The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/06/2010 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsCITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Tew A& M Universitys Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2010 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas Table of Contents Agenda..... ..............................2 Dick Dabney -r July 6, 2010 Dick Dabney — July 6, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 June 1, 2010 meeting minutes. June 1, 2010 meeting minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a request for a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards regarding minimum lot depth for 501 & 503 Corregidor Drive and 2021 & 2023 Legacy Lane, Lots 17 & 18, Block 1 of the Legacy Addition Subdivision. Case# 10- 00500082 (MR) Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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- 00500127 (LH) Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Variance Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1 AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 06, 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. Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings • Dick Dabney —July 6, 2010. 3. Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments. • 1712 Southwest Parkway, Suite 103 - 9.84% reduction (6 parking spaces) to the required number of parking spaces. Approved. Case # 10- 005000091 (BB) • 800 George Bush Drive - 6% reduction (3 parking spaces) to the required number of parking spaces. Approved. Case # 10- 00500106 (JS) 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • June 1, 2010 meeting minutes. 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a request for a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards regarding minimum lot depth for 501 & 503 Corregidor Drive and 2021 & 2023 Legacy Lane, Lots 17 & 18, Block 1 of the Legacy Addition Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500082 (MR) 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- 00500127 (LH) 7. 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 8. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {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, July 06, 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 Connie Hooks, City Secretary By 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 tike 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.gov 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 clay 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.gov (*O { ITY OF 0�I.1. GE. TATnON Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Richard Dabney Request Submitted on Date: June 2, 2010 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of July 6, 2010 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) I will be out of town on the date of the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Dick Dabney M CITY OF COUEGE T ,kTTi0N_ Now,o of TxasA&M f Tnitersi " MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment June 1, 2010 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Dick Dabney, Hunter Goodwin and Melissa Cunningham. MEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Hill and John Richards. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistants Deborah Grace- Rosier and Kristen Hejny, Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemier, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Lance Simms, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell, Action Center Representative Carrie McCugh. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Jay Goss called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. ❖ John Richards —June 1, 2010 ❖ Rodney Hill — June 1, 2010 Mr. Benn motioned to approve the absence requests. Mr. Dabney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments. • 1123 Phoenix Street — 10% reduction (2 feet) to the 20 -foot rear setback. Approved. Case 9 10- 00500079. Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemier gave the Board a brief explanation of the requested adjustment. 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • May 4, 2010 meeting minutes. Mr. Dabney motioned to approve the May 4, 2010 minutes. Mr. Berm seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a request for variances to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards and Section 6.4.B.4 Accessory Use Standards regarding minimum rear and side setback requirements for 504 Guernsey, Lots 1 & 2, Block 10 of the College Park Subdivision Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemier told the Board that the applicant made changes to the requested variance amounts and the staff report provided in their packet did not reflect those changes. The applicant would now like to add a 1,008 square foot (28' x 36') detached garage to the property for vehicles and storage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of six feet to the 20 -foot rear setback requirement and six feet to the 20 -foot side street setback required for garages. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request. Speaking in favor of the variance requests were: Russ Harvell, 504 Guernsey, College Station, TX. Mr. Havell stated that they have reduced the amount of the variance requests. He added that by granting the variances it will allow them to make the best use of the available space on their lot by minimizing tree removal and correcting the drainage. Jerry Cooper, 602 Bell, College Station, TX. Fred Worley, 5707 Bullard Drive, Austin, TX. Linda Harwell, 504 Guernsey, College Station, TX. Those speaking before the Board were sworn in by Chairman Goss. There were discussions concerning the drainage issues and the removal of trees. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Ms. Cunningham motioned to approve the variances due to the special condition of drainage issues on the property and sentimental value of trees. Mr. Goodwin seconded the motion. Mr. Berm motioned to amend the motion to remove the variance for the side setback. Motion failed with a lack of second. Chairman Goss called for the vote for the motion to approve the variances. The vote was 2 -3. The motion failed. Chairman Goss, Mr. Dabney and Mr. Goodwin in opposition C Mr. Berm motioned to approve the rear setback requirement due to the special conditions of drainage, age and size of trees; and the result of unnecessary hardship of the loss of historical trees. Mr. Goodwin seconded the motion, which failed (3 -2). Mr. Dabney and Chairman Goss voting in opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, and possible action, and discussion on a requests for variances to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards regarding minimum rear and front setback requirements for 820 Nimitz Street, Lot 8, Block B of the D.A. Smith Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500063. Staff Planner Matthew Hilgemier presented the staff report and stated that the applicant was requesting a reduction of five feet to the 25 -foot front setback and a reduction of 12.5 feet to the 20 -foot rear setback in order to build a single - family home. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request. No one stepped forward to speak. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Dabney motioned to approve the requested variances due to a special condition of the roadway improperly located, resulting in the reduced size of a buildable lot; and the unnecessary hardship of unmanageable size of buildable lot. Ms. Cunnigham seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -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.: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM. APPROVED: Jay Goss, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace- Rosier, Staff Assistant 7 ITS' OF COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 501 & 503 Corregidor Drive and 2021 & 2023 Legacy Lane REQUEST: Reduction of lot depth LOCATION: 501 & 503 Corregidor Drive and 2021 & 2023 Legacy Lane APPLICANT: Jim & Kathy Loveless, Property Owners PROPERTY OWNER: Jim & Kathy Loveless PROJECT MANAGER: Matt Robinson, Staff Planner mrobinson(a)cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Denial BACKGROUND: The subject properties are part of the Legacy Addition Subdivision, which was platted in 2000. The subdivision is currently zoned and developed as duplex residences, with the subject properties having one lot fronting Corregidor Drive and one lot fronting Legacy Lane. The duplexes are accessed via a shared driveway off of Holleman Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the properties from two lots into three lots with access for the three lots being a shared driveway off of Holleman Drive. As such, the new lot would front on Holleman Drive which is where the minimum lot depth requirement would be measured from. For duplex lots, the Unified Development Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot depth for the proposed lot of 83 feet 9 inches. A variance is needed in order to proceed with a replat of the property, which as proposed would also require a discretionary item be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. As such the applicant would like to reduce the required lot depth for the proposed lot from 100 feet to 83 feet 9 inches; thus, they are requesting a lot depth variance of 17 feet 3 inches. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2, Residential Dimensional Design Standards. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2010 Page 1 of 6 i ORDINANCE INTENT: Residential dimensional design standard requirements usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2010 Page 2 of 6 E Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 July 6, 2010 10 LL 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 201 Page 4 of 6 11 J � . � I •� al i .. =T �R 4. cl vi ui c) C3 z z - z � pnq C? l a I =z� cAX T r Cc E: CL 1 ca 1 ZEE LLI LU *D < a- C) N T 2. Fi: c y� I LL 1 -3 ILL LJ 1': > uJ L— LU Ir- r--r LU IL 0 i Taw r i iZ �U 9 P CL LL 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 201 Page 4 of 6 11 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: July 6, 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: None Property owner notices mailed Contacts in support: Contacts in opposition Inquiry contacts: ZONING AND LAND USES 11 None at the time of writing the staff report. None at the time of writing the staff report. 