Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2010 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsCITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Tew A& M Universitys Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas Table of Contents Agenda..... ..............................2 Absence Request Hunter Goodwin - September 7, 2010 Absent request Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 September 7, 2010 meeting minutes September 7, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on variance requests to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.4 "Signs" for 4401 State Highway 6 South, Lots 6, 9, 11 -13, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500178 (LH) Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Variance Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1 AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Oath of Office - Hunter Goodwin 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. • Hunter Goodwin - September 7, 2010 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • September 7, 2010 meeting minutes. 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on variance requests to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.4 "Signs" for 4401 State Highway 6 South, Lots 6, 9, 11 -13, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision. Case 4 10- 00500178 (LH) 6. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 7. Adjourn. Consultation with Attornev ,Gov't Code Section 551.071: possible action The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney- client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney- client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the day of , 2010 at p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.2ov The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: by Dated this day of , 2010. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2010. Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www. cstx.2ov CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name R. Hunter Goodwin Request Submitted on Date: September, 7 2010 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of September 7, 2010 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) Deborah -I will not be able to attend as I was delayed due to terrible weather, which prevented my flight from leaving on time. 7-/ v 0 CITY OF C011,EGE T ,kTTi0N_ Now,o of TxasA&M Unitersi " MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 7, 2010 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rodney Hill, Josh Benn, Dick Dabney and Melissa Cunningham. MEMBERS ABSENT: Hunter Goodwin. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace - Rosier, Staff Planners Matthew Hilgemier and Lauren Hovde, Assistant Director Lance Simms, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. There were no requests to consider. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments. • 919 William D. Fitch Parkway - 10% reduction (2 spaces) to the required number of queuing spaces. Approved - Case # 10- 00500172 (LH) • 1613 University Drive East - 1.3% reduction (1 space) to the required number of parking spaces. Approved - Case # 10- 00500155 (LH) There were no questions from the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. C • July 6, 2010 meeting minutes. Mr. Benn motioned to approve the July 6, 2010 meeting minutes. Ms. Cunningham seconded the motion, which passed (3 -0 -1). Mr. Dabney abstained from voting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.4.1.2 Attached Signs, regarding the amount of attached signage allowed for the property located at 1401 Earl Rudder Freeway South, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Gateway Park Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500148 (MKH) Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemeier presented the staff report and stated that the applicant (Cinemark Theater) is currently in the process of upgrading some of its technology to improve the quality of movies they provide to their customers. As part of the upgrade, the theater would like to increase the amount of attached signage to make the public aware of the theater's new features. Per the current sign regulations, Cinemark is permitted a maximum of 600 square feet of attached signage. The existing signage attached to the building was installed prior to the adoption of the City's current sign regulations and exceeds the maximum allowed area by 165 feet. Cinemark is proposing to add an additional 380 square feet of attached signage to their building fagade for a total of 1,145 square feet of attached signage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the amount of allowed attached signage by 545 square feet. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request. Speaking in favor of the variance requests were: Deborah Moltz, 206 Doral, Portland, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Moltz stated that there is a special condition for the lot due to the building setting back 700 feet from the frontage road. She added that the area of the building that that is being considered for the attached signage sets back over 740 feet. Board Member Dabney asked what could be changed so they could have the additional sign and still be within the City sign standards. Ms. Moltz replied that they could place a mural where the marquee sign is and it would eliminate the marquee square footage. Mr. Hilgemeier replied that was correct and added that they would still need a variance of 184 square feet for the proposed sign. Mr. Hilgemeier ended by saying that the applicant also has the option of placing a 225 square foot freestanding sign closer to the frontage road. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Benn motioned to approve the sign variance with the special conditions of the size of the building and distance from the frontage road, the hardship to the applicant the being inability to effectively advertise and the limitation of 184 square feet. Ms. Cunningham seconded the motion, which failed (2 -2). Chairman Hill and Mr. Dabney voting in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance to Section 7.1.D.l.e Contextual Front Setback, regarding the reduction of the contextual front setback requirement for 1121 Ashburn Avenue, Lot 26R, Block 1 of the Baker Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500170 Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemeier presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the contextual front setback variance in order to build a single - family residence. Since the 7 subdivision was established prior to 1970, the College Station's Unified Development Ordinance requires that any new, single - family dwelling unit constructed in the subdivision must use the adjacent lots to determine the appropriate front yard- setback. New dwelling units are not allowed to be closer to the street, nor farther back from the street, than the nearest neighboring unit. The contextual front setback for the subject property is based on the location of the structure located at 1119 Ashburn Avenue, which is setback 50 feet from the front property line. Due to the subject property's triangular shape, the remaining space available for a single - family structure does not allow for the construction of a reasonably -sized structure when a 50 -foot setback is applied to the property. The applicant would like the typical R -1 single - family front setback of 25 feet; therefore, a variance to allow for a 25 -foot reduction to the 50 -foot front contextual setback is being requested. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request. James Baker, 1119 Ashburn Avenue, College Station, Texas, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Baker stated that in 1999 the three lots were replatted in order to adjust the size of the lots, location of the lot lines, and to dedicate a portion of the property to the City of College Station for use as a public park. Mr. Baker added that he wants to preserve the neighborhood. Kathleen O'Reilly, 1118 Ashburn, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the request. Ms. O'Reilly told the Board that just a week ago the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the College Hills Woodlands request for a Neighborhood Overlay to preserve the historic uniqueness of the Subdivision. The variance request before the Board goes against those efforts. She ended by urging the Board to grant the applicant a 35 -foot (15 -foot variance) setback. Kevin Crisman, 1203 Ashburn, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Crisman reiterated Ms. O'Reilly's sentiments. Other topics Mr. Crisman touched on were parking, traffic and infill construction in the area. Brooke Woodruff, 1118 Ashburn, College Station, Texas, spoke in opposition of the request. Ms. Woodruff stated that one of the pleasurable things about the houses on Ashburn is that the houses are set back from the street. She ended by saying that she is also concerned about the parking in the neighborhood. Virginia West, 1203 Ashburn, College Station, Texas spoke in opposition of the request. Ms. West stated that the lot in question, 1121 Ashburn, has a very pronounced curve which creates a safety concern when vehicles are parked on the street. All speaking before the Board were sworn in by Chairman Hill. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Ms. Cunningham motioned to approve the variance of a 25 foot reduction due to the special conditions of the lot's triangular shape, and the buildable area being greatly reduced and the hardship of an unusable lot. Mr. Dabney seconded the motion. Mr. Berm amended the motion to add the limitation of a 15 -foot front setback variance. Mr. Dabney seconded the motion. The amended motion passed unopposed (4 -0). Mr. Berm motioned to approve the original motion as amended. Mr. Dabney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 : Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no items addressed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM. APPROVED: Rodney Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace - Rosier, Staff Assistant E CITY ()F COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 4401 State Highway 6 South 10-00500178 REQUEST: Sign Variance LOCATION: 4401 State Highway 6 South Spring Creek Commons Subdivision Lots 6, 9, 11 -13 Block 1 APPLICANT: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell and Morgan LLP PROPERTY OWNER: St. Joseph Regional Health Center MPOB at Greens Prairie, LLC Fitch at 6 Pad, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner Ihovde(o)cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance due to the lack of a hardship directly related to the proposed increase of sign height and square footage. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 Page 1 of 7 10 BACKGROUND: The building plot under discussion was designated on the Preliminary Plat to include Lots 6, 9, 11 -13 Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision. The plot includes the newly constructed Lakeway Drive and is slightly less than 25 acres in total size. The Unified Development Ordinance allows the developer to consider up to 1/3 of the property as pad sites, as long as each site meets the definition of such. This option allows for each pad site to utilize a low- profile sign if the one allowable freestanding sign is kept under 200 square feet in area. The developer is choosing to utilize this option, and has declared Lot 6 as one of the pad sites that will be granted a low- profile sign. On July 6, 2010, the Zoning Board of adjustment granted the following variance requests for this property for a low profile and two traffic control directional signs: - 3 -foot sign height variance to a low profile sign making it 7 -feet tall; - 4 -foot 8 -inch variance to the height of the Entrance Directional Sign (EDR) making that sign 8 feet 8 inches in height; - 6 -foot 4 -inch variance to the height of the Vehicular Directional Sign (VDR) making that sign 10 feet 4 inches in height; 39- square foot variance to the EDR area making it 42 square feet; and, 28- square foot variance to the VDR area making it 31 square feet in area. However, upon applying for a sign permit, the applicant realized that the area and height of the EDR sign was incorrectly requested during the variance process. The applicant is now requesting a new 6 -foot 4 -inch variance to the height of the Entrance Directional Sign (EDR), making that sign 10 feet 4 inches in height. Due to the change in height, a variance is also being requested of 46.08 square feet to enable the EDR sign to be 49.08 square feet in area. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.4.F "Sign Standards" allows for traffic control directional signs to be 4 feet in height and 3 square feet in area. ORDINANCE INTENT: To establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 Page 2 of 7 11 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 7 September 28, 2010 12 7.: A La tv 6 M. LL R r 3 ICJ r ,' r J � �� �� _ _ 444� V V U < LL VY 2z Ln 1 3 1 l: .31 C. I[ x LU 0 5 4 L 4 A 07 lb ILI 0 4 - LL L "E LL co 7 LL IZ ti A r, q LL z 7 77 L:j -E O LU 0 5 4 L 4 A 07 lb ILI 0 4 - LL L "E LL Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 201 Page 4 of 7 13 7 LL LL A r, q LL -E O Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 201 Page 4 of 7 13 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 28, 2010 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Woodland Hills Home Owners Association Property owner notices mailed: 11 Contacts in support: 0 Contacts in opposition: 0 Inquiry contacts: 0 ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use C -1 General Commercial Subject Property General Commercial and OV Overlay District North N /A, Lakeway Drive 4 -Lane Major Collector South N /A, State Highway 6 Freeway C -1 General Commercial East General Commercial and OV Overlay District C -1 General Commercial West Natural Areas - Reserved and OV Overlay District PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject building plot has 781 feet of frontage along Lakeway Drive and 1,050 feet of frontage along State Highway 6 South. 2. Access: The subject property has access from State Highway 6 and Lakeway Drive which is perpendicular to Willliam D. Fitch Parkway. 3. Topography and vegetation: The property has been cleared for development, but sporadic mature trees remain on site. 4. Floodplain: Spring Creek floodway and 100 -year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area) touches a small area on the eastern side of the subject property. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant states that the right -of -way width and easement width combine to cause the proposed low profile sign to be setback approximately 75 feet from the pavement edge. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 Page 5of7 14 The traffic control directional sign variances are being requested on the basis that the developing property is almost 25 acres in size. The applicant believes the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not have an option for an internal way- finding system. However, the UDO does allow for signs with fonts that are considered non - visible from a public right -of -way or abutting property (according to the Site Design Standards) to be exempt for permitting. It is Staff's position that the signage that would fall under this exception allows for an adequate way- finding system. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. If the variance is not granted, the applicant would still be able to construct the EDR sign according to the previously approved variance. 3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City in administering this UDO. 4. Subdivision: The property to the east is unplatted; however, the requested variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of that or other surrounding properties. 5. Flood hazard protection: Spring Creek floodway and 100 -year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area) touches a small area on the eastern side of the subject property. 6. Other property: The conditions that exist on this property are similar to those on the east and west side. The right -of -way width is the same, and the same easement exists on the platted property to the east. The property to the east will also have multiple businesses within the same building plot. 7. Hardships: The applicant believes that the height allowed for the EDR according to the previously approved variance is not sufficient to provide a successful way- finding system due to the visibility of signs being impaired by parked vehicles. It is Staff's opinion that there is not a strong hardship in this case which directly constitutes an increase sign size. 8. Comprehensive Plan: The current and proposed development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the land use for this property as General Commercial. This property is also on the perimeter of the Spring Creek District, and is one of the City's early image- setting gateways. The Spring Creek District is intended to link current and future medical facilities to create a cohesive district by using signage, landscaping, and other visual attributes that will tie the developments together. As an early image- setting gateway, this location is intended to offer the first experience of College Station to a visitor. Therefore, the site is important in providing a first impression to traffic entering the City from the south, and is intended to be the location of enhanced City identification signage. 9. Utilization: The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of his property or commercial advertisement. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 Page 6of7 15 ALTERNATIVES The applicant may construct their sign according to the previously approved variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance due to the lack of a hardship directly related to the proposed increase of sign height and square footage. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Applicant's Variance Request 3. Sign Graphics (provided in packet) Zoning Board of Adjustment September 28, 2010 Page 7of7 ift (*h CITY OF COt.LBGE STATION Home of Texas University' MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ❑x $250 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee. n Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details, and floor plans. The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required. Date of Optional Preapplication Conference N/A ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) Lt 6 & 13A, Blk 1, Spring Creek Commons, Lt 9A -1 & 9A -2, APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name MITCHELL & MORGAN, LLP C/O VE RONICA MORGA E -mail v @mitchellandmorgen.com Street Address 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 City COLLEGE STATION State T EXAS Zip Code 77840 Phone Number ( 97 9) 2 -6963 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name St. Joseph Regional Health Ce nter C/ David Hall Street Address 2801 FRANCISCAN DRIVE City BRYAN State TEXAS Phone Number ( 979 ) 776 -5316 Current zoning of subject property C -1 WITH ON Action requested (check all that apply): ❑ Setback variance ❑ Appeal of Written Interpretation ❑ Parking variance ❑ Special Exception ❑x Sign variance ❑ Drainage Variance ❑ Lot dimension variance ❑ Other Annlicable ordinance section to vary from: 10/09 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: TIME: STAFF: Zip Code 77802 Fax Number N/A 17 Fax Number (979) 260 -3564 E -mail dhall@st-joseph.org Page 1 of 5 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 1. The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 2. This variance 1s necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees. Note: A cul -de -sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul -de -sac lots are generally not special conditions. SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 3. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are: Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when compared to neighboring properties. SEE ATTACHED LETTER, 4. The fo alternatives to the requested variance are possible: SEE ATTACHED LETTER. 5. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: SEE ATTACHED LETTER. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THiS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. �J)4 N Sign ture and itle Date 10/09 Page 2 of 5 i ADDITIONAL OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION Name MPOB AT GREENS PRAIRIE LLC CIO DAVID W. SCARMARDO Street Address P.O BOX 4508 City BRYAN State Texas Zip Code 77805 E -Mail Address DAVID@SCARMARDOFOODS.COM Phone Number (979) 229 -5118 Fax Number_ (979) 775 -5258 L qZ� O Z- A'L '610 MPO$ at Greens Prairie, LLC Date Signature and Title Name FITCH AT 6 PAD LLC C/O DAVID W. SCARMARDO Street Address P.O BOX 4508 City BRYAN State Texas Zip Code 77805 E -Mail Address DAVIQ(aSCAR MAR DO FOODS. COM Phone Number (979) 229 -5118 Fax Number (979) 775 -5258 aij - — gbozz I Fitch at 6 Pad, LLC Signature and 'Title Date 19 St. Joseph Health Center Campus Sign Variance Request September 13, 2010 Previous Request On July 6, 2010, the ZBA heard a variance request for the St. Joseph Health Center Campus sign package. Unfortunately, a dimensional error was made on one of the sign illustrations attached to the package. One sign, the EDR sign, was drawn dimensionally correct on that first submittal but the overall vertical dimension of 8' -8" was in error. Current Request As seen on the attached graphic, the entrance dimensional sign (EDR) is 10' -4" tall as opposed to the 8' -8" as it was labeled on the original request. The graphic shown here is the exact same graphic that was presented at the ZBA meeting with the only change being the 10' -4" overall dimension on the EDR sign. The height as drawn graphically has not changed and the sub - dimensions have not changed. The text height presented and discussed as well as the amount of copy has not changed from the original request. The intent was for the sign package for the campus to be uniform and the sign height consistent throughout. As seen on the drawing the EDR and VDR signs were originally drawn at the same height of 10' -4" and that was always the intent. As seen on the EDR graphic, the breakout dimensions of 6' -10 ", 1' -4" and 1' -4" add up to more than 8' -8 ", clearly illustrating that the 8' -8" overall dimension was a misprint on the original drawing. In addition, because the sign area was calculated from the incorrect dimension of 8' -8" the sign area was incorrect on the original request. The sign area request is 49.08 square feet (10'- 4 "x4' -9 "), as shown on the attached graphic. As a recap from the earlier case: 1. Entrance Directional Sign (EDR) The UDO does allow for a sign exemption for a sign "not easily identified from beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel on which they are located or from any public thoroughfare or traveled right -of -way, as determined by the Administrator". (Section 7.4.E.1.) The Site Design Standards then qualify the statement "easily identifiable" through the following table: Distance from Property Line 75 feet 150 feet 225 feet 300 feet 375 feet 900 feet Maximum Copv Height 1 inch 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch 5 inch 12 inch 1 I Page 20 The EDR sign will be oriented perpendicular to St. Joseph Drive, a private drive located internal to the Lowe's /St. Joseph complex. This drive provides for internal circulation for both developments. The sign is oriented so that the graphics and copy are facing in an east/west direction toward SH6 frontage road, but is intended for directional