Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-02 AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY.EVENING, DECEMBER 2, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. COURT ROOM/COUNCIL CHAMBERS, #205 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD GRAPEVINE, TEXAS I. CALL TO ORDER 11. OATH OF TRUTH 111. NEW BUSINESS A. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA96-40, SUBMITTED BY DAVID WILSON AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA96-42, SUBMITTED BY JON KENNEDY AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. C BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA96-43, SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM EASTWOOD AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. D. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA96-44, SUBMITTED BY RICHARD PEMBERTON AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA96-45, SUBMITTED BY DONNA POTTER AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. IV. MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4, 1996, MEETING. V. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION VI. 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 SERVICES AT (817) 481-0377 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551 .001 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 AT 5:00 P.M. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIA RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER V SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA96-40 DAVID WILSON MEETING DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for property legally described by metes and bounds and addressed as 829 South Dooley Street as follows 1. Section 31.F, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot size,of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The proposed variance would allow a 10.621 square foot reduction in the required lot size. If approved. it would allow a lot 'size of 9.379 square feet 2.` Section 31.G.1, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet. The proposed variance would allow a fifteen (15) font reduction in the required lot width. If approved. it would allow a lot width of eighty-five (85) feet � 3. Section 31.G.2, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. The proposed variance would allow a seven (7) foot redaction in the required lot depth. If approved. it would allow a lot depth of one hundred forty-three- Y- ree (143) feet. 4. Section 31.G.3, Light Industrial District, requires a front yard of not less than thirty (30) feet in depth which shall be utilized as a landscaped setback area. Front yards shall not be used for any building, structure, fence, wall, parking or storage area, except that signs shall be permitted in this area. The proposed variance would allow perking in the `required front yard setback, If approved it would allow two (2) win i the required front yard setback, 5. Section 31.G.4, Light`Industrial District, requires'every lot to have two side yards, each of which shall not be less than fifteen 05) feet in width. The proposed variance would allow a three (3) foot reduction to the required side yard to the north. If approved. it would'allow a side yard of twelve (12)' feet along the north property line. 6. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations, requires that whenever an off- street parking or vehicular use area abuts an adjacent property line,'a perimeter landscape area of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. The proposed variance would allow a five (5) foot reduction`in the perimeter landscape area depth. ' If approved. it would"allow a perimeter landscape area of five (5) feet. SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds that a special condition exists for all of the proposed variances because the lot and structure, previously used as a single family residence,`are existing in a zoning'district now zoned Light Industrial. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by David Wilson'. RS/rs 0:\BZA\96-40.4 C1• 2 A EAC E 1 ! I 2 t I ?� e I ESTIIt ST+ N Pr a 4 PT x3b 24 TA AC TR 2 3 21 .g 6 S T r 1 2 l t g S f. ,I �' W 3 E � 3 t 16 TEXAS ST j 2 3 ii e 5 rot ,61 � T? I 6 c PT I �2 , ,�'TI s 3 62C TR TR 5 p , • I `'j� �y1► 6 AC.45 I 631i i�!6 Oa` ' I E rExas t ST 25 AC , Ar TR H-�„0 42% •� �� AC 1 t 'R sa „ ►T ,I „ } 6 7 • s n 13 lG E jRv5 1 2 v 3 SA ►T f T Pi Zc s 2 4 , • 9 i0 1 , I (►)T� I 1172 2 3 t 3 a 2 3 I 6 7 ! I 3. WORTHC-T ! 91 t K IN,dFtNFT f 6d w E v( E . ETn- l t2 F i ' PT PT PTiPrSS �iPt 1 i ! ' A s f s' I I2I w ' Gdll oo 15 I t) E E �r I '� 0 2 !• 3 ►T 12 ! P* P1 PT cr 1 E4 ( 1 'Tt! 2 13 J 6 ' :0 12 qA e� 1 1 ( i sl6I7I a u I t t TR 2x P E M PT 0t f I ~ ( w*i .. 'v i' :+ c' '1 STREET :Lt�$EG Ls71 AC 1 I 1 / i �µ V , ► vT � `� „ +�. S I�'! . !2 3 IL 54 1 A I 22 I ' '�' S ' ' 12 1 2 3 s S t 5 ht� 9 10 1t a�' 1 1 ► t; } I ' PT -Jf I N' V �T 2 3 .7C!�e � 4 I CAN:ST- Tj.�S 20 7 La al 3-1 3Z86 12 u �Ic� c g i 7 S5 O 1 t I TR 2T. qN CU93-08 'S0 %i 5 IPZ94-1 IP2 �4 -� ..1 2 ' 9_ Za Z90-09� {; 2 l K ,, I � B,T� 5� BZA 96-40 CU87 ' 1 � ( ! —067 is '` ' �`. DAVI D WILSON ES ---t Mg L ra U � 2El , � QON � ♦ TR ?i I 5.9t I 6 i .c I A I ?I i -,�a ,c ac F. 55�I L-� 1.•E<o 5 SNZ Da 1E 1:71 i : ! �� TA TA I 7 r rF 2< TR -X c .7 , -143 — �— — i TR l ra DALLAS RD• p,y iR/ Z z TR 2c2 2C L. I TR Ta FUO AC 5-131? t ! TR to 627 ,7t fl[ ji �.�T , � TP 18 ' .•64 • L627 y' q-.6 -C • Ic TR 2-4 -09 � � ITR ICI `n! 1.3P �c �PCD �a� ;7a nt � Ic� i lu. C ;P 30 TR tI t.4 L cc 7 7e .S tq !•a.s3.:c PCD D - SEEP 3 0 CITY OF GRAPEVINE -z4_4VI- BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AlPPI=+GAT40 ON- 1 . APPLICANT -) NAM - 4 4')10 bj�16.0'.') ll/Uo ��e'�bd S4-plvc, AV0 7ZFA)4 #74,"OA) ADDRESS: So � Ste' /z-/ 5/.1- --- CITY/STATE:_G2.4 A114 ZIP: 7&o�/ HOME:, 01-0-z'z-) —WORK. FAX: 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: bAViD WikQ--J A,00 VClele'A ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: G2j4pej ,-te- —zip: W0%K -HOME:. 14�3340- FAX: 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 8217 S_ D0018� s_/ _ 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. Mi'nimum Lcf Sjuare, Fb(,, jc�� 4-han amtuol- I irert -Lf b 61 Qy I r1C�uSfr i�� ) Stl i I C)f C&;,x I Sq' - feet Ace-, dl. WJ+h of buddi ilA I-S (-)Lf red W_ reA ' C' n'M line .ZG 1 c+ -t fir: I Jl 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL` I4�� (#xC S:S�Alp TIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION J SYTHE VARIAN S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMP IAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. �rr)un CITE ail D w 1 This ex l s� i n o, +ru �-t i t-c) a a rm 1 ce- i d -h C-L h lLl�) wcula nof mew+ i s --� n ,)(aI fel ro e of z�1"h use - )or tLk bui W does - a cISaaC�_ tUrl� Ct, iS �oaC on IrylCevvtc lea rz� S LQyvoSc,qne, � peep-.. A-2eA4 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1 ) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO,J"LE; - �AND A-N- � HER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN HE RD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (PRINT OR D4jllj z7 INjl/5o � APPLICANT SIGNATURE " OWNER (PRINT) l OWNER SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19 xXXXXXXXxXXXX7YxYY>'XXXXXXXXXXXXX%X%XXX%%Xxxxxxxx� , x F-4 `��r�` ' ���" NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS x �� N07A-Y PUBLO — TEXAS z x u0 COMM'SS:0 EXPIRES x x OF tE 1998 i Xnnnn.....,n,.n ..................... x