1 Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property R -2, Duplex Duplexes North R -3, Townhouse Duplexes South PDD, Planned Development District Commercial /Retail center East R -4, Multi - Family Apartments West R -2, Duplex Duplexes PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The properties have approximately 384 feet of frontage on Holleman Drive, 87 feet of frontage on Corregidor Drive and 102 feet of frontage on Legacy Lane. 2. Access: Access is via a shared driveway off of Holleman Drive. 3. Topography and vegetation: The properties are relatively flat with sparse vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The property is not located within the floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant states that the "density is unequal to opposite side of street on Legacy Lane" and that "these are oversize yards compared to other lots ". It is staff's opinion that a special condition does not exist as lot density on one street does not necessitate that other streets maintain that same lot density. In addition, while the yards for the subject properties are larger than existing duplex lots in the subdivision, the UDO only specifies minimum lot dimension and size, which allows for a range of lot sizes and yards. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. If the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2010 Page 5of6 12 variance is not granted, the applicants are still able to utilize the properties as duplexes, which currently exist on the subject properties. 3. Substantial detriment: Granting of the variance would increase the number of vehicles taking direct access to a major collector which could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the area or to the City in administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: The granting of the variance would necessitate a waiver when the applicants replat the property. The Planning & Zoning Commission would need to approve a discretionary item to the creation of a right angle lot at the time a replat is sought. 5. Flood hazard protection: Granting the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection because this property is not located in a FEMA recognized floodplain area. 6. Other property: Other properties in the neighborhood are meeting minimum lot dimension requirements as specified in the UDO. 7. Hardships: It is staff's opinion that a hardship does not exist in this case. The subject properties are currently utilized as duplexes as allowed for in the UDO. 8. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Urban on the Future Land Use and Character Map. Urban areas are intended for intense residential development, which includes townhomes, duplexes, and high- density apartments. The addition of another lot within the area would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Utilization: The application of the UDO residential dimensional standards as they apply to duplex lots does not unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject properties. The properties are currently developed as duplexes and are currently meeting all residential dimensional standards. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has stated that they can shift the location of the proposed duplex towards the other lot. However, this alternative would still necessitate the need for a variance to the proposed lot depth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. It is staff's opinion that the applicants have not identified a hardship or special condition for the subject properties. The inability to subdivide existing duplex lots to add an additional duplex lot is not a special condition. In addition, staff feels that the current duplexes on the existing lots are making reasonable use of the property as allowed and that an additional duplex is not a necessary improvement to the properties. As such, denial of the requested variance does not prohibit the property owner's utilization and enjoyment of the subject properties. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2010 Page 6of6 13 (*O CITE' OP COLLEGE STATION Home of Texan A&M University* FOR OFFICE SE O CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: TIME: STAFF: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ❑ $250 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee. ❑ 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 ADDRESS j 1-5t --S 1 "1 V n /'s t i t / LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORM/. Name ) ; 'y 1'11 E' E- mail ��IjT Street Address ' -) L - LN f 1 � t & I ( , City State X Zip Code / ,��) L J Phone Number ;' ��» r� / ` Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (AL o ners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name l��tl 1Y'licl � :LJ'11��`� C ( �` -3 E -mail aCk`.� L.1��;� )�'��; /� Street Address r City State Zip Code Phone Number i =j' % ,/ / 1 % ') Fax Number J - Z Current zoning of subject property w v W Action requested (check all that apply): ❑ Setback variance ❑ Parking variance ❑ 9ign variance F5 Z Lot dimension variance ❑ Appeal of Written Interpretation ❑ Special Exception ❑ Drainage Variance ❑ Other j�,ppucaole oralnance section to vary rrom: 10/09 J TION (Primary contact for the project) 14 Page 1 of 5 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 1. The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: 11 r J _ t � _ i) t C �3`° i I 2. This variance is 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. oNicr ✓ JI - 3. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are: �� S 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. C¢ re G The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: N� COM- �4 C ,f This vnrinnna will not ha rnntrary to the nuhlir interest by virtue of the following facts: ItiC C�'f1� f f / y y, I II /3 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. ignature an tit e l Date 10/09 Page 2 of 5 15 CITY ()F COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 4401 State Highway 6 South 10-00500127 REQUEST: Sign Variances 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 requests. However, if the Board feels that UDO regulations for traffic control directional signage are overly restrictive in this situation owing to the presence of an emergency room, Staff suggests allowing emergency information to exceed maximum standards identified in the Site Design Standards regarding non - visible signage. ift 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. One of the variance requests is specifically for the proposed low- profile sign that will replace the existing freestanding sign on Lot 6. Low - profile signs may be a maximum of 4 feet in height and 60 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a 3 -foot variance which will allow the proposed sign to be 7 feet in height. As proposed the sign would be less than 42 square feet in area. Additional variance requests are being made to allow the applicant to increase height, area, and percentage of copy of the traffic control directional signs which may be 4 feet in height, 3 square feet in area, and a maximum of 50% copy or logo. Traffic control directional signs are intended to show entrance, exits, drive -thru locations, and other information of this kind. The development is already utilizing the non - visible signage option which has established a smaller -scale wayfinding system for the existing buildings. However, the applicant is requesting to extend this use to provide a campus -style wayfinding system within the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 4 -foot 8 -inch variance to the height of the Entrance Directional Sign (EDR) making that sign 8 feet 8 inches in height. Also being requested is a 6 -foot 4 -inch variance to the height of the Vehicular Directional Sign (VDR) making that sign 10 feet 4 inches in height. The applicant is requesting a variance to the area of both signs. Specifically, the applicant is seeking a 39- square foot variance to the EDR making it 42 square feet, and a 28- square foot variance to the VDR making it 31 square feet in area. In addition, the applicant is seeking that the percentage of copy on EDR and VDR not be limited to 50 %. The applicant is not proposing an alternate percentage limitation. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.4.F "Sign Standards" states that low- profile signs may be a maximum of 4 -feet in height. It also allows for traffic control directional signs to be 4 feet in height and 3 square feet in area. Section 7.41 states that traffic control directional signs may contain no more than 50% copy or logo. 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. 17 in i I �. l �' �.' \I 1 Y }'. � TV" M1 �. x 1 L i Fr C 3 .46 77 - f1 - , f: 12 U . 4 Lr hl t= iz QH hJ A L: 8 73 :N M 'm 4 {t 11 :_l rr n n i3, L� Li _� �� }� I I I I I I nL L3 � IL il � ir i cry LU (jD LU LU LLJ CL LU LU C1 I III 19 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: July 6, 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. 20 The traffic control direction 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 for fonts that are considered non - visible according to the Site Design Standards to be exempt for permitting. It is Staff's position that the non - visible signage ordinance allows for an adequate way- finding system. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: These variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. If the variances were not granted, the applicant would still be able to utilize a 4 -foot tall low profile sign and reduce the font size on the traffic control directional signs to make them exempt from permitting; therefore, it is staff's opinion that the variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. 3. Substantial detriment: The granting of these variances 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 variances 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 states that the proposed low- profile sign along State Highway 6 is a backup sign to the one located at Healthpoint Drive, and is intended to direct emergency traffic into the facility. Currently, if the entrance is missed, traffic will be forced to drive back to Rock Prairie Road and make the loop again to William D. Fitch Parkway or to the State Highway 6 access road. This detour takes several minutes to complete. The applicant believes that the area, copy area, and height of allowed traffic control directional signs are not sufficient to provide a successful way- finding system due to visibility of signs being impaired by parked vehicles. It is Staff's opinion that there is not a strong hardship in this case. The applicant could increase the width of the proposed low- profile sign to adjust the font size to increase visibility. Also, the font on the traffic control directional signage could be reduced to enable the signs to qualify as non - visible signage. 