Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report(*40rq" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1915 Texas Ave REQUEST: To allow for a business to provide additional signage on an adjacent building facing the right-of-way. LOCATION: 1915 Texas Avenue APPLICANT: Ron Thrower, Property Manager PROPERTY OWNER: Principle Equity Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: In November 2011, a sign permit application for Twin Liquors was submitted and approved for the maximum allowed signage area, based on the tenant's linear building frontage, of 176 square feet. A second sign permit application for Twin Liquors was submitted in December, proposing a sign to locate on the adjacent building in the 1915 Texas Avenue building plot, and was denied. The applicant, Sign Pro, was contacted and informed of denial, at which time Staff was informed that the sign had been installed. Staff told the contractor that the sign would need to be removed. David Walker, sign contractor for Twin Liquors, contacted Staff to inform that the business owner would handle the issue. Staff made contact with Joe Reynolds, Twin Liquors Regional Manager, in January to follow up on the case and informed that the sign would need to be removed or request for a ZBA variance. A Certified Letter was mailed on January 20, 2012 to Sign Pro, sign applicant, again explaining why the sign permit was denied and recommended that they seek a variance through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and apply within the next two weeks. When no response was given, Staff emailed a copy of said letter to Mr. Reynolds on February 8, 2012 and a variance application was received on February 13, 2012. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.4 "Signs" Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 April 3,2012 ORDINANCE INTENT: The first violation refers to Section 7.4.1.6.a states that an attached sign "shall advertise only the name of, uses of, or goods or services available within the building or tenant lease space to which the sign is attached". In this situation, Twin Liquors is located in the building most adjacent to Holleman Drive, yet an additional sign has been put on the adjacent building in the building plot where they are not a tenant. This was created with the intent of preventing signage clutter and misguidance of where a business is located. The second violation refers to Section 7.4.1.2 stating that "attached signs on any commercial building or tenant lease space shall not exceed a total of two and one-half (2.5) square feel per linear foot of all public entry facades, with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of attached signage allowed for any one (1) tenant. Multi -story businesses will be allowed one hundred (100) square feet of additional attached signage." The purpose of this ordinance was to ensure that signage would not overwhelm a business' fagade and give an unfair advantage to one business over another. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 April 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 April 3,2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 April 3,2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: April 3, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: Contacts in support: Contacts in opposition: Inquiry contacts: ZONING AND LAND USES 23 None at the time of writing the staff report. None at the time of writing the staff report. One general inquiry regarding the purpose of the variance request. Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property C-1 General Commercial General Commercial North Wolf Pen Development Corridor Natural Areas - Reserved South C-1 Commercial General Commercial East Wolf Pen Development Corridor Urban Mixed Use West C-1 General Commercial General Commercial PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: In order to calculation sign dimensions, the tenant's linear footage of 70.58 feet was used. Access: The property can be accessed by Texas Avenue, Holleman Drive E, and George Bush Drive by the use of commercial five driveways. Topography and vegetation: The site is mostly impervious surface with a 10-foot slope running southwest across the property. 4. Floodplain: N/A REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant did not provide evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because the signs that are permitted to be on site are visible to potential patrons from both Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the applicant would still be allowed to utilize the sign located on the building frontage and in the freestanding sign located on Texas Avenue. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 April 3, 2012 3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: All businesses are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 7.4 "Signs" of the UDO. 7. Hardships: A hardship does not exist in this case. The business is permitted to utilize the sign area and location as described in Section 7.4 "Signs" in the UDO. 8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO. 9. Utilization: The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests. Staff recommends the immediate removal of the sign on the adjacent building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to allow for a business to provide additional signage on an adjacent building facing the right-of-way. The sign was installed without a City of College Station approved sign permit and the applicant was informed of the restrictions to additional signage. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Survey Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 April 3, 2012 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1915 Texas Avenue South REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to UDO Section 7.4.1.3 to allow a tenant (Twin Liquors) to provide additional signage on any building within the same shopping center. LOCATION: 1915 Texas Avenue South APPLICANT: Ron Thrower PROPERTY OWNER: Principle Equity Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Denial BACKGROUND: In November 2011, a sign permit application for attached signage was submitted for Twin Liquors located at 1915 Texas Avenue South, within the Wolf Pen Plaza shopping center. The sign permit application indicated that the area of the attached signage was 176 square feet (the maximum allowed area for attached signage at this location is 176.5 square feet). The sign permit was approved and the sign was installed. In December 2011, a second sign permit application for Twin Liquors was submitted. This application proposed 40.63 square feet of additional attached signage on an adjacent building within the Wolf Pen Plaza shopping center. This