xxxxxxzxxxxx....,. .xxxxYr>Yxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19_ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DEL/VERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 m O � Iz N -_ z z Iz U.X. \ 'J z O171i , a 1 dJ N Z LOL, Q QN v00'�Cbl ), � 9Q� r I 0 0 ' LIJ OL pp pp n ` � N ti all j LL . s ,GI I Q J v S ail I i I i I � j O O Q w l i l l l • � z i i i i � i i i tr a"� -4�.00 FT. w V• m ^ CIA� / / / 2T-4' 30' B.L. - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- 30' B.L. 829 S. DOOLE* ' ST, LOT I 5L<1 �� 27-4' 13'-2 1/4' 14'-1 3/4' 101-1 1/2, SEP 30 �14-1 3/4' 10,_1 1/2. 30 SEP __._--_____.__Try U7 I L 17� IRE <TC>4EN 5TOF ,4r-zE W-S 1/2' 0'&T0fRA r-;;E HTR fR GEFTION 3'-3 1/2' OFFICE We $. DOOLEY STREET LOT I 5L< I SCALE, 1/4' 14'-2' SEP-24-36 21:27 Scott Williams City of Grapevine Grapevine, Texas 76051 Fax#817-424-0545 [ear Mr. Williams.- Pursuant to my phone conversation with you today, here is a detailed plan of our business @ 820 S_ Dooley in Grapevine. We plan to put in a catering kitchen and office in the Dooley location. The building of approximately 1200 square feet has 7 rooms. The back two rooms consist of the kitchen and back porch room. These two rooms will be utilized for our cooking area. One of the biggest rooms we will use for our offices, one room is a bathroom and the other 3 rooms will be used for storage_ One of the storage rooms will store our food items, one for our catering equipment such as cambro boxes, etc, and the last room for our linens, tableware, etc. Our business requires that we visit clients rather than them coming to our place of business_ At the present time, we buy all our own produce, grocery and dry goods at Sam's, etc. I have talked to David Wilson who has worked out with Jan Dawson to supply you with the plans you require. I look forward to your response so that I may proceed- Respectfully, Rena M. Marson I -7 — 14 c� MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIA RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER hce,- SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA96-42 JON KENNEDY MEETING DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for Lot 1, Block 1 TWK Addition and addressed as '1060 East Northwest Highway as follows: 1. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, 'allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The proposed special exception would allow the enlargement of an existing building and the use of an existing concrete pad fQRarking If approved special excea ion would allow'the enlargement of an `existing building and allow narking on an existina concrete pad, 2. ' Section 53.H.2.b,` Landscaping Regulations, requires that whenever an off- street parking or vehicular use abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape area of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. 'I 1 The proposed variance would eliminate the required ten feet of perimeter landscapes area around the 1roposed off-street _l2arkfing area. If approved: it mould allow the development of an-off-street arking area-without the required u„ ten_(10) foot perimeter landsca inq. 3. Section 31.H, Light Industrial District, requires that whenever a Light Industrial District abuts a residentially zoned district, a landscape buffer zone of not less than twenty-five (25) feet in depth shall be provided from the lot line. The proposed variance would allow a nine (9) foot red ction in the required buffer zone at the new b l ing line. and a twenty-two (22)-foot reduction in the required buffer zone at the end of a concrete Dad at the entrance of the new building. if approved. it would allow a buffer zone of'sixt en (161 feet at the building line and three (3) feet at the 'end of the