The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764 -3570 / Fax (979) 764 -3496 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adjustments FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Interpretation of Section 5.8.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance concerning the allowed height for a free - standing sign in the Overlay (OV) District DATE: August 26, 2003 The above referenced ordinance section reads: "Freestanding signs shall be limited to the restrictions of Section 7.4, Signs, but shall not exceed the height of the building." It is the interpretation of the Administrator that in the case that there is more than one building height within the building plot, as it is determined for the purposes of signage, the height of the freestanding sign shall be no taller than the height of the building that is located most near to the sign. It is the Administrator's opinion that this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the Overlay District and its restrictions. The purpose statement for the Overlay District reads: "This district is established to enhance the image of the gateways and key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity." The Administrator believes that in order to achieve continuity between building height and sign height within the Overlay District, the sign must be limited to the height of the closest building. This interpretation has been appealed by the applicant, Mr. Thomas Kirkland. Please see the attached "Appeal of the Administrator's Interpretation" sheet for information provided by the applicant supporting this appeal. Home of Texas A &M University Rug 21 03 09:47a Thomas Kirkland 214 890 -1355 p.3 08/21/2003 07:18 9797643496 COCS DEVELOPMENT SER PAGE 04/04 APPEAL OFTHE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION I believe that the Zoning Official has misinterpreted Section 6 A ,2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The misinterpretation is: A /i to ! I • 4 A_. •+ L f i! 4r��i ® Aka/AP/7 /s 4 cat (0 r�fiv 4 s ay . � �, 1i�ccag;te JAM) ` ,1 el AP D JvruAlt `Wi t41 ) - '' c4 d)1 GL Qk,C i-ctUUA) fib* t2 /Li/4j ‘,/-tit A. 41 a ii • 'CO-PC ' u 6 • YA _ _' s ! / . - a '0 . • i Q al • V l 1 LIf.61a_ 1 I r171 � kkt AA:5�-artet' i APR 4& Z b id�,Nf �� S + t A at/c d Gu YY f �7 4 . 3 Sk �1.tZt � rn. ll�l o d v 1 S I I. I._ 1 i • �� 411 1. 1 ■ ♦ i C. t / i / //I' .4/4 I I i , . I n.r eA� 3 .P6+ h t A' tan�l : C,Wil trit p 0 A ytt O. a c „,„ . _ � � s s M d � rite in� /icr Urn J .�) A 44/1. n i t. 4(51A ` 4AL aw� ,� Sij L kr ' , Of hug c(4 .0 4.41,) 1,) ' f►��rrr►�€DJA4 ,� $DJ ,l n me� , CilifA r Other fac s supporting my opinion are: ,,, a e �inJ` u -i/l �1J ' JIAn fMLcAG1% 'Ut- �1,0 4.0.' 0 Sit . 1 koU '- s2 � , Q ey Jld ti �`�" ``� maS , .6 y � � '� 4/ '� 1 � � � Al - }� , M !A `�,c., 7D�O it ll't i�.7 (9 ` - I gh_S Lid IA - NL el 0124" ur► n/�f.t lcttrA . 4t6tUICV-- LimaLtL, r 1f ) hu i4 .A 1s1.:{cuu_ 4 . :\. ' d. " r1 tAp. �1, A- .1 0 (M O G �� °.' 0 i .4„,A. -" 4, J 5/• n ltoActr , C,t.t* d4 * f p0A5 . r 00,cl>IA Arai tnur � } b tr 1 is 14[129 1 41v Imecr co„ 4Iv qr.) l,�McLt 1�1 k r t' 4 ♦�:. i� . 1 ' . d. l at :..rl. r► .. L` _ 1A ' l y Cam. �J:.._ J Q. " . / J' _ �. ... .a._. • The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. Signature ar Title Date jejtb+ bvlle9 act ,Pf\ 9.4 ltk) - ekOt i sktmeu.Qe Coyly in,* o - , LL 811 Co,- W� , �k tt5 ' 1 7.RA - General Variancc.doc 8/]9!204) 2 of 2 11A44 STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Lauren Harrell Date: August 26, 2003 Email: Iharrell @cstx.gov ZBA Meeting Date: September 2, 2003 APPLICANT: Thomas Kirkland, Tekmak Development Company REQUEST: Sign Variance LOCATION: 1010 University Drive PURPOSE: To allow the use of a taller freestanding sign than is allowed by ordinance. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Agent for owner Property Owner: Spirit Development I, Ltd. Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7.4 Signs and Section 5.8 Overlay Districts PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: Subject Property: C -1, General Commercial / Corridor Overlay District North: A -P, Administrative Professional / Corridor Overlay District South: R -4, Multi - Family West: C -1, General Commercial / Corridor Overlay District East: C -1, General Commercial / Corridor Overlay District Frontage: 282 feet along University Drive. Access: Via a driveway from University Drive Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat with no mature vegetation Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain VARIANCE INFORMATION Item Background: The applicant would like to erect an approximately 144 square -foot sign, 70 feet from the curb at a height of 32 O:\ group\ deve _ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc feet for McAlister's Deli and Quality Suites. This new sign will replace the existing pylon sign that is approximately 28.5 feet tall. There are currently two structures located on this building plot (as determined for the purpose of signage), a 1 -story restaurant along University Drive and a 3 -story hotel located on a lot with no frontage. According to Section 5.8 of the UDO, Overlay Districts, the height of the sign cannot exceed the height of the building. Because of the proximity of the new sign to the 1 -story restaurant, the sign height cannot exceed the height of the restaurant, which is 21 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an 11 -foot variance to this height requirement. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: As a special condition, the applicant states: "Pursuant to the existing sign standards, absent the height restrictions in 5.8 for the Overlay District, the sign in question could be 35 feet. If there were only the hotel on this site, even given the restrictions of 5.8, the sign could be 35 feet tall. It is only because there are 2 buildings on this site that the lower 1 story height restriction comes into question. Even at that, the Standards do not seem to require the height restriction to be the lower of the 2 buildings." Hardships: As a Hardship the applicant states: "There are currently 2 buildings on this plat, with a 1 -story restaurant in the front and a 3 -story hotel in the back. The standards are not clear as to which building height the sign must not exceed. To require the sign to be no higher than the 1 -story restaurant would not allow both businesses' sign to be seen by the driving public on University Drive. Such a situation would be extremely detrimental to the hotel's business, which relies greatly on drop -in traffic for its overnight guests." Alternatives: The applicant states the following as an alternative: "That a possible viable option might be to split the difference and have the sign height restricted to the average height of the two buildings, but this alternative does not seem to be contemplated by 5.8, nor is it the best solution for the two going concerns." Staff sees several other alternatives for the applicant other than a variance. The applicant could place the sign further back on the site and closer to The Quality Suites hotel for the increased height. He can also replace the existing sign face with the logos of both establishments O:\ group\ deve _ser \stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc (without structurally altering the sign or increasing the square footage) and keep the existing sign height and location. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: The Corridor Overlay District is established to enhance the image of gateways and key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity. Number of Property Owners Notified: 9 Responses Received: None as of the date of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application O:\ group \deve _ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc