HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-04AGENDA
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
c••-D OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 4,1995, AT 6:00 P.M.
COURT ROOM/COUNCIL
307 WEST DALLAS • D
GRAPEVINE,
11. OATH OF TRUTH
RELATIVE A. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING
•• SUBMITTED BY • HOMES
CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME.
A. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE
BZA95-39, SUBMITTED POWELL ANN
CONSIDERATION O.
PUBLIC B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A
HEARING • BOARD • • : ADJUSTMENT
BZA95-40, SUBMITTED BY SPEED FAB-CRETE AND
CONSIDERATION OF SAME.
C. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE
BZA95-41, SUBMITTED BY PHILIP MORLEY ANN
CONSIDERATION OF .
D BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE
BZA95-42, SUBMITTED BIGGS AND
CONSIDERATION OF
E. BOARD OF • ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT
HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE
BZA95-43, SUBMITTED BY -ON STURGEON
CONSIDERATION OF SAME.
F. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A P14BLIC
HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE
BZA95-31, SUBMITTED BY DANNY GUEST ANIN:
CONSIDERATION •.
V. MINUTES
REVIEW A. .• A'.) OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGDADA
SCHEDULE ...
VII. ADJOURNMENT
IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY
THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT
THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 481-0377 ' HOURS
ADVANCE, IN REASONABLE
:_ r .
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 et se
ACTS OF 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF • ADJUSTMEN
MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS �y DAY
DECEMBER, 1995 AT 5:00 P.M. / I
DIR-ECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday
evening, December 4, 1995, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307
West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit:
Chris Coy
Chairman
Ery Meyer
Secretary
Randy Howell
Vice- Chairman
Carl Hecht
Member
Dennis Luers
1 st Alternate
constituting a quorum. Also present was Councilman Gil Traverse and the following
City Staff:
H.T. (Tommy) Hardy Dir. of Development Services
Marcy Ratcliff City Planner
Scott Williams Building Official
Teresa Wallace Planning Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Chris Coy called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
• 0
BZA95 -34 - KINGSWAY HOMES
First for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -34 submitted by Bob
Agar representing Kingsway Homes who requested a variance for Lot 8, Block 1,
Green Meadow Estates and addressed as 3014 Cloverdale Court. The request was
to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, as follows:
Section 15.G.2., "R -7.5" Single Family District Regulations which requires a twenty
five (25) foot rear yard setback.
The variance request is to allow an eighteen 0 8) foot encroachment into the required
twenty five (25) foot rear yard setback as shown on the plot plan. If approved, it
would allow a seven (7) foot rear yard setback.
An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Bob
Agar representing Kingsway Homes. The applicant is proposing to develop a single
family home on the vacant cul -de -sac lot. The Board of Zoning Adjustment, at the
applicant's request, tabled action on the application until December 4, 1995. Staff
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
has met with the applicant twice since the November 6, 1995 meeting to discuss
possibilities. The applicant has requested his application be tabled to the January 8,
1996 meeting to allow him additional time to design another house plan for the lot.
Ery Meyer moved to table BZA95 -34 to January 8, 1996. Carl Hecht seconded the
motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Hecht, Howell, and Luers
Nays: None
NEW BUSINESS
BZA95 -39 - CYNDI POWELL
The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -39
submitted by Cyndi Powell, Realtor, who requested a variance for Lot 2413-1, Lake
Forest Addition, specifically addressed as 3404 Lakeridge Drive. The request was to
the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, as follows:
Section 42.D., Supplementary District Regulations requires a side yard setback equal
to the front yard setback, except on corner lots adjacent to a segment of a side street
upon which no property fronts.
The proposed variance would allow a nine (9) foot encroachment into the required
thirty (30) foot side yard setback for the existing house. If approved, it would allow
a twenty one (21) foot side yard setback for the existing house on the corner along
Forest Hills Road as shown on the plot plan.
An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Realtor
Cyndi Powell. The encroachment was noted on the closing survey when the house
was recently sold. The variance request was filed as a requirement of closing the loan
to clear the encumbrance on the title.
