Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09151994 ZBA Minutes:~ • MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Sterling Minor, Chairman, Frank ~ Billings, Vice Chairman, Sue Porretto, Stephen Masera, Vic Hansen, ~ and Melinda Snell. Melinda Snell left at 8:15 p.m. Absent were ~ee Huber and Arden Morley. Also present from the City were ~-~~ Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official and Susan Thorn, Building ~`~~~~ Secretary. Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. Sterling Minor explained that Mayor Watson had refused his letter of resignation from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and that he would be continuing as a member and as chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. No residents were present to express opinions regarding any items that were not on the agenda. The first case on the Docket was 94-12, concerning property • located at 3908 Bellaire Blvd., Tracts lb and 2b, Block 7, Cunningham Terrace and Tracts 26a & 26c, Cambridge Place, a request for a variance to allow a spectacular sign (neon border) in addition to existing signs. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the notices as posted. This motion was seconded by Frank Billings. Voting was unanimous. Donna Lewis of Neon Electric, explained that she was representing her client Foodmaker, Inc., the owner of Jack-In-The-Box. Ms. Lewis explained that her company, Neon Electric had replaced the faces in the pole sign and on the wall sign and painted the cabinets and pole as part of Jack-In-The Box~s "national cleanup" renovation project of all of its locations. She explained that the neon was part of the sign package and after it had been placed on the building it was discovered that a permit had not been obtained. Her firm stopped work on the project and did not connect the neon to the transformers. Her firm did not do any work on any of the other signs which include the menu board and neon "open'~ signs at this location. Ms. Lewis explained that she was asking, on behalf of her client to allow the neon to remain. She stated that she did not feel that this was a sign, but simply a decorative element. Ms. Lewis presented photos showing the work that was done on the pole sign and wall sign and photos of neon at • another location to show how the neon looked when turned on at night. She explained that the photos show that the neon did not shine onto other properties. Ms. Lewis explained that this is a single strip of clear red neon. ~.( ~ No one else was present to speak in favor of the application. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's position. Mr. Holm explained that there were five signs existing, where Zoning Ordinance allows only a maximum of four signs. He stated that this is found in the Code of Ordinances, City of West University Place, Chapter 3, Advertising and Appendix A Zoning Ordinance No. 1298: "Chapter 3, Advertising, Article III. Signs, Section 3-31. Definitions: Advertising: shall mean to seek the attraction of or to direct the attention of the public to any goods, services, property or activity whatsoever. Article 8. Commercial District, Section 8-100. Commercial District (C)., (e) Building Criteria, (3) Signs: (ii) On any other site, all signs are prohibited except for one (1) large project sign, one (1) small project sign, one (1) large real estate sign and one (1) medium address marker. (four signs at any commercial location of this type). At present there are five (5) signs at 3908 Bellaire Blvd.; therefore, no more signs are allowed without the granting of a variance: (1) four (4) sided 8' x 8' free standing pole sign, (1) 2' x 8' reader board (same pole #1), (1) 6' x 6' (south side of structure) company sign, (1) 2' x 3' neon Jack-in-the-Box window sign and (1) approximate 16" x 20" neon "open" window sign. This following sign was installed at this location without a permit. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow the neon border (on building) sign. Mr. Holm explained the City opposes • the issuance of the variance for the neon border. If Jack-in-the- Box wanted to remove one of the signs, then the neon border could remain because they would be trading in one of the existing five signs. No one was present to speak in opposition. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary hearing. This motion was seconded by Sue Porretto. Voting was unanimous. The next item on the Docket was 94-13, consideration of property located at 2609 Sunset, corner of Kirby & Nottingham, Lot 16,19,20 and 21, Block 3, Evanston Addition, a two part request for special exception for (1) a medium commercial use in a Commercial District (C) and (2) allowing frontage on a residential street (Sunset and Nottingham) and a major thoroughfare (Kirby) and an auto intensive use (drive thru banking facility). Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Frank Billings made a motion to approve the notices as posted. This motion was seconded by Rob Peterson. Voting was unanimous. Joel Brand of Brand+Allen Architects Inc., explained that his firm is designing a building for a savings and loan. The address is on Sunset, but it also is bordered by Kirby and Nottingham. There ~ will be two remote drive up teller lanes. The frequency of transactions is not great as a for a bank. The savings and loan's hours would be from 9:00 to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Fridays and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on ~ ~ ~ Saturdays. There may also be a walk up automatic teller machine. Mr. Brand explained his firm proposed to have the drive through entrance off of Sunset and exiting onto Nottingham. He understood why a fast food restaurant would be opposed, because you would have traffic until the early hours of the morning. His client wants to make this work. The proposed building size is 69 feet by 46 feet and this size could be adjusted in either direction. Mr. Brand explained that the traffic flow could easily be changed to entering from Nottingham to exiting Sunset. He could have to a traffic study done if there were to only be one curb cut. Frank Billings stated the problem was not with the number of curb cuts. Sterling Minor asked if the