Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2001-500166NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a sign variance for 3939 South Highway 6 South. Applicant is Chandler Signs for Courtyard by Marriott. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the Col- lege Station City Hall , 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p .m. meeting of the Board on September 12, 2001. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (40 9) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1- 800-735-2989. For additional information , please contact me at (409) 764-3570 . Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner 8-29-01 CITY OF COLLEBE STATION ttt CUSTOMER RECEIPT ttt OPER: MFORD CT DRAWER: 1 DATE: 7/23/01 00 RECEIPT: 0270123 DESCRIPTION QTY AMOUNT TP TM 2001 5001G6 $75. 00 IPL CK PLANNING & ZONIN CK: 3494 T~DER DETA~~94 $75. 00 DATE: 7/23/01 TIME: 8:10:i95.00 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK •75 • 00 AMOUNT TENDERED • THANK YOU CITY Cf COLLEGE STATION *** CUSTOMER RECEIPT ttt OPER· MFORD CT DRAWER: 1 DATE; 7/23/01 00 RECEIPT: 0270123 D~~IPTI~lGG QTY ~ ~L ~~ PLANNING & ZONIN CK: 3494 T~DER DETA~~94 $75 •00 DATE: 7/23/01 TIME: 8:10:52 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK $75 .00 AMOJNT TENDERED $75. 00 nm\ YOU HT135MHT SunGard, HTE Select Version 6.0.7 College Station Main Menu 3/30/10 08 :31 :33 Select one of the following : 1. HTE Inc Application 4 . Human Resource Menu 9 . Send Message(Dist) 10 . Change my password 12 . Work wi th Submitted 13 . Display Messages 14 . Work with Queries 90. Sign off Selection == > 1 Menu Jobs F3=Exit FS=Refresh F18=Work with output F6=Display messages 21. Copy to PC document 23 . Copy a spoolf ile 80. Work request maintenance 82 . Facility inquiry 83 . Job order maintenance 84 . Address Inquiry Version : 6 .0.7 .0.01 Date i nstalled : 02/06/2010 F14=Work with submitted jobs NOTIFICATION AREA City of College Station, Texas PLANNING DIVISION 3939 STATE HWY. 6 S. t NOT ~ TO ~SCALE ZONING l\) CASE: CHECK BY: DATE : ZBA 09/11/01 SIGN VARIANCE MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 12, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM N0.1: Chairman Hill , Birdwell , Sheffy , Richards & Lewis . Alternate Members Goss & Corley, not needed . Alternate Member Allison ; not need but in the audience . Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Assistant Cit y Attorney Nemcik. Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board . Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting . No requests to consider . AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of meeting minutes from August 7, 2001 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a sign variance at 3939 State Highway 6 South, lot 29, block 1, Woodcreek Subdivision. Applicant is Chandler Signs L.P. for Courtyard Marriott. (01-166) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the use of a larger and taller freestanding sign than is allowed by ordinance . The applicant would like to erect an approximately 131 sq . ft. sign, 41 feet behind the curb at a height of 19- feet for a new development on Highway 6 and Woodcreek Drive, but because the highway is a greater classified street, the highway frontage is used for sign considerations . Section 12 .3 K. of the Zoning Ordinance (Free Standing Commercial Signs) states that "a premise with less than 75 feet of frontage shall be allowed to use one low profile sign". Low profile signs have a maximum area of 60-sq . ft ., a maximum height of 4 feet , and are required to be placed at a minimum of 10 feet from the right-of-way . Thus, the applicant would like a variance to the restriction that only a low profile sign is allowed on a property with less than 75 feet of frontage . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 1 o/9 The lot has an odd configuration that limits its frontage on the Highway 6 frontage road ; but was platted in this way with the knowledge that signage would be limited. Hotel Village Partners, L.P . had the subject property platted for the Marriott Hotel in 1999 . At that time , staff was concerned about the limitations the configuration had on signage options and expressed those concerns . Despite the known impact , the property was platted in the configuration that limits the options for the hotel. The applicant has also stated that the hotel will have limited visibility from the access road due to trees . It is staff's experience that , much like the Marriott Hotel site , when the properties at the front of the subdivision develop, many of the trees will be removed . A variance hardship is the inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The sign company representative believes quests and the motoring public will be inconvenienced by the lack of hotel visibility . Without the variance, the applicant would still be able to hav e a freestanding low profile sign along the Highway 6 frontage . Low profile signs are 4 feet tall , but because of the topography of the area, would be perceived as taller . Placing a low profile sign ten feet back from the right-of-way (as the ordinance requires) would put a low profile at an elevation of 318 feet (top of sign). The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies between 308 -310 feet from its intersection with Rock Prairie to the hotel driveway . The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies from 290 feet at the Rock Prairie underpass to 298 feet at the Business 6 intersection with Deacon . Realistically, the four-foot low profile sign would be 8 -10 feet tall from the perspective of the feeder road and 20 -28 feet tall from the perspective of the highway . The hotel would also be able to utilize attached signage . The building has three stories with the height to the eave line at approximately 30 feet. At a finished floor elevation of317 .5, the bulk of the building stands between approximately 9 -3 9 feet above than the frontage road and 2 7 -5 7 feet above than the highway . Attached signs are allowed at this location as long as they advertise only the name of, uses of, or good or services available with the building to which the signs are attached , and as long as the signs are parallel to the face of the building, not cantilevered away from the structure, and do not extend more than one foot from any exterior building face, mansard, awning or canopy . If the property met the minimum frontage requirements for a pole-mounted freestanding sign, the sign would be allowed 50 sq . ft . To have the approximate 131-sq. ft . of signage that is requested , the hotel would have to have 251-300 feet of frontage . Ms . Hitchcock ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing to those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Rockford Gray, Chandler Signs, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Gray handed the Board a copy of the final rendering of the sign . Mr. Gray told the Board that the property that houses the hotel is almost 700 feet from the highway . Mr. Gray stated that the sign they are requesting is much smaller than the typical highway sign that the Courtyard Marriott tries to acquire . Mr. Gray added that the letters on the sign are only 24". Mr. Gray made reference to the staff reports mention of the access road . Mr. Gray told the Board that most of the people looking for the hotel are not on the access road. ZBAMinutes September 12, 2001 Page 2 o/9 They are travelers on Highway 6 going North and South. Mr. Gray stated that the issues about the access road really do not apply to what this hotel needs for just basic visibility and identification . Mr. Gray noted that the staff report also mentions the trees on both sides of the hotel. "Once development occurs on those properties and the trees are removed a low profile sign may be seen better." Mr. Gray stated that is if the property is developed and if the trees are removed . Mr. Gray talked about a low profile sign and how it would not be sufficient for the hotel. Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that 19 feet is low for highway signage and the 2-foot lettering is not that large . It is adequate at this location to properly identify and properly see before exiting decisions need to be made Mr. Birdwell asked if the de veloper was aware of the sign ordinance at the time the property was purchased and platted . Mr. Gray replied that he heard that the developer was made aware if this . Mr. Birdwell asked if Courtyard uses wall signs on their building s . Mr. Gray responded they will in this case and it will be near the top of the building . Again , the trees come into play plus the building is parallel to Highway 6 . Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that that sign will not be affective to the motoring public . Mr. Sheffy also questioned the developer 's knowledge at the time of platting, that the signage would be limited . Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Gray if the Courtyard Marriott does signs in combination with other adjacent businesses. Mr. Gray answered yes they have done that . Mr. Lewis stated that he was guessing that the two lots adjacent to the hotel are likely going to be restaurants . Mr. Richards made the statement that he did not understand why the owner of the property was not at the meeting . The variance is for the owner, not the Sign Company. The owner could answer the questions concerning the platting . Mr. Lewis stated that there are two things the Board has to find to grant a variance . One could understand that a hardship could be related to traffic safety . Special conditions are related to the physical characteristics of the property, but since the developer knowing the sign ordinance decided the configuration of the lot , that would not constitute a special condition. Mr. Lewis asked if there was another special condition. Mr. Gray responded that if the property had been developed by a third party and the hotel company decided to buy the property, and they came to the Board with the same issue of needing identification from the highway, the needs, conditions , and hardships are still the same . Mr. Gray stated that the low profile sign, which is allowed, would not be seen . That is the condition of the topography . Mr. Gray ended by saying that what is allowed is totally useless. It is a major hardship for a hotel not to be seen from the highway . The hardship is presented to the Board to hear not the development-related issues . Mr. Richards stated that the developer created its own hardship . Mr. Birdwell pointed out to Mr. Gray that the Board could not consider a financial hardship and this was a financial decision made by the developer. It is obvious that Marriott could have bought the whole tract of land . Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that their option now is to either acquire more frontage or make a joint agreement with the developers of the property next to them to have a joint sign . Chairman Hill asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the variance . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page3 o/9 Manuel Pena Jr ., 9308 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Pena stated that the request is quite significant. Mr. Pena stated that if a sign was placed on the building that would allow the hotel to be seen from a distance . Pena expressed gratitude for being notified about the variance . He was not notified when the original approval was made for the construction. Mr. Pena summarized his complete opposition . Jeanie Baggett, 9310 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Ms . Baggett encouraged the Board to follow the ordinances and deny the variance . James Russell, 9302 Amberwood Court , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Russell stated that he and others in the area are less than pleased at the way the development of the hotel happened in relation to the housing . Mr. Russell ended by saying he is agains t granting the vanance . Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. McClure told the Board that he owns property next to the hotel as well as being the president of the Amberlake Homeowners Association . Mr. McClure stated his concern is the traffic that will go through Woodcreek Drive. Mr. McClure also stated his concerns about the other signs for the future restaurants . Mr. McClure ended by saying that he has a little different perspective than his neighbors . Chairman Hill asked Mr. McClure if was opposed to the variance . Mr. McClure stated that as an office business owner he is for the variance because he wants them to be successful. Chairman Hill asked city staff to clarify the signage for the restaurants and Marriott Courtyard . Ms Hitchcock stated that it is possible for the three properties to have shared signage . But they would have to replat the entire area as one plot. Mr. Lewis asked ifthere could be an easement granted for signage . Ms. Hitchcock answered no . With no one else stepping forward to speak, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulation from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest , due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: alleged special condition was a decision by developer. Additional frontage could be acquired or a joint sign could be negotiated ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant , and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served . Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Hill stated that he does not have a problem with the developer coming before the Board for the variance knowing he had full knowledge of the sign ordinance prior to the construction of the hotel. Mr. Hill stated that is how the system works . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 4 of9 Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Birdwell 's motion to den y and Mr. Richard s second . The Board voted (5-0) for denial. AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a sign variance for 800 Earl Rudder Freeway, lot 3, block 1, The Gateway Subdivision. Applicant is Clayton Rhoades for Chicken Express. (01- 170). Mr. Hitchcock stepped before the Board and told them Staff is recommending that the Board deny this variance request. The case as presented by the applicant is not appropriate for consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustments . Property owners that are aggrieved by the Zoning Ordinance may apply for a variance as allowed by the ordinance, or request that the Council changes the standard . If a variance request is appropriate, the Zoning Board of Adjustments is legally bound to find special conditions and hardships related to the subject site to grant it a variance . Since variances run in perpetuity with the land , it is necessary for applicants to show special conditions that are tied to the land and not to a personal situation . The special condition(s) of the land must result in a hardship that is other than purely financial. Challenges that a standard in the Zoning Ordinance violates a federal act can not be resolved by the ZBA but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes . Since ordinance standards are adopted by the City Council, land or business owners arguing not the application of a standard, but the existence of the standard may ask the City Council to change the standard . If unsatisfied with the outcome of the legislative process, arguments may be made in court . In the case of Chicken Express, the business owner would like to use a third font on a freestanding sign in the University Drive Overlay Corridor zoning district. The City Council adopted the Overlay Corridor District to enhance the image of key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council , by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity . To help reach this vision, the City Council adopted the standard that only two fonts could be used on a sign in this district. On his original ZBA application, the applicant did not list special conditions, but stated that the ordinance standard violated federal legislation. Staff called the applicant and his sign contractor, Mc Co-Ad Signs, and explained how Lee Einsweiler of Duncan & Associates (the city's consultant for the Unified Development Code project) had informed the city that the two-font standard was acceptable . The applicant and sign company were also told that the ZBA was the wrong venue for the argument they were using to gain permission for their desired signage . They were informed that the Zoning Ordinance is currently being updated as part of the drafting of the Unified Development Code and that the opportunity exists to share their opinions with City Council and request consideration of changes to the code. After this discussion, the applicant was still interested in pursuing a variance. Staff reiterated the purpose and requirements of the variance procedure . Mr. Rhoades submitted a new request form that still challenges the legality of an Overlay Corridor sign standard and does not provide special conditions appropriate for ZBA consideration. The applicant may ask the City Council to change the standard they have adopted for the Corridor Overlay District or apply to a court oflaw. Ms . Hitchcock ended her report by showing the Board pictures of the property. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 5 of9 Mr. Birdwell stated that there are two variance requests in this case . Ms . Hitchcock replied that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that one request does make reference to special conditions . Ms . Hithcock replied that it not how city staff sees it. The applicant is arguing there are three businesses and they should be allowed three fonts . That is not the standard that the City Council has set. Each sign gets a maximum of two fonts . Mr. Richards asked if the Board approves this variance, does that approve it or would the applicant have to go the City Council. Ms. Hitchcock replied that if they approved the variance they would have to find special conditions that are tied to the land . Mr. Lewis asked if the two-font rule applied only to the freestanding sign or to the building as well . Ms . Hithcock replied that it would apply to the building as well . But each attached sign is a different sign . The freestanding sign, because it is a shopping center they would all have to share one sign . Mr. Richards asked when did the applicant become aware that the ordinance would not allow this . Ms. Hitchcock replied that the applicant would have to answer that question . Mr. Birdwell asked if the graphic that was presented, was it otherwise acceptable in terms of size, area and height. Ms . Hitchcock replied yes . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variance . Clayton Rhoades, the applicant, College Station, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Rhoades showed the Board a graphic of the sign . Mr. Rhoades stated that his argument is a legal issue . Mr. Rhoades explained that when you look at the property and the sign that has been approved that will be on the building itself, it would not be visible from the highway or the frontage due to the canopy in the front. He stated he does not understand why an agreement could not be reached to get this sign approved . Mr. Rhoades told the Board that there already is a billboard up on Highway 6 visible with the logos of Exxon, Subway and Chicken Express. When people exit the University Drive exit they are not going to be able to see where Chicken Express is because it is not visible from the freeway until your right there . Mr. Rhoades ended by saying that he wants to get the visibility . He stated that he did not see how this would be a hindrance . Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades if he was aware of the signage limitation before he signed his lease . Mr. Rhoades replied that he was not. Mr. Rhoades stated that he signed his lease prior to Subway to appling for their sign permit. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades when did he become aware of the requirement. Mr. Rhoades replied that it was right about the time Subway 's sign was put up . It was then that the landowner mentioned that there might be some difficulties . With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Chairman Hill began the discussion by saying that this variance request does not meet the purpose of the Board . According to the staff report this can not be resolved by ZBA, but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 6of9 Mr. Birdwell stated that is why he asked staff about the second variance request. The applicant does have a general variance request. It clearly states a special condition and makes no reference to the constitution . Mr. Birdwell stated that he sees no problem with it. He came to the meeting with the thought of deferring action but now that he has been provided a graphic he is prepared to make a motion . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance tot he sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions not generally found within the City : ordinance prohibits use of existing trademark sign ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the applicant being; inability to use national recognition sign; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be observed and the general interests of the public and applicant served , subject to the following limitations : use of a sign as presented in the graphic to the Board . Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Richards stated that he has difficulty with this for the simple reason that they do not have the authority to grant it. Mr. Richards stated the intent of the ordinance is to maintain a continuity of signs . Mr. Birdwell did not see how they could argue fonts. The Board discussed the sign and their jurisdiction. Chairman Hill asked is the color limited as well. Ms . Hitchcock answered that the ordinance does limit the color and height. The ordinance reads no more than three colors and two letter styles . Ms . Hitchcock stated that black and white is a free color. With no further discussion Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to re-read his motion . Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rhoades if the graphic presented is how the sign would look. Mr. Rhoades replied that the trademark would actually be smaller and placed below the Subway sign . The Board voted (4-1) to approve the variance. Mr. Richards voting to deny. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 3212 Nueburg, lot 7, block 11, Edelweiss Estates Phase 14. Applicant is Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Builders. (01- 174). Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented the staff report . Ms . Reeves told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an error made during the survey . The result is an encroachment that reaches 23 .3/4' from the property line to the closest part of the home ; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 1.5 feet . As special conditions the applicant offers that a human error made during the survey and that the house backs up to a common area, which backs up to Wellborn Road . Because variances run with the land , special conditions must relate tot he particular property, therefore, staff does not consider these reasons to be special conditions . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 7of9 The applicant states that the bu yers are awaiting approval. A hardship should be a direct result of the special condition. The applicant states no alternatives ; however, staff feels to legitimize the encroachment without a variance they would need to remove the portion of the home that is encroaching . Ms. Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randy French, Owner Stylecraft Builders, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. French told the Board that he is coming to the Board acknowledging the encroachment. Mr. French spoke about the lot being on a cul-de-sac . Mr. French stated that in this case there is a common area to the rear of the property and no other house or residential structure will be placed on the adjoining land . Mr. French ended by telling the Board that he takes this extremely seriously . Mr. Richards stated that looking at the survey he does not know how that house could be placed on the lot. Mr. French replied when they went in for the building permit it did work. Mr. French told the Board that he does have a buyer that has children in the house . They did know prior to moving into the house of this issue . With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions : variance is deminimus ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being : causes encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations : variance limited to the encroachment of existing structure . Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Chairman Hill told Mr. French that he personally has a problem with the Board validating mistakes like this that should have not happened . But at the same time he will agree with Mr. Birdwell that this is very minor and the rule of common sense should kick in at some point. Chairman Hill called the vote from Mr. Birdwell's motion and Mr. Sheffy's second. The Board voted (5-0) to grant the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Future Agenda items. Mr. Birdwell stated there is a need to hold a workshop with the Board to discuss the Unified Development Code . City staff should be given the authority to approve small variances . Mr. Birdwell asked to have the consultants make a presentation to the Board with the changes being implemented . The Staff Planners told the Board they would get with Senior Staff and report back to the Board . The Board expressed a desire to get a draft copy and overview of the UDC . City staff will follow up and report to the Board . ZBA Minutes September 12, 200 I Page 8 of 9 AGENDA ITEM NO 8: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned . APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ZBAMinutes September 12, 2001 Page 9of9 STAFF REPORT Prepared by : Molly Hitchcock Date: August 23 , 2001 ZBA Meeting Date: September 12, 2001 APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PURPOSE: Bill Teel for Chandler Signs , LP . Sign variance 3939 State Highway 6 South To allow the use of a larger and taller freestanding sign than is allowed by ordinance. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property Owner: Applicable Ordinance Section: Sign contractor for the College Station Courtyard Marriott project. Woodcreek Partners , L.P. Section 12 .3.K. Freestanding Commercial Signs PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: Subject Property: North: West: East: South: Frontage: Access: Topography & Vegetation: Flood Plain: C-1 General Commercial developed as a hotel. C-1 General Commercial developed as offices . C-1 General Commercial undeveloped. R-1 Single Family Residential developed as the Woodcreek neighborhood . A-0 Agricultural Open undeveloped. 55 ft . along the Highway 6 frontage road. 134 ft . along Woodcreek Drive. Via a driveway from the frontage road and a driveway from Woodcreek Drive . The land slopes upward from the frontage road to the building site . Except for the vegetation east of the hotel entrance off of Woodcreek Drive , all existing trees were removed for the development of the hotel. Before the hotel receives a Certificate of Occupancy , the site will need to meet its approved landscape plan (consisting of live oaks , bald cypresses , and crepe myrtles). Not within a flood plain . 1 VARIANCE INFORMATION Item Background: ANALYSIS The applicant would like to erect an approximately 131 sq.ft. sign, 41 feet behind the curb at a height of 19 ' for a new development on HWY 6 . The property has frontage on Highway 6 and Woodcreek Drive, but because the highway is a greater classified street , the highway frontage is used for sign considerations. Section 12 .3.K. of the Zoning Ordinance (Freestanding Commercial Signs) states that "a premise with less than 75 feet of frontage shall be allowed to use one low profile sign ". Low profile signs have a maximum area of 60 sq .ft ., a maximum height of 4 feet , and are required to be placed a minimum of 10 feet from the right-of-way . Thus, the applicant would like a variance to the restriction that only a low profile sign is allowed on a property with less than 75 feet of frontage. Special Conditions: The lot has an odd configuration that limits its frontage on the Highway 6 frontage road ; but was platted in this way with the knowledge that signage would be limited . Hotel Village Partners , L.P. had the subject property platted for the Marriott hotel in 1999 . At the time, staff was concerned about the limitations the configuration had on signage options and expressed those concerns . Despite the known impact , the property was platted in the configuration that limits the options for the hotel. The applicant has also stated that the hotel will have limited visibility from the access road due to trees . It is staff's experience that , much like the Marriott hotel site , when the properties at the front of the subdivision develop, many of the trees will be removed . Hardships : A variance hardship is the inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law . The sign company representative believes guests and the motoring public w ill inconvenienced by the lack of hotel visibility . Alternatives: Without the variance , the applicant would still be able to have a freestanding low profile sign along the Highway 6 frontage. Low profile signs are 4 feet tall, but because of the topography of the area, would be perceived as taller. Placing a low profile sign ten feet back from the right-of- way (as the ordinance requires) would put a low profile sign at an elevation of 318 feet (top of sign). The elevation of the centerline of the frontage road varies between 308 -310 feet from its intersection with Rock Prairie to the hotel driveway. The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies from 290 feet at the Rock Prairie underpass to 298 feet at the Business 6 intersection with Deacon . Realistically , the four-foot low profile sign would be 8 -10 feet tall from the perspective 2 of the feeder road and 20 -28 feet tall from the perspective of the highway . The hotel would also be able to utilize attached signage . The building has three stories with the height to the eave line at approximately 30 feet. At a finished floor elevation of 317 .5 , the bulk of the building stands between approximately 9 -39 feet above than the frontage road and 27 -57 feet above than the highway . Attached signs are allowed at this location as long as they advertise only the name of, uses of, or good or services available within the building to which the signs are attached , and as long as the signs are parallel to the face of the building , not cantilevered away from the structure , and do not extend more than one foot from any exterior building face , mansard , awning or canopy . If the property met the minimum frontage requirements for a pole-mounted freestanding sign , the sign would be allowed 50 sq. ft . To have the approximate 131 sq .ft . of signage that is requested , the hotel would have to have 251-300 feet of frontage . SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: The purpose of the sign ordinance is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the city and to promote thereby an attractive community , foster traffic safety , and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information . Number of Property Owners Notified: 17 Responses Received: None as of date of staff report. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Sign Description , \ Site Plan --\--~ ~~ ~~iy\, e._c\ c.. \"' 3 AUG-02-2001 13:54 2" UL Labels 1Req'd B . Pylon elevation CY-140 (1) req'd. ___ Trees-Mirror Gold Scotchca l I (3M 7755·431 ) w/3/4" While border & spaces In tree s 945 Panaflex overl aid with Vf 3254 Green Scotchcal All copy White t 30 " ~ .040 alum. fllller &. re tainers -pain! Lorin Go ld EndVi~w Support & concrete pier foundation to be determ ined based on soil conditions 3/16 ~ , •• o· TnTOI P C1? From: To: Date: Subject: "James E. Russell" <jrussell@tca .net> "Molly Hitchcock" <Mhitchcock@ci.college-station .tx .us> 9/12/01 10 :21AM Sign variance I have received an e-mail message from Raymond Noel, 9304 Amberwood Crt. regarding the sign variance . I am pasting the message below. Noel are currently out of town and will not be able to attend todays meeting . Neighbors, I received the notification the day before I left. I did get to talk to Mrs. Pina and asked her to state my position which is against granting any variance . I agree that a corporation the size of Marriott should plan their business better. The garbage dump directly behind our fences is deplorable . It seems to me the city would have some policy as to the cleanliness of a locations during constructions . Again , I am definitely against granting a variance . Please use this e-mail as my formal objection . Thanks , Raymond Page 1 r Deborah· Grace ': MarrioffSign Varia'nce .. Meetlng From: To: Date: Subject: "Pina , Jr. Manuel" <m-pina@tamu .edu> <Mhitchcock@ci .college-station . be . us> 9/10/01 5:54PM Marriott Sign Variance Meeting My name is Manuel Pina , Jr. My wife and I live at 9308 Amberwood Court , directly behind the Marriott. We strongly feel that the closeness and difference in elevation between the level of the parting lot and our backyard has already had a negative effect on our property value . Evidence of this is that we placed our house up for sale for six months and had only five people look it. And, when they looked at it and saw the construction , they quickly left . Now, to add to the situation , the Marriott proposes to put a sign at the entrance to Woodcreek, as we understand it. And , the proposed sign must be seen from both sides of the express way! And , it will be a lighted sign? This is to register, formally, that we are adamantly opposed to such a sign . We feel it will only further decrease the value of not our property but those of others further inside the Woodcreek subdivision . Any sign advertising the hotel should be rather close to the ground , with i nd irect lighting that is consonant with the style and values of our homes, and in front of the hotel. Such a sign should not be , repeat , not be , placed anywhere near the entrance to the Woodcreek subdiv ision . I am now wondering if such a hearing was held about the construction of the Marriott itself. Manuel Pina, Jr. Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Education Special Projects Director College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 2116-TAMU College Station , Texas 77843-2116 Tel : 979 862-197811979 Fax : 979 862-1058 Email : m-pina@tamu .edu P~ge 1 j !'Debora h' Gr a'ce -Re : Mar:rfott Sign 'v aria nce Meeting ' From : To: Date : Subject: Dear Mr. Pina : Molly Hitchcock "Piiia, Jr. Manuel " 9/11/01 8 :20AM Re : Marriott S ign Variance Meeting Thank you for the e-mai l. It will be forwarded to the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustments and a hard copy will be printed out so they will have a copy at the meeting on Wednesday evening (6 p .m .). It is necessary to make one point of clarification , though . There will be no sign on Woodcreek Drive . The sign will be along the frontage road . The sign company is asking for a variance so it may be taller and larger than the ordinance allows. Please call (764.3570) or e-mail me if you have any questions. hank you , Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner CC : beborah Grace Ms. Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner James E. Russell 9302 Ambeiwood Crt. College Station, Texas 77845 979-693-2810 jrussell@tca.net September 10 , 2001 The City of College Station, Texas P .O . Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Re: Sign Variance Dear Ms. Hitchcock: Thank you for your letter of August 29, 2001 the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Sign Variance at the Comer of Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 South . In my opinion, any commercial sign at the Comer of Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 South will aversely affect our neighborhood and further reduce property values and I am against granting any such variance . I am requesting that you make my objection known to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). My wife and I plan to attend the Wednesday, September 12 , 2001 at 6 :00 PM. I am willing to speak to the ZBA on Wednesday. Thank you for your help . Sincerely, James Russell FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: 0 /-/b~ DATE SUB:MITTED: I ~ C)-PnJ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: V Filing Fee of $75.00 . x_ Application completed in full . -J.L.-Request form completed in full. __ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name <!,h(J;nd/er :5130s; /., 8 AHn : Biii Tue I Mailing Address 31-0/ Ma.nor v..fa.y J)a,/{ct5 City State TX Phone Number Zip Code 7 502.3 17-Z-73?-t,7/b E -Mail Address 6 fee~ eiJaM/er.s'J'ls < cVm Fax Number tflf-'ff;,J.-%Jlflf PROPERIT OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name \//ooc/cteek. [3ufnel'S 7 £, f: J a teXo5 /_i1111ted/arb;ersf;;;;> Mailing Address 80, Box ~/ rs-o City Owensboro, kY State k\( Zip Code 9). 3 Of E-Mail Address .Ken c8 h ii -j a..,fe, I ~ m PhoneNumber ;J...7fJ-{,i3 -/5'SS-FaxNumber ~/(}-b</S--" 03~3 LOCATION OF PROPERIT: Address 3 r 3 1 6 , H, b 5oath Lot 2C/ Block Subdivision v.loodcree/<. Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision --------------------- Action Requested: (Circle One) Current Zoning of Subject Property Applicable Ordinance Section Setback Variance Parking Variance (fgnva~ Appeal of Zoning Official 's Interpretation Special Exception Other ---------~ The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. Signature and Title ZBA APPLICATION ZBAAPP .DOC 411199 1--1@-0( Date 1 of 2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: ___ _ SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variance from the sign regulations is requested : Si11oMe foofa<g-e and het?M for tL-ffM'Jdmo@l-ed t>f~fJ- Strict enforcement of the ordinance in this case would create the following hardship: ld v15ibl k' wotdd' ~ e t111, 0&?. t1i ' ce es/:s J This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions not generally found within the City: lo e~ very /uncled ri51bi!tfr hm ttct'ef The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible : This variance will not be contrary to the general interests of the public by virtue of the following facts : 710 !w'lll/d effeclr IP 511/'fMJ.bt ~ - The facts stated in this application are true and correct. ~·)?~ APP icant SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST SIGNV AR DOC 3/25199 7-11-tJ/ Date 2 of2 ' . FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979)764-3570 I Fax (979)764-3496 · Date: q :"i ,..() \ # of pages including cove . ~ ':) If you did not receive a complete fax:, please calf our office immediately for a new ~ COMPANY:,~~~~~--=C~ity:.i---=o~f ~Co~l=le~z~e~Sta==ti~on=-=---~~~~~~~ REMARKS: D Urgent D For your review D Replay ASAP D m U::l /U'i /Ul " ) 1,); uo TRA SMISSIO N OK TX /RX NO. CO N ECTION TEL CO ECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RES ULT *************************** *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** 9257 149022044pppl52 09 /04 13:04 01 '56 5 OK ~VV..L Name00 Address of Sender Check type of mail or service: Affix Stamp Here : t== --~Jt;;r I * 62-(If issued as a -.:-()£'"$ ~ 4 a.-* CITY OF COLLEGE STAT ION O Certified 0 Recorded Delivery (International) certificate of mailing, -· 0 COD 0 Registered or for additional v . ~,~t * • P.O. Box 9960 0 Delivery Confirmation 0 Return Receipt fo r Merchandise copies of this bill) -• 0 Express Mail 0 Signature Confirmation Postmark and l0 AUG 2 9'0 t 3 , w ; 1 l 5 -* enege-Stat ion, TX 77842 -• 0 Insured Date of Receint • Handli ng Actual PftMHU • I inc. Artit"!.IA N 11mhAr Arlrl rossee Name , Street , and PO Add ress Postage Fee * 01-166 Charge if Regi• 'r 'It 7114367 U.S . PQSTAGI • -• College Main Apartments Ltd . Emanual H. Glockzin 4500 Carter Creek Parkway# 101 Brvan. Texas 77802 01-166 Julian E & Jayanthi GQ s ?a.\ 9303 Amberwood Court College Station, Texas 77840 =--.. .. -· -01 -166 ~ .... > ~ ·-Christopher J & Doris Ann Smitherman -(,) 9305 Amberwood Court /, ~(\~~ 11111 CJ) Q ~ I"\. c c a: ~ l"I ·-""' College Station, Texas 77845 ~~~~ ~~ ·-'ti Cl> ... .... .. ns c .. = .._ c _,.. -(,) .... 01-166 "'~ , \av~ '~ o-.. :c a;; GI \~ ·-.. .. a: Raymond F Jr . & Catherin L Martin .. <;\\\ .. ; Ill ft! - 9300 Amberwood Court ~ ~OU.~ E t: ,;.:; rP" 0 ~ a: .. (.) College Station, Texas 77845 ·-c 4> a. 0 .. en 01 -166 Q-_:a .... Edward Uvacek Jr. =--ns .. c 8601 Creekview Court -i;:--.... > ·-College Station, Texas 77845 ·-"' - lb ! Q Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Postrn star, Per (Name of receiving employee) The full declaration of value is requ ired on a I dome st ic and intern ational reg is tered ma il. Th e maxi mum ind emn ity paya ble for the ~7)M~' Received at Po~tti ce reconstruct ion of nonnegotiab le docum en ts unde r Expres s Ma il doc um ent rec onstru cti on ins urance is $5 00 per piece sub ject to '~ additional limitatio ns for mu ltiple piec es los t or damage s in a singl e ca tast roph ic oc currenc e. Th e maxim um in demnity paya ble V; on Express Ma il merchand is e insuranc e is $500 . but opt iona l Expre ss Mail Serv ice me rc handise insu ran ce is available for up to $5,000 to some , but not all countries . The maximum indemn ity payab le is $25 ,000 for regi ste red mail. Se e Dom estic Mail Manual R900 , S913 , and S921 fo r limitations of cov erage on insured and COD mai l. See Intern atio na l Mail Manual for limi ta tions of coveraae on international mail. Soecial handlina ch arges apply onlv to Standard Mail (Al and Standa rd Ma il (Bl oarc els . I .. -----'-•--·-·---~-11 n-s-.. n-- 82 •DG liGE STATION Na(\)4'fr¥ ,@fe~@tdo Chec k ty pe of mail or service: Affi x Stamp He re P.O . Box 9960 (If issued as a ~ £$ ~-zzrea:-1 .• * O Certified 0 Recorded D el ivery (International) certificate of ma iling, * 77842 0 COD 0 Registered or for additional -· College Station , TX ~ o r,. ,.