[1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 PM]
[00:00:02]
HEY, THIS IS CHRIS TAYLOR AND I'M GONNA START OUR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ON APRIL THE NINTH AT 6:00 PM SO FIRST WE'LL GO TO OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALRIGHT, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TWO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY, JUSTICE, HONOR, THE TEXAS FLAG PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS.
ONE AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, MOMENT OF SILENCE.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO ON TO NUMBER TWO.
IS THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TODAY? NOPE.
I'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I SEE NO VISITORS OR ANYBODY FROM THE
[4. CONSENT AGENDA]
PUBLIC TODAY.SO WE'LL UH, MOVE ON TO A CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE THE MINUTES IN THE PAST.
SO CAN I GET, UH, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? MAKE A MOTION APPROVE.
ALRIGHT, IF YOU'LL PUSH THAT LITTLE BUTTON ON THERE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE YAY TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR
[5.A. Consider a request for variances to Unified Development Code Sections 9-7(C)(3)(b) and 9-7(C)(4)(a) to allow a second freestanding sign on the property and to allow two freestanding signs to be located approximately 100 feet apart, where a minimum separation of 200 feet is required, on the property located at 36 Old San Antonio Road.]
THE MINUTES.ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR ITEM, UH, FIVE A.
THIS IS TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS NINE SEVEN C3 B AND NINE SEVEN C FOUR A TO ALLOW A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND TO ALLOW TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET APART, WHERE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 200 FEET IS REQUIRED ON THE PROPERTY.
LOCATED AT 36 OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD.
ALRIGHT, DO I HEAR FROM THE CITY? ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING.
I AM WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND AGENDA FIVE A AS OUR CHAIR READ IS A REQUEST FOR TWO SIGN VARIANCES TONIGHT.
UH, THE LOCATION IS 36 OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD.
UM, THE CURRENT USES A RESTAURANT L CHAPARRAL CO CINA EINA, UH, PATRICK SMILEY.
THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS EVENING DUE TO A PERSONAL MATTER, THE PROPERTY ZONE C3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND LIES WITHIN THE HERITAGE CORRIDOR OVERLAY.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR VARIANCES TO UDC SECTION NINE DASH SEVEN C3 B AND NINE DASH SEVEN C FOUR A.
SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND APPROVAL TO PLACE THE SECOND.
THE TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET APART OR 200 FEET IS REQUIRED.
THIS STREET VIEW FROM OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD SHOWS THE FRONTAGE CONDITIONS AT THE SITE.
STAFF NOTED SEVERAL FRONTAGE CON CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING THE IRREGULAR SITE CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION, UH, RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION, PLATTED LANDSCAPE AREA IN THE FRONT, AND DRAINAGE AND DETENTION FEATURES.
STAFF ALSO NOTED THAT SOME OF THE SIGN PLACEMENT CONSTRAINTS ARE PARTLY SELF-IMPOSED BASED ON PRIOR SITE DESIGN, UM, DECISIONS.
SO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE THE RESTAURANT WERE, UM, CONSISTENT OR THE SAME AS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AND PLATTED.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A RESTAURANT AND HAS ONE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN.
THE EXISTING SIGN IS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET TALL WITH A SIGN FACE OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET HIGH BY NINE FEET WIDE.
IT'S SET BACK ABOUT 54 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN AND THE PROPOSED SECOND SIGN LOCATION.
THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS NEAR THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OFF OF OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD WITHIN THE GRASSED AREA BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE LANDSCAPED EMBA EMBANKMENT OF THE RETENTION POND.
UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE, BUT RIGHT HERE IS WHERE THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN IS AND THEN THEIR PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE SECOND SIGN WILL BE IN BETWEEN THIS.
UM, THIS IS THE, THE OH THE EMBANKMENT OF THE RETENTION POND AND UM, THIS IS JUST THE GRASSY AREA IN BETWEEN.
[00:05:01]
BE SOMEWHERE THERE IS WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING.THE PROPOSED SIGN IS A SINGLE-SIDED NON ILLUMINATED POST AND PANEL SIGN.
IT IS PROPOSED TO BE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT WITH A SIX FOOT BY FOUR FOOT SIGN FACE TOTALING 24 SQUARE FEET AND ABOUT FOUR FEET OF VERTICAL CLEARANCE FROM GRADE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN.
