Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout359-BADATE: September 29,1993 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Planning Division REQUESTED Consider a request for a variance to allow an owner ACTION: identification sign with a height of 65 feet. Section 30-28 C.3. restricts such signs to a height of 50 feet. A variance may be permitted under Section 30-37 E.3. *STAFF REPORT* STAFF RECOMMENDATION FILE 359-BA Staff recommends approval of a variance granting an additional six (6) feet above the maximum allowable sign height of 59 feet for the sign in question. This figure is derived by measuring from the crown of IH-10, directly across said sign. The variance will permit the sign to be no more than 65 feet above the crown of IH-10 or an actual height of 74 feet, as measured from the base. (Elevations are included in Attachment A.) PROJECT INFORMATION LaQuinta Inns, Inc., has requested the variance so that a new owner identification pylon sign can be constructed in front of their motel at 220 IH-10 N. at Laurel. This new sign will reflect the design, style and motif of a major LaQuinta "image enhancement" program for most of their motels in the United States. LaQuinta Inns has requested that the height be measured from the crown of either the College or Laurel Street overpass. Staff is recommending the proposed sign height be measured from the crown of the interstate directly across from same. The city regulations restrict owner identification signs to a maximum height of 50 feet. The proposed sign will be 65 ft. in height, as measured from the crown of 1-10, and will be constructed on the same base as the present sign. Exhibits are attached. FILE 359-BA Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILITIES APPLICANT: Christopher C. Gilmore PROPERTY OWNER: LaQuinta Motor Inns, Inc. STATUS OF Owner Prospective Buyer APPLICANT: Tenant X Other (Attorney for owner) LOCATION: 220 IH-10 N. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A 2.324 acre tract out of Tract 57, Tax Plat C-6, N. Tevis Survey, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas EXISTING ZONING: GC - MD (General Commercial Multiple -Family Dwelling District) FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: X C (Minimal) B (Moderate) A (100 Year) Floodway SIZE OF PROPERTY: 2.324 acres EXISTING LAND USES: Motel SURROUNDING USES: SURROUNDING ZONING: NORTH: Commercial GC -MD (General Commercial Multiple Family Dwelling District) EAST: Heavy Commercial GC -MD (east of 14th St.) SOUTH: Commercial & Industrial HI (Heavy Industrial District) WEST, IH-10 N, GC -MD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Activity Corridor (114-10) OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES: None FILE 359-BA Page 3 GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILITIES continued. STREETS: The motel fronts the IH-10 N. northbound service road on the east side of the highway and abuts the north side of Laurel Avenue, a major arterial street at this location. DRAINAGE: N/A WATER: N/A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE: N/A FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by Station #7, 1700 MeFaddin. ADEQUACY OF SERVICE: Services are adequate. The Board of Adjustment is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all of the following conditions have been met: CONDITION A: That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. CONDITION 13: That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional -narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions. CONDITION C: That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. FILE 359-BA Condition A: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Recently completed highway construction and existing power line poles have resulted in a partial sight obstruction of the existing sign from the passing view of the traveling public. A 65 ft. sign should allow the public to see the motel sign far enough ahead of time to exit at the proper moment. Condition B: The LaQuinta Inn relies on the sign to attract interstate travelers. Due to the location of a GSU power line pole which partially obstructs the sign from the south and the proposed overpass at Liberty which will potentially obstruct the sign from the north, a physical hardship has or will be created for the motel. Bids are to let for the Liberty -Laurel overpass in October 1994. Condition C: The spirit of the ordinance will be observed if the variance is granted. Other owner identification signs in the immediate vicinity on each side of the freeway exceed 50 ft. in height. The applicant states that the proposed sign will not block the view of other signs. The McDonald's sign located on the south side of Laurel at IH- 10 is estimated at 95.9' and the Chevron sign located at Laurel on the west side of the freeway is estimated at 70�.9 feet, Both signs were erected prior to the 1981 Zoning Ordinance which initiated sign regulations. The Texaco sign also located on the west side of IH-10 at Laurel was granted a variance by the Board to 87 ft. in 1984. The Board of Adjustment used the crown of the Calder Avenue overpass as the point of orientation. This decision was against the recommendation of Staff. (See Attachment D.) The definition of an owner identification sign height was amended in late 1984 to refer to the crown of the "'roadway immediately abutting the property..." and not to the orientation of the sign. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notices mailed to property owners: 18 Responses in Favor: . Responses in Opposition: _. Page 4 FILE 359-BA: Re," ist for a variance to allow an -, -ter identification si.a with a maximum height of 50 fL- to be increased to 65 ft. Location: 220 IR-10 @ Laurel Avenue Applicant: Christopher C. Gilmore, Atty. for LaQuinta Motor Inn, Inc. 4:f: AVI f? V ;,Q I 111;� I WIX r10 M V rrzsz CAI DER A, 3100 CAZLDER .3000 'J''; it; 0 0 0 5 d y I l 4 4 J�- 14 I XN NORTH A SCALE 1/200 TTACHMENTA � zqoo < P N I'll 10 jP ATTACHMENT E WADE & GI LMORE A U G C11RLMPHERC. CIUMORE ATMRNEYS AM COUNSELORS AT LAW -A W"D C ram. 650 North Ninth Stray .- t COMMMAL REAL MAU 1.AW At McPaddin . _ .AREA CODE 409 FARM • tiAT CH REAL E grATE LAW Beaumont, Texan 77702-1614 TEL HONE 835.6335 Tow BOARD oP LWAL SMULVATM FACSRA LE 935-2727 July 29, 1993 Board of Adjustment City of Beaumont Planning Division, Room 210 City Hall, 801 Main Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 Re: Variance for La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. to increase height of sign fifteen (15) feet; our File No. 93-1066. Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this letter as a supplement to La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.'s Variance Application to the City of Beaumont's Board of Adjustment for a fifteen (15) foot increase in sign height. Please set the public hearing for September 2, 1993 on this variance request. BACKGROUND La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. is initiating a property and image enhancement program which will be implemented immediately and finished in 1994. This program will result in total capital expenditures of approximately $45 to $50 million for the chain of over 200 owned and/or managed inns, of which $30 to $35 million relates to inns owned by La Quinta. The program will include' new white exteriors on all buildings, accented with blue colors that coordinate with the new signs and logo. Building facades will be enhanced with various design elements and lighting. Landscaping will be upgraded and patterned pavement will be added around the porte cochere. Lobbies will also be improved with new floor the and carpets, enhanced fireplaces, decorative art, wall pieces and the ceiling heights will be raised throughout the lobby area. La Quinta owns and operates more than 200 hotels in 29 states and employs more than 6, 000 people. The La Quinta imaging booklet and ad slicks, copies of which sire attached hereto, show some of the proposed improvements. Also attached are copies of the site plan and legal description of the property as required by the Variance Application Form. The La Quinta sign for Beaumont is to be constructed in accordance with the property enhancement program described above. Interstate 10 has recently been elevated, and the La Quinta sign in Beaumont is now partially obscured. other signs along Interstate 10 in the immediate vicinity of the Beaumont. La Quinta exceed 50 feet. These signs along the Interstate are primarily directed at. traffic on the Interstate and not traffic along the access road. In order to properly proceed with the variance, the building permit application for the sign must be denied. The application requesting a Building Permit was to "remove existing I.D. Pylon sign and installation of new double face I.D. Pylon sign consisting of 300 square feet with an overall height of 65' 0"'." A copy of the denial of the building permit is attached hereto. ORDINANCE This variance request clearly complies with Section 30-37 (e) 3a-c of the Beaumont Zoning ordinance which provides: a. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. b. That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or owner's own actions. C. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest and, in fact, will benefit the public. As described below, the variance will benefit the public by allowing sufficient time to see the La Quint& sign and safely exit the Interstate Highway. The public will also benefit in that the granting of the variance will allow La Quinta to contract a new sign in conjunction with other improvements to the property providing jobs and improve the aesthetics of the building. An unnecessary hardship has been created as a result of the increased elevation of Interstate 10 in front of the Beaumont La Quinta. The obstruction of the sign was not the result of any action taken by La Quinta. The unnecessary hardship relates to the property itself in that the sign is now partially blocked by the Interstate resulting in public safety concerns. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed if the variance is granted. The spirit of the ordinance is to limit the height of a sign to fifty ( 50 ) feet above the roadway. Because the La Quinta sign is directed at the highway traffic, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed if the variance is granted. As more fully discussed below, substantial justice will be done only if the variance is granted in that certain fundamental constitutional rights will be impaired if the variance is not granted. r The sign height should be increased for safety purposes as well. There needs to be adequate time to see the sign in order to safely exit the highway. Because Interstate 101 has recently been elevated, the La Quints sign now is partially obscured.. The variance to raise the sign fifteen (15) feet will provide sufficient time to view the sign and exit the Interstate Highway. CONSTITUTION There is also justification for the requested variance under both the Texas and United States Constitution. The applicable provisions are the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (procedural and substantive due process), the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (equal protection), the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (taking without payment of just or adequate compensation), Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution (procedural and substantive due process), Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (equal protection), and Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution (taking without payment of just or adequate compensation). Constitutional law issues relating to zoning law matters have been raised in several recent U.S. Supreme Court eases. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, (1985); Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, (1987); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, (1987). The Texas Constitution is more open to a '"taking" claim than the U.S. Constitution because under the Texas Constitution includes "damages" to property. If the variance to extend the sign height fifteen (15 ) feet is not granted, there would be a constitutional taking without just. compensation. The "taking" claim would be based on both the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution. The Federal and State Constitutional Equal Protection Provision would also be violated if the variance is not allowed. Other signs in the immediate vicinity exceed fifty (50) feet and 3 the ordinance should not be allowed to restrict La Quints's sign to fifty (50) feet when the others are allowed. SUMMARY La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. is initiating a multi -million dollar capital expenditure property enhancement program,. Part of this program includes new signs and logo. Interstate 10, in front of the Beaumont La Quinta, has recently been elevated and now partially obscures the current sign. The La Quinta sign is directed primarily to highway traffic and must be raised fifteen (15) feet to be adequately seen from the Interstate. This variance complies with the terms of the City's Zoning ordinance and increases the amount of time for highway traffic to view the sign and safely exit the highway. Please contact Mr. Larry Kingsbury with La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. (210-366-6079�) or me if you need any further information in connection with this variance request. Yours ry truly, I Christo a C. Gilmore CCG/pep enclosures cc: Ms. Bonnie M. Lutz. Brand Identity Department La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. P. a. Box 790064 San Antonio, Texas 78279-0064 El Schaumburg & Polk, Inc. ENGINEERS / ARCHITECTS September, 14, 1993 Mr. Christopher C. Gilmore WADE & GILMORE 650 North Ninth Street Beaumont, Texas 77702-1614 Re: La Quinta Inn #537 220 1-10 North Beaumont, Texas Dear Chris: 8865 College St., Suite 100 Beaumont, Texas 77707 Phone (409) 866-0341 FAX (409) 866-033 7 In accordance with Nicholas G. Karavolos' letter of September 7, 1993 we have surveyed the height and elevation of the La Quinta Inn sign and are providing the results below. Height of top of exist. Location Elevatiot sign above Location Asphalt parking at base of existing sign ql.O 52.8 Bottom of existing sign 124.3 Top of existing sign 143.8 Centerline IH-10 directly , f opposite of exist. sign 100.0. 43.8 Centerline of IH-10 at Hollywood (just North of College) overpass 125.7 18.1 Centerline of IH-10 at Calder (Laurel) overpass 116.2 27.6 Assumed elevation of centerline IH-10 directly opposite of existing sign = 100.0 At its existing height, the La Quinta Inn sign can not be seen when approaching from the south (College Street) until you are almost at the top of the Hollywood overpass, and by then it is too late to exit IH-10. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the sign should be raised. Minutes September 12, 1984 Page 5 Chairman Cantella. asked Mr. Williamson if he currently had power. Mr. Williamson stated that an agreement was reached whereby he could turn the power on; the sign is being called a light pole which can be erected anywhere. Mr. Williamson stated that the ordinance does not offer any give- and-take. The fact that this sign is 30-feet off the road does not hinder the public interest and the variance should be granted on that basis. He concluded that the ordinance should be amended to place qualifiers on the 10-foot setback requirement. There was no one present to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Commissioner O'Bannion stated that he did not see a problem with the request complying with any of the conditions. Commissioner Bell stated that there were other alternatives for the location of the sign.. Chairman Cantella questioned how the situation got this far when Building Inspection visited the site twice. She further stated that if the contractors, architects and local businessmen do not become familiar with the ordinance, it -cannot be complied with after the fact (on the basis of special exceptions and variances). Commissioner O'Bannion again stated that he felt the applicant had satisfied the three conditions. The fact that the applicant was wrong in not applying for a sign permit is immaterial. Commissioner O'Bannion further stated that analysis of Condition B required some thought in order to reach the decision that it does comply. Chairman Cantella stated that it appears to her that if the sign is moved in and back 10 feet,it would be located in the middle of the drive. Commissioner Bell stated that it would be located in a parking space and would not necessarily take up one entire space. Commissioner O'Bannion moved that the request be approved on the basis that the three conditions had been met. Commissioner Goeheringer seconded the motion. - The vote was 3 to 2. (Commissioner Lanier voted in favor of the request; however, his vote is not counted since only five votes are required.) The motion failed since four votes are required for passage. FILE 264-BA. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 30-28.C.3. OF THE CITY CODE IN ORDER TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR AN OWNER IDENTIFICATION SIGN. APPLICANT: DAVID McALISTE'R. Mr. Torres stated that the applicant, Mr. David McAlister, is repre- senting Texaco and is requesting a variance to increase the height of an existing on -premises identification sign from 50 to 86 feet. The property is located at 205 1-10 North at Laurel Avenue. The applicant's property is zoned GC -MD and the sign setback is 10 feet for front and side yards. The applicant's existing sign is currently Minutes September 12, 1984 Page 6 at its maximum allowable height. Surrounding land uses are all commercial. There are two signs north of the subject property at maximum height. Claude Robertson, Area Manager, Houston, Texas, stated that Texaco had originally erected a sign before: the freeway was built. once the freeway was built (around 1970), Texaco raised the sign by 10 feet to its current height of 50 feet. A market survey revealed that an additional expenditure at this location would make it possible to service a greater number of customers. Texaco has plans for additional construction on this site. Without proper identification, the construction would not be a good investment. He stated that the signs for a couple of restaurants have blocked out the existing Texaco sign. The sign will measure 16 x 16 which will be a reduction in the width of the existing sign. He stated that sales are down about 30% because they have lost the: freeway business; the..cars are past the exit before they see the sign. He concluded by stating that if the variance is not granted, the location will probably close. Mr. Torres stated that the three conditions had been addressed by the applicant's presentation. He stated that Steak and Ale and Bennigan's have signs located in front of the subject Texaco sign. The sign does become visible prior to the exit ramp. The applicant is at a disadvantage because the sign is located at the bottom of an overpass but is allowed to be 50-feet above the crown of the road which it is adjacent to. Had the sign been located adjacent to the overpass, it would have been allowed a 50-foot height above the crow ' n of the overpass. Mr. Torres stated that under Condition A staff felt that the sign is meant to attract high-speed traffic from a pre -,determined distance. The public receives no measurable benefits from a "domino effect" sign competition resulting in taller, brighter or larger advertising. Condition A has not been satisfied. Under Condition B, Mr. Torres read the applicant's statement from the application. Staff feels that none of the six conditions relating to the property itself have been addressed by the applicant. The applicant refers only to financial considerations brought about by competing signs in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has not satisfied Condition B. In reference to Condition C, Mr. Torres stated that the height regulations for owner identification signs in commer- cial districts are intended to maintain a uniform pattern and minimize progressive increases. Any commercial use having highway frontage is, by its location, aware of the possibility of sign competition from abutting properties. Staff feels that consideration on a first -come first -served basis is an incorrect application of the variance procedure. Each successive approval will lead to an elimination of the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The applicant has not satisfied Condition C. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the applicant's failure to Satisfy the three conditions necessary for approval. Notices were mailed to 7 property owners; no resp6nses were returned in favor or in opposition. I r , Minutes September 12, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Robertson stated that raising this sign would be the last step, not the first, in the domino effect since other signs are already higher than the subject sign. Customers of Texaco must see the sign before the Calder exit in order to exit before passing the station; the Liberty/Laurel exit (the next available exit) is already past the station. Commissioner O'Bannion stated that a sign is allowed to be at a height 50 feet above the crown of the adjacent street toward where it is oriented. He asked if this sign is oriented toward the low part of the freeway which is already past the station or toward the high crown of the overpass. Mr. Robertson stated that he would like to have the sign oriented down the freeway to the Calder exit. Commissioner O'Bannion stated that it is his opinion that a sign is oriented to a distance that would allow a person to exit in time to have easy access to a business. Mr. Torres stated that the interpretation that staff maintains is that orientation is towards the adjacent roadway which, in this case, is the adjacent freeway or service road. Chairman Cantella stated that Commissioner O'Bannion is expanding beyond staff's interpretation of orientation. Mr. Torres replied that the distance for orientation could then be limitless; the ordinance states that orientation is toward the adjacent roadway. Commissioner Goeheringer stated that if this variance is approved, other businesses along this same roadway could request that their signs be oriented toward the overpass. Mr. Torres stated that staff would not have any reference guides to use in establishing the distance for orientation. Chairman Cantella asked that the City Attorney be called for his interpretation. Tyrone Cooper, Assistant City Attorney, represented the City Attorney. Chairman Cantella asked if a sign could be oriented toward a point other than the adjacent roadway (such as an overpass). Mr. Cooper stated that literal interpretation would require that the sign be oriented toward the adjacent roadway -- not to an overpass down the road. In this case, the orientation would be the service road or adjacent freeway. Chairman Cantella stated that the emphasis is then on location and not orientation. Commissioner Goeheringer stated that even if the sign is oriented toward the overpass, the applicant wishes to erect an 86-foot sign which would be more than 50-feet above the crown of the overpass. Minutes September 12, 1984 Page 8 After further discussion, Chairman Cantella stated that the Board is choosing, in this case, to interpret "orienting toward" to be the freeway overpass which is an expansion of past interpretation. Commissioner Shaw asked if the applicant would be willing to erect the sign at 50 feet above the crown of the overpass rather than the requested 86 feet which would exceed the requirement. Chairman Cantella stated that a height variance would not be required if the applicant constructs a sign 50-feet above:the crown.•of the roadway towards which it is oriented (the overpass) and, in this case, the.variance would be in the Point of orientation. Commissioner Goeheringer moved to deny the request a's presented (86-foot height) and to grant the applicant the right to orient his sign toward the freeway.overpass at.Calder with a maximum height of 50-feet above the crown of that roadway. Commissioner O'Bannion seconded the motion. Chairman Cantella restated the motion which is to deny the height variance but to vary the point of orientation. She stated that the Board has full knowledge that they are expanding upon past inter- pretation and that requests will be made based upon that expansion. She asked if staff would now ask permit applicants to state their point of orientation. Mr. Torres stated that staff would rather not interpret the ordinance in this way for future requests; staff would be taking authority from the Board and the Board would also then be a precedent -setting body. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. WORKSHOP The Board changed the regular meeting date from the second Wednesday of each month to the first Thursday of each month (2:00 p.m.). There being no further discussion, Chairman Cantella adjourned the public hearing at 3:30 p.m.