HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
City of Colle . e Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXt\S AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
December 10, 1984
MEMORANDUM
RE:
The Honorable r1a.yor, Cit,y Councilmen and Planning and Zoning
Commissioners
Al Mayo, Dtrector of PlanningA
Amortization of Non-conforming Signs
TO:
F ROr-1 :
The
the
any
(1 )
::?T -~:'77 -~
mm m em
f~)
C~~
t
(2)
Section 2.1. Amortization and Abatement of .Non-Conforming Signs:
(1 ) The fo 11 owi ng types of signs s ha 11 become non-conform.; ng upon
passage of this ordinance, and' shall be brought into compliance
or removed within 6 months of the date of this ordinance:_
(a) Off-premise signs
(b) Prohib~tedsigns
(2)
.'.-..
:>ti{:}/)
..-.
..~
:.
/
City of COllege Station
P()ST OFFICE BOX9~:}6() 1 101 TEXA.S- AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840. 2499
December 10 ~ 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The Honorable Mayor, City Councilmen and Planning and
:;n:::o~o:;::::::e:; Planning~
Proposed Sign Ordinance
Attached is the final . draft of the proposed 5i gnOrdi nance as prepared by
the sign committee and members of the Planning Staff. The format consists
ofageneral purpose statement, definitions, general provisions, an
amortization schedule, a vari ances.ecti on and an enforcement secti on.
The Planning andZoning<Commissionhas scheduled a workshop on Monday,
December!7, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to review the
draft.
If you have any questions please call or stop by the Planning office.
c.. C ../from..A.Ma'1o
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE
Section 2N.: Add to end of existing paragraph:
After receipt ofarecommendationoftheCity Planner, the..Commission may
permit the requirementsofa different zoningdlstrict to be 'used for the
purposes of slgnagewhen the-Commission finds:
1. That the proposed s i gnage is compatible wi th signage all owed in
surrounding land uses ; (may want to say IIzoni ng districts.. instead)
2. That the proposed signage meets the intent of this ordinance; and,
3. That the proposed signage is in harmony with the development policies,
and goals andobJec-tives embodied rn the Comprehensive Plan for develop-
ment of the City.
Addthe'fo~lowingto ttDefinitionsu:
Banner/Flag:Apieceoffabricusedfor decoration (contains no
copy or logo) or for identification (containscopy'and/or logo)..
Change the following: \
Sect. 2 . B. SUBDIVISION AND AREdAli. D .SIGN:
CHANGE THE LAST SENTENCE IN 3RDPARAGRAPH TO READ:
Banners or flags may be utilizedasoneorboth'of
the subdivisIon id.ent.ification.signs except< that the
overa.llheight ofa banner or flag shall rio.t exceed
sixty (60) feet and the area of the fabric shall not
exceed .150 square feet.
Sect. 2.M. BANNERS/FLAGS: Change. to read:
A "banner or flag may.be~sed,as the permanent
identification sign in non-residential zones but shall
be regulated underSections2.K..or 2.L.,whichever is
appl icabl.e. ,
Sect,. 2 .0. EXEMPT..SIGN: ADD THE, "FOLLOWI,NG:
used as political symbols being the United
States.' and Texas Flags. ,only.
11. Banriefsorfl.agsused solelyforde.corat ion and
not containing any cOJ?Y or logo and located only in
non-residential. zones.
ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE END:
SeeSection2.M.
January 14, 1985
ME 1'10 RAN DUM
TO:
City Council
FROM:
David Brochu, Member, P&ZCommission
Member, Sign Committee
RE:
Proposed. Sign Ordinance
Through my <participation on the .....SignC.ommi ttee '1 have . had
the.. opportunity to express my.conce'rns andgenerallx.t. agree
with the Ordinance as written. Sonle points that were
expressed during .the P&Z workshop as well . as the pub'lic
hearing should, in my opinion, also be considered:
1. Definit~ons. Include definitions of -the
terms Billboard, Prohibited Sign', Banners,
and. Pennants.
