Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-11/13/2012 City of Colleyville City Hall Sign Board of Appeals 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Minutes 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Tuesday, November 13, 2012City Council Chambers Call to Order The Sign Board of Appealsmeeting of the City of Colleyville was called to order by Board member McNoskyon November 13, 2012 at 7:27p.m. Roll Call Present: Board members Piers Chance, Jason Elms, Mike Leathers, Judson Orlando (Alternate 2), Mark Collier (Alternate 1), and Dee McNosky Absent: Board memberJohn Okray Staff Present:Ron Ruthven and Amy Shelley 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member McNosky moved to approve the September 11, 2012 meeting minutes as written. Board member Chance seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 –Chance, Elms, Leathers, Orlando, Collier and McNosky 2.PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 2aCase SC12-011 –Request for a variance from the sign regulations regarding a monument sign on Lot 1A, Block 1, of the Northeast Professional Park, located at 5301 Colleyville Boulevard Amy Shelley presented the case and briefed the Board members. Board member McNosky opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Jim Lewis, representing the property owners, came forward to present the case and brief the Board members. Adam O’Mary, the sign contractor, came forward and further briefed the Board members. City of Colleyville Page 1 Sign Board of AppealsMinutesNovember 13, 2012 Board member McNosky questioned Mr. Lewis and Mr. O’Maryif the height requirement was to allow for more tenants on the sign. Mr. Lewis replied correct. He further stated they planned on building more office spaces and would need the signage to accommodate the growth. Board member McNosky questioned staff if this site qualified for more than one monument sign because there would be more than one building. Ron Ruthven replied that all of the tenants at this site could all be placed on one sign without a variance. He further explained that if the sign was located at a different address, the sign would be considered off-premise. Board member Chance questioned staff if the variance was for height only. He also questioned the exhibits, the original sign indicates eight (8) feet, the application indicates ten (10) feet, and the drawing indicates fourteen (14) feet in height. Ron Ruthven replied that the request is for a twelve (12) feet height variance. He also stated there was also a request for a reduced set back. Board member Chance questioned the amendment to twelve (12) feet on the agenda. Ron Ruthven replied correct. Board member Elms questioned Mr. Lewis and Mr. O’Mary if it was possible to have three (3) columns on the sign versus having only two. Mr. O’Mary stated having three (3) columns decreased the area for lettering. Board member Elms stated that by removing the columns on the outside of the sign there would be enough room to accommodate three (3) columns.Ron Ruthven stated that the columns on the sides and the base of the sign were required, by ordinance, to be eighteen (18) inches. Board member Chances questioned staff that the issue was eight (8) feet versus twelve (12) feet. Ron Ruthven replied correct. Mr. O’Mary drew an exhibit for the Board members to show what Board member Elms was suggesting. Board member Chance stated the request was not regarding width but was regarding height. Board member Elms said he understood but he was trying to look at it a different way. Board member McNosky rephrased what Board member Elms was trying to say to Mr. O’Mary. Mr. O’Mary drew another exhibit for the Board members to reflect what Board Member McNosky stated. Mr. O’Mary stated it would be feasible to make the sign wider versus making it taller. He further explained by doing so, you would lose visible signage if a vehicle were to park next to the sign. Board member McNosky stated this has been an issue in past cases for signage to be lost due to vehicles parking next to the signs. Board member McNosky further stated that as a consumer driving down the street signs tend to be crowded with businesses and can become difficult to read. City of Colleyville Page 2 Sign Board of AppealsMinutesNovember 13, 2012 Board member Leathers questioned staff, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. O’Mary if there was a possibility to place the sign at the driveway entrance off of State Highway 26 versus the proposed location. He suggested that this would eliminate vehicles parking beside the sign. Board member McNosky replied that the sign could not be placed where it would block visibility of the street. Mr. Lewis stated that they had previously contacted TxDot possibly placing a sign in the area in question. Mr. Lewis said TxDot would not allow for a sign to be placed anywhere in the turn radius. Board member Leathers questioned Mr. Lewis if he could place a sign on either side of the property. Ron Ruthven replied the city of Colleyville Land Development Code allows only for one monument sign per two hundred and fifty (250) feet of roadway frontage. He further stated the property in question currently has two hundred and twenty five (225) feet of frontage on State Highway 26. He also stated they would only be allowed one monument sign and to be compliant with the Land Development Code it would have to stay outside of the twenty five (25) foot visibility triangle. Board member Leathers questioned Mr. Lewis regarding the trees on the property line and whether or not they would block the view of the sign. Mr. Lewis replied the trees were being trimmed at a later date to allow for visibility of the sign. Board member Chance questioned staff if there was any other height, in between the existing eight (8) feet and the requested twelve (12) feet, considered. Ron Ruthven stated that he could not speak for the applicant but that he believed that the applicant were wanting to attempting to obtain the same height as the neighboring properties sign, which is twelve (12) feet in height and slightly larger. He further stated that the neighboring property had also asked for a variance but was denied by the sign board and was later appealed and approved by city council. Mr. O’Mary provided the Board with measurements he had taken of the neighboring properties sign so that they could emulate it. Board member McNosky closed the public hearing at 7:58p.m. Board member Elmsmoved to approve case SC12-011 with the approval of the placement and the off-premise request.Board member Chanceseconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 –Chance, Elms, Leathers, Collier and McNosky City of Colleyville Page 3 Sign Board of AppealsMinutesNovember 13, 2012 3.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Minutes were written and prepared by: Amy Shelley Community Development Coordinator The meeting minutes were approved on December 11, 2012 by a vote of 5-0. City of Colleyville Page 4