Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 ZBA MHBR JanWic Var Sign Reg 8-D 7&8-D 9c ( ~BA Minutes ·10-18-83 page 2 Mr. MacGilvray reminded the Board that this request for variance had been denied at the last meeting but also that the applicant had not been present at that time, and is present at this meeting, Indicating further, that in order to rehear this request, the Board will have to have a motion to that effect. Mr. Upham made a motion to rehear this request for variance with Mr. Wendt seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mrs. Kee explained that this ls a request for variance to the rear setback requirements for construction of a garage addition to a Tilson home, and that this builder does not ordinarily build garages or driveways. Mr. MacGilvray cited a surveyor's error as being part of the reason for this request as pointed out in the last hearing. Mrs. Kee explained that the front · lot width dimension was distorted on the Xeroxed copy, and then mentioned the trees in the yard which would have to be destroyed if the garage was located within the guidelines of the ordinance. Frank Cinek, applicant who resides currently in New Jersey came forward and was sworn in and explalned that he had requested a garage at the time his building was ordered, and had been advised to brfng that up at a later date. Now the prices have climbed too high, and a local builder has offered to help out. He explained the request, the hardship on them caused by the loss of lot through the setback requirements and the loss of the trees. Mr. MacGllvray explained again that in order to grant a variance it must be shown there are unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts. Mr. Clnek asked If these rules were enforced throughout the City and spoke of lot line construct- ion In some areas, It was pointed out that different zoning districts have different re ~ qulrements, and a1so how older, existing structures were "grandfathered" into the City at the t I me the ordinance was accepted. Mr. Ci nek sa 1 d that ·he had "no pu 11" in the City, and knows no one to help him, and Mr. Upham spoke up and said this entire Board works for hlm and quoted from the minutes concerning this request at the last meeting. He went on to speak of the opinion given that there was too much house on too 1 ittle a lot, and Mr. · Clnek said he had changed the plans once already. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Cinek if he ~ had considered any alternatives, and pointed out it is possible to put a garage on this site, although it might lnterfer with some windows; he also pointed out the 25 ft. setback which ls required at the rear. Lillian Cinek, 8700 Greenleaf Drive w9s sworn in and stated the one main reason for placing the garage ·In the location ·Indicated is because of the 6 trees which would have to be ·destroyed, and further that she ls on ;the Conservation Garden Committee of the Federation of Women's Clubs In New Jersey, and _ has a particular Interest In saving any existing trees. Mr.·MacGllvray said that se~eral of the Board members have visited the site and are aware of the trees, and they, too agonize over the loss, but repeated this Board is governed by certain rules. Mr. Wendt asked Mrs. Kee If a 15 ft. setback would be o.k., and Mrs. Kee said If It ls a side setback, it is only required to be 7t ft. from the pro- perty line, and the adjacent structure does meet its setback. Mr. Upham asked if a front door designation can be changed, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that~the 25 ft. setback have to .be met · on opposite sides of the structure. Mr. Wendt said it is an example of unfortunate platting of a lot. Mr. Upham made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as It w1 ·11 be contrary to the public Interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found ··fn like dfst~lcts and because a strict enforcement of the ptovlslons of the Ordinance ·would not result In unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the -spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanlmsouly (5-0) • . ·AGENDA'ITEM NO. 4: Conslderation of a request for variance to the sign regulations for the Ashford Square Subdivision in the name of MHBR-Jolnt Venture. THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS NOT AN EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983, AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, BUT RATHER A MINIMAL AMOUNT OR PARAPHRASING HAS BEEN DONE, AND UNIMPCRTANT, IRRELEVANT INFORMATION HAS BEEN ·uELETED. ( (. 'ZBA Minutes I0-18-83 page 3 TRANSCRIPTION WAS MADE JOINTLY BY JANE KEE AND SHIRLEY VOLK. Jane Kee reminded the Board that this same subdivision had recently been granted a variance to rear setback on certain lots and th~ developers are now back to ask variances to cer- tain sections of the sign ordinance. At the time the Ashford Square plat was approved by P&Z and Council, there was a stipulation that essentially no detached sign permits would be granted until an approved sign plan ls presented by the applicant and developers of the subdivision because at that time they were planning to propose some overall plan for this entire subdivision. The P&Z will also see the same presentation that the appli- cant will propose before the Board. In devising this plan It became necessary for this applicant to come before the Board for various reasons and she tried briefly to explain what they are proposing. She stated the applicant is in the audience. Kee: This green strip that you see out here is an area that's been reserved for land- scaping and proposed signage. There is a zone line that runs through it to divide C-1 from A-P zones. You will recall in the ordinance A-P zones are not allowed detached signs. What the applicant ls proposing is that for these interior lots they be allowed separate detached signs In this area; they are proposing some low-type of sign in a berm and I believe the applicant ls here ·to make a presentation concerning what those signs would look 1 ike. There are 2 variance requests that are necessary In order to do this: (l)Be- cause the staff and P&Z Commission view this as a building plot, by our ordinance they would be allowed one detached sign for the whole subdivision. They need a variance to the one detached sign limitation. (2)They also need a variance to the requirement that in commercial zones, detached signs must be 10 ft. behind the property 1 ine, and they will be out in this area which would be the 8 ft. setback area:-·They are only requesting detached signs In the green area, and not in the A-P zone. Another item the Board needs to consider also ls that part of the request (pointed to as-built plat, Brazos Savings is on Lot 1 and Wendy's Is on Lots 1 & 4) is the applicant is asking that Brazos Savings and Wendy's each be allowed their own detached sign on their piece of property. Mr . Wendt asked about A-P zones, and Kee said signs would be allowed on the buildings. Kee: ~hat essentlally ~we are considering are 8 separate detached signs plus one each on Brazos Savings and Wendy 1 s .;.lots. ~· ' z .• - •1'•\-' v •. MacG Tl vray: I am u_nder the·:?·i _mpress ion that C-1 a 11 ows detached signs on the property. Kee: The way the ordinance reads it that a building plot Is composed of -0ne lot or multiple lots and this whole development is viewed as a building plot and ·would be allowed one detached sign. Upham: It Is "viewed as a building plot 11 , but in fact, it was presented as one building plot.. Kee: It was presented as a commercial P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) which is some- thing we don't have In our ordinance. -.__ MacGilvray: Was It presented originally that way, and If so, would that preclude it being viewed In any other way. Kee: The development has private drives and not City streets, and this also makes the staff even more convinced that this ··1s a building plot, and not separate Individual lots. MacGllvray: So we're being .asked to consider 2 things; approving 2 detached signs that are on the property and 8 detached signs that are not on the property of the store they advertise. c ~BA Minutes 10-18-83 page 4 Meyer: I didn't understand the varianc~ request for BrazosBanc and Wendy's. Kee: Because we're viewing this as a building plot there could be one detached sign in which case we would not allow detached signs on any individual lots. In discussions with Planning staff because this is a new type of development we are not opposed to some kin- of treatment In this green area. We do have some concern with the two detached signs on the Individual lots as that seems to be contradictory -either you have a building plot with one detached sign or you have detached signs on individual lots. To try to accomplish both In my mind seems contradictory. Upham: The previous situation actually we had no precedent and we made precedent. The precedent ls now binding on the rear setback as far as that's concerned. Our statutes do In fact cover specifically on the sign situation. Wendt: No, not on a development that has interior lots where everything goes to the center of the street. It's not like a face front store -it's a different situation. Upham: We have that same ·sltuation at the Mall. Only thing is property is owned separately but has many stores, each of which might expect to have a right by virtue of leasing the property. MacGllvrag: Is there anything which would prevent a single sign that would have the names of or 10 l Ike over In Culpepper, / Kee: As long as it met setback and height requirements. Wagner: If nothing passes tonight, then there could be one ·detached sign with BrazosBanc, etc,, and then signs on the buildings also. Kee: All buildings can have signs on them, Wagner: Even the ones facing the street? Kee: Yes, If nothing happens tonight . I don't know what right now would be the opinion of the P&Z Commission with respect to the overall plan for this development in terms of slgnage. Anything more than one deta~hed sign out there would require action by this Board. MacGllvray: I'd 1 Ike to hear from t h~ developer or spokesman on behalf of this request. Steve Hansen came forward and was sworn in, and stated: There are several items I'd like to address tonight. First being that the outcome of our P&Z meeting concerning the final plat of Ashford Square. The only direction we got from P&Z at that time concerning signage was that It was to be limited, As Jane