Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 07/28/2004 tor 4110 \01819.200, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 28,2004 AIN i�,kefilVEn �j Ctly Board Members Present: Charles Schibi, Chairman cp Gene Clancy, Vice-Chairman 9g� woe.David Loeb _t John Martinez William Tinney(Alternate- Voting) Taylor Mauck(Alternate) Board Members Absent: Robert Broadway Staff Present: Miguel S. Saldana, AICP, City Planner Andrew Quittner, Assistant City Attorney Barbara A. Bailey,Director of Development Services Erma Ramirez,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Schibi opened the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. and explained the procedure to be followed. Yehuda Azoulay: Appeal No. ZBA0704-01 Request: Interpretation to determine a"shark entryway" as a structure and not a sign, located on the southwest corner of Headsail Drive and South Padre Island Drive(Park Road 22). Mr. Miguel Saldana, City Planner, stated that the appellant, Yehuda Azoulay, is requesting an interpretation on whether a shark entry is a structure or a sign. Based on the definition of a sign as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, Staff has determined that the proposed shark entry is a sign. According to the Zoning Ordinance, a sign is "every device, structure, frame, letter, figure, character, mark, plane, point, design, picture, stroke, stripe, trademark, or reading matter which is used or intended to be used to attract attention, convey information, identify or advertise any establishment, product, goods, or service when the same is placed out of doors in view of the general public." Mr. Saldana described the land use, location, and zoning surrounding the subject property by means of computerized slides. He also presented the site plan for the proposed project. The appellant proposes to erect a large shark frame under a canopy, as the entrance of the store for patrons to walk through. Port Aransas has a similar device in one of their resorts as a means to attract tourists. It is the appellant's reasoning that since the shark will be used as an entrance, it is a structure and not a sign. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed shark is a device to attract attention in order to get patrons to notice the building and stop at the facility. Since the SCANNED Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 2 shark is an"attention getter,"it is a sign. He stated that the appellant may keep the shark as long as it meets with`B-2A"District sign regulations. Twenty-three notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and two (2) were returned in opposition. A notice was returned in opposition from outside the notification area. Chairman Schibi opened the public hearing. Mr. Yehuda Azoulay, owner and appellant, appeared in favor. He stated that according to the Sign Ordinance, Section 3.1.55 every building is a sign. In essence,the Sign Ordinance states that a sign should not include attraction or device within the building. The Ordinance does not even give a dimension of the sign. He presented pictures of other buildings and structures which presented attractive features. In a resort area, the idea is to attract people to their businesses. He also referred to the`B-2A"District regulations not stating anything about the structure. On page 51 of the Zoning Ordinance it only talks about the kind of sign but no mention of a structure. The shark would be inside the building, under the canopy. He stated that until the City develops something better to specifically forbid this type of structure, the felt that the City should allow him the shark entryway. He stated that it would be built in good taste for people to walk through the shark's mouth. He felt that tourists enjoy taking pictures as memories of their visit to Corpus Christi,just as people take pictures by the mermaid structure and the Port Aransas shark. In answer to Board Member questions, Mr. Azoulay stated that the shark is self-sustained, it is not part of the store structure. The opening to the shark is not air-conditioned space. He stated that the Building Inspections Department approved the plan as submitted. Mr. David Kurt, 1533 Yard Arm Court, appeared in opposition. He is the Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee of the Padre Island Property Owners Association (POA). He stated that the Padre Island land owner's agreement of the property in question states that "no building or structure or improvement of any nature shall be erected, placed, or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications have been approved by the Committee". The Committee first reviewed the "shark" plans on May 13, 2004. The building was approved, but the shark was considered offensive and inappropriate by the members and was disapproved. The executive coordinator informed Mr. Azoulay of their decision by phone. On May 18, 2004, Mr. Azoulay appeared in person before the Committee in an informal meeting. He admitted, at that time, that the purpose for the shark would be to attract tourists and would be clearly visible from Park Road 22. The Committee again disapproved the shark structure. The Board has stated that it is prepared to take legal action, if construction of the shark should commence. On behalf of the POA Board of Directors, POA Architectural Control Committee, and the residents of the Island who they represent,he asked that the shark not be constructed. Mr. Dick Smith, 13849 Blue Moon, appeared in opposition stating that he is involved with the Padre Island Overlay Zone being prepared by the City. The Overlay District will be imposing a great deal of restrictions on the Island regarding signage, landscaping, etc. It will 1111110 VIO Zonis lig>af d of Adjustment Minutes July 2S, 2004 Page 3 start the path for a beautiful island. A survey from the POA went out to all residents and businesses of the Island, and among other questions asked, was a question dealing with more stringent sign control. The response was 94% in favor of more stringent sign control. Another survey went out from the