Scott Williams, Building Official, explained Staff found a special condition for the
request. The structure was built in 1970 prior to the requirement of setback
inspections, therefore, the encroachment is not the fault of the owner. The applicant
was made aware of the building line encroachment when the closing survey was
received on the property.
2
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
With no guests to speak, Randy Howell moved to close the public hearing. Carl
Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Following a brief discussion, Randy Howell moved that a special condition exists and
that being the structure was built in 1970 prior to implementation of a building line
setback inspection therefore the encroachment is not the fault of the owner. Ery
Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Randy Howell moved to grant the variance for Lot 2413-1, Lake Forest Addition,
addressed as 3404 Lakeridge Drive, to allow a nine (9) foot encroachment into the
required thirty (30) foot side yard setback allowing a twenty one (21) foot side yard
setback for the existing house on the corner along Forest Hills Road as shown on the
plot plan. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -40 submitted by
Ron Hamm of Speed Fab -Crete for Jerry Pittman who requested a special exception
and variances for Lot 1R, Block 1, Lakeview Plaza, addressed as 1705 West
Northwest Highway. The request was to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance 82 -73 as follows:
Section 68.H.3., Board of Zoning Adjustment requirements allows the Board to hear
and decide special exceptions to the terms of this Ordinance upon which literal
enforcement of the provision of this Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, so
that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
The proposed special exception would allow the existing structures located in the
front half of the property to remain as currently developed. If approved, the existing
development would remain as shown on the site plan.
3
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Section 27.1.1., "P -O" Professional Office District Regulations limits buildings
contiguous to a "R -20 ", "R- 12.5 ", "R -7.5 ", Single Family District to no more than
twenty (20) feet or one story in height.
The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot variance to the twenty (20) foot
or one (1) story maximum building height requirement. If approved, it would allow a
two story building with a maximum building height of thirty (30) feet at the rear of the
property as shown on the site plan.
Section 53.H.2.b., Landscaping Requirements require a ten (10) foot wide perimeter
landscape area whenever an off street parking or vehicular use area abuts an adjacent
property line.
The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot encroachment into the required ten
(10) foot perimeter landscaping, approximately 160 linear feet along the eastern
property line at the rear. If approved, it would allow a zero (0) foot perimeter
landscaped area as shown on the site plan.
Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, explained the applicant was proposing to develop a two (2)
story 40,000 square foot building at the rear of the existing development known as
Lakeview Plaza. The original building permit for the existing structures was issued on
February 5, 1985.
Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, explained Staff finds a special condition exists to allow the
special exception for the existing structures to remain as currently developed because
the structures were developed in accordance with all the zoning regulations required
at that time. Staff finds a special condition for the variance request to the height
regulation because the property was originally planned to be developed in a similar
manner. One -third of the property is covered by an existing lake and the applicant is
trying to preserve this natural area. Staff also finds a special condition for the
perimeter landscaping along the back eastern property line because the landscaping
would cause the proposed parking to encroach the existing approved driving lane and
24 hour emergency /utility easement by ten (10) feet. Additionally, the perimeter
landscaping would not allow the proposed parking to align with the existing parking
along the eastern property line.
Ron Hamm of Speed Fab - Crete, 2506 Vanderbilt Court, Rowlett Texas, was present
to respond to questions relative to the request.
Concerns were addressed regarding the exterior appearance of the second building of
the development and if it would compliment the existing building.
Jerry Pittman, 346 Pebblebrook Drive, Grapevine Texas, stated the structure would
be concrete tilt wall, perhaps with a granite exterior and exposed aggregate finish.
4
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Concerns were also addressed regarding the height of the building adjacent to
residential property.
Mr. P.W. McCallum, 1800 West Wall Street, was sworn in to speak to the request.
Mr. McCallum stated he owned the acreage behind the proposed development which
he is moving and restoring an historic home. He told the board he has no objection
to the request to allow a two story structure.
Chairman Chris Coy stated two (2) property owner responses had been received in
favor of the request.
Randy Howell moved to close the public hearing. Carl Hecht seconded the motion
which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
After a brief discussion, Carl Hecht moved that a special condition exists for a special
exception to allow the existing development .to remain as developed because the
property was developed in accordance with all the zoning requirements at that time.