said, we were to come up with some-kind of a plan for signage -detached signs and signs in the common area. We were not directed at any meetings in any way that we were to have just one detached sign for the whole development. As you know, Ashford Square ls a unique development. "It's more what you'd call a commercial P.U.D. with each lot having Its own ownership and each lot having Its own parking, its own 4 walls and It really does not resemble a Mall situation in any form. I'm having trouble seeing the analogy between a mall and this type of development. We have indivi- dual buildings and sites on each lot. What we're trying to do ls in fact limit our signage to prevent a detached sign on each lot. Let me address the signage ·that we're proposing in th~common area. We're proposing a· maximum of 8 low key signs for Lots 2 & 3 Block A, Lots 2,3, 5 & 6 Block B and Lots 7 & 8 Block D. If you would pass this around. This is a drawing of the sign we'd like to use, This would also have Indirect lighting. That Is not drawn in ·here. The sign would be approximately 3 ft. high and 12 ft. long, and it would go in the common area ·that ls outlined In green on the plat. ~BA Minutes 10-18-83 page 5 MacGilvray: There would be 8 of those essentially, is that right? Hansen: That would be the maximum amount to cover each lot ownership. What it would be, would be a series of signs which I've seen done very well in Houston on several commercial lots. It would be a bermed area and it would all be landscaped and I think it would be- a much better situation as far as the neighborhood is concerned with this low type signage. There would be very little illumination on this type of sign versus one large detached slgn that would be a directory sign that would have a number of signs elevated in the air. In first talking to · City staff, they were in favor of some type of low profile sign and this is what we were more or less directed, and this is what we aimed to do to cover the detached signage on the Interior lots. Let me add the other portion of our variance request. That would be 2 "detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's Restaurant. There is a representative from Wendy's who would like to speak a few words after I do. And if there is someone from Brazos Savings, I think they'd like to, too. They feel Brazos Savings' sign would be ·a detached sign that would be located on their property that would be very similar to the sign on the corner property they own on Southwest Parkway & Texas. It's not a -It's more or less a low profile sign. I'm not exactly sure what the height is. But that ls the type of sign they are proposing. I would like Wendy's to explain their type of detached sign. In summary, this is baslca1 ·1y what we are trying to do -this is a Planned Unit Development. We have more or less with our zero lot line request and variance that we have had -this enables all the buildings to be centered in the center of each lot. Let me explain on the plat. (He went to the plat to point). Most of the buildings we're trying to do ·ts in this area with flow through parking here and here. . That Is why we have zero lot 1 lne development. We feel It would be an attractive situation to have detached signage all the way down each lot. Thatfs why we're requesting low profile signs for each lot. Meyer: Does the Brazos Savings and Wendy's building match all the other buildings archi- tecturally? Hansen: Yes, Meyer: So they'll look all the same? Hansen: Yes. The dev~loper does have deed restrictions that do reflect similar type ···~c · concrete tilt wall construction. MacGilvray: Are any buildings .there? I haven't been by there. Hansen: Yes sir. The buildings shown on the plat are In place. MacGilvray: I knew ·the Daycare Center was. Hansen: Excuse me, Phil Blackburn's building is under construction. MacGllvray: What's the little building behind the obvious drive-through? ·Hansen: That's their little office location. MacGilvray: It's not just a moneystore -there'll be people there. Hansen: No, It's predominately just a drive-in. ~) Upham: You addressed one thing here -you remarked this ls a unique situation which we recognized so far as the variance we granted last time. Hansen: Yes sir, / ·ZBA MI nutes 10-18-83 page 6 Upham: However, I 1d remark to you that so far as signs and things 1 ike this I would think that your development is unique pretty much only in that it is a first development. So you see the problem we have or are presented with. The first -inevitably not the last. I further point out what we're actually talking about is a sign ordinance which is designed against proliferation and bad placement of signs -what we're looking at is 18 signs on - one area as opposed to nine -provided for one large detached sign with everybody on it and one on each building and those 18 signs to be congregated in an area which perhaps is l/lOth the size of the mall or the areas in here. Hansen: What 18 are you talking about? Upham: You see lf you want 8 up front, 8 on each building and 2 detached plus your 1 development, you have In essence 18. You have one on each building which is provided for so that 8, then 1 for each building down by the street, so that's 16 and then you're allowed 1 detached sign for the whole area anyway which would allow you to have those same businesses on one big pole. We have a situation when you want one for Brazos Savings and Wendy's so you're asking for 18. If you should come back and say you knew we forgot about it, but we'd 1 Ike to put this one up on the corner which we're allowed anyway and put 8 more up here. Hansen: No, you're not allowed detached signage on A-P. Upham: As what I 1m talking about is one large pole up here with 8 signs on it, which you're allowed -and then we're going to put 8 more on the street. You haven't applied for the one pole, but you could. What we're asking for is 18 signs with the potential possibility of 27. Hansen: That's not w~at we're asking for -it's clear that whatever would make that clear ... Upham: I brought out this unique situation being first. I 1m trying to get the gravity of the multiplication factor Involved in the thing out thoroughly in the open so we can be fair to you. Hansen: To address that point -If we do -if you look at each one of these lots as a separate building, which In fact they are in any other situation, each lot would have their own detached sign with a sign on the building. There would be 26 signs in the commercial area versus what we're asking now. Our intent Is to limit the signage and do it in a tasteful manner with our low profile signs. That's our whole intent -to :limit the signage which we were directed to do by the P&Z Commission. Meyer: I 1m trying to visual lze the 8 low signs. They would be situated how? Hansen: We would angle them slightly and they would just be spaced in a berm type situa- tion with landscaping right In front of the commercial area with just the name and possibly the street address. MacGllvray: Will all this thing develop reasonably quickly -wondering if all these 8 signs will be built at the same time or will they come gradually? Hansen: think It would be a gradual situation just depending upon the market situation. _I really can't answer that. There has been good progress to this date. We've been under co12_str..uction several months an.d we have 4 buildings under construction right now. Meyer: ·1 think this would be attractive, prettier than a sign on a pole. Hansen: In Houston, Cottillion (?)West has the same situation. It is done in the same manner. ( ·ZBA MI nutes 10-18-83 page 7 MacGilvray: 'If this .were approved would it prevent them from building one single detached sign at some future date as Mr. Upham worried? Kee: If that was their only sign, no. I think what the Board is being asked tonight is to accept either their proposed plan in whole or In part, or reject it, in which case - they would be allowed their one detached sign. They would not be allowed more than what the Board grants them tonight. MacGilvray: Then ·Mr. Upham's fear was not founded. I n other words, it would not be possible for them to build these 8 signs and then at some later time come back and decide they wanted to have one big pne. Kee: That was the only misunderstanding that he (Mr. Upham) had. Upham: Which is what I was sitting here trying to get straightened out. In any event, we do have a situation where this being a first such development. It is not in ·fact unique, just first. MacGllvray: Yes. Hansen: If I may make one more comment -in reference to the 2 detached signs (Brazos Savings & Wendy's) we wanted to keep the 2 detached signs to a minimum and we felt that by allowing 2 detached signs versus 12 others, we felt this would be limited signage. We ~­ felt the type of tenant or owner we have here it ls a nec~ssity .to have detached signage and that's why we've asked for the 2 detached signs based on their situation. Upham: What situation -what was In your restrictions so far as the remainder of the lots are considered. What do you have written in there which would prohibit the other 6 pieces from coming up here saying Brazos Savings has their detached sign, we want ours. Wendy's has theirs, we want ours. In essence, if we were to approve those 2, by precedent we are automatically approving 6 more. Hansen: Our deed restrictions are going to reflect the exact same thing we are requesting if It ls granted In that Interior lots would just be a l lowed to have a low profile sign and the other 2 lots that have access to Southwest Parkway would have detached signs on their property. Upham: Run that by again. Hansen: Repeated. Upham: You keep saying would be allowed referring to Brazos Savings & Wendy's. You do not have your restrictions as yet completely developed. Hansen: No sir. ~he restrictions are complete pending this outcome. Upham: What you are saying here is in fact included in your restrictions on Lots 2-8 and In fact there now. Hansen: Yes sir. Upham ;_ You have no expectation ·of taking it out. Hansen: No sir. Upham: So I presume the businessman who goes In here will be charged a little he's, •• ( 0 ZBA MI nutes 10-18-83 page 8 Hansen: Yes sir . MacGilvray: I was going to say -since we're talking about the other detached signs you mentioned there are other people here who might like to speak to that, so unless you have some other comment we'll ask you questions as we need to as this goes on. Hansen: Thank you. MacGllvray : Thank