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 21 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. The applicant can utilize a 4 -foot tall low- profile sign and reduce the font size on the traffic control directional signs to make them exempt from permitting. ALTERNATIVES In lieu of granting a variance to the traffic control directional signs, Staff suggests that the applicant utilize the option for exempt non - visible signage as regulated only by the Site Design Standards. The height, area, or percentage of copy or logo of non - visible signage is not regulated, but font sizes are restricted to a maximum based on their distance from a right -of- way or abutting property. This Board may provide Staff with direction to allow emergency information to exceed these maximum standards regarding non - visible signage. This maximum should not to exceed a 12 -inch font size which is the largest font that can qualify as non - visible signage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance because the hardship provided by the applicant is not restricted to this site alone. Similar situations will occur on the neighboring properties and across State Highway 6 South. However, if the Board feels that UDO regulations for traffic control directional signage are overly restrictive in this situation owing to the presence of an emergency room, Staff recommends that the possible alternative mentioned above be considered. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Applicant's Variance Request 3. Sign Graphics (provided in packet) 4. Sign Placement Plan (provided in packet) 22 V/�� C1 or U� -j r,.,n, ,, :�° POR OFF+C +...- +j d TIME. i STA= F: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MIJIAIMUM SU&MITTAL REQUIREMEKTS: C' T,250 ZonlnQ Poard of Ad]- uso Application Foe. ICI Application completed ir, full. Thi-a application form provided Irf:he City of Coilo2e Sta{ion must be owed and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attactL pages if additional information is provided. G Additional materials may be required of the a such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign cdelails, and ftaor plans. The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required. Date of Optional Preak;licatioi� Oonferen; o A - ' - - -' -- ADDRESS _ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION! (Lot, 6;ock, SubdiWsion) Lt 5 & I -M. Elk f, Sir o?q Creek Co m uns Lt9A -i & 9A -2, 3 M M ° APPLICANTlPROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Prima ry cantaLl forih° projEod): Nerve MiTGFELL & MORGAN, LL CIO VE A MORGAN C -mail Lr��rritc rar fl7ax{r��orr� e r�.aprra Street Address 511 ?r JIIF TY Tj.RjVF PAST. StPTF 204 City f OLLEGE STAPON Stage TEXAS Zip Code 778 PhonQ Numbe• {979 960-6963 Fax Number OM 2$0-3'664 PROPERTY OWMER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be tcentified. Please attach an adiA Dnal shee, [or - nUltipler owners)• d'tiof3fkfovvk� 1' C-4, Name 5t. )as h F agrorar�lhr lflr Gerat�rCarCJ l7adaU F -mall dFlpiR); O- foseph.oxy StreetAddre83 City BRYAN State TEXA Zip Cade MO2 PhDne Number 0979) 7715-53 16 Fix Numbw WA Ulrent zunijq of subject property G- WITH DIV Action regaested {check all Not apply); I I Applicable ordinance seslion to var }front: I I ,appeal of %'*ilten Inte , ❑ Special Exception F Drainage Variance ❑ Oil1er 101LI age 9 or o 23 Setback varianae PQrking varfanco U Sign variarlce ❑ Lot dim+3nFinn variance Applicable ordinance seslion to var }front: I I ,appeal of %'*ilten Inte , ❑ Special Exception F Drainage Variance ❑ Oil1er 101LI age 9 or o 23 t+F,i,f1Ai- VARlA?4Cl; REQUIFST 9_7ileiblluwlnl epeaift,vpriallonttwl1heordhimceIsreq ueAed: g.. This vwjartce 4 n uwo►y duo (a 1ha fnIlmiAng spool annditlons, gptelal Cundllian OAnItton. To ju99lfy g waHillim, the d ulty ntu9t be due to unique Orcumitonwe kivoNing the p;lrhirular pmp". ';rte ulryue 6Taurn9lenco mu61 " raWed to a pilyskal chAiaCt riekloattitq pmrwly Itself, rLd to the awr At't parsorral situaliori,'Riie i iltw tarn rogardhns of rnmerahlp, U a variaRw vAl rur witM Uus Zany. 5.3cAn pie: A creek blsectingi 6 W. a geraller bddablo area than Is seem an HUrrounding lob, spealmar, Imes, NOw A wI- de-sac Is a atardard otreet ypat rn Coltege Slatilun. Mlle ehnpR of rlandnrd cd -d tots ar$ Qerimlly not specml c;cmdO SEL.ATTACh'Eb LiETt1F€i, _— ._�.,. - � - - - -- - -- - -- .