Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSign Board of Appeals-Minutes-9/14/2004 SIGN BOARD OF APPEAL MINUTES OF MEETING - SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 REGULAR MEETING: Chairman McNosky called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. on September 14, 2004. Roll Call Present: Rich Munson, Skip Reynolds, Dee McNosky, Larry Henry, Ed Moore, Pat Davis Absent: Butch Bercher Staff: Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband, Jan Levy The five voting members for the items on the agenda are: Board Members Rich Munson, Skip Reynolds, Dee McNosky, and Larry Henry and Ed Moore. Approval of Minutes February 10, 2004 Board Member Moore made motion to approve the minutes as written. Board Member Reynolds seconded. The motion passed by acclamation. AQenda Items 1. Case 0-04-019 - PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Guest Monticello Partners Ltd. for a variance from the Sign Regulations regarding a monument sign on Lot 5, Block 2, Towne Square Addition, located at 1205 Hall Johnson Road Clayton Husband presented the case and briefed the board members. Jimmie Archie with Realty Capital Corporation, 32 Village Lane Suite 200 Colleyville- Wants to do one sign instead of each lot doing an individual sign. Chairman Dee McNosky opened the public hearing. Randy Johnson, 5606 Hidden Oaks Drive, Questioned the board if the intent to advertise for building 4 and building 5, for different projects. Chairman McNosky responded the intent is to place all the buildings that are currently there and the two that are proposed. They want to have one sign for all 5 buildings. Mr. Johnson questioned if there is anything in place to prevent offsite advertising. Staff member Barry LeBaron stated current code prohibits any offsite advertising. Business signs can only advertise for what is on that site. The businesses that are off this premise are asking to advertise on this sign because they have no frontage. Mr. Johnson questioned what constitutes a premise. Barry LeBaron stated the platted lot. Mr. Johnson stated as it stands there would be no restrictions for them to go to other buildings at other locations. Barry LeBaron stated only be applicable to businesses on those lots. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman McNosky closed the public hearing. Sign Board of Appeals Minutes - September 14, 2004 Page 1 of 6 Chairman McNosky stated this sign would condense three signs in to one and would look more appeasing. Board member Moore made motion to approve Case G-04-019 with a stipulation stated to limited sign to only those five lots by number. Board member Reynolds seconded. The vote being: Ayes: Munson, Reynolds, McNosky, Henry and Moore Nays: None 2. Case G-04-022 - PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Jesse Schroeder for a variance from the Sign Regulations regarding a monument sign on Lot 2R, Block 2, Towne Square Addition, located at 5708 Colleyville Boulevard Clayton Husband presented the case and briefed the board members. Board member Reynolds questioned staff if all signs meet the current requirements? Clayton Husband stated correct. Board member Moore questioned staff about who owns the property. Clayton Husband stated this property is currently platted with the dental office at the corner. Property has changed hands but this property is the owner of the lot with the building on this particular lot. Board member Moore questioned staff if the requestor has received permission to construct the sign on someone else's property? Clayton Husband responded there is a contingency in the contract to allow for the sign to be constructed. Board member Moore stated he would think the requestor would need approval from the property owner. Clayton Husband responded no objections have been received for this request from the current property owner. Jesse Schroeder, applicant, 1201 Hall Johnson, Colleyville stated there are two parts to the request, one being the sign design and the other being the offsite location. Mr. Schroeder stated they have redesigned the sign to meet the current sign criteria and he provided copies to the Board members. Chairman McNosky stated the 18 inch part would change. Mr. Schroeder stated having copied the sign that was just approved, they have changed the names. Mr. Schroeder stated the other part of the request being the offsite location and provided a current letter from the land owner stating permission to build sign. Mr. Schroeder also stated he wanted to have a new office off of Hwy 26 and wanting signage to face Hwy 26, if he had known he couldn't have a sign, he would not have bought the property. On the sign we put together, there are other names on it other than mine. Chairman McNosky opened the public hearing. Jimmie Archie with Realty Capital Corporation, 32 Village Lane Suite 200 Colleyville- Briefed the Board members with history in reference to the PUD ordinance in 1998. It was our decision to take Hall Johnson