2. Addition of some graphics to help illustrate
selected definitiohsand/oruses.
3. A section stating that non-conforming signs,
when and if they receive 60% damage by an
act.of God, shall be rebuilt to conforming
standards.
4. Provide a maintenance clause to be included
in Section 2. ~-1.Bannersa.nd J?lags.
I support the amortization of Non-Conforming Signs as proposed
by the Sign Committee.
1:~~f!:~q;'il~I/'d :i. ""t.:}. ... (.:')fn<-:~rlClfn€'H1 t. c:)f E>ec:t: tCHl .... t3 ..ClMt Or' cl in i:l.nc: f:?~a~;()
Cl.t: 1:.1-, ~:? C:: i. t '''l C) .f(::; c;1.11= ~~ f? t:) .tat i.. (J 1"1 ,. 1"~? H t:lS <: E1 I 13t..J ... (]!::<I) INI':::ll\~ [~E~ )
"rt1 E? . 'f: . C) 11 () I;-\li . ri (~:J s tJ. i;J<;:J est. i Cl rHm. . at'" E? Cl.t": . of: . E'!! r' E? cl 1: (:) t... ~.J 0 t.1. r c: 0 r!~n. i r,,1 e Ir" c\ t i i.:> r',
r'€.~g ar" cl i. 1-11;:1 .ttTE~ s;i g,r1()r" (j i 1-. a.rl r.:: f.~~ :
:~~ " . t." ... f::c (] 1...I"f I (::;f:i L. ~:) 1 {::.ii\l ~:)n E; f!!! <:: t:.. i (:Jfl ~:~ n st.., 0 t.ll cl.. be . r" e {Tn::) v'e ci "
i:~ ~'q) EH::: t. i,-, (.~~c <::1. r"lcj i (~~":l te~:; a 11 <::1 c: i -1.:: ~Vt::) E~r' SH::I f'l rH.:~l .'1::. C)C CH.,\ 1"1 t: s:i. iJ f1 s, c: C) llec t.
l3.fH::lpat":l'tJc::an(:i irlgfef.:~s CJ fn~::q::) si~Jr}.. lc)c ~tj. elfls e~t c:" . i~1 IftJi::I. S t. E~f l.tloi:
C j,.t">/t::r~?f..1:;orlI1i.~ 1 tifn(~, <B~nr.jt::<:111 dt <:1 ~:..t: e.s t i in(~~ arl(j)r" eS()LlIJ'''Cf~~S I(
I .f:. -1:.1-, EH/''fi:~. i~::;~:l pr"C)t..11ein>"".Jit h I::)C)], :i.'I::.ic:: a.l...si~J ''''.~; C)f'l..pL\b]' i. c: p r' Of) el'" 1::. y ,
i:lnH::)t-.~ f-~::~.:-a 1 i.1:;t:i(:(::\I:l~lr-c:I'.:\C:tl wCHJ.lr.jl::>€.'!! t.t) all clv'Jaru..tmbf?ro-t:cia ~tS
I:) r':i. en.... t.(::) ~::~1 (*~c:i::.:i. t:)fT'f:cJr'~:; i(;lrr1:; t (::> tJ~? i.:l :i.f:;~)l a)l E~C:l i:\ cc::c:n-' ('j in gt:. a::t ;::,1"\ E:1
ClI'- <:1 ina. rH:: e? t1 S i<;;lrl~::; f.:; la c: ~? (j 1::1 Y"ia 1.....t:(::)1:.I..l C:H:;(~ (:ia.y sCar" 1 e.f .t a .f t. €~I'-' 1:t1e~
i!.~~ If.:~c t i c)nl.allcrl:.f~c:lti (n~:r~::i ~:~cr~ i c:)(:1 C:C:H..I.lrj tJe t- efflClvs<:j tl)l C :i. t "'I a.nr.:t ..f i n e~~i~
