Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Board of Adjustment - 1988 - 03/08 - RegularWl ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 ATTENDANCE: Board Members Present: George Chrisman, Chairman Harold Biggs Bruce Kleinschmidt (arrived 7:40 p.m.) Sheila Curtis Randall Leverett Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Bill Petty, Director of Community Development Joseph Del Ferro, Environmental Health Inspector Sally Leeper, Secretary CALL TO ORDER: The Allen Sign Control Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Chrisman, at the Allen Municipal Annex, City Council Chambers, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas. Approve Minutes February 9, 1988 (Agenda Item II) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "Approve minutes of February 9, 1988, Regular meeting." MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Biggs and a second by Board Member Curtis, the Board voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the minutes of February 9, 1988, as presented. Renewal Gemcraft Homes (Agehda—item III) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "Consider third renewal for Class 4 sign for Gemcraft Homes located at the corner of Fairlawn and East Ridge." ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE 2 Renewal Gemcraft Homes (Cont.) (Agenda Item III) Board Member Biggs stated that the sign is in good repair. MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Biggs and a second by Board Member Curtis, the Board voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the renewal for Class 4 sign for Gemcraft Homes. Renewal General Homes (Agenda Item IV) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "Consider fourth renewal for Class 4 sign for General Homes located at the southeast corner of F.M. 2170 at Violet Drive." Board Member Biggs advised that he has viewed this sign and it is in good repair. Renewal Pulte Homes (Agenda Item V) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "Consider fifth renewal for Class 4 sign for Pulte Homes located at 600 High Trail." Mr. Del Ferro advised the Board that Pulte Homes has approximate- ly three homes remaining to be sold. He added that the sign is in good repair. MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Biggs and a second by Board Member Curtis, the Board voted 4 FOR, 0 OPPOSED and 1 ABSTAINING to approve the renewal for Class 4 sign for Pulte Homes. The motion carried. I kkq MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Biggs and a second by Board Member Curtis, the Board voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the renewal for Class 4 sign for General Homes. Renewal Pulte Homes (Agenda Item V) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "Consider fifth renewal for Class 4 sign for Pulte Homes located at 600 High Trail." Mr. Del Ferro advised the Board that Pulte Homes has approximate- ly three homes remaining to be sold. He added that the sign is in good repair. MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Biggs and a second by Board Member Curtis, the Board voted 4 FOR, 0 OPPOSED and 1 ABSTAINING to approve the renewal for Class 4 sign for Pulte Homes. The motion carried. I kkq D C 0 ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE 3 Review Class 6 Freeway Sign Borderline Outdoor Advertising (Agenda Item VI) Chairman Chrisman read the agenda item into the record as fol- lows: "At the request of City staff, review a Class 6 "Freeway" sign application submitted by George Faris, Borderline Outdoor Advertising, to be located south of F.M. 2170 and east of U.S. 75, on property currently owned by State Federal Savings." Mr. George Faris, Borderline Outdoor Advertising, presented the request to the Board. He advised the Board that a sign previous- ly at this location owned by Texoma Advertising has been removed and Borderline is requesting a permit for a new sign. Mr. Bill Petty advised the Board that a 128 square foot sign was previously at the location and was owned by Texoma Advertising Company. In July, 1987, Texoma Advertising requested a permit to enlarge the sign from 128 square feet to 288 square feet, and the permit was granted by the City. Subsequently, the sign was removed by Texoma. In the interim period, Borderline has sub- mitted a request for a 288 square foot sign at this location. At the time of the request, a State permit had not been issued and Borderline did not have the advertising copy for the sign. They sent a letter at that time stating that they would agree to advertise only businesses that would be allowed by the Sign Regulations Ordinance. Because this was not in full compliance with the Sign Regulations Ordinance, staff decided to bring the request to the Board for review. Mr. Petty continued and advised the Board that Texoma Advertising visited with Mr. Del Ferro, Environmental Health Inspector, and indicated to him that they would like to file an application for relocation of their sign. In the meantime, according to Mr. Petty, Texoma Advertising had applied to the State Highway Department and received another permit and signed a lease on property on the west side of U.S. 