THE MAXIMUM AREA.

SO, OKAY.

THANK YOU SIR.

AND JUST TO, I, JUST TO, TO COUNTER THAT I, I KNOW MY RECORD ON THE VOTING IS, UM, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD HAVE, IF THEY WANTED THESE THINGS, THEY SHOULD HAVE WORKED IT INTO THE PDD, SO THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

UM, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.

CAN WE PUBLISH THAT PLEASE? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

UH, I, I DO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

MOVING ON.

UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX.

SO THIS IS A OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO, UH, PLACE ITEMS ON ANY FUTURE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MR. OUTLAW? NO.

OH, OKAY.

SAW YOU READ YOU OVER AND PUSH IT.

UM, ANY REQUESTS, ANY COMMENTS?

[B. Announcements by Commissioners City and community events attended and to be attended Continuing education events attended and to be attended]

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK, UM, MS. JUDY GOLI, WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US FOR HER TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND, UH, WE WISH HER THE BEST ON ANY FUTURE VENTURES.

UH, DID YOU HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, MR. OR MR. OUTLAW? YES.

UH, WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO, UM, THE, THE CHAIRMAN, THE INTERVIEW COMMITTEE AND CITY COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO SERVE ANOTHER TWO YEAR TERM ON THIS BODY.

I APPRECIATE THAT.