Road through the property to extend to Bogart road and knowing then at the time, those businesses behind would need signage for visibility. We are taking the required steps from the PUD ordinance to get the sign approved. Board member Reynolds questioned Mr. Archie if they are wishing to use the existing site that was approved but erect a sign on a location that has not been there before? Mr. Archie Sign Board of AppealsMinutes - September 14, 2004 Page 2 of 6 responded we are using the ordinance that had the proposed location and erect a new sign. Board member Reynolds questioned there had not been a sign there before? Mr. Archie responded no. Board member Reynolds state the location you want to use is the approved site and will Dr. Schroeder be on the sign. Mr. Archie stated yes and two other tenants would be on the sign as well from the Tivoli office park and two tenants in the office building adjacent to ours, Dr. Keith Metger and Colleyville Vision Associates will be participating. Board member Reynolds questioned participating how? Mr. Archie stated by being on the sign. Board member Reynolds questioned who owned the property now? Dr. Schroeder? Mr. Archie responded yes. Board member Reynolds questioned the significance of the letter from the property owner Dr. Schroeder presented. Mr. Archie responded that property owner owns the hard corner lot where the sign would be constructed. The letter is provided to insure the construction of the sign as an agreement made when the properties were being sold. Board member Reynolds questioned again the approved location is the place the sign is to be constructed and the current variance is to allow for other businesses to be placed on the sign, adjacent but not located on the lot. Mr. Archie responded correct. Board member Reynolds questioned why Dr. Schroeder presented the case and not anyone else that would be affected by the use of the sign. Mr. Archie stated he is the one that wants the sign done quickly. Board member Reynolds questioned that all who will be on the sign are all in agreement. Mr. Archie responded correct. Board member Moore stated Dr. Metger and the Colleyville Vision Associates currently have a monument sign. Are they also going to be listed on this sign as well? Mr. Archie stated yes, they want frontage for Hwy 26 as well. Dr. Schroeder replied as well, I do not know if they will leave their current monument sign. Because the sign will be constructed on another property, if they want to have their name on that sign is fine. I am requesting to have the ability to build the sign and if the actual property owner wants to be on the sign, that is fine with me. Board member Moore questioned the property owner adjacent to Dr. Schroeder, is that you? Dr. Schroeder stated no, I only own my building. Board member Moore questioned if Dr. Schroeder would be the only tenant in the building? Dr. Schroeder stated yes, only me. Board member Moore stated that some of these tenants would have dual signage because the previous sign approved tonight contained some of those tenants. Mr. Archie stated correct, however, the signs serve two different purposes, visibility for Hwy 26 and the sign in the back would be for directory only. Board member Moore questioned staff if dual signage would be allowed? Barry LeBaron responded that each lot can have its own monument sign, therefore there could potentially be 6 monument signs here and the corner lot would be allowed 2. However, they are trying to only have all businesses on 2 monument signs. Board member Moore stated they want 3 monument signs all with the same names on them. Board member Reynolds stated the one monument sign, previously approved, is on a different street. Chairman McNosky stated they do have a monument sign on Hall Johnson Road; however, the applicant wants to have the monument sign on Colleyville Boulevard as well. But, they could have had six signs. Board member Moore stated the two lots in the back are the same as the sign approved in the case previously, correct? Chairman McNosky stated correct, those tenants could have had their own sign, but wants to be on these monument signs instead. Board member Munson stated the one we just approved is for 5 buildings, correct? And the Sign Board of Appeals Minutes - September 14, 2004 Page 3 of 6 request now is for 6 buildings, correct? Dr. Schroeder stated correct, in 1998 the City Council approved the PUD-C for Tivoli office park with the signage proposed, we are simply trying to get the approval for this sign. Board member Reynolds questioned staff about the pictures presented. Board member Munson questioned if there is an existing sign? Mr. Archie stated currently there is not a sign. Dr. Schroeder stated he is the one to spear head this request because he understood when he purchased the property a sign could be constructed. George Jenson, 1211 Wyndham Hill Lane, Southlake, we also purchased lot 3 adjacent to Hall Johnson and Hwy 26 and understood we would