City with the specific question if businesses should use architectural features to attract business such as a shark's mouth as an entrance. The response was the same. What the City and residents want for the Island is a beautiful, word-class, tourist destination. If business owners who want to do something like this fail to understand that, all we can do is waive what the City and Islanders want in return. In answer to Board Member questions regarding existing sculptures in the Island, Mr. Smith responded that the Overlay Zone has been in process for almost 3 years. During past years, building designs have gone up in Park Road 22, which is not what the City visualizes for the barrier islands. There are architectural structures, including mermaids, etc. but they are just getting to the problem now. It is now that the City and residents are taking a stand against this type of structure. Chairman Schibi asked the relation between the POA, the stakeholders group, and the overlay zone developed by the City. Mr. Smith responded that the Padre Island Homeowner's Association has jurisdiction over some of the business zoned property along Park Road 22. The City typically lets business associations solve their own problems, but there is overlapping jurisdiction in this case. The Padre Island Overlay Zone is a special set of zoning requirements that are for stringent architectural, landscaping, etc. that has been in design for almost 3 years. It has been a joint venture between the City, Padre Island Business Association (PIBA), and POA. Representatives from all of these groups have worked together to design this overlay zone. Once it is in place, there will never be a meeting on similar issues. The Area Development Plan calls for the highest level of construction standards for the island. If someone purchases property on the Island, they are agreeing to abide by the POA set of regulations, if it's in the area of jurisdiction. Mr. John White, 13922 Primavera Drive, appeared in opposition stating that he is a member of the Architectural Control Committee. He stated that everyone living in the Island has spent a considerable amount of money on their property. People living there have to look at the shark everyday. He described the land use around the subject property. It is agreed that the Island is a tourist destination, but they want a classy one. Any person buying a piece of property in the POA jurisdiction gets a copy of the covenant requirements. By not reading them is not the resident's fault. Mr. Ro Wickham 13729 Eagles Nest, appeared in opposition stating that in the overlay zone district meetings it was defined that anything that attracts a business to that business or for that business, is a sign. He also explained that the structure on Park Road 22 is on state property and was funded by the state. It is not within the POA jurisdiction. Jerry Troykey, 1532 Cartagena Court, Wat Kline, 14427 Compass Street, John Hepner, 13910 Yellow Nest Bay, Benny Ward, 1413 Bounty Avenue, Peggy Shirley, 14949 Canadian Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 4 Mist, Tommy Hallick, 15935 Cuttysark, and Ms. Jean Cook, 14439 F Compass Street, all appeared in opposition stating that Padre Island is a classy Island, not a carnival like Port Aransas. They were concerned about property values and potential accident danger. Mr. Tony Brady, resident of the Island, developer, and current President of the Builders Association, appeared in opposition. Larger than life objects are addressed in the overlay district. This is a complete opposite of what the residents and the City envisions for Padre Island. He urged that the Board support the City and the Padre Island Homeowner's Association. Ms. Beverly Rogers, 13722 Cayo de Gorda, representing the Padre Island Business Association appeared in opposition. They are totally opposed. They would hate to see all their good work to standardize the Island go to waste. She appreciated Mr. Azoulay bringing his business to the Island,but would only appreciate it if he would conform to their standards. Mr. Dave Williams, 13901 Man 0' War, appeared in opposition, and spoke about a second-story structure behind his house over the water. He further stated that the house was not built in accordance to Building Code and POA regulations. Mr. Azoulay again addressed the Board and stated that not every property is under the POA jurisdiction and that he should be allowed to build the shark. In answer to questions raised from the audience and the Board, Mr. Azoulay stated that the canopy is being built up. He added that the most taken picture in Corpus Christi is the mermaid and in Port Aransas it is the shark. He also stated that in South Padre Island the property values keep rising because of the development and hopes the same will happen in Corpus Christi. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Schibi asked for Staff's recommendation. Ms. Barbara A. Bailey, Director of Development Services, stated that one of the reasons that Planning, Building, and Engineering Departments were combined as Development Services was to avoid situations like this one. In earlier decisions to issue building permits where they had the light house and the mermaid, they were denied by the Planning Department and later were overruled by the Building Department. The Planning Department from the beginning said that this constitutes a sign because a sign is a commercial message, as opposed to the dolphin as you enter the Island. It was her decision that the shark is clearly a commercial message, not just art work. It is intending to communicate to the off-premises public, as he has admitted to get them to stop at his place of business. Based on that, she had determined that it is a sign. He is allowed to have any sign that he wishes to have, including the shark, as long as it meets the sign ordinance regulations, and this does not. Staff's recommendation is that the Board uphold the recommendation that the shark is a sign, a commercial message, and deny the appellant's request. Mr. Saldana added that whatever