The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff ReportCITY OF COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 12850 Old Wellborn Road #300 REQUEST: A variance of 20 feet to the 70 foot freestanding sign setback. LOCATION: 12850 Old Wellborn Road #300 APPLICANT: Chris Pletcher, Wakefield Signs PROPERTY OWNER: Chuck Moreau, Moreau Family Investments Ltd. PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located off of Old Wellborn Road. The applicant has stated that due to the site's location being 150' setback from Wellborn Road due to a railroad easement, visibility of their site is difficult. Additionally, a future plan to construct a driveway connecting to the adjacent property prevents them from putting the freestanding sign in place that complies with the 70' freestanding sign setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet to the 70 feet freestanding sign setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 7.5.N `Freestanding Commercial Signs' ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of UDO Section 7.5, '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 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 ZLOZ'V jagwaoa4 910 Z a6ed Luaw;snfpy;o pjeog 6uiuoZ Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 December 4, 2012 g;o q abed Z lOZ 'b jagwaoa4 ;uaw;snfpy;o ping 6uiuoZ lueogdde ayl}o;y6uApadoidleguelsgns e/oluawAolue pue uogeluasald ayl -jo{ Uessaoau sl aoueuen ayl;eyl :Iy6lJ /(lJadoJd lefluelsgns a to luawdofu3 .Z -ssaulsnq Jlagl aas of alge lou si ogle,; /glassed `(b9 LZ nd) peoa wogllE)M pue peoa uJogpa/N plo uo 6uiplfng Jlagl uaannlaq }uawasea peoJlleJ fool Og 6 e aneg pue pea jallews a uo paleool ae Aayl asneoaq;egf palels seq lueofldde agl -puel slyjo asn algeuosea ayljo fueolldde ay; anudep ll!m oon agl}o suo/srnad ayl}o uogeogdde louts ley; yons panlonul pue; ay; Bugoa�}e suoglpuoo leloadsuo Ueupaoe�;xa aye a�agl ley; :suoljlpuoa fueulpIoeu;x3 ' 1 ` IRG.LI IO AA31n3H .Meld poog palelnbei Vn3d ulglfnn palmol lou sl )qJadoJd loafgns aql :uleldpool3 .j7 uogel96an ou of alllll seq pue leg AlGAllelaJ Sf alls agl :uol;e;96an pue AgdeJ6odo1 'E peoa uJogpaM plo Aq passaooe sl J(lJadoJd loafgns aql :ssaooy .z peoa woq!laAA plo uo a6eluoJl to laal 09Z AIalewlxoJdde seq AlJadoJd loafgns agl :a6eluoJ3 , l SOIISR131O"`dHO ltlO1SAHd padolanapun uado leJnllnou6y o-y'loulslo Isom luawdolana4 pauueld Q(]d 'saoglo pue pool Ise; sapnloul golgnn Jalueo leloJawwoo IeJauaO OE)(peON wogpam ssoJatl) Ise3 pelaJ a sf peoa wogllam ssoJoy sales loulsl4 g3noS pue a6eJols allueJO — Ife398 luawdolanao pauueld (1od padolanapun uado leJnllnou6y o-y ylJON u61sao pue Joold AGIIen SOME) — Ileloa leulsnpul leloJawwoo IO f4jadoJd Ioafgns asn pue-i 6u1uoZ u01139Jl4 lJodaa llelS;o alep to se auoN 'lJodaa llelS to alep to se auoN 'podaa llelS to alep;o se auoN Jnoj S3Sfl ONV I (INV ONINOZ :sloeluoo Aalnbul :uoglsoddo uw sloeluoo :lJoddns of sloeluoo :pallew saoilou Jaunno lgJadoJd VIN :buueaq oflgnd sly; to uolleoggou to Jallal Asalinoo e panlaoaJ aneq saofnJas pooglogq6laN s,uoflelS a6alloo to �4!0 aql gl!m paJalsl6aJ ale leg; suollezlue6Jo poogJogg6lau 6ulnnollol agl ZIOZ'gJagweoap :aleG buueaH pJe09 pasgJanpy SNOUVOLHION This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as the applicant has the right to install a sign in other locations on their property without seeking a variance. 3. Substantial detriment: That 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 be contrary to the provisions of this 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 LIDO. 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 this 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 because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All businesses along Wellborn Road are required to abide by the same standards outlined in UDO Section 7.5.N 'Freestanding Commercial Signs'. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own action. The location of the proposed driveway is based on the applicant's own plan for the future and is not based on any restrictions on the site or from this UDO. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this LIDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of this 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: That because of these conditions, the application of the LIDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of this UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 December 4, 2012 g;o g a6ed ZLOZ'b jagwaoao ;uawisnipy;o peog 6uiuoZ uoileollddV ' L SIVIN31` w'JNIINOddnS -lsenbai aoueueA aqi 10 Ieluap spuawwooaJ }}e;g NOIIVGNBWWO03U ddtl1S }ol bui>jed ay; ol;uaoefpe ease ssei6 aql ui buiplmq aql o; jasolo u6is aql 6uignd jo /eManup pasodoA ayl 6uiAOw uo paseq aq p1noo u6is aq} Jo u01leo01 agl o; sanilewalle leq} s9n9ijaq.4eiS -a6elua} jeauil s,alis aql uo paseq 6ulaq Obe;ool aienbs gl!m si u6is 6uipue;saaj; a jo} Ig6laq wnwixew aql `JeAGMoq'fgjadad eql uo joeq jagljn>_ pamolle aq 01 u6is 6wpuelSaa4 Ja6Jel a 6ulMolle pa}sa66ns seq jueoildde aq1 S3AlIVNM311H