you, Mr, Hansen. Bil Youngkin, representing Wendy's was sworn in and stated: Here as an observer to see what the Board does with this situation because our use of this property depends on the actions of the Board tonight. We have no objections to the Board allowing a variance to be within so many feet of the street which is not ·ordinarily allowed, but we want to make sure we do have our separate detached sign and we do not want to put a sign in that other area, but with our business It Is necessary we have our marketing logo sign, as MacDonalds, etc. have across the street. We have looked at our property being a building plot because we do own our property, It's a free standing building with our own access, parking, etc. I assume the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent (quoted parts of the sign ordinance) and persons having multiple s1gns over their property, but it does not preclude us, if you consider our property a plot, as we do. And that's the only thing we want to have understood at this meeting Is that we do have our right because we do have, or think we have, one plat and whether or ·not we develop is contingent upon this Board's action toni·ght. MacGllvray: ·I wonder if, In fact, the applicant is MHBR, the developer, whether or not Mr. Youngkin's concern ought to be separate application, because in that he's viewing this as an individually owned lot, with it's own integrety and therefore, it's own sign require- ment, but It falls out the the definition given us by Mr. Hansen and taken by the City Planning and Zoning Commission views this as one lot only. ' Upham: Which ls correct, that ls, his opinion and Mr. Hansen's opinion are between them. Kee: My understanding is that when the plat was presented to the P&Z and Council was that their overall sign plan would lnvolve 'all the lots in the subdivision, and Mr. McKean came in and made this appl !cation. Part of this appl I cation was to allow Lots 1 & Lots 1&4 to have separate detached signs. I feel that this should be considered with this. ·Wagner: Contradictory! It seemsexactly contradictory; we're asking Mr. Hansen to view It as one building lot and Mr. Youngkin to view his as one building lot. Kee: That ls why I pointed out earlier the staff has concern with both of those requests because they seem to ·contradlct the intent to either view it as a building_plot and allow more than one detached sign In that fashion, or we don't. Wendt: In most of those other interior lots don't have exposure and what I think there ought to be ls that the 2 that have frontage naturally want to have something you can see because they're probably going to be the highest traffic generators. The ones In the back also want to have something so that when you drive by you can see they're there. You all are trying to separate It, and the only people who are asking for detached signs have frontage on Southwest Parkway. Youngk~n: We are not asking for a variance, because our sign would be under the 35 ft, minimum as opposed to MacDonalds seventy plus feet and Arbys. Our sign is going to be within your ordinance of 35 feet, but our sign is Indigenous to our project and our building. , ( .ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 9 MacGllvray: That's what I wondered, and that was the thrust of my question. I can see that if the dark line on this plan out! ines everything but this, and is only for this, but It doesn't. The request Includes all of the lots ... Upham: We do only have a request from the individual concerned with the entire project~ MacGllvray: That's right. Upham: We have a concerned citizen who is addressing the situation within the context of the request Itself. MacGllvray: That's why I'm wondering how to view this because if we go by Jane's opening remarks which were that this thing was not going to be viewed as individual parcels under a C-1 zone, but as one parcel, then It seems that within our actions would tend in another direction. Upham: Our actions would take Into account the specific request as presented. Kee: As I understand it, the BrazosBanc and the Wendy's requests are included in the appl !cation. Youngkin: The only thing I wanted to say is that the way the application is made is fine with us. We have, In the deed restrictions will take care of the other property, and I / think what they're trying to do is good for the ·communlty and everyone else. I think everyone recognized that It's better to have signs low profile and landscaped than to having a Culpepper Plaza sign that you can see when you top the hill at · the raceway. think that's an Improvement, but our particular business requires that, it's like the Archles or MacDonalds that we have that sign, and therefore we just do not want to be included In the deed restrictions, and the deed restrictions depend on what the Board does tonight, and that's why we wanted to voice our approval of their request with the understanding that we do want to have our separate detached sign. MacGllvray: It would not be a low _proflle sign. It would be a 35 ft. Youngkin: I ·understand, but their restrictions would limit everybody else to a low pro- file sign except Brazos Savings and o~rselves. MacGllvray: I make my point again.~ ' Wagner asked about their stores In Lubbock, Texas and Washington, D.C~, saying the signs are not as high as · he Is. He went on to say he didn't see why this had to be a package - that ls, the .store and the tall sign. Don Mills was sworn in, Identified himself as the applicant for -Wendy's and said: Where you have like competition and everyone has the same level of sign elevation, it works all right where the customer Is accustomed to that. But In areas where all the ~competition has higher signs, It doesn't help the business any, and as a matter of fact, It's very detrimental. Wagner: This Is true, but wouldn't you like to be the first on the block? Mills: No, and I hate to be that mercenary, but money ls what It's all about. Wick McKean came forward and was sworn In and asked to clarify one point, stating: We are asking for a variance concerning rear lots and I know Jane pointed out Initially as one bul-ldlng plot, however If you look at that plat, those are -Individual lots, and if we read our zoning ordinance · as It pertains to signs, we are really not asking for any (', ·' ( 'ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 10 variance whatsoever on Lots 1 and Lots 1 & 4, the front lots. We are requesting a variance to, as far as the detached slgnage on those rear lots in an attempt to give them some exposure to Southwest Parkway and to also limit, we feel with respect to 1 imiting signage with the low profile and giving people exposure. Here again, I don't want to confuse the Issue here, we have got individual lots and we are not asking for any variance whatsoever. We do want to point out that we have that situation with those front lots and we want to make you all aware of that situation. Typically this thing would be if you were not subdividing, it would be one C-1 piece of property with the one marquis type situation. We don't have It here and you know we've had the problem with the setbacks, and we've got a little problem here as we're deeding individual lots, and they would really fall under the sign ordinance 11 per lot". The way I understand it and interpret the zoning ordinance, each one of those interior lots would be allowed a detached sign on-premise, and we're asking for a variance here that those on-premise signs be off-premise signs in this de- signated area. That's what we're really looking at here tonight. MacGllvray: Let's clarify, if Mrs. Kee would comment on that and give your understanding of how this was approved by the P&Z. Kee: My unders~anding · is that this subdivision was presented as a package or a Planned Unit Development which Involved all of the lots, and there was to be some overall plan for slgnage. Because It was presented as a package, we feel It is one development unit (one building plot) which would be allowed one detached sign. Any variation from that would require action ·from the Board, and I think the P&Z Commission in their motion on this plat made that even more clear, in that they not only ..• What th_ey said was that signage would be limited, and I think in saying that they realized that there might be some justification for a variance from the one detached sign that we would allow for a building plot, but how much of a variance and how It would be accomplished they were leaving to the ZBA if need be, and then later on for their decision when that plan was presented to them. MacGllvray: As I see it, Mr. McKean, if these were each C-1 lots, then those would be City streets running in front of them, and I don't know if that raises other .•. lt may be ' to the developer's advantage at one time as a one-package plan, and at another time as 8 or 10 pieces of land. I think we .need to arrive at some consistent view of this thing. Wendt: What exactly did the P&Z and Council state on this plat? Kee: That slgnage would be llmited ~and that at some future date,·the applicant was to work out wlth the staff or ·whatever steps were necessary, If that involved the Board, for some sign plan. MacGilvray: wonder if it might be appropriate instead of guessing what the P&Z Commission said for us to obtain copi·es of the minutes of that meeting and defer action on this until we have It. Meyer: What approval given· conditioned ·them presenting a s~gn plan? Kee: Mr. Miller made the motion to approve the final plat with a note indicating that slgnage may be limited, and It went on to instruct the developer that this should be wo 'rked out with the staff. When Mr. McKean presented the sign plan to the staff, we felt that ·it would require Board action because of the number of signs, Wendt~ What do you think about that plan? Kee: What he's proposing? I don't have a problem with the ·low profile signs in that area out front which would require a variance to the 10 ft. setback, and to the number of detached signs. I have some concern with the number of low profile signs if they're 12 ft. long an~ spaced In an area that Is a little under 300 ft., they're going to be ( ( ,zBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 11 rather close together. I have some concern with the separate detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's because we have to be conslstant with how we view this. Either we view it as one overall development