~ ~ * O Delivery Confirmation 0 Ret urn Receipt for Merchandise copies of th is bill) ..., > ii!! l * O Express Mail 0 S ignature Confirmation Postmark and r o~~ -1.zs -* * 0 Insured Da te of Receiot u u1-' 29·01 2 IW : -* -Handli ng Actual Va • 1me, St reet , and PO Add ress Postage Fee * 01-166 Charge if Registe J>8M!TER James E & Judith A Russell T"ll 7114167 U.S. POSTAGE - : ·I • 9302 Amberwo o d Cou rt College Station , Texas 77845 01-166 Thomas M & Marian J Riggs 9307 Amberwood Court College Station, Texas 77845 .,.? ~ . >i 01-166 .. .... " -"~~ ' > ,;: Micheal R. & Mildred McClure ·-~ -(.) 9262 Brookwater Circle ~·~(I, '• Q') Q QI College Station , Texas 77845 c c a:: '"'-. ,.,_I l"I ·-'Pl x~ -.)~ ¥ ·-i;s Cl) .... .. 01 -166 I'll c .... :I ........ -.. ~ c -~ -(,) -Raymond J & Mary A Noel ~ .!!.':: /' o-:c .. () ·-.. ... a:: .... ·-9304 Amberwood Court ft! .... -Cl) E .. :; ..; Colle ge Stati on. Texas 77845 0 ~ cc .. " ·- 01-166 c Cl) a. 0 .. Cl) Boriski Ho me Constru ction Inc . Q--_:a .... 3006 E 29th Street >i I'll :i.. c Bryan , Texas 77 802 ... .!:=' Cl) -1sj Q Total Number of Pieces '°"""""'"' '.t} Post aster, Per (Name of receiving employee) The full de cl aration of va lu e is requ ired on a I domes tic and intern at iona l regis te re d ma il. The maximu m inde mnity payable for the """' E!)""'' Received at Post Olli re con struc tio n of nonnegoti able doc um ents under Express Ma il docu ment reco nstruction insurance is $500 per piece subje ct to I ~~--· add iti ona l limitatio ns fo r multiple pieces lo st or damag es In a si ng le ca tas trophic occurre nce . The maximu m indemn ity payable on Expres s Mall mer chand ise insuranc e is $500 , bu t optio nal Express Ma il Se rvice me rchand ise ins uran ce Is avai lab le for up to $5 ,000 to som e, but not all cou ntries. The ma xi mum in demn ity pa yabl e is $25 ,000 for registere d mail. See Domestic Mail Manual R900 , S913 , and S921 for li mitati ons of coverag e on insured and COD ma il. Se e Intern ationa l Mail Ma nual for li mitat ions of cove raae on in te rnational ma il. Soecial hand li na charae s aoolv onlv to Standard Ma il (A) and Sta ndard Mail (8 ) oa rce ls. ---.......... __ ----,..\..l....-1-•-&.. •• T.·--···-t•-• 1-1; -• a-11 D-.:-• o-- N aQf~ Gfk6~~treGE STATION Check type of mail or service : A ffix Stamp Here t.= -~2~4'>-' .• * (If issued as a P.O Box 9960 D Certif ied D * Recorded Delivery (I nternational) certifica te of mailing, ·-· 0 COD D Registered or for additional t-oE Sr ~~ '1 * College Station, TX .. ii! .. * n842 D De livery Confirmation D Return Receipt for Merchand ise copies of th is bill) -O' ,, ~~-c -1.2 5: * D Ex p ress Mail D Signature C o nfirm ation Postmark and ~u-AUG 2 9'0 \ z, f4U -* * n Insured Da te of Receint ~ * Handling Actual V * ame , Stre et, and PO Add ress Postage Fe e P8MET9 -* 01-166 Charge if Regist 7114367 U.S. POSTAGE • T'll * Cedar Creek Condos Ltd . - 4500 Carter Creek Parkway# 101 Bryan, Texas 77802 01-166 Jeffery D & Michelle T Hart 9306 Amberwood Court College Station, Texas 77845 01-166 :::.. .. .... Manuel Jr. & Rebecca A Pina --- ~ tEqA > .: 9308 Amberwood Court ·-Q) \. -tJ "" College Station, Texas 77845 / __ !,_ ' -~ ::n Q IV r~~ r:c • ~ ·-""" 01-166 lei\~ ~ C..J ~ ·-"C Q) ~~ .... .. Donnis G & Jean S Baggett \~ :;..> l'O c .. :I ·~ c ,___,... -CJ ..... 9310 Amberwood Court ,--~ :-ii-" -o-... :c ·a;; Q) ·-.. ... r:c .... ::: Ill College Station, Texas 77845 I'll -E 0 . .::: r:c .. (.) ~ ·-01-166 c Q) a. Rock Prairie Baptist Chruch 0 .. en c,)-,__::S ... 2405 Rock Prairie Road East :::.. l'O .. c College Station, Texas 77845 -a-,__c, > ·-·-~ I - 15 1 0 Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pi y--Postma: ter, Per (Name of receiving employee) The full declaration of value is req ui red on a I domes ti c and interna tio nal regi stere d ma il. Th e maxi mum in dem nity payable for the Listed by Sender R~i~d •i P°"~ rec on stru ction of nonn egotia bl e doc ume nt s und er Express Mail doc um en t reco nstructi on insurance is $500 per piece subject to i:) add iti ona l limitati on s for mu ltiple pieces los t or damages in a si ngle catastrophic occurre nce . Th e maxi mu m indemnity payable J~ on Expre ss Ma il merchand ise insurance is $5 00, but opt io nal Express Mail Service merchand ise ins ura nce is available for up to $5,000 to som e, bu t not all countries. Th e maxi mum ind emnity paya ble is $2 5,000 fo r re gis tere d mail. See Domestic Mail Manual R900, S913 , and S9 2 1 fo r li mit atio ns of cove rage on insu red and COO ma il. See Interna tional Mail Manual for limitations of coverage on internatio na l ma il. Spe cial handl ina ch a rges aPPl v onlv to Stan da rd Mail (A) an d Stan da rd Mail (8 ) parcel•. ----,...l.L.,_,_ ... _ ._ __ ---------1&--·-·~ --D-11 D""'lnt 1:)...,..,. l'iee00Address of Sender Check type of mail or service: Affix Stamp Here i== -~2~;a=_1 .• * CITY OF COLLEGE STATION (If issued as a * D Certified D Recorded Delivery (International) certificate of mailing, t-'-G£ sr,. ~~ 4 ·-· * P.0 Bo x 9960 0 COD D Registered or for additional ,,, ii! : * D Delivery Confirmation D Return Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill) ~ o~ -a.so-* * Co ll eg e Station , TX n842 D Express Mail D Signature Confirmation Postmark and ~u AUG 2 9'0 t .2 ) f~ ; : * D Insured Date of Receiot * * Linel Article Number Addressee Name , Street , and PO Address Postage Fee Handling Ac PBMl!TER * Charge ill U.S. POSTAGE * TV. 7114367 • 01-166 - Herman Kleerekoper -- 2315 De Lee Street Bryan, Texas 77802 01-166 Mark C. Scarmardo ET AL P.O. Box 4508 Bryan, Texas 77805 ~ ./. ""\ I r:~-;;:....._ .. .... --I ~' ~ ;;;;' 7 ~ """ > (1) ·-...., "= 0 l~,~ D t" k ~ al Q w 8 §,_ (,,;., Q c a: ~ ~ ·-"" l~ ·~ ~ y ·-'t:J CV ~ .. 9 r :::: ... :~\.. c .... :I -() .... o--... G1 -::c 10 -.. a: .. ra_ --I/) E -0 .:.:: ~ 11 .. (.) ~ ·-c QI a. 12 0 .. en Q-_:I .... 13 ~ ta .. c Gr -~ .... 14 > ·-·-en ~ ... 15 Q Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Postmasl 13r, Per (Name of receiving employee) The full declaration of value is required on a I domest ic and intern ational reg istered mail. The maximum indemnity payable for the Listed by Sender Received at Post Office reconstruction of nonnegotiable documents under Express Mail do cumen t reconstruction insurance is $500 per piece subject to ~ J-~ additional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastrophic occurrence . The maximum indemnity payable on Express Mall merchandise insurance Is $500, but optional Express Mail Service merchand is e insurance is available for up to $5,000 to some , but not all countries . The maximum indemnity payable is $25 ,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Mail /' Manual R900 , S913 , and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail. See International Mail Manual for limitations of coveraae on international ma il. Spec ial handlina charges aoolv onlv to Standard Mail (A) and Standard Mail (8) oarcels . -~-·-·-•----.. --•--•-----11 "'-=-• n-- PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING The purpose of a predevelopment meeting is to meet the City staff that will be involved wit;h your development and identify general issues that need further analysis. Along with the discussion of these major issues, staff will talk about the development process, distribute necessary information and discuss what permits will be