concrete pad, SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition exists for the proposed special exception since the building and concrete pad already exist. A special condition exists for the proposed variance to the landscaping requirement around the concrete pad to be used as a parking area because the concrete pad is in place 212 feet along the rear`lot line and 195 feet along the east lot line. A special condition exists for the proposed variance to the buffer'requirement due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing building placement within the lot. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A solid wood screening fence already exists along the rear and west property lines.. A 1,942 square foot warehouse addition is 'proposed to be added to the existing 6978 square foot warehouse. The concrete pad will be used for loading/staging access' to the new warehouse addition. A 5,092 square foot proposed 'office addition will be added to the 4,667 square foot existing office area. Additional parking will be provided at the front of the building. An application was submitted to the Department of Development Services by Jon Kennedy of International Turbine Service, Inc. RS/rs 0\BZA\96-42.4 2 SEE SHI 2t52-464 I ra IAz ` 84-24 UU 5-15-84 A6 L I �NegO CU95-11 Sp �Z� t 34 K - f s 73 U94-14 � on — 7 • 1 : S 2� PCD , Y U } i S . • 4 • • TR 2 7a.t33 K BZA 96-42 7 . TR zr 1n � 2 � ;.c y 0 69 PID JON KENNEDY Qn © n 71 �ooR� R tR 71.72 Ac E— 3, 39 q ai .2 <, 44 •5 37 rR 2Att .�•'. n 3f � t1.J9C 21 b 311 2 2 r N L. } 25 26 27 28 ,t 46 •'r. � 2. � 41 Y ST Im to 73 .'�•�. EAS 72• 12a N 76 Y •'.v��1'.72 � � 123 � 77 •v � lae l27 - C� U 78 {67 '13e 145 ul LQ,ig3� 7y 7e sl 151 Itt les M 52 •• C'`��� 15 t, s C S7 165 152 143 j 73e 1IV 2 te6 µ p 67 St j 6334 rR 2A1 161 153 142 W Ilt 1t8 1~ tt7 J t2 N 6.7. aC 13 S N i6 36 .63 is< tat (A U7 0 lee y j 63 55 6�4 rR M-2 162 M. 1at N 133 U6 2 let t.�M� 223t AC 161 ist In 134 Its Ve w 05 63 t� rn Ib in W94-01 rR 2AIa M ll. ul .6 t2 s, j 26�3 TR:,2H L f 3 A 131 tse 177 136 U3 U2 •p tl n cv 79 I Z73-19 Z.73 DALLAS RD. ES R 9t _TR 3R7 �""W"D - - - - vz 1 261. \t 1R 2C t Le17 All tR T TR TR I © RR 4'TRat 6 a8 Unp205 F j M .A ►�T P V 64T7 2 AC 7.37t����'� F R 7- 261 V Rx^1 23 K � rR. rR FW � L I >s q(,I'3g TR i • j Z.TST a" x31Ac L!3`.�8 ISU91-L92 TR 2 � SEE SHT 2132-<Sld THIS ►AAP WAS 006t'lED 8Y UREESE ANp NiQiOIS.W.V-,*c DATA OBTZIE FR011 THE CITY OF 6R 1P£V�E LN2 THE TARRANT 9MIS CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT A 1 APPLICANT NAME- JON W. KENNEDY ADDRESS: 1060 E. Northwest Highway CITY/STATE: Grapevine, Texas ZIP: 76051 HOME:817/488-1174 WORK: 817/481-6531 FAX: 817/329-0317 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: LYNN E. EDGINGTON ADDRESS: 1060 E. Northwest Highway CITY/STATE: Grapevine, Texas ZIP: 76051 HOME: 817/329-3434 WORK: R 1 7.1421-6-5-3 1 FAX: 817/329-0317 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) Lot# I Block# I T.W.K. Addition 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. 30' Building line required in rear Existing structure at 14' off Requesting new structure to be 161 011 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(8) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. Irregular lot shape and conforming to existing struc �% 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1 ) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. N/A 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE-TO THE BOARD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) ENNEDY APPLICANT (PRINT OR PE)_ JON J4 K APPLICANT SIGN TU_ OWNER (PRINT) L E. E GINGTON OWNER SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 1st DAY OF October 19 96 NOTARY FXAS MICHAEL