HomeMy WebLinkAboutSign Board of Appeals-Minutes-5/8/2012City of Colleyville
City Hall
Sign Board of Appeals
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Minutes
817. 503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Tuesday, May 8, 2012City Council Chambers
Call to Order
The Sign Board of Appeals meeting of the City of Colleyville was called to order by Board
member McNosky on May 8, 2012 at 7:30p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Board members John Okray, Skip Reynolds, Jim Gotcher, Michael Dunham
(Alternate 2) and Dee McNosky
Absent: Board membersTracy Doyle and Eric Hulet (Alternate 1)
Staff Present:Ron Ruthven and Amy Shelley
1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Gotcher moved to approve the March 13, 2012 meeting
minutes as written. Board member McNosky seconded.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 –Okray, Reynolds, Gotcher, Dunham and McNosky
2.PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS
2aCase SC12-002 -Request for a variance from the sign regulations for the
placement of a monument sign on Tract 1A01A, Abstract 275 and Tract 1A8,
Abstract 1248 of the Thomas J Christian Survey located at 4608 Colleyville
Boulevard
Amy Shelley presented the case and briefed the Board members.
Board member McNoskyopened the public hearing at 7:31p.m.
Lynn Bural, representative for the applicant,came forward to present the
case and brief the Board members.
Brent Stone, the property owner of the adjacent business, Kwik Kar, came
forward and stated he would have had concerns about the placement of the
City of Colleyville Page 1
Sign Board of AppealsAgendaMay 8, 2012
proposed monument sign if the sign were to beplaced closer to his
monument sign. He stated having no issues with the location of the proposed
sign as long as it is not close to his existing sign.
Board member Okray questioned Mr. Stone regarding where he would have
an objection to the placement ofthe proposed sign. Mr. Stone stated he
wanted to be assured that his sign would not be blocked.
Board member McNosky questioned staff regarding the placement of the
proposed sign with regard to the driveway. Ron Ruthven replied that the
engineering exhibit provided by the applicant indicates that at some point,
there will be a driveway in that location.
Board member McNosky questioned staff regarding what is the probability
that TxDot will move the driveway so that this business can advertise. Ron
Ruthven replied that the applicant could provide a letter to the Board from
TxDot that indicates that this driveway will not be constructed or the Board
can approve this location of the sign with conditions that if the driveway were
to be constructed, at a later time, then the property owner would have to
remove the sign, or that the sign will have to comply with the code, at that
time.
Board member Okray questioned Mr. Bural regarding if there is another
location on the site where the sign could be moved and not be in violation of
the sign code.Mr. Bural replied that there are parking spaces that it could be
placed in however; those will go away once the new driveway comes in. He
further explained that the engineers have stated that both of the proposed
driveways may not be installed.
Board member Reynolds stated that the applicant may not have the authority
to approve the moving of the location of the sign. Board member McNosky
concurred and stated that if the property owner does not want to comply with
the conditions set forth by the Board members then they will not have to
construct the sign.
Board member Dunham stated that TxDot will do as they so choose.
Mr. Stone came forward and stated that the exhibits indicate that the existing
driveways aredifferent than the proposed by TxDot.
Ron Ruthven explained to the Board members regarding the new property
lines once the right-of-way is taken.
Board member Okray questioned staff regarding if the height of the proposed
monument sign could be raised to takeit out of the visibility triangle. Amy
City of Colleyville Page 2
Sign Board of AppealsAgendaMay 8, 2012
Shelley replied no since the placement of the proposed sign is entirely in the
visibility triangle.
Board member Gotcher stated that with the shrubs and the tree, it will be
impossible to see the monument sign where it is being proposed. Mr. Bural
explained that the landscaping is currently in TxDot right of way so he is sure
that all will be removed.
There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:45
p.m.
Board member Reynolds stated he would feel more comfortable if the
property owner were given more options and time to think about those
options. Board member Okray concurred and stated he would hate for the
Board to deny this request and the applicant has to reapply and repay or have
to appeal this request.
Mr. Bural stated he had hoped that there could be a decision made tonight
since the property owner has waited until he was financially able to construct
a new sign. Board member McNosky concurred and stated that the property
owner has the option not to construct.
Board member McNoskymoved to approve case SC12-002 with the
following condition: upon the relocation/construction of a new
driveway approach serving the property from SH26, such that it
causes said sign to encroach within the visibility triangle defined in
Chapter 7-Sign Regulations in the Land Development Code, the sign in
question shall be removed such that no portion of said sign
encroaches within the visibility triangle. Board member Reynolds
seconded.
Board member Reynolds stated that having something in the visibility
triangles are extremely dangerous.
Board member Gotcher questioned staff regarding if the sign is
constructed, as requested, will it be in the visibility triangle,
currently? Ron Ruthven replied no.
Board member Gotcher stated that the one foot variance is for this
location only. Ron Ruthven concurred.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 4 –Okray, Reynolds, Gotcher, and McNosky
Nay: 1-Dunham
City of Colleyville Page 3
Sign Board of AppealsAgendaMay 8, 2012
3.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:02p.m.
Minutes were written and prepared by:
Amy Shelley
Community Development Coordinator
The meeting minutes were approved on June 12, 2012 by a vote of 5-0.
City of Colleyville Page 4