75, directly across from the original location. At this time, the State permit has been approved for Borderline's sign by the State Highway Department, and they have submitted advertising copy to the City, which is in conformance with the Sign Regula- tions Ordinance. Texoma's attorney has discussed the situation with City Attorney Don Crowder, and has talked with a judge. He states that if the City issues the permit for Borderline's sign then he will request a restraining order be placed on them. Mr. Petty stated that the City is in the middle of this situa- 11 FJ ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE 4 Review Class 6 Freeway Sign Borderline outdoor Adv. (Cont.) (Agenda Item VI) tion, and is trying to be fair and equitable to all parties. The question seems to be whether it was an assumption on the part of staff that Texoma's sign permit became null and void with the removal of the structure. It is expected that Texoma Advertising will be submitting an application for a sign on the west side of U.S. 75 approximately 300 feet from the location requested for Borderline. The State requirement for distance between Freeway signs is 1500 feet along one side of the highway. Mr. Jimmy Mitchell, Texoma Advertising, spoke before the Board. He stated that approval of Borderline's application could present a hardship to his company. He presented a handout to the Board and that has been attached hereto and made a part hereof. He reviewed the information in this handout with the Board. Board Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Mitchell what type of lease he had with State Federal Savings and Loan, the owners of the property in question. Mr. Mitchell advised he has a 60 -day cancellation lease. He stated that his problem is in being denied the right to relocate the sign. Mr. George Faris, Borderline outdoor Advertising, stated that Texoma never had a written agreement with State Federal Savings and Loan. Mr. Robert Hill advised that he had contacted Texoma to negotiate a lease. Texoma submitted an offer to State Federal which was rejected by them. At that time, State Federal negotia- ted a lease with Borderline. Mr. Hill explained to the Board the takeover of the land by State Federal savings took place in January, 1987. Because of the amount of property they have taken over in the metroplex, State Federal retained the services of Mr. Hill to survey their properties and at that time he became aware that Texoma Advertising had a sign on the property. The lease that Texoma had was actually with the prior owner. Mr. Phil Fugitt, attorney for Texoma Advertising, spoke before the Board. He stated that this situation is no fault of the City, but rather an unfortunate situation. His personal legal opinion is that when a management company forecloses a piece of property, they are charged with all the liens, leases, and anything that happens to the property, especially anything they can see on the property. Board Member Kleinschmidt questioned whether Texoma had continued to tender payment for this lease. Mr. Mitchell stated his ki ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE 5 Review Class 6 Freeway Sign Borderline Outdoor Adv. (Cont.) (Agenda Item VI) payments are all made in advance and they were not advised until October, 1987, that State Federal had taken the property over. Mr. Mitchell stated that his company had the sign removed in January, 1988. Board Member Leverett questioned the distance allowed by the Ordinance. Mr. Petty stated the ordinance requires 2000 feet between freeway signs. Chairman Chrisman stated that the application before the Board appears to meet all of the requirements of the Sign Regulations Ordinance. Mr. Petty stated the question from staff is a legal one: "Is the 1982 permit held by Texoma Advertising null and void based upon the removal of the sign from the premises prior to approaching the City for the purpose of requesting relocation?" Mr. Mitchell stated that his company did not remove the sign with ,) the intention of canceling the permit; their intent was to relo- cate the sign. MOTION: Board Member Biggs made a motion that recommend staff accept the application from Borderline with the stipul- ation that staff return to the City Attorney for clarification of legal issues. There was no second, therefore the motion failed. Board Member Leverett stated it was his opinion that counsel should be consulted before a decision is made on this request. MOTION: Board Member Leverett made a motion to table the request until more information is received from the City Attorney as to the proper direction to be taken. Motion was seconded by Board Member Curtis. The Board voted 2 FOR and 3 OPPOSED. The motion failed. MOTION: Board Member Kleinschmidt made a motion to approve the permit for Borderline Outdoor Advertising as requested. Motion was seconded by Board Member Biggs. The Board voted 3 FOR and 2 OPPOSED. The motion carried. r q I ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD MARCH 8, 1988 PAGE 6 Review of Permits February (Agenda Item VII) Mr. Del Ferro informed the Board of the Class 4 sign permits that staff had issued during the past two months. Annual Review Sign Regulations Ordinance (Agenda Item VIII) The following items were discussed for possible revision to the Allen Regulations Ordinance: 1. it had been suggested that consideration be given to either completing the section "Zoning" on the application or removing the requirement from the ordinance. It was deter- mined that the item is used by staff and would be completed in the future. 