Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-30AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1976 5:30 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM - 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 1976 III. OLD BUSINESS A. Consideration of the application submitted by Jim Burger and Richard Eakins (BZA 76-3) B. Consideration of the application submitted by Foster & Kleiser (BZA 76-4) IV. ADJOURNMENT CITY SEqiEARY r MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Tuesday, November 30,1976 PRESENT: Jesse Woods, Conrad Heede, Jerry Spencer, Joe Wright, and A.J. Harper ABSENT: None MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF PRESENT: Joe Lipscomb and Shirley Armstrong Chairman Joe Wright called the meeting to order. The first order of business was consideration of the minutes of November 9, 1976. Member Jesse Woods asked if minutes of that meeting were necessary since the actions taken were declared null and void.because a sufficient number of members were not present., The City Secretary stated that she felt they were necessary as a matter of record. Member A.J. Harper made a motion to approve the minutes as published. The motion was seconded by Member Jesse Woods and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Wright, Spencer, Woods, Heede, and Harper Nays: None The next order of business was consideration of the application submitted by Jim Burger and Richard Eakins(BZA 76-3). The applicants were requesting a variance of four feet in the rear yard setback requirement of twenty five feet. Member A.J. Harper stated that he did not feel the variance would be detrimental to the property owners adjacent to the back of the lot. Member Jesse Woods commented that there was a possibility the land behind the property in question would never be used because of the sharp point of the north- east corner. There was little other discussion. Member Jesse Woods made a motion to approve Board of Zoning Adjustments 76-3. The motion was seconded by Member Conrad Heede and prevailed by the following votes: Ayes: Wright, Spencer, Woods, Heede, and Harper Nays: None The next order of business was consideration of the application submitted by Foster & Kleiser Company. The applicants were requesting permission to illuminate three nonconforming adver- tising signs presently located on property zoned 11C-1" and 'iR-1" Chairman -Joe Wright gave a brief history commenting that the signs in question were well maintained and were annexed into the city under the Grandfather Clause. He added that there was little development in that area. Mr. Raymond Golding, representative of Foster and Kleiser commented that the signs were owned by his firm and that rental was paid to the property owner, Mr. Hurshel J. Reese. Member Conrad Heede asked if the Master Plan recommended indus- trial zoning for the property on which the signs are located. Joe Lipscomb, Building Inspector answered no. Member Jerry Spencer commented that it might be wise to ask for a stipulation to remove the signs if there was sufficient cause. Mr. Golding stated that Foster and Kleiser was a very reput- able firm with local, state, and national customers. He added that when plans were made to develop the area, the signs would be removed. Member Conrad Heede commented that he did not question the reputaion of the company, but was concerned that the signs were a non -conforming use now, and would never be a conforming use. Mr. Heede then read the following from the City Code Book: Title 10, Section 18, Chapter 6 Changing Nonconforming Uses "(B) The Board of Adjustment may grant a change of use from one non -conforming use to another non -conforming use provided such change is to a use permitted in a zoning district where the original non -conforming use would be permitted, or pro- vided that such change is to a use permitted in a more restric- tive classification. However, such change of use and occupancy shall not tend to prolong the life of nonconforming use." Member A.J. Harper commented that it was his opinion that lighting the signs would be an improvement. Member Conrad Heede contended that lighting would make the signs even more nonconforming. Chairman Joe Wright asked Member Jesse Woods if he felt the Board of Zoning Adjustments should not approve any variances in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Woods answered that each case and situation involved. He added ordinance regarding nonconforming approved by the City Council. He wanted signs outside an industrial so in the zoning ordindnce. would depend on the condition that the city has a specific uses which was set up and commented that if the Council area, they would indicate He then acknowledged that it was a matter of following the ordinance and granting exceptions where they were necessary and where they would not prolong the life and increase the investment of the nonconforming use. Mr. Woods then read the following from the City Code Book: Title 10, Section 18, Chapter 5 Termination of Nonconforming Uses "(A) It is the declared purpose of this Title that noncon- forming uses be eventually discontinued and the use of premises required to conform to the regulations prescribed herein having due regard for the investment in such nonconforming use.,, Mr. Heede commented that lighting the signs would result in a higher rental fee for the property owner which in turn would be a more attractive business venture. Mr. Golding stated that the rental on the signs would be very little to consider when the owner of the property decided to develop the area. He added that his firm leased the sign space on a year to year basis. Chairman Jce Wright commented that the purpose of the Board was to grant variances when they did not harm any one or anything and when they did not make any difference. He con- tinued to say that the Board had heard all type of variances, and if there were objections from neighboring property owners, then that was taken into consideration. He added that if the Board could help, -without harming, then they should do so. r Member Jesse Woods stated that if the City Council wanted signs in R-1 and C-1, then they should change the ordinance. Chairman Joe Wright commented that if Mr. Woods felt that way, maybe the Board of Zoning Adjustments should be abolished. Member A.J. Harper stated that the signs were nonconforming now and would remain nonconforming whether they were lighted or not. Member Jesse Woods stated that if the application was disapproved, maybe the signs would be moved to a conforming location. Mr. Golding commented that his firm had no intentions of relocating the signs. Mr. Woods asked who would be harmed if the situation were left status quo. Mr. Harper answered that in his opinion it would be the property owner and the sign company. He added that the Board had always paid close attention to objections from neighboring property owners, but that in this case, no resistance was indicated. Joe Wright commented that there were many old, well established, and welcomed businesses within the City of Grapevine that still do not conform with the.present zoning ordinanace. Member Jesse Woods stated that he would never ask for a well maintained, nonconforming use to be removed, but that he felt lighting the signs as requested would prolong the life and increase the investment of the nonconforming use. Chairman Joe Wright asked Mr. Woods if he would never consider approving anything that would extend and prolong the life of a nonconforming use. E Mr. Woods answered that it was specifically stated in the ordinance that, "such change of use and occupancy shall not tend to prolong the life of nonconforming use." Chairman Joe Wright stated that if a board member's mind was made up before hand, there was no need to have a meeting. He added that he had been a member of the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments for several years and that if the purpose of the Board was not to grant variances in the zoning ordinance and to offer assistance whenever possible, then he had been strongly mistaken. Member Jesse Woods commented that it was not a matter of being biased, but having previously established principles and policies. He added that as a matter of principle he would oppose any application that would expand or prolong the life or increase the investment in any nonconforming uses. There was no further discussion. Member Jerry Spencer made a motion to approve BZA application 76-4. The motion was seconded by Member A. J. Harper. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Wright, Spencer, and Harper Nays: Heede and Woods Note: (A concurring vote of four members of the board is necessary to decide in favor of an application) There being no further business to consider, Member Conrad Heede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Jesse Woods and all present voted aye. PASSED AND APPROVED on this the day of 1977. City Secre-eary