aid for vehicles traveling on St. Joseph Drive. The edge of pavement for SH6 frontage road is approximately 265 feet from the sign. According to the site design guideline table, the maximum size copy on the sign can be no larger than 3.5 inches to not be visible from the right -of -way. Therefore the EDR sign is NOT considered an exempt sign, therefore it falls under the category of vehicular directional signage and must comply with those regulations. Given this, the criteria as established by the UDO is as follows: • Maximum vehicular directional sign height = 4 feet • Maximum vehicular directional sign area = 3 square feet The current sign as designed is as follows: • Sign height requested: 10' -4" • Sign area requested: 49.08 square feet Variance Request We would request the following variance to the EDR sign: • A variance of 64" to the height requirement for the entrance directional sign (EDR) • A variance of 46.08 square feet to the sign area requirement for the entrance directional sign (EDR) EDR ,VIGN Special Conditions: (unique circumstances involving the particular property - related to the physical characteristic of the property) With a campus setting on a large tract of land (approximately 25 acres) there is ample opportunity to get lost among the buildings and multiple parking areas. This St. Joseph Health Center Campus will eventually contain multiple buildings (as many as 6 or 7) along with a hospital bed tower, and just as many remote parking areas for each building. To aid the driver in finding the Emergency Room entrance as well as doctor's offices and the Diagnostic and Urgent Care facilities internal directional signage is important. The UDO allows vehicular directional signs that are really intended for minimal verbiage and a directional arrow, like ENTER or EXIT. The ordinance does not appear to accommodate or contemplate directional signage that may be needed for wayfinding on any campus setting, whether that be medical, academic or other. Since the opening of the Medical Office Building and the Emergency Room facility there have been numerous elderly and handicapped individuals that have parked in the wrong location and then wandered from door to door along the sidewalks looking for the right door to enter. Construction workers on site have been kind enough to direct them to the correct location depending upon their need. These signs should help the motorist park in the parking lot closest to their needed facility. When faced with over 25 acres of facilities and parking areas to serve each facility it is important to create a wayfinding system that is visible and works to guide vehicles safely through the campus. The 21Page 21 Campus site plan has minimal allowable driveway locations on SH6 frontage road and Lakeway Drive and utilizes a private roadway (St. Joseph Dr.) as an internal circulation route. This plan has created a system that will minimize traffic turning maneuvers on the major public roadways, but in turn has placed buildings in locations without their own driveway and address, making wayfinding very difficult. Hardship: We have found that attached building signage is not enough to help drivers through a campus setting. Multiple buildings and often building addresses (i.e. Bldg. C) cannot be seen from all parts of the campus. This is because buildings on campuses are often located away from the main entrance drive and any signage on the building cannot be seen from the main drives. For instance, when entering Texas A &M University Campus from New Main Drive even though the MSC may have attached building signage a new visitor to campus could not get to that building if wayfinding signage was not posted on the main drives. Similarly, a motorist entering St. Joseph Drive will not see the attached signage on the Urgent Care facility. These wayfinding signs will be important to allow drivers to find their way through the multiple parking areas and park in the closest area to their needs. With the proliferation of large trucks in our community a 4 foot tall sign gets blocked very easily. Drivers are looking at eye level for directions. If any of these drivers are trying to locate the 24 hour Emergency Room facility they will already be distracted and clear directions to find the facility will be extremely important. In addition only 3 square feet of sign area and using only 50% of it for copy is not enough to adequately depict directions to multiple buildings and facilities. The current Unified Development Ordinances "push" developments toward a campus setting with greater internal access and limited external access to public thoroughfares. While this is occurring, the sign ordinance has not contemplated wayfinding sign regulations for these campuses. Alternatives: Alternatives to this variance is to keep the sign height at 8' -8" and the allowable sign area at 41.2 square feet, as previously approved and scale down the text accordingly. As stated in the original request, the text height of 4 -1/2 ", is not readable from the SH6 frontage road, and this sign merely serves for internal wayfinding. It is the intent for these signs and any future signs placed further interior to the site to maintain a consistent height and appearance to help drivers find their destination Variance is not Contrary to Public Interest: The sign variances requested are not significant enough to distract the traveling public. The internal wayfinding signage provides for safer maneuvers by the traveling public because signs can be read from a distance thus providing additional reaction time for turning maneuvers. Many clients that will use these medical facilities would appreciate a larger font that is readable from a safe stopping /turning distance. Even though there are multiple property owners within the Spring Creek Commons — Phase 3 area, the signage for the St. Joseph Health Center Campus is designed to project a unified development throughout the campus. 31Page 22