Boerne design review committee denies second-sign variance at 36 Old San Antonio Road

The Boerne Design Review Committee on April 9 denied a variance request that would have allowed a second freestanding sign and a reduced separation between two signs at 36 Old San Antonio Road.

Planning department staff member Joanne Marie Andrade told the committee the applicant (Patrick Smiley) was not present and presented site photos and code references. "It is proposed to be approximately 8 feet in overall height with a 6 foot by 4 foot sign face totaling 24 square feet and about 4 feet of vertical clearance from grade to the bottom of the sign," Andrade said, and she noted the property has about 339.5 feet of frontage and that the proposed second sign would be roughly 100 feet from the existing monument sign where the Unified Development Code requires 200 feet of separation.

Andrade reviewed the five criteria for approving a variance and told the committee she did not find conditions sufficient to justify the relief: although the proposed sign would remain on the subject property and not appear to interfere with adjacent conforming properties, staff said relocation of the existing sign or replacement with a compliant sign could address the applicant's needs without creating an additional freestanding sign.

After a brief exchange about safety and visibility — Chair Chris Taylor asked whether the proposed location would present hazards, and Andrade said she did not believe so based on site visits — Taylor moved to deny the request. "I'll make a motion to, deny the request based upon, the findings of the committee," he said. The motion was seconded and the committee voted by voice to deny the variances; the chair announced the motion passed for the reasons stated (exact vote counts were not specified in the transcript).

Votes at a glance
- Consent agenda (minutes): approved by voice vote during opening business.
- Variance for 36 Old San Antonio Road (UDC sections 9-7-c-3-b and 9-7-c-4-a): motion to deny approved by voice vote.

The committee adjourned after the vote. Planning staff remained available for follow-up questions and the record notes the applicant was absent from the meeting.