A special condition exists to allow the variance to the height regulation because the
property was originally planned to be developed in a similar manner. A special
condition exists to allow the variance to the perimeter landscaping along the back
eastern property line because the landscaping would cause the proposed parking to
encroach the existing approved driving lane and 24 hour emergency /utility easement
by 10 feet. Additionally, the perimeter landscaping would not allow the proposed
parking to align with the existing parking along the eastern property line. Dennis
Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by.the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Carl Hecht moved, with a second by Ery Meyer to approve the special exception and
variances for Lot 1R, Block 1, Lakeview Plaza, addressed as 1705 West Northwest
Highway to allow the existing structures located in the front half of the property to
remain as currently developed allowing the existing development to remain as shown
on the site plan; to allow a ten (10) foot variance to the twenty (20) foot or one (1)
story maximum height requirement allowing a two (2) story building with a maximum
building height of thirty (30) feet at the rear of the property as shown on the site plan;
to allow a ten (10) foot encroachment into the required ten (10) foot perimeter
landscaping approximately 160 linear feet along the eastern property line at the rear
allowing a zero (0) foot perimeter landscaped area as shown on the site plan.
5
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
BZA95 -41 - PHILIP MORLEY
Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -41 submitted by
Philip Morley for Suzanne Eisenstark who requested a variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Wall
Street Addition and addressed as 967 West Wall Street. The request was to the
Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73 as follows:
Section 53.H.2.a., Landscaping Requirements require a fifteen (15) foot perimeter
landscaped area whenever an off - street parking or vehicular use area abuts a public
right -of -way.
The proposed variance would allow a seven and one -half (7 1/2) foot reduction; and,
an eleven and one -half (11 1/2') foot reduction to the required fifteen (15') foot
perimeter landscaping adjacent to the parking spaces along the west property line and
Blevins Street.
If approved, it would allow a perimeter landscaped area of seven and one -half (7 1/2')
foot; and, a three and one -half (3 1/2') foot buffer adjacent to the parking spaces
along Blevins Street as shown on the concept plan.
Section 53.H.2.b., Landscaping Requirements require a ten (10) foot perimeter
landscaped area whenever an off - street parking or vehicular use area abuts an
adjacent property line.
The proposed variance would allow a reduction of three foot one inch (3'1 "); and, a
three foot (3') reduction to the required ten foot perimeter landscaping along the
eastern property line adjacent to the parking spaces.
If approved, it would allow a six foot and eleven inch (6'11 "); and, a seven foot (7')
perimeter landscape area adjacent to the east property line as shown on the concept
plan.
Marcy Ratcliff, explained an application was submitted to the Department of
Development Services by Philip Morley for Suzanne Eisenstark after submitting a final
plat. In the plat review process she was made aware of the right -of -way dedication
requirement for Wall and Blevins Street. She found the reduction in the size of her lot
would make it difficult to meet the parking requirements for a 4,999 square foot
office building due to the reduced width of the property.
Marcy Ratcliff stated Staff finds a special condition exists for the variance request and
that being the lot is only 104 feet wide after right -of -way dedication, and the
2
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
applicant is providing the required number of off - street parking spaces. The applicant
is also trying to .save as many of the existing trees as possible on the lot. The
applicant could move the building closer to Wall Street, but that would not allow any
more room for the development of additional parking spaces. Suzanne Eisenstark was
introduced to speak to the request.
Suzanne Eisenstark, 4712 Briarcroft, Grapevine, Texas, explained that in her meeting
with Public Works Staff she was informed that additional right -of -way would be
needed from her lot to allow for the widening of Wall Street and Blevins Street as
shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. She met with her architect Philip Morley to
discuss the reduction of her lot size and how it would effect her development. She
said after they met with Marcy Ratcliff in Development Services it was decided to
move the building farther back on the lot which would also allow her to save six trees
in the front yard creating 44% open space on the property. However, moving the
location of the building would require variances for landscaping of the off - street
parking areas.