PERKINS Notary PublIc, State of Texas DATE OF t40ttUl%IyEbiW"&Ikkih2-23-1998 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 1st DAY OF October 19 96 NOTARY PUBLI S A 'I MIC11"a i son Texas Notary Public, State of Texas DATE OF LICE t4mE4EX"FrA-nTl"kEx—plresO2.23-1998 DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DELIVERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS D E VEL 0 PMEN T SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, 7X 76099 . N 2 h N i 2 L �V Q a \ 4 � X 71 F 71 �. d� U � � Z i fi ati r"� a fl 10 II h • � s1, �1 tA., a =a .r- r: i- IA 3 Z Z 112�'t4 a� N o mriis IA kX kq �� W �i• J �Z p J ❑ D 4f o ®� Zo o u TII ilz ❑ 0 F T T � T N d in � � 0 I � d 1 a� a o�d a . Q� a� ' D D D µ U i a Y QU 2 L-21 h 2 u 2 zJ 3 9 0 N 0 � ---- z El n 0 ny Fu 3I a Q �tl Z d '� fl ' a d� u g S MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIA RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER i'ac4 ! �� SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA96-43 WILLIAM S. EASTWOOD MEETING DATE: MONDAY DECEMBER 2, '1996 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment d ny the variance request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for the proposed Lot 6, Block 2, Park Central Addition, addressed as 1917 Rose Court, Grapevine, Texas, as follows: 1. Section 16.G.6, R-5.0, Zero Lot Line District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires a twelve (12) foot separation between buildings on adjacent properties. The proposed variance would allow an eight (8) foot reduction in the Separation requirements. If approved it would allow a four (4) foot separation between buildings on adjacent lots. 2. Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations, requires a detached accessory building to be separated ten (10) feet from the main residence and have the same sideyard setback as required for the main 'structure, eleven (11) feet. The proposed variance-would allow a seven (7) foot reduction in separation between buildings_ and an eight (8) foot reduction of the required sideyard setback. If approved; it would allow a minimum separation of three 13) feet between the accessoW building and the main structure and a minimum of three 13) feet between the accessory building and the side property line_ SPECIAL CONDITION: j Staff finds a special condition does not exist for the proposed variance, as there is I room on the lot for a complying structure. Additionally, the separation requirements E between structures are partially due to fire safety and emergency access requirements.' BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mr. William S. Eastwood filed a variance request on October 29, 1996. This case is a result of a complaint. 0:%szn\9e-43.4 1 -- 1� 1e 17 1G " 7 1 12 .. , s n . RB 5 II t ]• 23 22 ` n : 13 7lam. 35 ( 2, 3MG BROOKCATE DR N 5 2 21 26 12 14 % ZS 26 �a It is , (e 7 6 s . to ' 0 6 1 1 w ] 2 1 0 ,l3 `13 043 1 2 7 1. 7 c t — 1 31 ¢ 2 42 > Is 1, Z.A�C 1.7 9 K 6 -A4 ] 2 �' 1 • 2 7 ¢ S p 6 ]J ` 40 • 1 22 ] 5 I2 le 17 21: 3 + N i r 1 \ t 2; Al ( s 3, aw. 23 b 2, 21 . v G IA Z 13 3 .2 2+ 28 t? 1 30 1 I m 14 z• . `' 1-1 5 •� t 37 26 31 5 , . 21 2S `SV r 2 34 AS°ENWDOD OR N.. SEDUCIIA 11 12CIR >z b 35 e ta'. 5 6. If c 5 g 7 33 162 ' ui 13 35 3. 3332 31is3b o 7 n 3 6 0 7 e 2� 2e 27 26 25 24 33 32 a 23 a .a 1b 1s 13 t. 15 `76 ]' it J K = 17 0 U , 34 31 V 10 I, 22 to 20 21 22 23 1 IB { , p 35 II f 1S 0.... _1 16,. 1 Is y u STESPLEWOOD; DR ti CARLSEAD r 21 3s l9 311,I 29 ..'e 27 24 25 2. 23 36 13 CT 1y It a �I '5 .. '.3 42 4t 40 31 30 37 14 IS 16 w 20 37 \ 2e i. 15 16 1, le fa t3i p it u 21 19 2e .. @ I, 46 Sb 51 52 53 q Iz., 21 m J REDWOOD TR. 13 36Y5 4 1:. WINDING CREEv. S — • ]. 