-1 e\l:i. ec:1 .f'(:Jf" :I. it.t. (.?y..tng (::)1''' ""JI'1 <::\'t€:':'''ver''r.)'t.I'lf:~reH(:lJ.Sf.~(: oroe~..~. t C) ini 1'1 d II
~;;:: It ()I:::' F~ ell-.II Et.l"r E:::I)~::) I (31\H::) :: ( 1=) ~;:I. ~;J t:? 1. ()). F::' aa. r" t. Lt." c~], i~:l r' i of:)l t I, at. b a r\ rre IJ'" s '.1
~L:vt re<t:":llnf.-?I"S':; , (.:.?t.c" <:~t'"e-rFf.':!'ff.-?I''' :i. 1'1 g to t:()fnm~?r c i.a Id t.lse of barllMn.::..-s,
s t.Y" if!!! ~:\ rH ~:~r' f:5 " !:i:~ -1::. c:. u a. fl cl.. ... . fl crt t., Clro f.?C:lI.AJf1 €:.~ I'" ~s p e Y"f:; C) r! a 1 LliE; E? C) -f ,ct 8dvl 1::) a. n r". E~r'
~?t:c: " ilv1 i<.:J1'1'l: 0(:11 ~SC) \AJ~\r-1 t. -1::.0 <::1 C\.....i.f.Y' tIS f.? c).f .flr" at. el/- rl:i.t ~./ I S(jY" C)f" i t. y
b i:U'lI"\ f!!t'.. iE; , ~::; i <;1 l"l ~:; " E~t c: u
~:::~" "I"
::::: u E~ f:.~IVI C) F(T' I Z f~"r I (Jl\1 : i ~:) '-I f::~ f.~ c:1 f!! eft. (:) $ (:l1: '1::. e f1.t t'\E~ ]. (J ~:;s ~~~ s :i. rl \l Q 1 \/ EHt t C) a
I) \J.~3 :i. r-I€.= ~'E. ':::; t,t-JI"l :i,{::t'l t"l ii:\ ~::; to yo. E~ 1=) 1 ii:\ C f.':~i~\ ~:; :t t.;i rl "
~:31.J. 9 ifJ E:~ -::r(::f:I: 1: '1" ,.., f::~ l.::\<;lf.? <::) i= t I"~l e ~; i ~J 1"1 C c.1lJ,l (j t) e t ~':l. k ef\ :i. 1"1 t. C)
ccn-I':S i cte~t... <'at. i<:)n r....ii:\:t r1f:? r" ttli:\ na fl1 i:1. r...ci~.t:. or 'r r f~ rn C) \l ~.ll i. n . <S fiH:J 1"\ .t 1"1 S. U
f':, s :i.(;JT1 ., i:1. S <':':\ b \J.t:; frle it; S;~:ZCH I:Jf2 rl ':-~; e 'i is el e f.:Hr' e c: i i:tt eel 0\/ e it'. a
rH.Jfnl::rE:lf'" C)f'}l(~?~-\I''''S nIt r 1:5<::(::)'::3 tlr"s:."?[.J 1 i::\cerHf:?n t C <':lr\ tlt-:.~ c.-\s t r orrorn it':: a li:~.n (1
..~; i. rri:~,I' i::\i.::'i i:~.l.l '~/.. .... .:::1 ii: .f ic: Ll :t . '1::. ."F CJ II" ,:~. iEHrt i:\ 1 r ... .1:.11.i. 5; i r", E:~S .?~; n f,:, . .... t:. tAl 0 "}r"'f.~ <='. r C) 1 cl
~; i~ln . t=:;11cn..l1<:trii:~.\./f.~ .(::t..(::c)rl~:;i.::1 ell" al:ll f:.~lE~etAJ;':'. Y J:J ,....j. CJt- t.o (j i.i:1;m~lrlt.f:.~1 i T'\ ~~
r'er~tJ:i.f" E~nll::'!!r'I'h5; i...f ,{: i"'IE~I'-' .:::~ i.5:.i:\ ], ..::\1.... <;J f:::r'f i. r'\ ~:U-l c i a.I :i f1 v'e~:; 1: rnE:~ni.:ft 'Y t)LI.
c: ar', 't.~:.~Ht:)(ec: t..:'.::~.bl.xs.i fH~?~::;'5;W i th (::\ i:f.y(~..:lr <:)1 (j, $'7() t,! (H)()s:i <.:;1 rl 1':.0 1::)(:
ot:\b 1 e:~ t. ':::) (::I.t:)~:;C)t~.. r.:Ff::;CJ.i.: t"ti{l. J.Of:.:;~; :i. 1'1 1.':1 mClfl tri'S t1
.i~ri:i.<:If.~(:':\. . \rJCJLI.l (:1 I::> t~ t. <:J 1'1 i::l. \l€:? <:lfni-l\Hi iflt...HfI rrLtmtJer" c).f 'y'ealr"1iE. .f 01""
,.... ~:!p 1;':\C:l'?{llf2r,tt:..J:i. t,f', .t.he! al.~:J ec:).f t rl e.... s i s;Jrl SU.I:) 1.': Y"c\i.::t. e~cl .f r CHfl t. tl<:i\t.
rn..\ml::)f:.:.}y"". t~~Hi::Hn~lll~~:::::;~y~~<~f"C)ld s;i~;Jrl \o\li tt.} "J')le~-\Ir-iTh':"H iml.J.m WC)LI.l d
t::)(*~r"mit:. ~:I..(.t. Y'~:?~::\l/" l....~:!!~rl c'.c~a::-~fnE~rlt 1 irnt1':."': C.H.... au', e~.rp~!!rrsive si grlll
Eh:.t~J(]f.~st: :l-t~;:~ : PI..1 Y' 1'1(:)f"i .....(: orl.'fc)t~.. fni. 11~;J sigr1 '1:.1",<::\ t.: i~:;-d <3.foag ed l*J)1
~~Jr'l<;':\ t.ev(;~r' fne;.:\rl~S t1Y !5()1}~ C)I/" inC)Ir" 1'i:?SI"lC)l.t 1 (j I:lE~ IJ'" e~r.) 1 (::r.<::E~clw i t.I'1
C::C) 1'1 + C) r in il'TCI S i. r;:J f'i u
'r tlf.? cH/''..::1 i rl ii:\ rrc~.? f::;("l OW 1::; i::\ 9 1''' E~ <~ t:.c1e!a 1(:) of: t.I'lOt.J.g i",1:. i::U'H::I c:: C) rl 'E; i. (j E~ II" i~. t. i 0 f'\"
The commit.tee should be commended for their effortsn
----- ..~
0~' /74:)
January 11, 1985
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission,
and Planning Staff
College Station, Texas
Ray Martyn, Vice Chairman .~
Planning and Zoning Commission
TO:
SUBJECT:
Proposed Sign Ordinance
At the 20 December 1984 meeting of the regularly scheduled Planning
& Zoning Commission we discussed the .proposed.sign ordinance. At that
meeting the Commission voted 5-1 in favor of the ordinance. Theone
negative vote, which was mine, was based on the way the motion was
phrased, not the overall goal of the ordinance. We agreed to express
any concerns we had with specific parts of the ordinance in writing for
your consideration. The following are points which I think are
important.
1. Section 2.T - Amortization andaba~ement of non-conforming signs.
The sign committee, as well as the city staff is opposed to any
amortization and abatement of any non-conforming signs except (a) off-
premise signs and (b) prohibited signs. I personally. feel it should be
expanded to include any non-conforming sign, whether it is higher than
35 feet or exceeds the all oted . square footage , or exceeds the all oted
number of signs. The rationale that has been stated for not wanting
this is (1) there aren't that many signs which are~ non-conforming, and
(2) it is bad public relations for the city.