2. Clarification is needed as to the requirement of the adver- tising copy for each sign. Page 33, section "i" could be added stating that the application shall include advertising copy. 3. Criteria is needed in paragraph 4, Section 5, page 29, for City Council to use in approval of jump clocks, etc. 4. Definition section, page 2, "Gross Surface Area" should be clarified. Adjourn: MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Kleinschmidt and a second by Board Member Leverett, the Board voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the March 8, 1988, meeting of the Allen Sign Control Board at 8:40 p.m. These minutes approved this �.T7Vday of 1988. eorge C .,�I a isan, Chairman rman Bruce Kleinschmidt, Secretary NO )►►►III 1111111 hi►I TeXc. ) �I �lul�a'll ADVERTISING CO., INC. MAILING S SNIPPING AOCNE$$. 5115 WELLINGTON Gfl EENVILL E, TE' 75401 214/455 2704 February 26, 1988 George Chrisman Chairman of Sign Control Board Allen, Texas Dear Sir: Please review the following information, in regards to a problem that has developed for our company. In 1982, we negotiated a lease for a portion of the property located on Highway 75, 800' south of MCDermont Dr., Allen, Texas, for the construction of a Class 6 - freeway sign for off -premise advertising purposes. We applied and received a state permit, and then applied for and received a permit approved by Mr. Bill Petty on March 23, 1982, (copies attached). The next permit we applied for was in July of 1987, for the reconstruction to increase the square footage of the sign for our client, Bob -Tomes -McKinney. The Allen City sign ordinance had been previously changed to allow this. At this time, the city official informed our operations manager, that we would have to have a State Highway Dept. permit, before he could issue a city per- mit. We obtained the State Highway Dept. permit and received the approved city permit, (copies attached). Before we commenced the reconstruction, we were notified by State Savings and Loan, the latter part of 1987, that they had acquired the property that our sign was located on, and gave us notice to remove the sign for their property. They had a master lease with Mr. Robert Hill of Borderline Outdoor Advertising, Inc. We then commenced the following proceedings necessary to relocate the sign. 1. We obtained a new lease directly across from the location of this sign, 700' south of MCDermont Dr., on the west side of U.S. 75. 2. We applied and recieved approval of the State Highway Dept. permit. 3. We started removing the sign, and have presently moved all except poles and cement embedment portion of the sign. 4. We went to the City of Allen permit Dept. to make application to relocate the sign. In the meeting with City of Allen Inspector, Mr. Joseph Del Ferro, and Texas State Highway Dept. Inspector, Mr. Travis Hunderson, I was informed that Mr. Robert Hill of Borderline outdoor Advertising, Inc., had previously made application for construction of a new freeway sign. He said it had not been permitted, but had been forwarded to the Sign Control Board and scheduled for their next meeting on March 8, 1988, before it could be approved. He suggested that I have a meeting with Mr. Bill Petty. The following day at this meeting, we were informed that we would be unable to apply for the relocation permit until the C Sign Control Board meeting had approved or disapproved the other sign company's permit application. I understood at this meeting, if the permit application was approved, that our company would be unable to receive a relocation permit for our sign. However, he stated that we may make application to be on the following Sign Control Board agenda, and we could possibly receive a variance from the 2,000' spacing regulation and receive a permit for constructing a new sign because of the circumstances leading up to our hardship. At no time has our company intended to revoke or discontinue either our state or city permits for this legal zoned location and we have never received either verbal or written notifica- tion that the permits have been cancelled. On the contrary, our every effort has been in necessary sequence to be able to apply for relocation permits before we cancelled our existing permits, for this location in Allen. After being contacted by State Savings and Loan, we informed them of our intention to relocate our sign from their property on the east side of U.S. 75, to the west side of U.S. 75. We acquired the lease from the land owner, received permission from the state and now are attempting to receive a relocation page 3 �j permit. ® We appreciate your attention in reviewing this matter as soon as possible, as it is very important to us. Sincerely, Jimmy F. Mitchell JFM:nd encls cc: Board members A