47 4e 4111 se st 52' s3 14 17 GRAPEviGE CDLLErv[LLE :w y e ' a 55 5c 57 58 5p So U U 4­VVIN6S , b 7 : 6 e . 7 2 t : 10 it 16 IS 16 I.a R—MF.-2 33 1 Isl a Iz I �MES p f 1 +z 3 s c 7 b , Ib u 32 2 7 N� [ i , If PR m 31 3 D�PKE PP' a ROSE AC CT. SCR e e 13 K' „ wp0 A 17E 4i z 35 7 '7 If 2 1'. t C72-28 25 E`E [ gg1. 13 12 12 It. t0 3 � 3. 3 t0 QO� 6 7:. 5 r_ LIL./1V 3326 u e 7-os R-MF-2 �"5 tt 5 h 32 x W 0���. 7d` Ta21 :s 1. 13 u 11 '18 `, 0 T 6 5 6 0: 4 9 11.33ACAC. . r A ' 25 6 7 13 3 "dab` 15w D 2e 2 26 2. 2 37 ' p • ,u 2. is ', 2 11 w 3' z, 2 > OP.�( is � 0{-3• 56 tb ,20 21 3e .3 ' D ED RESTRICTED TO 16 UNIT PER ACRE �...� BZA 96-43 1 u \/ 22,416 '�TR W I L L IAM to6.e AC � _A7 ROO DR p 2 m R e o 0: 7P n � 2E9C 16 15�1- 13 12 11 TO e 7 6 5 . O EAST C. O i! 2. 2 a m FRITCHARD.ORIYE : r 0 7 5� 2C13 : 27 : iz p ,c o 15 N 13 12 ❑ 10 , 2 ) 6 s . Y 2 I. 15 li U 12 L W , e a e e 1 I 2 5 0,2� . 23 22 2` INWDOD Z R7 '5 9 t6 21: i ra 2fa CN ' ..�:.i le 1i N 6 377 0 z 17 10 6 6 1:3 'j (` SR U� :12 j la zfV 4 GRPp 0'1 'u88-a3 /w la ,� „ //� 1 III .46 AC .3 ar U 5 �f. z Y` ra zce CN as-10 24 �'�. 13 z s N , 1 t2 C p q/ C.ry LIMI ' 3 It O� 2 0,PT 3 Jd Ar� ICf 17' L !hs e P A�4� s TP 3 f • /7 3MA 2 IF 1 166 6 2 2 PO 3FtI 15? THS MAP WAS COMPILED BY FREESE AND NICHOLS.INC.USM DATA OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF l'RAPEVK M0 THE TARRANT.. APPRAdSAL DISTRICT::; CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1. APPLICANT NAME: W I L L ADDRESS: 11 / 7 Ros CITY/STATE: G ZIP: ro 0 .5- HOME:11 � � Zl 6!26L—WORK: 2-1Y 67141 6'37Z FAX: 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: WILI-141vI S , 6 (Z hVaL ADDRESS: Z� / Z- ROIL— Cl- CITY/STATE: C--k4ipt'-- 7' Zip: HOME: '/7 Yak 2262 WORK: Z-lq -Cf4 - '15-3 7 4- FAX: - 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. /0 167 -ro 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. &�6 JIV /V Y •9c/-c i'i}tz�J. r�/�S �� ul� �� 7`t�E Y"��t_ � I' � F_ r��sT" sd ��` �✓�� �� aft 6'i^! f�� �i��°��-Ty L/v 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1 ) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. �v�L�r�c lti�'i�L.��--.a F�-�..-✓Gf� ���1� f3�'�2ox /' FI Gt/�r 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE) APPLICANT SIGNATURE OWNER (PRINT) OWNER SIGNATURE 171 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS U Id—DAY OF F ' 199 / A KEVIN D. BAILEY NOTARY PUBLIC 1C FOR THE (STATE 6F TEXAS A B NOTARY PUBLIC State of Texas Of, COMM Exp 09-14-97 DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19W NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE Of--T-EXAS 0 KEVIN D. 13AILEY NOTARY PUBLIC LIC I I State of Texas COMM Exp 09-14-97 1 DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DELIVERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 A October 8, 1996 From: William S Eastwood To: Board of Zoning Adjustment, City of Grapevine, Texas Subj: Application for zoning variation, enclosed. I hope this cover letter will help to clear up my position in requesting a zoning variation for my residence at 1917 Rose Ct. Unaware of the easement along my north property line, I built a small tool shed in my back yard in the only logical place to put it. I realize now that it will have to be moved or torn down because it stands less than three feet from my next door neighbors residence. I am requesting the variance in order to comply with this restriction. If approved, I will move the shed three feet east but it would remain on the easement. I built it low, standing only seven feet tall at the tallest point so it would not be visible from the street (see enclosed photos). My next door neighbor, Mr. Mike Comparoni owns the house with the easement restriction. He doesn't mind having the shed where it is right now and has offered to help me move it three feet east if this request is approved. If there is some document he would need to sign, he has indicated his willingness to do so. He can be contacted at work at 214-650-6269 or at home at 251-0278. If you have any questions of me please call me at 421- 6962. If you are unable to approve this variance I will tear the shed down as there is just no place else to put it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, vj'� William S. Eastwood 1 /2" I.R. FND. (PLAT S.88`55' 22of E. 56. 