unit or as individual lots. It bothers me to jump back and forth between the two. Wendt: Why can't we just say we're going to do it a particular way? MacGllvray: That would be fine if there were no detached sign requests, but they're want- ing us to do it two ways. Upham: We can make a motion to allow so much of this request as it's presented or leave some of It out. Meyer: Were permits given on buildings on the basis that they furnish a plan for signs? Kee: There were sign permits pending for BrazosBanc that have not been issued simply because there was not a sign plan at the time. McKean: There was a note on the plat at the time it was approved that signage would be 1 lmited because of the number of small lots, and that's what ·we're trying to determine - what, In fact, we can or cannot do, and I think we ought to come to a decision one way or another on that because we have people who are buying property and need to know. The fact that we look at it as one building plot one time and as multiple lots another is new, and It's why It requires that this Board take action. We are selling lots, and the concept here Is to promote individual proprietors to have ·their own shops, so naturally I share the opinion that it is Individual lots and signage in a commercial-retail area is of Importance. Our reasoning behind those front lots, they share Southwest Parkway frontage, and we do have a 1 imited amount of area to put the rear signs, so the on-premise sign would be a way to solve that problem, as far as how many signs we did have and where we could put them. Deed restrictrons and maintenance in the common areas was discussed by all, after which Mr. MacGilvray said this ls not the consideration of this Board. No one else spoke from the audience. ' MacGilvray: I suggest separating this into 3 separate requests - a variance to the requirement for the location of a sjg~ off the lot that a particular business occupies; the setback 10 ft. from the street for that sign if it's located on the lot; and to approve 2 individual detached signs for lots which are sub-parcels of a larger parcel that could have one sign under the conditions of the ordinance. Upham: I see it as 2 variances -that off-premise detached signs be allowed in the designa- ted area for the interior C-1 lots which would not allow Brazos Savings and Wendy's to have their sfgns in that bermed, designated area. McKean: The request Is for 8 Interior lots to be allowed signs in the common signage area, and allow slgnage for the front lots also; also whether It be pole signs or low profile signs, one way or another, addressing signage for .everybody. MacGilvray: If we allow the placement of 8 signs off fronting on Southwest Parkway to fit into the pattern development. Meyer: Can we vote on 3 separate motions? ,t1acGilvray: Yes the property, that the other 2 signs someway, defining the area as one ' Upham: I make an affirmative motion In so far as it relates, •• ! move to authorize a 1 ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 12 variance to so much of the request as refers to detached signage to be allowed in desig- nated frontage of Ashford Square, signs to be of low profile design and restricted to lots within the subdivision; that covers all lots including the front lots, too, -the C-1 portion of the subdivision. And further that they be allowed within the 10 ft. set ~ back requirements as required by Section 8-D.6 from the terms of this ordinance as they will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique and special condi- tions, they being that this is a pilot project and that the establishment of this sign allowance establ !shes precedence for it and all others to follow. Wendt seconded. Upham: By way of clarification, it will be noted that this refers to C-1 lots within the subdivision. Also for clarification, there would be allowed one sign per lot, for a maximum of 11 signs. Wendt: I want to make sure that there is not any substitution factor available for the interior lots. Kee: In this case, if a sign ls allowed off-premise in that area, it would preclude a detached sign on the lot. Wendt: I amend the motion to say no substitution on Lots 2, 3 of A, 2, 3, 5, 6 of B, and 7 & 8 of D. MacGilvray: I '11 clarify It to say that no detached signs will be allowed on those lots . . Upham: second the amendment to the motion. Amendment to the motion carried unanimously (S-0). Meyer: want the motion limited to uniform signs as presented by the developer at this meeting. Upham: The developer brought In a picture of what he intends to do with the signs. amend the motion again to say tha f signs should be of a general character in style as presented In the picture by the developer to the Board. I amend the motion to indicate the" type and style of signs which will be that as presented by the developer in his testimony before the Board as indicated on the drawing as presented. Wendt: second this amendment. ·. Motion carried unanimously (S-0). Motion, as amended twice carried unanimously (S-0). Slgnage on Lot 1 and Lots l & 4 was discussed and then Upham: I make a motion to deny a variance to sign regulations for Wendy's and Brazos Savings, to Lots 1 and Lot 1 & 4 as are applicable to Lots 1 Block A and Lots 1 & 4 Block B, that they not be allowed detached signs on-premise within this designated area, as it will be c~ntrary to the public interest, due to lack of unique and special conditions of the land. MacGilvray: I second the motion, and as a point of clarification, Wendy's and Brazos Savings will be allowed their one detached sign in the bermed, common signage area. Thl-s motion to deny carried (3-2) with Wendt and Meyer against. ZBA-MHBR ~-~~City of College Station ~ ~ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 ,, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77~ *· Chester J. Godell 208 Bucknell Ct. College Station, TX 77840 -l. CLA I M CHEC K 0 ,~~osrfc~ E I k c:J.A -::o a5:. -.v " :: ,«: --~< ZBA-MHBR -~~City of College Station ~ '1'fJ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 ~ ~ COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 Betty J. Suggitt 205 Buckne 11 Ct· College Station, TX 77840 0HOLD v .. ~ OAT& IST .NOTICIE ~-~~City of College Station ~ '1'JJ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 ~ ~ COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS77840 Randal B. Scott 217 Bucknell Ct . College Station, TX 77840 rn::o :1? :L0./:1.4/fl3 NOT "Tl Jr"N TO ~;ENDE\~ ···p r;:E: .... ~ :~ ::· ,~,~:; ADD\'.;:EESI::. ·' r'FI It..)l:.hHbl...I... .. ··· · ""WPPD .> ... ... UNA\:'.:1...E TO I·· Oh. .., _' ~· -- CATE OCT 2 "' IST NOTICE 2 C NOT ICE llET UP N O......troni PS'-3149-A Oct. 1910 TR 1 M. Rector Kenneth C. Krenek 37 Camden Place Corpus Christi, TX 78412 TR 2 M. Rector Lillian M. Thompson 206 McKinney Bryan, TX 77801 TR 36, TR 5 M. Rector Hugo H. Krenek 2533 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 TR 4 M. Rector Gladys B. Patrick 408 Day St. Bryan, TX 77801 TR 84 M. Rector John Ben Carrabba P.O. Box 664 Bryan, TX 77805 BK 4, LT 1 Brentwood II · Troy M. Stallings 216-218 Bucknell Ct. College Station, TX 77840 . BK 4, LT 2 Brentwood II Jean C. Weaver 214 Bucknell Ct. College Station, TX BK 4, LT 3 Brentwood II Chester J. Godell 208 Bucknell Ct. 77840 College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 4,5,6 Brentwood II Albert B. Syptak Jr. 2302 Briar Oaks Bryan, TX 77801 BK 5 I LT l ·, 3 Brentwood II Adeline D. Holder % Joseph Leblanc 346 Louisiana Pkwy Corpus Christi, TX 78404 BK 5, LT 2 Norman D. Van Hyning 315 Buckingham Victoria, TX 77904 BK 5, LT 4 Joseph U. Leblanc 902 Holick Dr. S. College Station, TX 77840 BK 1, LT 1 Brentwood IV Commerce National Bank James K. Presnal 2405 S. Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 BK 2, LT 2 Brentwood IV Brentwood Inc. 3743 s. Texas Ave. Bryan, TX 77801 LTS 9-15 William-Winder-King Allen R. Swoboda 301 Krenek Tap Rd. College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 7 Brentwood II Betty J. Suggitt 205 Bucknell Ct. College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 8 Brentwood II W.S. English 832 Kuhlman Rd. Houston, TX 77024 BK 4, LT 9 Brentwood II Hartsel Dale Allen 4203 Edgemont Austini TX 78700 BK 4, LT 10 Brentwood II Randal B. Scott 217 Bucknell Ct. College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 10 Brentwood II Sergio Estrada Unknown address P&Z Minutes 5-19-83 page 4 P.R.C. approval of access and Mr. Mayo pointed out that ultimately approval of access lies with the City Engineer. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plat as shown and as approved by the City Council with the note concerning access problems and Mr. Hansen seconded. Motion carried 5-2 with Mr. Hill and Mr. Balley voting against the plat. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 83-215: Final Plat -Ashford Square located on Southwest Parkway a roximatel 560 feet east of the intersection of Texas Avenue & Southwest Parkway Preliminary Plat approved under the name "Southwest Village" . Mr. Hansen asked to be excused from participation and left the Commission for this item and sat in the audience. Mr. Mayo explained that staff recommends approval of this plat as all recommendations made at the presubmission conference on the Preliminary Plat were met, and further recommended that signage for this tract be worked out between the developer and the staff. Mr. Miller asked if a note concerning the possibl ity of limited signage could be included on the plat and Mr. Mayo agreed that it could. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the final plat with a note indicating "signage may be 1 imited 11 to be included on the plat and instructions to the developer that this be worked out with staff. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried 6-0-1 with Mr. Hansen not taking part in the discussion and abstaining from voting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: 83-305: Preliminary Plat -Emerald Forest Phase 8 Mr. Mayo explained that all presubmission conference requiremerits have been met with the exception of additional access, that meetings were set up to discuss this with the developer next week and therefore, staff recommends approval of the p'lat as shown. Discussion followed concerning street configuration and Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve the plat as shown with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: 83-422: Parking Lot Plan -Warehouse located on Lot 5 Block 19 Ponderosa Place. Mr. Mayo explained that landscaping has not been designated and should be required, and with that addition, staff recommends approval. Discussion followed concerning land- scaping preferences and W.D.Fitch, applicant, offered to come forward to help answer any questions. He said trees shown would be 1 ive oaks, shrubbery shown would be a low- growing type of evergreen and the grass would be sprigged Bermuda grass. Mr. Bailey asked about a sign and Mr. Fitch indicated a detached sign would not be necessary. Mr. Martyn asked about dumpster locations and pointed out that none were shown. He also questioned the surface used on the private drive. Mr. Mayo said the dumpster location and size would be determined by the Director of Public Services, but should have been shown on the site plan, but then recommended the P&Z let the Director approve the loca- tion later. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the site plan with P.R.C. recommenda- tions, plus the following additions: (!)that the dumpster is to be located by the Director of Public Services and screened; (2)that the shrubs indicated are to be changed to trees; (3)that all trees are to be H" caliper Live Oak trees, and (4)that ground cover will be sprigged Bermuda grass. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: 83-507: Site Plan Permit -Sturbridge Condos located in Eastmark Subdivision Phase I I. Mr. Mayo explained the project and located it on a map. He indicated that all P.R.C. recommendations have been met and staff recommends approval of the plan as shown. Mr. Hill addressed the notes concerning utilities in easements and wondered if both cable TV / .: _, ZO~H~G EO:\RD OF ADJUSD!ENT .. Name of Applic~nt M.H.B .R . Joint Venture :,, Mailing Address P.O. Box 9935 College Station, Texas 77840 Phone 693-39 55 2,3 A Location: Lot 2,3 1 5, 6 Block B Subdivision Ashford Square Description, ... ... 7,8 D If applicable Action requested: Variance to sections 8-D-6 8-D-7 NAME \ \ ADDRESS FILE NO . (From current tax rolls, College Statiqn Tax Assessor) . ~ : > •, " ii .. . '• BOARD OF AD.IUST:·!ENT FILE NO. Section of ordinance from ~hich variance is soug~t Ordinance No. 850 Section 8-D-6 and 8-D-7 The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: That off premise detached s1~nage be allowed along designated frontage of Ashford Square. Signs to be low profile in design and restricted to the interior C-1 lots within the subdivision. Further that they be allowed within th.e 10 ft. set back requirement. That Wendy's and Brazos Savings be allowed detached signage on premises but not within this designated area. This va riance is necessary due to the followin g un ique and speciil conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: Ashford Square is develop.~d to allow individu°~l ownership of small comm ercial lot'§. By doing so the majority of lots do not frontage the main artery being SW Parkway. The ';. request would '.allow owners of interior lots to expose their signage to SW Parkway traffic. The follouing al.ternatives to the requested variance are possible: ... • t This variance will not be contrary to the pub~ic interest by virtue of the following f~cts: Sjgns wrnild be required to be low profile, not to exceed 3ft. in height and 1..rr~~/llfn;?) within th e landscaping Placement of the signs would be away fran the curb cut to assure visibility of on coming traffic The facts stated by me in t11is application n re tree n~d correct . October 6, 1983 Da tc STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: October 11, 1983 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: MHBR Joint Venture Status of Applicant: Developer of Ashford Square Subdivision Location: (address, lot, block, subdivision) Lots 2 & 3 Block A, Lots 2,3,5 & 6 Block B and Lots 7 & 8 Block D Ashford Square Subdivision Existing Zoning: C-1 General Commercial Requested Action: Variance to Section 8-D.6 requiring 10' setback from public R.O.W. and Section 8-D.7 concerning off-premise signs Purpose: To allow lots 2 & 3 Block A, Lots 2,3,5 and 6 Block B and Lots 1 and 8 Block D to have signs in the designated area (see plat) along Southwest Parkway and to allow iot 1 ~iEo~k.A (Brazos.Banc) and lots 1 & 4 Block B (Wendy's) to each have a detached sign on heir respective property. SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: 10' setback from R.O.W. for signs in Commercial and Industrial zones Utilities: underground PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Dimensions: See plat Access: See plat E16.od p!ain: None ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Either view all of Ashford Square as a building plat and allow only 1 detached sign or view each individual lot as a building plot and allow 1 detached sign on each lot in the C-1 zone. Previous Action on this Property: Variance to rear setback granted 8/16/83 ATTACHMENTS: Application List of Property Owners within 200 ft. Other: Minutes from 8-16-83 Plat Area Map .. --STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: /0-1(-<[)3 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant : Status of Applicant: · · 'o n Location: (address, lot, block, subdivision) Existing Zoning: C-\ 6e,~ GO.mM11,,tcda.J. Requested Action : ,JP \Jari QafR do j {>(!h 0 1i1 Q z-,(,, rP-?U-A .ri"1 /Q 1 ?-e..U,acl hom ou.bf,"c... .Q..(9.). U -I o,ru:Jl Lvclr',;a"' <Z-t>./ 00N&u.i ~ r).fL-o-u mi:S6 ~·c,.,..~/ - Purpose: Loflov-? lo fr.2 2.f3 8iod1 A./0-i-!>2,3 .Sile Aloc.lc..8 j SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: r -'~0=-' ~~~aul..,~::..:L~°"""~!:::..Q.:.::::.o~ . .=.:w:::..!.~~~~..,..,..!..~~==--J...:..l "~~~~~-,-1 .L.:"'-"':..::~~z~~,aQ ----Existing Parking: ~ ----Parking Required: _,.,..-- Other: Existing Use Proposed Use Area of Non-Conforming Area of Expansion Appraised Value ~ ; ; (: "· Use Permit Parking Required Parking Required Bui 1 ding Greater than 25% Cost of Reconstruction Staff Report (Continued) Page 2 Date: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Dimensions: Access: Topography: Flood Plain: ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Ordinance Intent: Previous Action on this Property: ATTACHMENTS: ~l ication , Appeals v1:ist of Property Owners within 200 ft. Site Plan Other: mi ,u Jt~ t.ol"'I '6-1~ -~ 3 ~la_.f- ~ ~ LEGAL NOTICE DATE(s) TO BE PUBLISHED: d-/),,/e5JY1 r! aTtJ.6C£ /o<, ~3 ONLY _:;~-=-=--'--'----..;;~---"-'-?;"---=--'---'--~---=-~~"""-~~7-------"--="'-~~-:---- BILL TO: THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P. O. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: - The Zoning Board of Adjustment for fhe City of College Station will consider a request for a variance in the name of: M.H.B.R. Joint Ventu r e W. A. McKean, Applicant P. 0. Box 9935 Said case will be heard by the Board at their regular meeting in the Council Room, College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 18, 1983. . The nature of the case is as follows: ' ' Request variance to the Sign Regulations, Section 8~D.7 & 8-D.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 850, in the Ashford Square Subdivision, located on the south side of Sou .thwest Parkway approxi- mately 500 ft, east of Texas Avenue , . : .. '; ... -'" ' Further information is available at ·the office 'o·f the Zoning Official of th~_C_J t,Y of Col _lege Station, "(409)696-8868. --.. -· - ·,· ··: '' ....... ,,, " .':~~~~i:-:~ Jane Kee Zoning Official ;, .•·' . " I \.(,.j~ ~·~·-;·l .. City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I O I TEXAS AVENUE COL LEGE STATION, T EXAS 77840 Octob e r 10 , 1983 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of College Station will consider a request for a variance in the name of: M.H B R .Joint Vent11re W. A. McKean, Applicant P. 0. Box 9935 ColleQe Station, TX 77840 Said case will be heard by the Board at their regular meeting in the Council Room, College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue on Tuesday, October 18, 1983. at 7:00 P.M. The nature of the case · is as follows: Request variance to the Sig~ Regulations, Section 8-D.7 ~ 8-D.9 of the Zoning Ordi~ance, Ordin~nce 850 in the Ashford Sq·uare Subdivision. ' loca t ed on the so y th side of Sou t hwest Parkway approxim~tely 500 ft ea s t of Texas Aven.ue , Further information is available a t t he office of the Zoning Official of the City of College Station , (409)696-8868. Jane Kee Zoning Official I i MHJ!R-[JANW~CJ V~R.SIGN RE,. I i1 ~___jf--l.IL..-~---'>l.L_J'---"'i ::: ~ !~....,;:i......;:i....,. ..... ~ ~ 0 (I) TE X AS AV E NUE ANDERSON ST. ['-_I T_E_M_N_O_. _____ ) ( CA s E N 0. TYPE OF CASE: ZBA I iJ 1------l I ,, _____ _,, CI T Y O F CC>LLE°G t STA TION-CfMET[RY ] ( SC ALE ' , .. ,.oo' ) THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS NOT AN EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983, AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, BUT RATHER A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF PARAPHRASING HAS BEEN DONE, AND DELETION OF UNIMPORTANT, IRRELEVANT INFORMATION HAS BEEN MADE. TRANSCRIPTION MADE JOINTLY BY SHIRLEY VOLK AND JANE KEE. ZBA -October 18, 1983 Minutes AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the sign regulations for the Ashford Square Subdivision in the name of MHBR-Joint Venture. Jane Kee reminded the Board that this same subdivision had recently been granted a variance to rear setback on certain lots and the developers are now back to ask variances to certain sections of the sign ordinance . At the time the Ashford Square plat was approved by P&Z and City Council, there was a stipulation that essentially no detached sign permits would be granted until an approved sign plan is pre- sented by the appl leant and developers of the subdivision because at that time they were planning on proposing some overall plan for this entire subdivision. The P&Z will also see the same presentation that the applicant will propose before the Board. In devising this plan it became necessary for this appl leant to come before the Board for varlous reasons and she tried briefly to explain what they are proposing. She stated the appl leant is in the audience. Kee: This green strip that you see out here is an area that's been reserved for landscaping and proposed signage. There is a zone line that runs through it to divide C-1 from A-P zones. You will recall in the ordinance A-P zones are not allowed detached signs. What the appl leant is