- a_ Ttm unrucas&ary hardships} invr, ved by mwr lrrg the prl w4nns of the ordnance aMpr 1144 frrmnOuf Ir &fLWiCv Were: - aeclshlp Goflnitim, Time irwtTility to rnal'm reasonabk wm of the lompuriy in a=wd with the Ilterad requlnswmts rif the lour_ The hardship must qe a rll+ect rofiwtt of She special p4ftC'Nun, Eeamplee A hudahlp of 8 fLraak trk;ecting a het adutd t a #iA rinaurtlon of the bulkiable area an the lol„ whan ccmp4et} trr rroiohWN propellas. A_ ThefDllowing altemn5wes to ttwa raquesird vsrFance ore ppsvk1o: SEEATTACH D LEM-R, 5_ rdgs variailwv411 roi t to einmrarryta the puVio intareat by vi tvo o11ha fors V ng lam: n!7 LFTTFn. .. . Thr# OW -Artj tree praaFurraad lhls ePPf(GaQ3q find 09rlfts lhDt ft fact, 8fatad hlgMkP 9 rd exhn`ridR WIMZ.h6d Iraretn AM fare, uorrncr, acrd Cora IM9. !P TNrs APPL=7 PILEV $Y AhryQf4Lf o7HER TNAnr THf= oKWXP Or TNC PROPERTY, rtttrst bo s=> smin d by a power of af[amay sfefianwit Arum Me overar, Jf ff Nu 4 more €raga ana &%ww tw owners nivat sign fha apphroWkft or Ma �*mr alotfomoy_ ff lira owrrar Lu n ra)roFuerry r'hi� ap rCpffon must bo accarrrAa, by ,proof of aptfrority for [frc cornvmf?y'S repwerrWo to rz n the appr -Viorl err & bNhS .! rrNtleri- nr1d VM bath F age 2 YM 24 A0 mr 0N ((QNIA IN E EL1 N me. MP k ATOREE s PRg mE B & Q O DA7 D W, ac& hAEDO eetAd dem R Q . BOX 46 2 Oy BRY Sb@ TRx.as Zip Code 778D6 i dress— O IBABCA 2� mmrA«« -1 a . / � � 1 41F OB I atGr "aNProiM ML(,' QFna[JeSa TWO FaxMu ORS Na me F ITGH $ PAD. LLQ Qo — IDAVI D m. S . CA RMARDO . g_a dmG PO BO\#mm cit RKAN @am . Texas . PCo Qg5_ R99 Ad6ress O lRRSCARUARDQ Fitch at § Pad,} J C Ggnatmvald Title, x mfr ( @ 7Zy -525 (E / / /./ Date 25 St. Joseph Health Center Campus Sign Package Variance Request June 24, 2010 Plat Restrictions A Preliminary Plat for the Spring Creek Commons area was approved by the City of College Station in 2008. On this approved Preliminary Plat there is a designation of a building plot which contains the following lots: Lot 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13 Block 1. Through this designation, these lots must share signage as a single building plot. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sign Regulations Given the platted sign restrictions and the UDO regulations, these parcels of land (Lot 6, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision and Lots 9A -1, 9A -2, 11A, 12A & 13A, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons — Phase 3 Subdivision are allowed by right the following signage: • One (1) Freestanding Sign on SH6 frontage road meeting the Freestanding Sign Regulations (7.4.N.7.b) • If the Freestanding sign area does not exceed 200 square feet, each pad site may have a low profile sign. (Section 7.4.N.10.) • Attached building signage meeting the Attached Signage Regulations • Vehicular Directional Signs on site M. Joseph Health Center Campus Sign Package As shown in the sign graphics submitted, St. Joseph has indicated that there are four (4) new signs that are being submitted for permit along with the removal of one existing sign located at the drive entrance to the Urgent Care facility. There are three of these signs that are the discussion of this variance case and are as follows: 1. Low Profile Sign (CH-1) This site will be utilizing the 200 square foot limitation on the Freestanding Sign (Section 7.4.N.10) in order to allow each pad site to have a low profile sign. Given this and the proposed sign location on the attached site plan, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would allow the following: • Maximum Height Allowed: 4 feet • Maximum Sign Area Allowed: 60 square feet The current sign as designed is as follows: • Height Requested = 7 feet • Sign Area Requested = 49 square feet 2. Vehicular Direction Signs (EDR) The UDO does allow for a sign exemption for a sign "not easily identified from beyond NET 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 Maximum Copy Height 75 feet 1 inch 150 feet 2 inch 225 feet 3 inch 300 feet 4 inch 375 feet 5 inch 900 feet 12 inch The EDR sign will be located approximately 47 feet from the common property line between Lots 9A -1, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision — Phase 3 and Lot 10, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons - Phase 4 Subdivision. These lots are more commonly known as the St. Joseph Medical Office Building lot and the Lowe's lot. The sign is also located adjacent to Healthpoint 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 Healthpoint 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: 8' -8" • Sign area requested: 41.2 square feet 3. Vehicular Identification Sign (VDR) The general discussion above regarding the regulations for the EDR sign are those that would apply to the VDR sign as well. The VDR sign will be located approximately 313 feet from the common property line between Lots 9A -1, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision — Phase 3 and Lot 10, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons - Phase 4 Subdivision, the St. Joseph Medical Office Building lot and the Lowe's lot. The sign is located internal to the St. Joseph Health Center Campus. The sign is oriented so that the copy is facing in a north/south direction toward WD Fitch (SH40), but is intended 27 for vehicles traveling internally within the campus. The edge of pavement for WD Fitch (SH40) is approximately 1250 feet from the sign. According to the site design guideline table, the maximum size copy on the sign can be no larger than 3 inches to not be visible from the property boundary, which is 313 feet away. If the sign is regulated by proximity to a public right -of -way, the maximum height of copy on the sign can be more than 12 inches given the 1250 foot separation distance of the sign from WD Fitch (SH40). The proposed sign has a maximum copy height of 9 -1/2 inches. Therefore the VDR sign is NOT considered an exempt sign, by virtue of its proximity to the property boundary, but would be exempt if only reviewed by its proximity to a public right -of -way. Again, because it does not fall into the category of an exempt sign, it is regulated 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: 34.2 square feet Variance Request We would request the following variances to the attached sign package: • A variance of 3 feet to the height requirement for the low profile sign (CMI) (Section 7.4.F.) • A variance of 4' -8" to the height requirement for the entrance directional sign (EDR) & copy is more than 50% of the sign area. (Section 7.4.F. & L.) • A variance of 3 8.2 square feet to the area requirement for the entrance directional sign (EDR) (Section 7.4.F.) • A variance of 6' -4" to the height requirement for the vehicular directional sign (VDR) & copy is more than 50% of the sign area. (Section 7.4.F. & L.) • A variance of 31.2 square feet to the area requirement for the vehicular directional sign (VDR) (Section 7.4.F.) CMI SIGN Special Conditions: (unique circumstances involving the particular property - related to the physical characteristic of the property) Due to the proliferation and width of the public utility easements along the SH6 frontage road along with the width of the right -of -way, the low profile sign must be pulled approximately 75 feet away from the edge of pavement, making visibility from a distance difficult at best. The distance from the right -of -way of SH6 frontage road to the pavement edge is approximately 47 feet. Then beyond that right -of -way line (or property line) there are two easements which overlay each other. One is a 20 foot Powerline Easement and the other a 15 foot Water & Sewer Easement, thus severely restricting the ability for signage to be located proximate to the travel way. Hardship: The fact that the sign indicates the location of a 24 hour Emergency Room facility makes it extremely important to see at a distance. This sign is the "backup" sign to the Freestanding Sign located at Healthpoint Drive. It must be obvious and visible to the traveling public that there is one additional entrance for the 24 hour Emergency Room facility. When faced with an emergency, drivers are typically distracted and need help finding their way. If a driver does not see the first sign and fails to turn at Healthpoint Drive there is this second drive to allow them to get to emergency treatment. Given the distance from the pavement edge to the sign (47 feet) it is important that this sign be tall enough to see, thus the 7 foot height request. If a driver fails to see this sign their only recourse is to continue to Rock Prairie Road (Barron in the near future) and a -turn to come back to the facility. The thoroughfare system in this area of College Station is young and there are not any additional streets on which to turn around and travel back to your missed destination. In an emergency situation this additional time could be critical. EDR & VDR SIGNS' 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. 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 Campus site plan has minimal allowable driveway locations on SH6 frontage road and Lakeway Drive and utilizes a private roadway ( Healthpoint 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. In addition, the outparcel Lot 9A -2 will contain a building which may also block the visibility of the EDR sign from the SH6 frontage road. Until a site plan is submitted for Lot 9A -2 this visibility or lack thereof cannot be determined. 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. 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 29 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 these variances would be to meet the ordinance. This would place the low profile sign at the Urgent Care facility at 4 feet tall and limit its visibility. Alternatives to the VDR and EDR signs are to not place them or have copy for the Emergency Room only, due to size limitations. Due to the severe limitations on size of the sign there is no effective way to accomplish wayfinding on this campus. Variance is not Contrary to Public Interest: The sign variances requested are not significant enough to distract the traveling public. In fact, the height variance for the CMI sign makes the sign more visible and allows for greater reaction time by the driver to make safer maneuvers on the SH6 frontage road. In addition, the internal wayfinding signage also 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. The aesthetics of the sign package is also enhanced with the rock base and the architectural features of the sign. Without the rock base we could lower the sign by a little over a foot but the aesthetics would not be comparable. 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. 30