Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 08/16/2000I MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 16, 2000 PRESENT: Charles A. Peters, III, Acting Chairman John Key Don McKinney Michael Norrie J. D. Ruiz Willa Burgess Les Seipel David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Paul Stillson, Planner II ABSENT: Rainer Hanold, Chairman Luther Houston CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Clark introduced Mr. Les Seipel, new alternate member. II. REGULAR AGENDA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date 08- Bv rTime o� 1. Variance of Sign Height and Area Requirements Northeast Corner of Central Freeway and Jacksboro Highway Case V 00 -04 0 Members 0 0 0 0 0 Alternate 0 0 City Staff 0 0 Members 0 Applicant ........... ............................... Vic Arnold, for the Flying J Travel Center Property ............ ............................... Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Flying J Travel Center Add. Requested Action ............................ Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 6741, Note 5 Purpose ............ ............................... To construct an on- premise sign over 80 feet tall and over 900 square feet in size. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 Commentary: The applicant requests a variance to construct a sign 85 feet tall with an area of 1338 sq. ft. This sign is for the planned Flying J Travel Center at the Northeast corner of Central Freeway and Jacksboro Highway. The Flying J is a truck oriented business with truck fueling facilities and a truck wash. There will also be a convenience store and a restaurant. The regulations for on- premise signs are in the Zoning Ordinance, Table 6741, Note 5. The provisions limit an on- premise sign to 80 feet in height and 900 square feet in area. Qualifying Criteria: a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or building in the same district. Applicant's statement: "[The] business caters to truckers who need more time to make lane changes for exiting and hence need to see high -rise signs further away than the general public." Staff response: The applicant has presented no evidence demonstrating that an 80 -foot tall sign is significantly less visible than an 85 -foot tall sign. The proposed sign will be 1338 square feet consisting of four sign faces. It will be 438 sq. ft. (46 %) larger than the 900 sq. ft. limit. One of the reasons for the large total area is that the sign has the maximum number of four sign faces. As well as sign size, other factors are also important in determining a sign's visibility and legibility such as: lettering, height, font, color, graphics, amount of text, lighting, etc. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "Curvature of US 287 and lay of land make seeing high -rise difficult. Adequate sight distance prior to exit is imperative, and a lack thereof is caused by topography not Flying J." Staff response: Staff agrees that the existing topography is not the result of the applicant. These conditions where present before the applicant purchased the property. However, the applicant has not shown how or to what degree Central Freeway's roadway elevations and curvatures have reduced sight distances, or even that reduced sight distance exists. Nor is there an explanation how this condition will be cured through a larger sign. c. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Applicant's statement: Ve would be deprived of the right to have our clientele enjoy advertising that will allow the opportunity for safe, timely exiting." Staff Response: Staff knows of no other sign this large in the general area. If approved, the sign would exceed what other properties are permitted to have in the same district. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement: "Safety is not a 'special privilege.' We are merely asking that the ability of the professional driver to make safe lane changes be enhanced such that they exit as safely and efficiently as other motorists." Staff response: The applicant has not shown how a larger, taller sign will impact reaction time, sight distance or driver safety. A claim for increased safety should be demonstrable by evidence provided. In a variance request the burden of proof is upon the applicant. Such a claim should clearly outweigh the benefits of sign regulations. Staff feels that this request lacks sufficient evidence to support the claim of hardship or special condition. Evaluation Criteria: In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the request qualifies to be heard by the board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires that the following criteria be used: a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. This request implies that the greater public interest is safety over sign regulation. However, there is no measure of the safety hazard or demonstration of the effectiveness of the larger sign in increasing safety. b. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship to the owner of the land. The existence of special conditions remains undocumented. c. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned General Commercial. This activity is a permitted use in this zone. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the regulation of signs recognizes signs as an important form of communication while controlling their size, height and location. Departing from the regulations should be based on convincing evidence. Is in harmony therewith; The size of this sign whether according to the regulations or according to this proposal should not conflict with the welfare of surrounding land uses. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; The sign should not be injurious to the neighborhood as so measurable negative affects can be identified. However, the applicant has not demonstrated a significant safety benefit to the neighborhood. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Granting this variance without an established hardship or demonstration of the amount and degree of a safety benefit does not appear to be in the public interest. Recommendation: Staff feels that the applicant has not proven a special condition or hardship. Chairman Peters reviewed the qualifying criteria with the Board. After Mr. Vic Arnold, applicant, was sworn in, he stated that a hill prevents the northbound traffic from seeing the site or any signage. Mr. Key expressed concern that this request was not related to a special condition or hardship. Mr. McKinney stated that since there are topographical issues concerning this case and he felt the Board should hear the case. He then made a motion to hear the case with Mr. Key offering the second. The vote was four (4) in favor and one (1) opposed. Mr. Stillson stated the original plan for the sign indicated that it would exceed the height requirement by five (5) feet and exceeded the square footage requirement by 438 feet. Mr. Key commented that an additional five feet in height would not prevent truckers from missing an exit. Mr. Arnold commented that Conoco has decided to remove their advertising from the sign thus reducing the area by 224 square feet. He then stated that the sign could be reduced in height by five feet, which would comply with the ordinance. When asked by the Board if the square footage could be reduced, Mr. Arnold replied that it had been reduced from the original proposal. To read from a standard exit, it must be a larger size or the effect is negated. The dangers of the rolling billboard were then discussed. Mr. Arnold also stated that all signs are professionally engineered so the pole will accommodate the appropriately sized vertical face. Mr. McKinney made a motion to deny variance request V 00 -04 because it does not meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Glen Newton, Wayfarer Motel, was sworn in by the Chairman. He sympathized with the applicant by stating that a 40' x 12' billboard that is displayed cannot be seen until one is over the hill. Mr. Key seconded the motion. The vote was five (5) in favor of the denial and none (0) opposed. The variance was denied. 2. Administrative Appeal to Allow the Construction of an 85'x 22' Carport 3125 Manchester Case V 00 -05 Applicant ........... ............................... Jimmie M. Garcia, Jr. Property ............ ............................... Lot 1, Block 110 -U, J. L. Powell Estates BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 Requested Action ............................ Administrative Appeal Purpose ............ ............................... Appeal of the interpretation of Section 6127(1) of the Zoning Ordinance providing that an existing premise which is devoted to a nonconforming use in a single family residential district shall not be expanded extended or enlarged. Commentary. The applicant requests an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He has submitted plans to build an 85 x 22 -foot carport-like structure to cover some existing equipment at the rear of his property. The applicant is in the utility construction business and has operated a contractor's yard in this single - family district since before zoning. When the request to build the carport was reviewed by the Planning Department, the permit was denied. Staffs decision was based on Section 6127(1). That section reads as follows: 6127 Nonconforming Uses - Expansion In a single - family residential district, an existing building or premise which is devoted to a use which is not permitted in a single - family residential district shall not be expanded, extended or enlarged. Staff also received a complaint from an adjacent neighbor concerning this proposal. Staff felt that this carport could be viewed as an expansion of the existing use, as it was an additional structure. The applicant is appealing Staffs decision, he states that: "In reference to [the] carport issue at the above address, it has come to the attention of the City board of Adjustment as to whether or not it is an expansion of a business. The carport will be used to prolong the use of existing equipment that has been faded out due to harsh sun and weather conditions. It is not an expansion of existing real estate or other business related buildings such as an office or shop, but to only protect existing equipment from further damage." Staffs response to this request is as follows: A. The intent section 6127(1) is to prevent the negative impacts that might accompany the expansion of a non - conforming use located in a residential area. B. The 1986 aerials show that the applicant had a contractors yard occupying a 129 x 347 -ft. tract along Manchester Road. In 1994 the applicant platted this property into one lot. A 1998 aerial photo shows that the applicant is also using the south portion of the lot to the west of his. This represents an illegal expansion of the site onto additional property. The City's Code Enforcement Division has been contacted to investigate this further. The proposed carport will be entirely within the limits of this platted lot. It will not encroach into the expanded area. C. The applicant's claim is that the carport would only protect existing equipment and not increase the use of the property. Staff feels that the Board could make a determination in favor of the carport if it finds that it does not expand the use of the property or increase the negative off -site impacts. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - PAGE 5 Staff agrees the applicant's request has some merit. The central question concerns the meaning of "expansion," as it relates to non - conforming uses. Staff recommended that the applicant apply to the Board for an interpretation. Mr. Jimmie Garcia, Jr. was sworn in by the Chairman. He stated that the carport is not an expansion, but a shelter to keep his equipment from deteriorating. When asked if he obtained a permit to build his garage, Mr. Garcia replied affirmatively. He then stated that he did not get a permit for this carport. Mr. Clark reminded the Board that the property is a legal, non- conforming use. The question is to determine if the carport is considered to be an expansion of the non - conforming use. Mr. Garcia stated that the carport was not an expansion, nothing was added. Mr. McKinney stated that he has increased the usage of the land by adding the carport. The Zoning Ordinance states there cannot be an addition to an "existing building or premise." Mr. Key agreed that the carport was non - compliant. Mr. Norrie made a motion to disapprove the structure as it is non - compliant. The motion was seconded. The vote was five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed. The appeal was denied and Mr. Garcia will be required to remove the carport. III. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Charles Peters, Acting Chairman BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 Date