required for your particular development. This meeting is in no way a complete review of your project. Staff will perform a formal thorough review once the minimum requirements are submitted for your particular development . General Information: Date of Meeting: 4[ I q {DD Applicant( s ): Proposal : 1r(_OJtJJ ff Miscellaneous: \ •. Development Issues: Land Use: Zoning : Special zoning district information: Subdivision/Platting Issues: T-Fa re Plan/Street Issues: Driveway Ac~es_s : ~/Uf()~rng wf C/;\,Mhfi {Ylep;M1 ~ ~ f u-nt R evfc_ PflCUJL LlJ , ~ ~ ~ ~ r4-C/fu_ /)11U/.,irvn ~114 • }.;Jill )»Old<_ Mr/ /J_ {J ~ dY) cU;,f/J/Yl (L Y!QYY) ~(f -j) P arkland/Greenways Dedication: Parks & Recreation Board Consideration: p~ · l<f ~ fn ~ J f ~5 JiJY{}Yf!5 -· Utility Issues: Water Availability/Capacity: ~J ~ Sanitat)' Sewe r Availability/Capa city: 1 o ~ ;).. -6 ;J, ,uJ; J.J_ }c, ll.Lrrn~ lfJwri CAul I)., . l k,,+ :J -c, Impact Fees: Electrica l ()JA~ 5-pfi()_S£ ~ ~ jtDrvf @I ~ fil~ · N ud ~ m wfy'6£Mi:t p!IMW! 1 . /.'1 iJJ Jt;ad t/f!rko. ~!J r u Fi r~(Hydra nt ·3 #,,,.. • ,,,,p_ r; ,, A•-1- 1 JJJ co.t1 W) lY1l ~' ~ ,._.,,,f( @_ .J/fL1 fltlAt CL- ~ th ~ on 5 ~rft- Miscella neous : Landsca ping/Streetscape: fj JJJJ_ @ ~ -~ ~k ~cJ!._ Dumpster Location : J Va r ian ce Requests: Permits required for this development: v Development Permit V Building Permit __ Conditional Use Permit ·z T xDOT Driveway Permit for work in State ROW TxDOT Utility Permit for work in State ROW Special Review required by: Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board Northgate Revitalization Committee Parks and Recreation Board Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Information provided: Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Specifications for Street Construction Drainage Policy & Design Standards CS Building Regulations (Local Amendments to the Building Code) Fire Department Construction & Development Guide Driveway Access Location & Design Policy Water & Sewer Specification Manual CS Business Center Covenants & Restrictions Guide to Building & Development Developmen t Resource Guide " . . August 29 , 2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Sign Variance NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station has received an application requesting a variance for the following property : Applicant: Chandler Signs for Courtyard by Marriott Subject Propertvt 3939 South Highway 6 South. (Comer of Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 South). See attached Map. Action Requested : Sign Variance The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider the request on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 6:00 PM at the College Station City Hall Council Chambers at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas . All property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any requests for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989 . For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570 . Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner • AUG-02-2 0 0 1 13 :54 • faesmile . transmittal ' .· To: MOLLY HITCHCOCK Fax: From: BILL TEEL Date : Re: Courtyard by Marriott Pages: CC: D Urgent D For Review 0 Please Comment • • \,;HANULt.t< :>H.:.iN~1 IN\;,: 3201 Manor Way Dallas, TX 75235 PH 972·739-6516 F'X 214-902-2044 979 -764-3496 August 2, 2001 2 inc . cover D Please D Ple¥e Reply R~le Ms. Hitchcock, here is the drawing with dimensions as requested. Please · let us know ~f you need anything else. Thanks. • I ' 1' I~ . ' ''f . ' ' . : . '~:~· ,' . ·I • • • • • • • • • • • • Ill • • • • • • • • • • • • .'L . ,. I LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: AUGUST 29, 2001 ONLY BILL TO: Deborah Grace The City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 MasterCard # 5405 8231 9379 5734 Expires 3/02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIUNG: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a sign variance for 3-939 South Highway 6 South . Applicant is Chandler Signs for Courtyard by M~ott . The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hal~ 110 I Texas Avenue at the 6 :00 p.m . meeting of the Board on September 12, 2001. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (IDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570 . Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner [tvi oTIYR'i tc hcoc k -M arriott s ign Variance Meeting From: To: Date: Subject: "Piria , Jr. Manuel" <m-pina@tamu .edu> <Mhitchcock@ci .college-station .tx .us > 9/10/01 5:54PM Marriott Sign Variance Meeting My name is Manuel Piria , Jr. My w ife and I live at 9308 Amberwood Court, directly behind the Marriott. We strongly feel that the closeness and difference in elevation between the level of the parting lot and our backyard has already had a negative effect on ou r property value . Evidence of this is that we placed our house up for sale for six months and had only five people look it. And , when they looked at it and saw the construction, they quickly left. Now , to add to the s ituation , the Marriott proposes to put a sign at the entrance to Woodcreek, as we understand it. And , the proposed s ign must be seen from both sides of the express way ! And , it will be a lighted sign? This is to register , fo rmally , that we a re adamantly opposed to such a sign . We feel it w ill only further decrease the value of not our property but those of others further inside the Woodcreek subd ivis ion . Any s ign advertising the hotel should be rather close to the ground , with ind irect lighting that is consonant with the style and values of our homes , and in fron t of the hotel. Such a sign should not be , repeat , not be , placed anywhere near the entrance to the Woodcreek subdivision . I am now wondering if such a hearing was held about the construction of the Marriott itself. Manue l Piria , Jr. Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Education Special Projects D irector College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 2116-TAMU College Station , Texas 77843-2116 Tel : 979 862-1978 I 1979 Fax : 979 862-1058 Email : m-pina@tamu .edu Page 1 I James E. Russell 9302 Amberwood Crt. College Station, Texas 77845 Ms. Molly Hitchcock Staff Planner The City of College Station, Texas P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Re: Sign Variance Dear Ms. Hitchcock: 979-693-2810 jrussell@tca.net September 10, 2001 Thank you for your letter of August 29, 2001 the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Sign Variance at the Corner of Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 South. In my opinion, any commercial sign at the Comer of Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 South will aversely affect our neighborhood and further reduce property values and I am against granting any such variance. I am requesting that you make my objection known to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). My wife and I plan to attend the Wednesday, September 12, 2001at6:00 PM I am willing to speak to the ZBA on Wednesday. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, ~e;~ James Russell