decision that the Board makes, it does not specifically 4110 *IV Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 5 apply to this property, but is a decision that will be upheld throughout the City. If this type of device is not a sign, but a structure, then, whether it is in Padre Island or anywhere else, the decision will apply. He urged the Board to affirm Staff's decision. Loeb felt that the current definition of a sign is extremely broad and asked if, through the Unified Development Code, the sign would be altered to not make it so broad. Ms. Bailey responded probably not because the definition is pretty typical throughout the nation. Some of the cities in Texas abiding by the same definition are Addison, Plano, Wiley, and Temple. Loeb felt that under the present definition one could not put a price on a car window, or paint a building that would attract to it. The dome on top of City Hall would be considered a sign. Ms. Bailey stated that if it is a commercial message it is regulated by the Sign Ordinance. The lights on top of City Hall are not a commercial message. Mr. Saldana stated that the maximum size of a sign in the `B-2A" District is 100 square feet. Motion by Loeb that the shark be considered a structure based on the facts presented at the hearing. Motion died for lack of a second. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Schibi, seconded by Martinez, that the shark be considered as a sign as determined by Staff and based on the definition of the sign as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Motion passed with Loeb voting nay. Alma Garcia/Aguazul, Inc.:Appeal No. ZBA0704-02 Request: A Special Use Exception to eliminate the five (5) required off-street parking spaces, located on the north side of Leopard Street, approximately 100 feet east of Sam Rankin Drive. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Alma Garcia dba as Aguazul, Inc., has requested a Special Use Exception to eliminate the five (5)required off-street parking space on the office the appellant would like to lease. There is an area at the rear of the subject property to provide off- street parking,however, access to the rear does not provide for a 2-way drive aisle. According to the site plan provided by the appellant, there will be six (6) parking spaces at the rear of the property to be used by the employees. According to the appellant, there is a limited amount of customers that frequent the proposed offices. There is existing on-street metered parking along the north side of Leopard Street, which includes the front of the subject property. Mr. Saldana described the zoning, location, and land use of the subject property by means of computerized slides. He also presented the applicant's site plan. The appellant proposes to replace the façade 41111, tar Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 6 with a garage door to enter the rear of the property. The rear provides ample parking for the required parking spaces. The problem is that the access area from Leopard to the rear of the property is not in compliance with City regulations. The width of the alleyway is approximately 12 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires for a 2-way drive to be a minimum of 24 feet. The appellant has indicated that the spaces to the rear will predominantly be used by employees. The appellant is willing to be subject to the site plan with the parking spaces and provide the garage door and also improve the area all the way to the rear. Twelve notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which one was returned in favor and one (1) was returned in opposition. The owner of the subject property submitted a notice in favor. Vice-Chairman Clancy opened the public hearing. Ms. Alma Garcia, the appellant, appeared stating that her office is currently located at 2337 Pollex Drive. She reserved the right to address the Board at a later time only if there were any objections. Ms. Susan Garrett, with Gary Office Machines, was concerned about employees driving to the rear of the property hitting their electrical box or the side of her building. Mr. Saldana explained that the alley is closed with a wall by the owner's choice. It is the only way that the property owner can get to the rear of the property and that is to remove the two walls. There is no roof over the 12 feet of alley. They propose to close it with a garage door to lock up at night. The area to the back would be private parking. Ms. Garcia added that as it stands this building will of no use to anyone unless they are allowed the particular drive for employee access only. It has been an eyesore. The last she heard from Mr. Ali (current owner of subject property)was that he would be interested in renting it as a homeless shelter for $1.00 a month. She has interest in taking over that property to keep it a viable business and nothing less. If she is not granted the request, she will look somewhere else, but someone else will be before the Board at a later date with a much more deteriorated building. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Schibi asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldana stated that Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Exception to eliminate the five (5) required off-street parking spaces provided the employee parking is in accordance to the site plan. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Martinez, seconded by Clancy that the request to eliminate the five (5) required parking spaces be approved, limiting the Special Use Exception to an office use. The appellant will provide the six parking spaces as shown on the site plan presented to the Board. Motion passed unanimously. • Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 7 NOTE: For detailed information on testimony, refer to the tape retained on file in the Department of Development Services. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 28,2004 Page 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made to approve the June 23, 2004 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.