The other side of the. argument is since there are relatively few
non-conforming signs, it is the best time to require that they come into
compliance. It will be a far less economic impact on the community asa
whole because there are only a handful of signs .af'fected.
Secondly,al though there a re a pprox i ma tel y 20 s ignswhich exceed
the 351 requirement, several far exceed it. Thirdly, there are numerous
other signs throughout the city that would be in non-compliance because
of square footage or numbers. There are at least two businesses, Mr.
Gatti es (Skaggs Plaza) and McDonal d's (Uni vers i ty Dr i ve) thatwou 1 dbe
in non-compliance on height, set-back, area'and number.
ff
Page 2
The other argument agai nst abatement has been that it woul d cause
bad PRfor the city. Although, this is a legitimate concern it should
not be .takenveryseriously. If the city is truly worried about bad PR
it would never rai<se taxes, annex ETJ land, rezone commercial and
industrial tracts in residential areas, construct major.arterials
through established neighborhoods, etc. The point is, the city cannot
worry about bad PR since they will never be able to please everyone.
Ife.elvery strongly that any ordinance worth changing to make a
given situation ..better should include everyone. Otherwise, the overall
intent, i.e., to help elevi.ate visual pollution, is lost.
2. Section 2.P. Exempt Sign - (1) Signs that are not easily read from
beyond the boundaries of the lot ...
This is potentially a dangerous exemption if there is no abatement
provision. An easily defined scenario could be ... 1'1 own a large,
heavilyw.ooded tract, which at present, has no connecting or bisecting
streets through it. However, I know from the city plan that within a
few years there will be. lcurrentlyprocede to build a large (height
or area) sign for my busine.ss which can't be seen. When the streets are
put in later my sign is now readily visible."
If there is no abatement clause for non-conforming signs, than the
city has no way of deal ing with a situation if and when, it becomes non-
conforming.
3. There is no provision which addresses. reconstruction of a damaged,
non-conforming sign.
That is, if a hurricane or other force, significantly damages a
non-conforming sign, it should have to .be rebuilt under the guidelines
of the new ordinance. The% damage figure I propose if 50%. .Ifa sign
is 50% or more. damaged due to storms, vandalism, etc., than it should be
rebuilt to be in.compliance.
4. Section 2.0.4 - Prohibited signs/Banners, etc.
I agree that this should be regulated, and perhaps even banned
altogether. However, if they are banned, they should be banned totally,
i.e., in both res.idential as wellasallother zoning classifications.
Alternatively, they could be banned in residential areas, and regulated
in commercial areas. That is, a maximum time period for which they
would be permitted (2 weeks). This would allow fora business to
advertise a special event, while preventing them from becoming
obtrusive.
In general, I think the ordinance is a good one and one that is
badly needed in our city. I applaud t.heoverall efforts of the sign
committee and. the<ci ty staff. However, I feel that the abovementioned
items will strengthen the ordinance and go further in achieving the
intent.
CornmentstoCity concerning Sign Ordinance
From: Celia Stallings
Overall the sign ordinance is well prepared and clarifies several
issues. 1 feel strongly that it would not benefit the City to amortize
sigps over 35' in height'.. The benefit gained does not measure up
against all the.negative affects that would be brol.1ghtabout.
It was my unclerstanding>that Free-Standing signs or Billboards would
be prohibited ,butI can.~.t.~ find this in the ordinance.
T.alsofeelthatallbanners, pennants and streamers should be banned.
Flags used for identification of subdivisions or businesses would be
accepta.ble if ..they are' the' correct height:.!. and square footage.
In the. case of political signs I feel that a person should be able to
sign an affidavit. of responsibility. I don't .feelthataperson should
be. r1Cll(iredto put up money for. a specific amount of signs. In some
cases a candidate may not know exactly how many signs are being placed in
his behalf.
The ordinance should be. clear that if someone takes over a location of
a non-conformi.ngsign and changes the type of business, the new sign must
come into conformity.