applicant had considered other configurations with the building being further back. Mr. Brand explained at this point they did not, but it could be a possibility. Mr. Minor explained that the design should have the maximum amount of traffic was onto Kirby and the minimum amount onto Sunset and Nottingham. Mr. Brand explained that this plan was for a typical building that the Savings and Loan uses and they would have to go to something that was atypical. Melinda Snell asked if there had been any attempt by the Owners' • of the property to acquire the corner piece occupied by Big Frank's. Mr. Brand said he was not aware of any attempt on the part of Owners to do that. Lee Stallings of Savings of America, which is the operating division of Home Savings of Los Angeles explained that his firm is savings bank and his bank does not have near the activity in their branches as would a commercial bank. The buildings are smaller and there are less drive up facilities. The vast amount of their business is certificate of deposit or term accounts. There will be drive up facilities because the Savings of America plans on trying to increase its checking account business. Most of their branches only have a staff of five. Home Savings is already servicing in the West University Area and it only makes sense to have a branch in this particular location. He explained that this is an expensive proposition to locate a branch there and they have to look for some economic return. Mr. Stallings explained that his firm is here to work with the City. Mr. Stallings stated that they are willing to do anything as long as it does not restrict what they want to do with the property. He stated he did not want customers walking across that traffic flow. Sterling Minor asked if the Community Reinvestment Act would apply to Mr. Stallings institute. Mr. Stallings stated that it would, he explained that basically it means that any place that you take • money you have an obligation to reinvest a portion of the funds that you take into the community. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm explained that the applicant was asking for a two part special exception: (1) , ~' ~ for a medium commercial use in a Commercial District and (2) allowing frontage on a residential street (Sunset and Nottingham) and a major thoroughfare (Kirby). He explained that in the Code of Ordinances, City of West University Place, Appendix A Zoning Ordinance, Article 8. Commercial District , light commercial use is permitted and the Zoning Board of Adjustment may issue a special exception for a medium commercial use and for an auto- intensive use, which is defined as any land use where goods or services are provided to or for motor vehicles or persons may remain within their motor vehicles to receive such goods or services. One example would be a~'drive through" teller lane. He explained that the second part of the request for special exception re: frontage would apply if required findings in Article 11 (b) (1),(2),(3),(4) or (5) are met. Mr. Holm explained that the City opposes the granting of the special exceptions for (1) medium commercial use and (2) frontage on two (2) residential ~ streets being used as entrances and or exits for this commercial use. The following residents spoke in opposition: Flossie Folensbee of 2708 Sunset expressed her concerns regarding traffic on Sunset and the increase of persons who do not live in the neighborhood driving through. • Debra Dearing of 2729 Sunset explained she had no opposition to the Savings and Loan if no entrances or exits were off of Nottingham or Sunset. Patricia Davis of 2635 Nottingham explained she was not opposed to the Savings and Loan being constructed there, only the ingress and egress off of Sunset and Nottingham. Sandra Kuffner of 2631 Sunset - stated she was in opposition because of the increased traffic. Peggy Cannon of 2703 Sunset explained that the former City Manager Mr. Rockenbaugh had promised the residents in 1984 that this would never happen. Paul Francetti of 2615 Sunset - presented a petition. A copy is included with these minutes. Two letters were received in opposition. One from John Logan of 2808 Sunset and one from Rowland W. Folensbee of 2708 Sunset. These letters will remain a part of the record and be placed in the applicant's file. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. This motion was seconded by Sue Porretto. Voting . was unanimous. After a brief break the meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. :'' ~ • Sterling Minor stated that he was surprised that a neon border could be considered a sign. Mr. Minor also stated that he was not sure whether an "open" sign could be considered a sign. Mr. Billings stated he felt the number of signs was way over the allowable amount. Sue Porretto made a motion to consider the neon border to not be a sign. Rob Peterson seconded the motion. Sue Porretto and Rob Peterson voted in favor. Steve Masera, Sterling Minor and Frank Billings voted against. Vic Hansen did not vote. Variance was denied. W~ -~~. ('ANDIT10~ ~7~~-~ g~N~ The next item for discussion was 94-13. After a brief discussion, Frank Billings made a m i to grant a special exception for medium commercial use ingress or egress onto Sunset and Nottingham streets. This motion was seconded by Sue Porretto. Voting was unanimous. Voting in favor were Frank Billings, Sterling Minor, Rob Peterson, Steve Masera and Sue Porretto. Vic Hansen did not vote. The next item on the agenda was consideration of information form for Zoning Board of Adjustment applicants. After a brief discussion, Sue Porretto took the form to make additional revisions and it will be considered again at the next • Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. The final draft of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure was also discussed and minor changes were made. Frank Billings made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 18th, 1994 and August 25th, 1994 meetings. Sue Porretto seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. Rob Peterson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. This motion was seconded by Sue Porretto. Voting was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY .