Historic commission sends three proposed downtown digital billboards to DRC after public opposition

The Historic and Design Review Commission on Sept. 17 voted to send three applications for large digital billboards in downtown San Antonio to the Design Review Committee for more detailed review of placement, attachment, visibility and integration with historic surroundings.

The three cases — proposed digital displays at 101 Buoy Street, 106 South St. Mary’s and 105 Auditorium Circle — drew multiple public comments opposing the installations and extensive questioning from commissioners about structure, visibility, art components and whether the pilot program’s rules had been fully addressed.

Speakers during public comment said the billboards would harm downtown’s historic streetscape. Patty Zayanes of the Conservation Society of San Antonio said, “The Conservation Society of San Antonio opposes the 1,200 square foot billboard proposed for 101 Buoy Street,” and objected that the application provided no TxDOT approval and no permanent art element required by the pilot program. Kathleen Trinchard said, “I am opposed to the idea of digital billboards placed or projected anywhere in or near our historic downtown,” citing a city survey she said showed more than 70% opposition.

Applicants and sign operators said they had engineering drawings in progress, planned rear treatments or murals for visible backs of signs and wanted to maintain operator contact information on sign frames. An Orange Barrel representative said the firm could provide engineered rear elevations and consider perforated panels or murals on the backs of signs. The applicant for one sign said a design-build firm (ANC) would produce sealed structural drawings and sign attachments.

City staff explained the permitting sequence under the city’s Digital Media and Arts pilot ordinance, amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and the sign code (Chapter 28). Rachel Parrish, a Development Services engineer, told commissioners the TxDOT permit timeline is “about 3 months” for signs visible from state roadways and that the pilot ordinance does not include a requirement to remove signs at the end of the pilot: “They did not put the requirement for the signs to come down at the end of the program.”

Staff also described the pilot’s limits: the city divided the area into eight districts with a maximum of three signs per district; the three cases discussed would all be in the Downtown East district and, if they reach permitting first, would take up available spots for that district. Under the ordinance, a sign could be up to 25% of a building façade but other limits (including TxDOT and other code requirements) may reduce allowable size.

Commissioners said they were not being asked to overturn the council-approved pilot program but that the commission’s role is to review how a sign “fits” an individual building and the visual impacts on adjacent historic resources. Commissioners raised concerns about lumens, flashing and neighborhood impacts, and several members asked the staff and applicants to bring detailed attachments, rear elevations, site plans showing tree canopy and full structural drawings to the DRC review.

After discussion, the commission voted to send each of the three cases to the Design Review Committee for further design review; motions to refer the individual cases passed on roll-call votes. Staff and applicants were asked to bring more detailed drawings, site-context images showing tree canopy and visibility corridors, and structural engineer submittals to the DRC.