permit application was denied by Staff because it was not in compliance with the provisions contained in Section 7.4, Signs, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The applicant, Sign Pro, was contacted and informed of the denial, at which time Staff was informed by Sign Pro that the sign had been installed. Staff informed the contractor with Sign Pro that the sign would need to be removed. David Walker, sign contractor for Twin Liquors, later contacted Staff and stated that the business owner would handle file issue. In January 2012, Staff made contact with Joe Reynolds, Twin Liquors' Regional Manager, to follow-up on the status of the sign installed without the benefit of a permit. At that time, Staff informed Mr. Reynolds that the sign would need to be removed or a Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) variance application would need to be submitted. Staff also sent a certified letter to Sign Pro giving them the option of removing the sign or applying for a variance through Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 April 3, 2012 the ZBA. The letter also established a deadline of February 13, 2012. Staff did not receive a response from Sign Pro, therefore, a copy of said letter was also sent to Mr. Reynolds on February 8, 2012. A sign variance application was received from Mr. Ron Thrower on February 13, 2012. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION(S): The applicant cites Section 7.4.1.3 of the UDO, which states, "The division of allowable building signage amongst building tenants shall be the sole responsibility of the owner or property manager, and not the City of College Station." However, staff believes the following LIDO sections are applicable in this case: Section 7.4.1.2 states, "Attached signs on any commercial building or tenant lease space shall not exceed a total of two and one-half (2.5) square feel per linear foot of all public entry facades." Based on their linearfootage, Twin Liquors is allowed 176.5 square feet of attached signage, which has been fully utilized on the front fagade of their business; however, they have installed an additional 40.63 square foot sign on an adjacent building. Section 7.4.1.6.a states, "An attached sign shall advertise only the name of, uses of, or goods or services available within the building or tenant lease space to which the sign is attached". In this situation, Twin Liquors is located in the tenant space most adjacent to Holleman Drive East; however, an additional sign has been placed on the adjacent building within the Wolf Pen Plaza shopping center in a location near Texas Avenue South. ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of Section 7.4, Signs, is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. Signs are recognized as being necessary for visual communication for public convenience. Furthermore, it is recognized that businesses and other activities have the right to identify themselves by using signs that are incidental to the use on the premises where the signs are located. The LIDO seeks to provide a reasonable balance between the right of a person to identify his or her business or activity and the rights of the public to be protected against visual discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 April 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 April 3, 2012 a Qcom'>re rc G� .y vy4iJ �Kmm n o m=� l m 1 o='' p po OCL rc mmti m1 I o� Q ¢5�Y Y a fy d 9 ern�ZO¢Y W Ez -J 6�C 'm_�'=6'3 un aLLI m � -DOD Q CO U = 1 z_0 � U m 1-- 1 � R d d ❑ Jj G CZ8 C U /yam.. LU O J ;d ❑ I i, ° - " Z a m � �� _ J � a - _ r - CL_ a.ctt� O1 Q Yr'G_ ^e �- � •�'m� o 1L �C ✓. N 24KK .. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 April 3, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: April 3, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: Contacts in support: Contacts in opposition: Inquiry contacts: ZONING AND LAND USES 23 None at the time of writing the staff report. None at the time of writing the staff report. Two general inquiries regarding the purpose of the variance request. Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property C-1 General Commercial General Commercial North Wolf Pen Development Corridor Natural Areas - Reserved South C-1 Commercial General Commercial East Wolf Pen Development Corridor Urban Mixed Use West C-1 General Commercial General Commercial PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property has frontage on Texas Avenue South, Holleman Drive East, and George Bush Drive East. 2. Access: The subject property can be accessed by Texas Avenue South, Holleman Drive East, and George Bush Drive East via five commercial driveways. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site consists primarily of impervious surfaces with a 10- foot slope running southwest across the property. 4. Floodplain: N/A REVIEW CRITERIA Extraordinary conditions: The applicant states, "The allowable sign area for the tenant space does not account for the extreme distance from an arterial roadway or for the limited view windows to allow for the traveling public to notice signs." However, it is Staff's opinion that the attached signage for Twin Liquors' tenant space is clearly visible from Holleman Drive East and Texas Avenue South. Not only has the applicant utilized the allowed 176.5 square feet of attached signage, they also have space on the free-standing sign on Texas Avenue South. The applicant did not provide evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 April 3, 2012 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The subject property is allowed, and currently utilizes, attached signage and free standing signage visible from both Texas Avenue South and Holleman Drive East. 3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: All businesses are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 7.4 "Signs" of the UDO. 7. Hardships: The applicant states, "The ability of the traveling public to see a sign at extreme distance is hampered by 1) The limited view windows created by existing buildings and landscaping, and 2) The speed of vehicles on the arterial roadway." However, it is staff's opinion that a hardship does not exist in this case, The business is permitted to utilize the sign area and locations provided in Section 7.4, Signs, of the UDO.Thi s includes an allowance for attached signage and free-standing signage. 8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of the UDO in that it does not protect the public's right to be protected against visible discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. 9. Utilization: The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the requested variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 April 3, 2012