SO THESE PROPOSED SIGN DETAILS ARE CONSISTENT WITH, UH, CHAPTER NINE OF OUR SIGNAGE REGULATIONS IN THE UDC.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE TWO CODE STANDARDS INVOLVED.
THE PROPERTY HAS ABOUT, UH, 339.5 SQUARE FEET OF FRONTAGE, SO IT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A SECOND FREE STANDING SIGN UNDER SECTION NINE DASH SEVEN C3 B.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING RELIEF FROM SECTION NINE DASH SEVEN C FOUR A BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SECOND SIGN, UM, IF ALLOWED, WOULD BE ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE EXISTING SIGN WHERE A 200 FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED.
UH, THESE ARE BEING PRESENTED TOGETHER BECAUSE BOTH VARIANCES APPLY TO THE SAME PROPOSED SIGN AND WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED, UH, BOTH APPROVED FOR THE REQUEST TO MOVE FORWARD.
STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AGAINST THE FIVE VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE UDC FOR THE FIRST FINDING.
ALTHOUGH THE SITE HAS FRONTAGE CONSTRAINTS, STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF A SITE CONDITION THAT WOULD PREVENT RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN OR REPLACEMENT WITH A COMPLIANCE SIGN RATHER THAN REQUESTING A SECOND SIGN AND REDUCED SEPARATION FOR THE SECOND FINDING.
WHILE THE SITE FRONTAGE IS AFFECTED BY SITE CONFIGURATION, DRIVEWAY ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION, PLOTTED LANDSCAPE AREA AND DRAINAGE DETENTION FEATURES, STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THESE CONDITIONS NECESSITATE A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN.
UM, FOR THE THIRD FINDING, THE CURRENT OWNERS DEVELOP THE SITE AND THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
FOR THE FOURTH FINDING, THE PROPOSED SECOND SIGN WOULD REMAIN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WOULD SERVE THE SAME ONSITE RESTAURANT RESTAURANT USE WITH NO APPARENT INTERFERENCE WITH ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY.
UH, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS, UM, CRITERIA IS MET.
AND THEN FINALLY, FOR THE FIFTH FINDING, THE REQUEST SEEKS RELIEF FROM BOTH THE NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS ALLOWED AND THE REQUIRED SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FREESTANDING SIGNS, WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH A CHAPTER'S INTENT TO MAINTAIN UNIFORM SIGN STANDARDS AND MINIMIZE VISUAL CLUTTER.
UH, BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN UDC, SECTION TWO 10, E FOUR C STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUEST MEETS THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST.
THESE ARE YOUR MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, IF THE COMMITTEE DENIES THE REQUEST, THE MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE REASONS FOR DENIAL WITH REFERENCE TO THE APPLICABLE UC UDC STANDARDS.
UH, THAT'S MY PRESENTATION AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY SAFETY ISSUES WITH VEHICLES DRIVING OR VISIBILITY BLOCKAGE BY THAT SIGN BEING IN THAT LOCATION OR THE PROPOSED LOCATION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
WHEN I DID A SITE VISIT AND UH, DROVE BY IT SEVERAL TIMES, IT IS SET BACK QUITE A WAYS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, AND THE RIGHT OF, AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY AT THIS POINT.
I'M THINKING IF I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, OF COURSE,
DO I HAVE A ANY MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, DENY THE REQUEST BASED UPON, UM, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE, UM, BEING UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, DOES NOT MEET THAT HARDSHIP, NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
UM, AND GIVEN THE REASONS THERE FOR THE CRITERIA, NO ADVERSE IMPACT.
AND WE WANNA KEEP IN HAR HARMONY WITH THE UDC INTENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SO THEN WE'LL GO ON TO, UH, ALL IN FAVOR AND I DON'T
[00:10:01]
HAVE ANYTHING POPPING UP ON MINE.SO DO WE HAVE A BUTTON THERE? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE UH, TWO NAYS AND, ALRIGHT.
AND GO AHEAD AND VOTE IF IT ASKS YOU.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I THINK EVERYBODY'S PUSHED THEIR BUTTONS FROM OVER HERE.
SO THE MOTION TO DENY HAS PASSED, UH, FOR THE REASONS STATED.
ANY OTHER FURTHER OR FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, ANY COMMENTS FROM, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL? ALRIGHT, THEN WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.