Phil Morley, Morley Architects, responded to questions relative to the topography of
the lot and any expected grading. He said the lot was fairly flat and there was no
expected grading required on the property.
With no other guests to speak to the request, Dennis Luers moved to close the public
hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Members discussed the future widening of Wall and Blevins Street on the shown on
the Master Thoroughfare Plan and the impact on the subject property.
Ery Meyer moved that a special condition exists for the request and that being the lot
is only 104 feet wide after right -of -way dedication and the applicant is providing the
required off - street parking. The applicant is also trying to save as many of the
existing trees as possible on the lot. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed
by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Ery Meyer moved, with a second by Carl Hecht, to approve the variance to the
Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, Section 53.H.2.a. and Section
53.H.2.b. to allow a reduction of seven and one -half feet (7 1/2'); and, an eleven and
one -half feet (11 1/2') reduction to the required fifteen (15') foot perimeter
landscaping adjacent to the parking spaces along west property line and Blevins Street
r7
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
allowing a perimeter landscaped area of seven and one-half feet (7 1/2') and a three
and one-half (3 1/2') foot buffer adjacent to the parking spaces along Blevins Street
as shown on the concept plan; and to allow a reduction of three feet and one inch
(3'1 "), and, a reduction of three (3') foot to " the required ten (10) foot perimeter
landscaping along the eastern property line adjacent to the parking spaces allowing
a six foot and eleven inch (6'11 "), and, a seven (7') foot perimeter landscape area
adjacent to the east property line as shown on the concept plan. The motion
prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
BZA95-42 - WILLIAM BIGO-S
Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95-42 submitted by
William Biggs who requested a variance for Lot 10, Block 3, South Shore Acres,
addressed as 985 Harber Avenue. The request was to the Grapevine Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance 82-73, as follows:
Section 42.D., Supplementary District Regulations requires a side yard setback equal
to the front yard setback, except on corner lots adjacent to a segment of a side street
upon which no property fronts.
The proposed variance would allow a three (3) foot encroachment into the required
fifteen (15) foot side yard setback for the existing house. If approved, it would allow
a twelve (12) foot side yard setback for the existing house on the corner along
Overlook Drive as shown on the plot plan.
An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by the
Homeowner, Mr. William Biggs. Mr. Biggs was notified of the encroachment by the
closing survey at time of purchase of the home. The variance request is a requirement
of the lender upon closing the loan.
Scott Williams, Building Official, explained Staff finds a special condition exists for the
variance request. The encroachment is not the fault of the applicant. The house was
built in 1972 prior to the requirement for setback inspections by the city.
Carl Hecht moved to close the public hearing. Randy Howell seconded the motion
which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
W
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
After a brief discussion, Carl Hecht moved that a special condition exists and that
being the encroachment is not the fault of the applicant. The house was built in 1972
prior to the requirement for setback inspections. Randy Howell seconded the motion
which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Carl Hecht moved, with a second by Randy Howell, to approve the variance for Lot
10, Block 3, South Shore Acres, addressed as 985 Harber Avenue to allow a three
(3) foot encroachment into the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback for the
existing house allowing a twelve (12) foot side yard setback for the existing house on
the corner along Overlook Drive as. shown on the plot plan. The motion prevailed by
the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
BZA95 -43 - RON STURGEON
Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -43 submitted by
Ron Sturgeon who requested a variance for Lot 1, Block 2, Crystal Butte, and
addressed as 3046 Monument Butte. The request was to the Grapevine
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82 -73, as follows:
Section 42.D., Supplementary District Regulations requires a side yard setback equal
to the front yard setback, except on corner lots adjacent to a segment of a side street
upon which no property fronts.
The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot encroachment into the required
thirty (30) foot side yard setback to increase the size of the existing three car garage.
If approved, it would allow a twenty (20) foot side yard setback along High Cliff Drive
for expansion of the existing as shown on the plot plan.
Scott Williams, Building Official, stated an application was submitted to the
Department of Development Services by the homeowner, Mr. Ron Sturgeon. The
applicant wishes to provide additional indoor parking for all family vehicles.