proposing is that for these interior lots they be allowed separate detached signs in this area; they are proposing some low-type of sign in a berm and I believe the appl leant is here to make a presenta- tlon concerning what those signs would look like. There are 2 variance requests that are necessary in order to do this: (l)Because the staff and the P&Z Com- mission view this as a building plot, by our ordinance they would be allowed one (l) detached sign for the whole subdivision. They need a variance to the one detached sign 1 imitation. (2) They also need a variance to the requirement that in commercial zones, detached signs must be 10 ft. behind the property line, and they will be out in this area which would be the 8 ft. setback area. They are only requesting detached signs in the green area, and not in the A-P zone. Another item the Board needs to consider also is that part of the request (pointed to as-built plat, Brazos Savings is on Lot l and Wendy's is on Lots l & 4) is the applicant is asking that Brazos Savings andWendy 1 s each be allowed their own detached sign on their piece of property. Mr , Wendt asked about A-P zones, and Kee said signs would allowed on the buildings. Kee: What essentially we are considering are 8 separate detached signs plus one each on Brazos Savings and Wendy's. MacGilvray: property. am ~nder the impression that C-1 allows detached signs on the Kee: The way the ordinance reads is that a building plot is composed of one lot or multiple lots and this whole development is viewed as a building plot and would be allowed one detached sign. Upham: It is 11 viewed as a building plot 11 , but in fact, it was presented as one ZBA-agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 2 building plot. Kee: It was presented as a commercial P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) which is something we don't have in our ordinance. MacGilvray: Was it presented originally that way, and if so, would that preclude it being viewed in any other way. Kee: The development has private drives and not city streets, and this also makes the staff even more convinced that this is a building plot, and not separate individual lots. MacGilvray: So we're being asked to consider 2 things; approving 2 detached signs that are on the property and 8 detached signs that are not on the property of the store which they advertise. Meyer: I didn't understand the variance request for BrazosBanc and Wendy's. Kee: Because we're viewing this as a building plot there could be one detached sign in which case we would not allow detached signs on any individual lots. In discussions with Planning staff because this is a new type of development we are not opposed to some kind of treatment in this green area. We do have some concern with the two detached signs on the individual lots as that seems to be contradictory -either you have a building plot with one detached sign or you have detached signs on individual lots. To try to accomplish both in my mind seems contradictory. Upham: The previous situation actually we had no precendent and we made precedent . The precedent is now binding on the rear setback as far as that's concerned. Our statutes do in fact cover specifically on the sign situation. Wendt: No not on a development that has interior lots where everything goes to the center of the street. It's not like a face front store -it's a different situation. Upha m: We have that same situation at the Mall. Only thing is prpoerty is owned separately but has many stores, each of which might expect to have a right by virtue of leasing the property. MacGilvray: Is there anything which would prevent a single sign that would prevent a single sign that would have the names of 8 or 10 1 ike over in Culpepper. Kee: As long as it met setback and height requirements. Wagner: If nothing passes tonight, then there could be one detached sign with BrazosBand, etc. and then signs on the buildings also. Kee: All buildings can have signs on · them. Wagner: Even the ones facing the street? Kee: Yes, if nothing happens tonight I don't know what right now would be the op1n1on of the P&Z Commission with respect to the overall plan for this develop- ment in terms of signage. Anything more than one detached sign out there would require action by this Board . MacGilvray: I'd like to hear from the developer or spokesman on behalf of this request, Steve Hansen came forward and was sworn in, and stated: There are several items I'd 1 ike to address tonight: First being that the outcome of our P&Z meeting concerning the final plat of Ashford Square. The only direction we got from P&Z at that time concerning signage was that it was to be limited. As Jane said, we were to come up with some kind of a plan for signage -detached signs and signs in the common area. We were not directed at any meetings in any way that we were ZBA agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 3 to have just one detached sign for the whole development. As you know, Ashford Square is a unique development. It's more what you'd call a commercial P.U.D. with each lot having its own ownership and each lot having its own parking, its own 4 walls and it really does not resemble a Mall situation in any form. I'm having trou~Je seeing the analogy between a Mall and this type of development. We have individual buildings and sites on each lot. What we're trying to do is in fact 1 imit our signage to prevent a detached sign on each lot. Let me address the signage that we're proposing in the common area. We're proposing a maximum of 8 low key signs for lots 2 & 3 Block A, Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 Block B and Lots 7 & 8 Block D. If you would pass this around. This is a drawing of the sign we'd like to use. This would also have indirect lighting. That is not drawn in here. The sign would be approximately 3 ft. high and 12 ft, long, and it would go in the common area that is outlined in green on the plat. MacGilvray: There would be 8 of those essentially, is that right? Hansen: That would be the maximum anount to cover each lot ownership. What it would be, would be a series of signs which I've seen done very well in Houston on several commercial lots. It would be a bermed area and it would all be land- scaped and I think it would be a much better situation as far as the neighbor- hood is concerned with this low type signage. There would be very 1 ittle illumina- tion on this type of sign versus one large detached sign that would be a directory sign that would have a number of signs elevated in the air. In first talking to City staff, they were in favor of some type of low profile sign and this is what we were more or less directed, and this is what we aimed to do to cover the detached signage on the interior lots. Let me add the other portion of our variance request. That would be 2 detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's Restaurant. There is a representative from Wendy's who would like to speak a few words after I do. And If there is someone from Brazos Savings, I think they'd like to, too. They feel Brazos Savings' sign would be a detached sign that would be located on their property that would be very similar to the sign on the corner property they own on Southwest Parkway and Texas Avenue. It's not a -it's mar or less a low profile sign. I'm not exactly sure what the height is. But that is the type of sign they are proposing. I would like Wendy's to explain their type of detached sign , In summary, this is basically what we are trying to do - this is a Planned Unit Development. We have more or less with our zero lot line request and variance that we have had -this enables all the buildings to be centered in the center of each lot. Let me explain on the plat. (He went to the plat to point). Most of the buildings we're trying to do is in this area with flow ttrough parking here and here. That is why we have zero lot line development. We feel it would be an attractive situation to have detached signage all the way down each lot , That's why we're requesting low profile signs for each lot. Meyer: Does the Brazos Savings and Wendy's building match all the other buildings architecturally? Hansen: Yes. Meyer: So they'll look all the same? Hansen: Yes. The developer does have deed restrictions that do reflect similar type concrete tilt wall construction. MacGilvray: Are any buildings there? I haven't been by ther. Hansen: Yes sir. The buildings shown on the plat are in place. MacGilvray: I knew the Daycare Center was. Hansen: Excuse me, Phil Blackburn's building is under construction. MacGJlvray: What's the little building behind the obvious drive through? Hansen: That's their little office location. MacGilvray: It's not just a moneystore -there'll be people there. Hansen: No, it predominately just a drive-in. Upham: You addressed one thing here -you remarked this is a unique situation which we recognized so far as the variance we granted last time. Hansen: Yes sir. Upham: However, I'd remark to you that so far as signs and things like this would think that your development is unique pretty much only in that it is a first ZBA agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 4 development. So you see the problem we have or are presented with. The first - inevitably not the last. I further point out what we're actually talking about is a sign ordinance which is designed against the proliferation and bad place- ment of signs -what we're looking at is 18 signs on one area as opposed to nine - provided for one large detached sign with everybody on it and one on each build- ing and those 18 signs to be congretated in an area which perhaps is l/lOth the size of the Mall or the areas in here. Hansen: What 18 are you talking about? Upham: You see if you want 8 up front, 8 on each building and 2 detached plus your 1 development, you have in essence 18. You have one on each building which is provided for so that 8, then 1 for each building down by the street, so that's 16 and then you're allowed l detached sign for the whole area anyway which would allow you to have those same businesses on 1 big pole. We have a situation when you want one for Brazos Savings and Wendy's so your asking for 18. If you should come back and say you knew we forgot about it, but we'd 1 ike to put this one up on the corner which we're allowed anyway and put 8 more up here. Hansen: No, you're not allowed detached signage on A-P. Upham: As what I'm talking about is one large pole up here with 8 signs on it, which you're allowed -and then we're going to put 8 more on the street. You haven't applied for the one pole, but you could. What we're asking for is 18 signs with the potential possiblity of 27. Hansen: That's not what we're asking for -it's clear that whatever would make that clear ... Upham: I brought out this unique situation being first. I'm trying to get the gravity of the multipl icatlon factor involved in the thing out thoroughly in the open so we can be fair to you , Hansen: To address that point -If we do -if you look at each one of these lost as a separate building, which in fact they are in any other situation each lot would have their own detached sign wrth a sign on the building. There would be 26 signs in the commercial area versus what we're asking now. Our intent is to 1 lmit the s i gnage and do it in a tasteful manner with our low profile signs. That's our whole intent -to limft the signage which we were directed to do by the P&Z Comm i ssion. Meyer: I'm trying to visualize the 8 low signs. They would be situated how? Hansen: We would angle them slightly and they would just be spaced in a berm type situation with landscaping right in front of the commercial area with just the name and possibly the street address. MacGilvray: Will all this thing develop reasonably quickly -wondering if all these 8 signs will be built at the same time or will they come gradually? Hansen: I think it would be a gradual situation just depending upon the market situation. I really can't answer that. There has been good progress to this date. We've been under construction several months and we have 4 buildings under construction right now. Meyer: I think this would be attractive, prettier than a sign on a pole. Hansen: In Houston, Cott ill ion (?) West has the same situation. It is done in the same manner, MacGllvray: If this were approved would it prevent them from building one single detached sign at some future date as Mr. Upham worried? Kee: If that was their only sign, no, I think what the Board is being asked tonight is to accept either their proposed plan in whole or in part, or reject it in which case they would be allowed their one detached sign. They would not be allowed more than what the Board grants them tonight. MacGilvray: Then Mr . Upham's fear was not founded. In other words, it would not be possible for them to build these 8 signs and then at some later time come back and decide they wanted to have one big one. Kee: That was the only misunderstanding that he (Mr. Upham) had. Upham: Which is what I was sitting here trying to get straightened out. In any event, we do have a situation where this being a first such development. It is not in fact unique, just first. MacGilvray: Yes. ZBA Agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 5 Hansen: If I may make one more comment -in refenence to the 2 detached signs (Brazos Savings & Wendy's) we wanted to keep the 2 detached signs to a minimum and we felt that by allowing 2 detached signs versus 12 others we felt this would be limited signage. We felt the type of tenant or owner we have here it is a necessity to have detached signage and that's why we've asked for the 2 detached signs based on their situation. Upham: What situation what was in your restrictions so far as the remainder of the lots are considered. What do you have written in there which would prohibit the other 6 pieces from coming up here waying Brazos Savings has their detached sign, we want ours. Wendy's has theirs, we want our. In essence, if we were to approve those 2 by precedent we are automatically approving 6 more. Hansen: Our deed restrictions are going to reflect the exact same thing we are requesting if it is granted in that interior lots would just be allowed to have a low profile sign and the other 2 lots that have access to Southwest Parkway would have detached signs on their property. Upham: Run that by again. Hansen: Repeated, Upham: You keep saying would be allowed referring to Brazos Savings & Wendy's). You do not have your restrictions as yet completely developed. Hansen: No sir. The restrictions are complete pending this outcome. Upham: What you are saying here is in fact included in your restrictions on Lots 2-8 and in fact there now. Hansen: Yes sir. Upham: You have no expectation of taking it out. Hansen: No srr. Upham: So I presume the businessman who goes in here will be charged a little less because he's ... Hansen: Yes sir. MacGilvray: I was going to say -since we're talking about the other detached signs you mentioned there are other people here who might like to speak to that, so unless you have some other comment we'll ask you questions as we need to as this goes on. Hansen: Thank you. MacGilvray: Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Bill Youngkin, representing Wendy's was sworn in and stated: Here as an observer to see what the Board does with this situation because our use of this property depends on the actions of the Board tonight. We have no objections to the Board allowing a variance to be within so many feet of the street which is not ordinarily allowed, but we want to make sure we do have our separate detached sign and we do not want to put a sign in that other area, but with our business it is necessary we have our marketing, logo sign, as MacDonalds, etc. have across the street. We have looked at our property being a building plot because we do own our property, it's a free standing building with our own access, parking, etc. I assume the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent (quoted parts of the sign ordinance) and persons having multiple signs over their property, but it does not preclude us, if you consider our property a plot, as we do. And that's the only thing we want to have understood at this meeting is that we do have our right because we do have, or think we have, one plat and whether or not we develop is contingent upon this Board's actions tonight. MacGilvray: I wonder if, in fact, the applicant is MHBR, the developer, whether or not Mr. Youngkin's concern ought to be separate application, because in that he's viewrng this as an individually owned lot, with it's own integrety and therefore, it's own sign requirement, but it falls out of the definition given us by Mr. Hansen and taken by the City Planning and Zoning Commission views this as one lot only. Upham: Which is correct, that is, his opinion and Mr. Hansen's opinion are between them. ZBA Agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 6 Kee: My understanding is that when the plat was presented to the P&Z and City Councal was that their overall sign plan would involve all the lots in the sub- division, and Mr. McKean came in and made this application. Part of this applica- tion was to allow Lots l & Lots 1&4 to have separate detached signs. I feel that this should be considered with this. Wagner: Contradictory! It seems exactly contradictory, we're asking Mr. Hansen to view it as one building lot and Mr. Youngkin to view his as one building lot. Kee: That is why I pointed out earlier the staff has concern with both of those requests because they seem to contradict the intent to either view it as a building plot and allow more than one detached sign in that fashion, or we don't. Wendt: In most of those other interior lots don't have exposure and what I think there ought to be is that the 2 that have frontage naturally want to have something you can see because they're probably going to be the highest traffic generators. The ones in the back also want to have something so that when you drive by you can see they're there. You all are trying to separate it, and the only people who are asking for detaches signs have frontage on Southwest Parkway. Youngkin: We are not asking for a variance, because our sign would be under the 35 ft , minimum as opposed to MacDonalds seventy plus feet and Arbys. Our sign is going to be within your ordinance of 35 feet, but our sign is indigenous to our project and our building. MacGilvray: That's what I wondered, and that was the thrust of my question. I can see that if the dark line on this plan outlines everything but this, and is only for this, but it doesn't. The request includes all of the lots ... Upham: We do only have a request from the individual concerned with the entire project. MacGilvray: That's right. Upham: We have a concerned citizen who is addressing the situation within the context of the request itself. MacGilvray: That's why I'm wondering how to view this because if we go by Jane's opening remarks which were that this thing was not going to be viewed as individual parcels under a C-l zone, but as one parcel, then it seems that within our actions would tend in another direction. Upham: Our actions would take into account the specific request as presented. Kee: As I understand it, the BrazosBanc and the Wendy's requests are included in the applrcation, Youngkin: The only thing I wanted to say is that the way the application is made is fine with us , We have, in the deed restrictions will take care of the other property, and I think what they're trying to do is good for the community and everyone else , I think everyone recognized that it's better to have signs low profile and landscaped than to having a Culpepper Plaza sign that you can see when you top the hill at the raceway. I think that's an improvement, but our particular business requires that, it's like the Archies or MacDonalds that we have that sign, and therefore we just do not want to be included in the deed restrictions, and the deed restrictions depend on what the Board does tonight, and that's why we wanted to voice our approval of their request with the under- standing that we do want to have our separate detached sign. MacGilvray: It would not be a low profile sign. It would be a 35 ft. Youngkin: I understand, but their restrictions would limit everybody else to a low profile sign except Brazos Savings and ourselves. MacGilvray: I make my point again, Wagner asked about their stores in Lubbock, Texas and Washington, D. C., saying the signs are not as high as he is. He went on to say he didn't see why this had to be a package -that fs, the store and the tall sign. Don Mills was sworn in, identified himself as the applicant for Wendy's andsaid: where you have l Ike competition and everyone has the same level of sign elevation, it w0rks all right where the customer is accustomed to that. But in areas where all the competition has higher signs, it doesn't help the business any, and as a matter of fact, it's very detrimental. ZBA Agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 pag ~ 7 Wagner: This is true, but wouldn't you like to be the first on the block? Mills: No, and I hate to be that mercenary, but money is what it's all about. Wick McKean came forward and was sworn in and asked to clarify one point, stating: we are asking for a variance concerning rear lots and I know Jane pointed out initially as one building plot, however if you look at that plat, those are individual lots, and if we read our zoning ordinanc as it pertains to signs, we are really not asking for any variance whatsoever on Lots 1 and Lots 1 & 4, the front lots. We are requesting a variance to, as far as the detached signage on those rear lo t s in an attempt to give them some exposure to Southwest Parkway and to also limit, we feel with respect to 1 imiting signage with the low profile and giving people exposure. Here again, I don't want to confuse the issue here, we have got individual lots and we are not asking for any variance whatsoever . We do want to point out that we have that situation with those front lots and we want to make you all aware of that situation. Typically this thing would be if you were not subdividing, it would be one C-1 piece of property with the one marquis type situation. We don't have it here and you know we've had the problem with the setbacks, and we've got a 1 ittle problem here as we're deeding individual lots, and they would really fall under the sign ordinance "per lot". The way I under- stand It and interpret the zoning ordinance, each one of those interior lots would be allowed a detached sign on-premise, and we're asking for a variance here that those on-premise signs be off-premise signs in this designated area. That's what we're really looking at here tonight, MacGilvray: Let's clarify, if Mrs . Kee would comment on that and give your under- standing of how this was approved by P&Z, Kee: My understanding is that this subdivision was presented as a package or a Planned Unit Development which involved all of the lots, and there was to be some overall plan for signage. Because It was presented as a package, we feel it is one development unit (one building plot) which would be allowed one detached sign. Any variation from that would require action from the Board, and I think the P&Z Commission in their motion on this plat made that even more clear, in that they not only ... What they said was that signage would be 1 imited, and I think in saying that they realized that there might be some justification for a variance from the o ne detached sign that we would allow for a building plot, but how much of a variance and how it would be accomplished they were leaving to the ZBA if need be, and then later on for their decision when that plan was presented to them. MacGilvray: As I see it, Mr, McKean, if these were each C-1 lots, then those would be Ci t y streets running in front of them, and I don't know if that raises other, .• It may be to the developer's advantage at one time as a one-package plan, and at another time as 8 or 10 pieces of land. I think we need to arrive at some consistent view of this thing, Wendt: What exactly did the P&Z and Council state on this plat? Kee: That signage would be limited and that at some future date, the applicant was to work out with the staff or whatever steps were necessary, if that involved the Board, for some sign plan. MacGilvray: I wonder If it might be appropriate Instead of guessing what the P&Z Commission said for us to obtain copies of the minutes of that meeting, and defer action on this until we have it, Meyer: What approval given conditioned them presenting a sign plan? Kee: Mr , Miller made the motion to approve the final plat with a note indicating that signage may be 1 imited, and it went on to instruct the developer th~t this should be worked out with the staff , When Mr. McKean presented the sign plan to the s t aff, we felt that it would require Board action because of the number of signs , Wendt; What do you think about that plan? Kee: What he's proposing? I don't have a problem with the low profile signs in that area out front which would require a variance to the 10 ft. setback, and to the number of detached signs. I have some concern with the number of low profile ZBA agenda item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 8 signs if they're 12 ft. long and spaced in an area that is a 1 ittle under 300 ft., they're going to be rather close together. have some concern with the separate detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's because we have to be consistant with how we view this. Either we view it as one overall development unit or as individual lots. It bothers me to jump back and forth between the two. Wendt: Why can't we just say we're going to do it a particular way? MacGilvray: That would be fine if there were no detached sign requests, but they're wanting us to do It two ways. Upham: We can make a motion to allow so much of this request as it's presented or leave some of It out. Meyer: Were permits given on buildings on the basis that they furnish a plan for signs? Kee: There were sign permits pending for BrazosBanc that have not been issued simply because there was not a sign plan at the time. McKean: There was a note on the plat at the time it was approved that signage would be limited because of the number of small lots, and that's what we're trying to determin -what, In fact, we can or cannot do, and I think we ought to come to a decision one way or another on that because we have people who are buying pro- perty and need to know. The fact that we look at it as one building plot one time and as multiple lots another is new, and it's why it requires that this Board take action. We are sell Ing lots, and the concept here is to promote individual proprietors to have their own shops, so naturally I share the opinion that it is individual lots and slgnage In a commercial-retail area Is of importance. Our reasoning behind those front lots, they share Southwest Parkway frontage, and we do have a 1 imited amount 0f area to put the rear signs, so the on-premise sign would be a way to solve that problem, as far as how many signs we did have and where we could put them, Deed restrictions and maintenance in the common areas was discussed by all, after which Mr. MacGilvray said this Is not the consideration of this board . No one else spoke from the sudience. MacGilvray: I suggest separating this into 3 separate requests - a variance to the requirement for the location of a sign off the lot that a particular business occupies; the setback 10 ft , from the street for that sign if it's located on the lot; and to approve 2 Individual detached signs for lots which are sub-parcels of a larger parcel that could have one sign under the conditions of the ordinance . Upham: I see it as 2 variances: that off-premise detached signs be allowed in the designated area for the interior C-1 lots which would not allow Brazos Savings and Wendy's to have their signs In that bermed, designated area, McKean: The request ls for 8 Interior lots to be allowed signs in the common signage area, and allow slgnage for the front lots also, also whether it be pole signs or low profile signs, one way or another, addressing signage for everybody. MacG i lvray: If we allow the placement of 8 signs off the property, that the other 2 signs fronting on Southwest Parkway to fit Into the pattern somewa y , de fi n ing the area as one development. Meyer: Can we vote on 3 separate motions? MacGilvray: Yes Upham: I make an affirmative motion in so far as it relates •. , I move to authorize a variance to so much of the request as refers to detached signage to be allowed In designated frontage of Ashford Square, signs to be of low prof f le design and restricted to lots within the subdivision; that covers all lots i ncluding the front lots, too, -the C-1 portion of the subdivision. And further that they be a ll owe d wi thin the 10 ft. setbac k requ:re e nt s a s r equired by Section 8-D .6 from the terms of this ordinance as they will not be contrary to the public interest due to the fol lowing unique and special conditions, they being that this is a pilot project and that the establ lshment of this sign allowance establishes ZBA agenda Item 4 continued 10-18-83 page 9 precedence for it and all others to follow. Wendt seconded. Upha m: By way of clarification, it will be noted that this refers to C-1 lots within the subdivision. Also for clarification, there would be allowed one sign per lot, for a maximum of 11 signs. Wendt: I want to make sure that there is not any substitution factor available for the Interior lots. Mrs Kee: In this case, If a sign is allowed off-premise in that area, it would preclude a detached sign on the lot . Wendt: I amend the motion to say no substitution on Lots 2, 3 of A, 2, 3, 5, 6 of B and 7 & 8 of D; MacGllvray: I '11 clarify It to say that no detached signs will be allowed on those lots . Upham: I second the amendment to the motion. Amendment to the motion carried unanimously. (5-0). Meyer: want the motion limited to uniform signs as presented by the developer at this meeting. Upham: The developer brought in a picture of what he intends to do with the signs. I amend the motion again to say that signs should be of a general character in style as presented In the picture by the developer to the Board. I amend the motion to indicate the type and style of signs ·which will be that as presented by ·the developer in his testimony before the Board as indicated on the drawing as presented . Wendt: I second this amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion, as amended twice carried unanimously (5-0). Signage on Lot 1 and Lots 1 & 4 was discussed and then Upham: I make a motion to deny a variance to sign regulations for Wendy's and Brazos Savings, to Lots 1 and Lot 1 & 4 as are applicable to Lots 1 Block A and Lots 1 & 4 Block B, that they not be allowed detached signs on-premise within this designated area, as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to lack of unique and special conditions of the land. MacGllvray: I second the motion, and as a point of clarification, Wendy's and Brazos Savings will be allowed their one detached sign in the bermed, common signage area . This motion to deny carried (3-2) with Wendt & Meyer against).