have signage. We endorse support for this request. Don Welch, 1005 Dogwood Court, subdivision directly behind - president of the HOA, and stated having an issue with the location of this sign and all 16 people on the petition were opposed to the placement of the sign. They are concerned with the issue of safety and will how the sign will obstruct the view of the intersection. The current code states placement of such sign should be 25 feet off of each road; however, in this case, it will be up against the side walk, therefore, not meeting that requirement. This 12 foot wide sign will obstruct the view. The aesthetics will not look good as well, 4 signs in too short of an area creates "sign pollution." Jeff Dicen, 909 Dogwood Court - An additional concern is that people not knowing where to go will be looking at signs, not following directions. Dr. Schroeder stated new patients do not currently have a sign to know where to go. Randy Johnson, 5606 Dogwood Court - Stated Dr. Schroeder's name is in big letters on the second floor and concur with Don Welch of the safety issue. It will become cluttered and I think the visibility is there for Dr. Schroeder. Jeff Dicen stated again there is visibility from Hwy 26. Dr. Schroeder stated looking right at the building you can not see what is there. Mr. Archie stated once again that in 1998, we always understood were the sign would go and it is included in the ordinance. Pat Batten - Stated this is an excellent idea, personally, I know how important it is to have signage. I feel the signs are very attractive. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman McNosky closed the public hearing. Board member Munson stated according to photos the proposed spot where the sign is to be placed, is well off from the intersection and not having seen the proposals for Hwy 26, where is the future ROW? Barry LeBaron stated they had dedicated an extra 10 feet. Normally, this side of the street would not require a deceleration lane needing the extra feet. Board member Munson stated a car in that last parking space would create just as much a safety issue as would a sign; however, the sign would be placed far enough back. Sign Board of Appeals Minutes - September 14, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Board member Reynolds questioned staff if the proposed sign would have the same set back requirements as the signs already in place? Barry LeBaron responded that because this proposed sign would be constructed on the corner, it would probably have more set back requirements. Staff considers all issues about sign placement, whether the visibility triangles are acceptable, and in this case it is. Board member Reynolds stated that a sign could be constructed as long as it is in compliance with the sign requirements. Barry LeBaron stated correct. Board member Reynolds stated the ordinance already states the sign was approved and who could revoke that decision? Barry LeBaron stated the property owner could. However, the permission exists for the sign to be constructed. Chairman McNosky questioned staff if this request will go before City Council? Barry LeBaron stated correct. Board member Bercher stated having discussed this numerous times and this seems to be reasonable request and recommends approval of this case. Board member Reynolds questioned staff as to why this would need to go to City Council. Barry LeBaron responded stating the 1998 ordinance states the sign would have to be approved by the Sign Board of Appeals and City Council. However, since then, the City Council has given the Sign Board of Appeals the authority to approve such requests. But, because of the wording of the ordinance, staff recommended taking to Sign Board of Appeals and City Council for approval. Board member Reynolds stated clarification of Barry LeBaron's statement. Board member Munson questioned staff for clarity if the property owner of the corner of Hall Johnson and Hwy 26 could also build a monument sign? However, the applicant stated the owner of the property on the corner of Hall Johnson and Hwy 26 was going to be listed on the sign, why would that property owner need to build separate sign? Barry LeBaron stated we are talking about the same sign. Board member Munson concurred. Board member Bercher made motion to approve case G-04-022 as modified by the petitioner. Board member Munson seconded. The vote being: Ayes: Munson, Reynolds, McNosky, Henry and Moore Nays: None CITIZEN COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Board member Bercher made motion to adjourn. Board member Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Sign Board of Appeals Minutes - September 14, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Amy Shelley Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: December 14,2004 Note: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of this Sign Board of Appeals meeting is available upon request. Sign Board of Appeals Minutes - September 14, 2004 Page 6 of 6