Scott Williams, Building Official, explained Staff finds no special condition for the
request. The applicant has an existing three car garage which is comparable to other
houses in the area. Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment deny the
request.
W
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Mr. Ron Sturgeon, 3046 Monument Butte, was sworn in to address the request. He
provided colored photographs to illustrate the unique topography of the lot. He
explained that with the unusual rear yard he could not fit a garage. He told the Board
that the zoning ordinance did not address the unique problems on his lot. He
explained his was the western most house in the "R -20" Single Family subdivision.
His neighbors were zoned R -7.5 Single Family. He also described a drainage problem
on his lot with runoff from neighboring homes. He presented a copy of a letter from
a drainage engineer stating his proposed expansion would not affect the drainage in
the area. He also stated that his proposed garage expansion would not harm the
adjacent neighbors view. He read a letter favorable to his request from Planning and
Zoning Commissioner, Steve Stamos. He asked that the Board grant his request.
Mr. Bill Bailey, 3072 High Cliff, spoke in favor of the request.
Board members expressed concerns about the number of cars he was attempting to
park in the garage. Also addressed were concerns stated by neighbors that it
appeared they were running a business from the residence. Members inquired
whether there would be another location on the property to build a garage.
Mr. Sturgeon told the members he had a passion for automobiles. He and his wife
had two vehicles each and he had two children at home that each have a car. He
explained he was in the automobile salvage business and he did have a Texas Dealers
license for the vehicles, but he was not running a business or selling cars from the
residence.
Mr. Bill Bailey again addressed the Board stating his driveway was in line with Mr.
Sturgeon's driveway and they did not have a problem backing out of the driveways
into the street.
Chairman Chris Coy stated there were three letters of approval and three letters of
protest received.
Randy Howell moved to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion
which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Sturgeon offered a compromise to the Board
requesting to allow a 6 foot encroachment in to the required side yard for the face of
the garage. Members addressed the concerns of the drainage on the lot but could not
find a special condition for the request.
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Carl Hecht moved that a special condition did not exist for the request because there
were other locations in the yard that would accommodate a garage. Ery Meyer
seconded the motion which was denied by the following vote:
Ayes: Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: Coy
BZA95 -31 - DANNY GUEST
Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA95 -31 submitted by
Danny Guest who is appealing a decision made by Tommy Hardy, Director of
Development Services concerning the operation of a truck and trailer rental use at 804
East Northwest Highway.
Section - 68.H., Board of Zoning Adjustment regulations states the powers of the
Board includes the ability to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error
in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official
of the City in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
The appeal, if approved, would allow a truck. and trailer rental use to legally operate
at 804 East Northwest Highway.
Tommy Hardy, Director of Development Services, explained that almost a year ago,
Mr. Danny Guest consulted the Planning Staff concerning the possibility of operating
a truck and trailer rental business at property he occupies as a used-car dealership at
804 East Northwest Highway. He was advised by Marcy Ratcliff, Planner, that a
truck and trailer lease use requires a conditional use permit approved by City Council.
Some time afterward, Staff noticed Mr. Guest had begun operation of a. truck and
trailer rental business without Council's approval.
Mr. Guest was issued a notice of the zoning violation by the Code Enforcement
Officer on February 23, 1995. Mr. Guest was issued a citation on February 24,
1995, for failing to comply with the February 23, 1995 notice. Several citations were
issued to Mr. Guest advising him of the violation, until he filed his Board of Zoning
Adjustment case September 19, 1995.
In reviewing the records of the subject address, Staff was unable to determine the
exact date Mr. Guest started his operation as a used car lot at 804 East Northwest
Highway. Mr. Guest states he started his used car lot operation in 1981. At that
time the used car business was classified as "C -2" Community Business District under
Appendix A Zoning Ordinance. The "C -2 ", Community Business district did not allow
a truck and trailer rental use in 1981.
11
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
The permitted uses changed as a result of the City Wide Rezoning in 1984 when the
property was rezoned from "C -2 ", Community Business District to "HC ", Highway
Commercial District on May 3, 1984. The "HC" Highway Commercial District in 1984
allowed truck and trailer rental as a permitted use, however no use is vested until a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the City.
Mr. Guest was required to submit a Certificate of Occupancy Request stating his
proposed change in use to be authorized as a truck and trailer rental use. Staff has
researched the Certificate of Occupancy Requests issued since May 3, 1984 to
present date and have found no record of a Certificate of Occupancy issued for a
change in use at 804 E. Northwest Highway. Both the Appendix A Zoning Ordinance
and Appendix D Zoning Ordinance require a Certificate of Occupancy before any
building or land can be used or changed in use. On July 15, 1986, the City Council,
amended the "HC ", Highway Commercial District to require truck and trailer rental as
a conditional use permit.
Mr. Hardy related that Mr. Guest has stated in his application that he knowingly
illegally operated a truck and trailer rental business before the 1984 City Rezoning.
He contends he became a legal use with the 1984 City Rezoning because the
Highway Commercial District allowed truck and trailer rental as a permitted use. He
also contends he became a legal nonconforming use with the amendments to the
Highway Commercial District on July 15, 1986. Staff and the City Attorney do not
agree with Mr. Guest's contentions since he never received a Certificate of
Occupancy proving there was ever a truck and trailer rental use at 804 East
Northwest Highway.
Mr. Hardy told the Board that being a permitted use in a district does not vest rights
to a property owner. At any time one proposes to use property, or proposes to
change the use of a property, a certificate of occupancy must be obtained. A
certificate of occupancy is a very significant document issued by the City of
Grapevine. A certificate of occupancy is the result of a comprehensive review process
of zoning regulations, fire codes, building codes, and all the requirements imposed by
the City of Grapevine before one can occupy any property for any use.
Mr. Hardy told the Board Staff based their decision on the evidence and the
documentation submitted by the applicant to date. Staff recommends the Board
uphold the findings that at no time did the applicant have a legal right to occupy the
property as a permitted use from May 3, 1984 to July 15, 1986 because a certificate
of occupancy was never issued to the applicant at that time. Mr. Guest was never
vested as a nonconforming use during that period. A conditional use permit would
have to be approved after July 15, 1986 to allow truck and trailer rental. To date he
has not filed any applications to go before the Council.
12
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Tommy Hardy, responded to questions from the Board relative to the outcome of the
jury trial mentioned in a letter received from the City Attorney regarding 15 citations
that were to be heard in Grapevine Municipal Court September 21, 1995. He
explained the proceedings were postponed as a requirement of law. Once an
application has been filed with the Board of Zoning Adjustment the City must cease
all action against the applicants. The proceedings will not be heard until action is
taken by this Board. Mr. Hardy responded to other questions relative to utility service
to the subject property and the certificate of occupancy on record being a used car
lot. Members expressed concern that Mr. Guest had not even filed for a conditional
use permit.
Mr. Stan Knight, 5956 Sherry Lane, Dallas, Texas, Attorney representing the applicant
told the members they were present to file an appeal to Mr. Hardy's decision that Mr.
Guest does not have nonconforming rights to operate a truck and trailer rental
business at his present location. Mr. Knight commented that a special condition
would not be required in this request of appeal because the application is for
termination of error. He told the Board that nonconforming rights are the same as
grandfather rights. Mr. Knight explained nonconforming rights describes a use that
was at one time legal but can not now be established because of a change in the
zoning ordinance. He maintained that Mr. Guest has been renting truck_ s and trailers
at the subject property since 1981 to present date and the use has been in continuous
operation since that time. Mr. Knight submitted a certified copy of Ordinance 84 -16
which he states provides the use was a legal use, and Ordinance 84 -21 which
rezoned the subject property to "HC" Highway Commercial District.
Mr. Knight continued to address the Board confirming Mr. Guest had been renting
trucks and trailers at that location since 1981 and presented rental receipts as
documentation. Mr. Knight stated the last rental was May 28, 1995 and he did not
dispute Mr. Guest was still in business. He also stated earlier this year Mr. Guest had
changed to Ryder Trucks because it was easier to provide repair and maintenance.
However, Ryder Truck rental receipts are in book form and it was not possible to copy
the books.
Addressing Staff comments, Mr. Knight began by saying that recognition of Mr.
Guest's nonconforming rights was based on his failure to get a certificate of
occupancy. Referring to documentation included in the agenda packet, Mr. Knight
directed attention to Section 14, Certificate of occupancy and compliance
requirements of Appendix A enacted as part of Ordinance 70 -10 adopted on April 7,
1970, which states "No building, or portion thereof, hereafter erected, converted, or
altered shall be used or changed in use until a certificate of occupancy and compliance
shall have been issued by the building inspector of the City of Grapevine ". A certified
copy was presented to the Board. Mr. Knight contended the building has not been
erected, converted, or altered after April 7, 1970. He told the Board Mr. Guest would
testify to the fact that the property had not been erected, altered, modified or
13
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
converted since 1970. His contention was that a certificate of occupancy was not
required under Ordinance 14-100 and staff could not require something that was not
required by ordinance. Further, he stated that Section 64.A. of Ordinance 82-73
would not require a certificate of occupancy because the building had not been
erected, modified or altered, and no building permit had ever been taken issued for
this building because there have been changes since 1981. Again, he stated Mr.
Guest had been the occupant of the building since 1981 and contends there had been
no change in occupancy or use since that time. In reference to the agenda memo, he
submitted that a certificate of occupancy is not required to vest rights on property.
In summation, he continued to maintain that the truck trailer rental use was an
allowed use, and that Mr. Guest was in business at the time it was an allowed use
and the business has continued to be a legal nonconforming use; legal at one point
and continuous operation are the requirements for a nonconforming use. He stated
he did not believe the certificate of occupancy applies in this case because of the
wording used in the ordinance.
Mr. Danny Guest, 2004 Lachman Court, Arlington, Texas, was sworn in to address
the request. He stated he leased the property in March of 1981. Further, he
explained the building has not been changed since the 1960's when the residence
was converted to a business property. He told the Board that nothing had been
added, deleted, or changed on the property since he leased it in 1981. Further, he
stated that he has always rented trucks at the location since 1981. He corrected Mr.
Knight that the franchise was U-Haul not Ryder Trucks. He says the recent change
to renting U-Haul trucks was merely a business decision based on the fact that U-Haul
takes care of all the repair on their equipment. He said there has been no break in the
business just because he took on the U-Haul franchise. He reiterated that he had no
idea until 1995 that renting trucks from his location was not allowed. He says he was
never told until the code enforcement officer spoke to him regarding the U-Haul
trucks. After visiting with Will Wickman, former City Councilman, he spoke to Marcy
Ratcliff, who provided all the documentation he would need to apply for a conditional
use request. , He maintains that since he has been operating a truck rental business
for fourteen years at his used car lot and he did not see the problem so he contacted
an attorney.
He responded to questions from the Board relative to the use of the property before
he leased it and whether a,certificate of occupancy was obtained for the property
when he initially began operations.
Stan Knight, Attorney, reiterated their position that Mr. Guest had been renting trucks
from that location since 1981 and that the use has not changed. He said whether Mr.
Guest had a certificate of occupancy or not has no bearing on his nonconforming
rights. He also contended that many businesses operated in 1981 without benefit of
a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Knight stated that not having a certificate of
occupancy does not prohibit you from having nonconforming rights in the State of
14
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Texas. He asked the Board to overturn Mr. Hardy's decision that Mr. Guest did not
have nonconforming rights to rent trucks and trailers at his location.
Chairman Chris Coy asked Tommy Hardy to explain the process of granting a
certificate of occupancy. In response, Mr. Hardy stated a certificate of occupancy is
required on a new building, or when the occupancy or use changes on any property.
An application is required for a certificate of occupancy which details the use of the
property. The Building Official, Fire Department, and Building Inspector review the
applications and the physical property to determine if the property is zoned correctly
and meets all of the building and fire safety codes. Mr. Hardy also stated he did not
know when the requirement for a certificate of occupancy for utility service was
enacted. Further, he stated he came to the City of Grapevine in 1981 'and many of
the ordinances were not being enforced at that time. - However, Mr. Guest has
admitted in his application that he knew he had operated an illegal use on the
property. Mr. Hardy stated that he had been enforcing municipal law for 21 years and
a certificate of occupancy has been the standard to review how a property is going
to be used, not just how a property is zoned, but all aspect of how the zoning
regulations apply. Mr. Hardy stated that he differed with Mr. Stan Knight in that
Section 64 did require a certificate of occupancy to use land or change uses of
property. Even the building code requirements state you must have a certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Stan Lowry, 1700 West Pioneer, Irving, Texas, Attorney for the City of Grapevine
was sworn in to respond to questions. Ery Meyer inquired if the property had been
used as a real estate office in 1970 when Ordinance 14 -100 was adopted and if he
changed the use in 1981 would a certificate of occupancy be required. Mr. Lowry
stated a certificate of occupancy would be required. Mr. Knight argued that
Ordinance 14 -100 did not apply to Mr. Guest because he did not change the property.
Mr. Hardy, again stated that even if Ordinance 14 -100 did not apply to Mr. Guest, the
operation was.not a permitted use in the zoning district in 1981. He stated that the
city had no documented evidence submitted by the applicant that described the type
of operation he was running at that location. It became obvious when the U -Haul
trucks appeared at that location. Mr. Hardy stated even if Staff had been aware Mr.
Guest was operating a truck rental business from that location prior to noticing the
U -Haul trucks on his property, we would still be at the same point we are at this time.
Staff would have contacted Mr. Guest and informed him what he would have to do
to accomplish the type of use he is currently conducting. Mr. Gust would still have
needed Council approval for the use as he would today. He would still have been
required to have a certificate of occupancy. because he was changing the use of the
land.
Members asked Mr. Guest why he would choose not to go before Council with his
request to operate a truck rental business. In response, Mr.-Guest stated he did not
15
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
believe he was changing the business in any way other than he had been operating
since 1981. He maintained he had vested rights to lease trucks at the location and
did not see a change in use.
Members discussed the U -Haul franchise that had attempted to locate at several
locations along Northwest Highway. In every case they were instructed they must
go through the conditional use process to allow the use in the Highway Commercial
District. Mr. Hardy told the Board the City has been trying to clean up the Northwest
Highway corridor and have been enforcing the ordinance to accomplish this goal.
In response to questions regarding state law versus city law on vested rights, Stan
Lowry, told the Board he knows of no state law which prohibits a certificate of
occupancy being used in conjunction with city zoning. Authority is given to the city
by state law to enact zoning ordinances. Tommy Hardy, Director of Development
Services requested that rental records and certified copies of ordinances presented by
Mr. Guest and his attorney Stan Knight be submitted to the secretary for the record.
Members discussed the change in use in 1981 from a real estate office to a used car
lot which would have required a certificate of occupancy to determine use on the
property and nonconforming rights. Members agreed to uphold the decision by
Tommy Hardy, Director of Development Services, to require Mr. Guest to apply for a
conditional use to operate the truck rental business at that location.
Carl Hecht moved to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which
prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
Carl Hecht moved to uphold the decision by Tommy Hardy, Director of Development
Services that Mr. Guest was operating an illegal truck and trailer rental business at
804 East Northwest Highway. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by
the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
MINUTES - OCTOBER 2, 1995
Next for the Board to consider were the minutes of the October 2, 1995 meeting.
Ery Meyer moved, with a second by Randy Howell, to approve the minutes of the
October 2, 1995 meeting which prevailed by the following vote:
16
BZA Minutes
12/04/95
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6 1995
Next for the Board to consider were the minutes of the November 6, 1995 meeting.
Ery Meyer, with a second by Carl Hecht, moved to approve the minutes of November
6, 1995 which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND /OR DISCUSSION
Staff discussed new development in the City of Grapevine with the Board. Tommy
Hardy encouraged board members to try the new Tinseltown movie theater which
recently opened.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Randy Howell
seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes: Coy, Meyer, Howell, Hecht, and Luers
Nays: None
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY
OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1996.
ATTEST:
= er
Z'-4-
SECRETARY
1
CHAIRMAN
17