There should be some definition as., to how the setback line will be
determined. .....(i.e.. from what point and what angle)
~
MEMORANDUM
FROM: DanielF. MacGilvray
Planning and Zoning C
DATE: January 4, 1985
TO: College Station City Council
RE: Proposed New Sign Ordinance
I have the following comments to make regarding the proposed
sign ordinance:"
1. I basically support the ordinance in its proposed
format.
2. Section 1 Definitions should include definitions for
"billboardsuand "abandoned signs" and should
differentiate between "flags", "banners", and
"pennants".
3. Section 2 .I{ ,paragraph 5 should read .. 75 feet {of
frontager may be...1I
4. Section 2.L add the name of the business to the
permissable advertisements on.an attached sign.
5. Section 2.M shoUld allow flags (as opposed to banners or
pennants) in commercial or industrial districts and
should prohibit banners and pennants in all districts.
A maintenance clauss should be included.
6. Section 2.0 should include Iloff-premisell signs as being
specifically prohibited.
7. Section2.P.l. shoUld not permit signs "...that are not
easily read from 'beyond the boundaries of the lot.. .etc"
to exceed.the maximum size or height restrictions of
this ordinance, since there is no guarantee that in the
future these signs might be visible (say if a new street
is cut through where none previously existed).
8. Section 2.R.2.c define "discontinuancell.
9. Table 1 should be clarified with example graphics.
10. Finally,rdo not believe that the amortization clause
should. include signs which currently exceed the height
requirements, for the following reasons:
-There are only 20 signs in the city that currently
exceed the 351 limit, only 7 that exceed it by more
than 50%
-All of the offending signs were legal when constructed,
and the council is not apparently considering
amorti~ing.those that offend not for height, but for
size, setback, etc.
TO: Honorable Mayc>r and C.lty Councilmen
FROM: Steve Hansen" Chairman ofP&Z
Basically llmin ag reement with the. proposed sign ()rd i nal1ce with two
exceptIons, those b.eing:
1 . op~oseth~,bpnnlngof-the f lagsandbannersonretall . estab 1 i shments .'
believe tnat sheuld have been handled by a maintenance clause.
2. am strongly against any type ofamortlzation of 35ft. or over signs.
I would agree.wlth comments made at theP&Zpubl ic hearing that more charts
and graphics would he)pclarifythisdordlnance.
Stabler Sign Company
1823 Shiloh Ave.-Bryan, Texas 77803
January 8, 1985
City Of College Station
Box 9960
College Station, Texas .77840
Al Mayo, Director of Planning
Dear AI,
Congradulations., I think the proposed sign ordinance
shows a great deal of planning.and coordination on the part
of your department. It is impossible to please everyone,
however, I think you have achieved a very good and workable
sign ordinance that will work to clearify some of the cloudy
areas in previous ordinances.
The definitions of off.-premise signs is a.very adequate
and complete statement for identifying the typesofsignage
or graphics you want to prohibit. If the term billboard
were used in the definition section it would make reference
to only one of eight particular types of outdoor advertising
.in use today, and that is the posted bulletin or sheet board
and does not imply (as some rnightthink) a painted wooden
sign, which for infoma.tionis called a painted bulletin.
An area that may need to be looked at however would be
that of temporary signs such as going out of business, relocating
or ownership changes where a permanent sign is to be changed
with anew logo or name and it would take 4-8 weeks for this'
change to be completed. I do think prohibiting streamers,
and other attraction devices is a good idea with the exceptio,n
of Christmas decorations which should be allowed for eight
weeks. maximum.
Amortization of non-conforming sighS would caus.e a great
deal of hardship on those specific business with the non-
conformity, .especially. to those who have spena great deal
of time on marketing research and money to achieve.visibility,
and while doling all of this in good faith with regards to
existing ordinances. A $50,000 sign advertising budget for
on-premise purposes is not.a short term investment; it is an
investment made for the life of that business.
Thanks again for a job well done.
'SALES * LEASING *SERVICE
BUSINESS: 409/822.5715