HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report'i
- -.
`f
ii ...
I
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 91-8~7
Re uest: A eal decision. relating to allowable.: number of freestanding signs
q pp
on .the HEB property..
- Applicant:: Joe Negrete -Project ..Manager for HEB
PHYSICAL FEATU~R;ES
Location: Lots 1 and 2 Kapchinski .Hill :Subdivision C
Area: 19.18 acres
ZONING AND LAND USE
Suh'ect Tract: C-1 Generale Commercial
J
...:North: C-1
East: C-1
South:... R-S Apartments
West: R-6 Apartments
STAFF CoMME
The. Zoning Ordinance prohibits more than one freestanding sign on any premise
- except when certain conditions exist. These conditions do not exist on the HEB
property. The ordinance defines a premise in the sign regulations as an area. of
land planned and designed as a single comprehensive project, considered from
the time the plan is first submitted either at plat stage or site plan` stage. Further
~~ definition is. given in the Definitions Section. of the Zoning Ordinance. A Building
Plot. or Premise is defined as all of the Viand wlthm a project, whether one or
more platted lots, developed according o a common plan or design fore similar or
compatible uses, which singularly or in phases is treated as such for site plan
review purposes....
The:. determination of the boundaries of a building .plot or premise shall be made
as the first Step in the site: plan .review unless previously made at the time of
platting.
The P&Z was told that they could determine the building. plot for the purposes of
signage when the final plat for Kapchinsk Hill was considered in 199q. The
applicant stated at that time that the development would be considered a single
project with a commonly shared parking lot.
The site lan most recently reviewed by the PRC `includes a shopping .center. on
. ~ ,,,
,Lot 1 with an out parcel. This :out .parcel is not a separately platted Iot. Lot ~~
was not :formally reviewed but shows a separate_building. It was indicated at
PRC that Lots 1 and Lot 2 would be considered separate premises so that each
could have a freestanding sign.
It .was further indicated that staff would research the question of signage relative
to Lot 1 and the: out:. arcel and make a determination in writing. After looking
p,
at how .other situations In town were handled,lt .was determined that the out
arcel should be considered part. of the overall_ premise. -Other examples. where
p .
out arcels have. not been allowed freestandin sl ns include the Post
p g g . , yak Square
Shopping Center (Grandy's and Pler One),... the ..Winn Die Center (Kentucky
Fried Chicken , .,Culpepper Plaza (Burger King)., the K-Mart Center (Ferrerl's)
. .
and Post. Oak Mall (several separately platted lots share the freestanding signs
allowed}.
In order to be consistent with past. interpretations staff determined that the -out
parcel on Lot 2 should. not be allowed a separate freestanding sign.
Under .Section 1Q of the Zoning Ordinance. the applicant may appeal certain
decisions of the PRC to the Planning & Zoning Commission. This. is one of
those areas Ghat may be appealed.
Attachments:
P&Z Minutes of 4-9Q
Zoning Ordinance excerpts:..
Freestanding sign regulations
Definition of Premise
Definition of Building Plot /Premise
Section 14 re: Appeals
Letter from HEB representative