HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
2541 Earl Rudder Freeway South
REQUEST: A variance of 30 feet to the allowable low profile sign height and a
225 square foot variance to the allowable low profile sign area.
LOCATION: 2541 Earl Rudder Freeway South
APPLICANT: Reverend Father Edwin Kagoo
PROPERTY OWNER: Diocese of Austin
PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner
trogers@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial.
BACKGROUND: The front portion of the subject property is zoned R-1 (Single -Family
Residential) and the rear portion is zoned A-O (Agricultural Open). The site is currently
developed as the St. Thomas Aquinas church. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
allows a place of worship in any zoning district. However, when non-residential uses are located
in residential zoning districts, stricter sign regulations apply. Given the residential zoning on the
subject property, the UDO allows a low profile sign. Low profile signs are limited to four feet in
height and 60 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a freestanding sign 34 feet in
height and 285 square feet in area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the
UDO Section 7.5.X, Signs for Permitted Non-residential Uses in Residential or
Agricultural Districts to allow a 30 foot variance to the maximum sign height and a 225
square foot variance to the maximum sign area.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.5.X, and also Section 7.51 Sign Standards
ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City's sign regulations 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. The UDO 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 1 of 6
December 4, 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6
December 4, 2012
LL _
U��� a
i U
o z
`m
APPOM14ATTOX�OR�z=
c n
�il
O�
pp o apOJ > .� m Gp ,= n w �O2 .. „�"b WOE(
5
E ~ N m
ply'
e
nub `,?rt m o 0o c
E
o225
m o v
a
W �� N�oD
LL
O a'
LU
Z 0,CO
y.
>W J
s Of
Ea — W
` LL E 2
g E c
E N
SPGE0. Ec� u�
5 RON G�0.0� Q.. u_ a. w ` E
c E
vR JOOEftFv �RO�SP Q r � 2 � � C� U
Pf'0. REVS 9 OQR� � .
Jpti b v0 mcio r.
0P0.�0. 0 `cE`�V� QP0.CP Z tt tt K tt O o U W
4 RPMP JOO `S . , Y U W
OF FN16 �yF Cis ,. w
VRJOOE¢PSy,Q� J Z
DPP pN LU
H d
LLJ O
U Uvv'� w
W
�U Om. %^N
d E 2
U ,E W 1— db Ti
LU
c
Z-.., 42� �C. s 00"mN
50 iG tllJ
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6
December 4, 2012
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: December 4, 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
Ten.
None as of date of Staff Report.
None as of date of Staff Report.
None as of date of Staff Report.
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
ec Subjt Property
I P y
R-1 Single -Family Residential and
A-O Agricultural Open
Place of Worship
North
M-1 Light Industrial
Light Industrial and Scientific Testing
South
R-1 Single -Family Residential
Single-family residential
East
R-1 Single -Family Residential
Single-family residential
West
R-1 Single -Family Residential
Across Earl Rudder Freeway South (SH
6) is undeveloped.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: Approximately 471feet of frontage on Earl Rudder Freeway South (SH 6).
2. Access: Access to the subject property is from the frontage road of Earl Rudder Freeway
South (SH 6) and North Forest Parkway.
3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat and has little to no vegetation.
4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain.
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting
the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
The applicant has stated that current R-1 (Single -Family) zoning on the property doesn't
allow for a freestanding sign of required height and size for adequate visibility given the
church's location on State Highway 6. In Staff's opinion, the applicant has not provided
evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict applications
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6
December 4, 2012
of the provisions of the UDO would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the
property.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The current zoning allows low profile signage.
3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City
in administering this UDO.
The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area. However, it is contrary to the
provisions of the UDO.
4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO.
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: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of
preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and
Improvements.
The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard
protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements.
6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the
vicinity.
All non-residential uses permitted in residentially -zoned districts are required to abide by
the same standards outlined in Section 7.5.X. of the UDO.
7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions.
It is Staff's opinion that a hardship does not exist on the subject property. The church is
permitted to utilize the allotted low profile signage or pursue a non-residential zoning for
the property.
8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO.
The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan but does conflict with the provisions of the LIDO 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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6
December 4, 2012
9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the
particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
utilization of the property.
The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not
prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of the property. In fact, the
site is currently developed and utilizes a low profile sign.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests.
However, the applicant could pursue a rezoning to a commercial zoning district in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to allowing a free standing sign by right, a commercial
zoning district would allow attached signs and directional traffic control signs for the
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance request. In staff's opinion the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Applicant's Exhibits
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6
December 4, 2012