0' ) MEURE S. 88055' 22" E. 55 .9 > > 7,0' To .....'DIRECTIONAL CON OL LINE � LILAC LANE B ui ldi N ( N 1 RESIDENCE t co Co- 00 14. 6 o � � \ ''• w Dt7- w ,` \i 8.7 w m to 00 " a Q . \\B ,Nt o o & FRAMEw NSIDENCE ; Z z o � oz Q � w 00 z a 4 0.0� Cn w 1 pl � I V) cp �-- LOT 6 1 —'1 0 . 13 ACRES Q REFERENCE NO. : 3721-4 MORTGAGE CO. : AMERITEX 620 W. PIPELINE RD, HURST 76053 TITLE CO. : FIRST AMERICAN 1864 NORWOOD DR, HURST 76054 PURCHASER: EASTWOOD GF# 93-1600ND/LJ ADDRESS: 1917 ROSE COURT, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 6, Block 2, PARR CENTRAL GARDEN HOMES, an Addition to the City of Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the Revised Plat recorded in Volume 388-214, Page 34, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas. The following easement does not affect this Lot: Easement recorded in 8457/1536, DRTCT. 1917 ROSE COURT 1/2' I.R. FND. /-I/2' I.N. FND. (PLAT S.88'55'22"E. 56.0') ME-ASU_REO S.88'55'22"E. 55.9 117.0* TO DIRECTI AL CON OL LINE LILAC LANE 25' BUILDINGS 11, Building Line M LINE Ial RESIDENCE 1 N I Y� 7_ J aJ_ _ 'T W. � M 4.6 Z3� D O N 1 U) 6.7 CO ch \ 8.7 :,r to 1 1\\ \\ E W O_ m(AO' vp p\\ BRICK & FRAME 0N 5 0 o H \ RESIDENCE 1 1 Z Q W Z \ ZO 40.0 � UGi W 1 I gin < 7N LOT 6 i U l' Building Line 0.13 ACRES a 1 I 1• 388-214 34 MEASURED N.89'06'OS"W. 56A5 (PLAT N.88'55'22"W. 56.0') I/2'� I.R. FNO. I/2' I.R. FND. 11 -NORTH SCALE: 1 =30 FLOOD CERTIFICATION According fo FIRt4 Map 48439C0030 G DATED: 1-6-93 this properly Is not located In a special flood hazard area. Thls properly Is located In zone SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION OF The undersigned Registered Public surveyor cerllfles fo purchaser. Lender and Title Company as nomad above, and their Underwriters that (A) this plot of survey and the properly description set forth heron are a true r oA s * t and correct represeniallon of facts found at the time of an actual on-the-ground survey; (9) such survey was '` �+• r u• conducled by the surveyor, or under his supervision; (C) all monuments shown hereon Dalai and the location, size, and type of material ore correctly shown; (D) except as shown. It.sre ore no visible encroachments or JAMES H. DOWDY righl-of-ways onto the properly there are no visible discrepancies, conflicts, shortages In area of boundary T line, except as shown; (E) the size, location. and type of Improvements are as shown hereon; (F) the disian<e r ^; 2970 ! from the ntorest intersecting street Is per plot; (G) the properly has occase Io a public sireei unless 9� o•s ss o;!/yrJ� olharwi'e noted; {H) the Hood slatement Is baled on the most recent data available to the surveyor, and while ihIs survey may show the properly not to be to a 'rectal flood hazard area, all flood zones may be subject O S U R 1` la some deg roe at flooding, for ore Information contact the. local flood plain administrator or the Fede-I Emergency Management Agency; (1) survey reitecis oil easeme nis otleclinq The property, evidence of which is visible on the ground, or of which the surveyor has legal notice. DAMES H, DOWDY & ASSOCIATES, INC. r>2569 GRAVEL DRIVE DATED: 2-i6-93 _ FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76118 •fir,�...,. ' .. �.»e 1� x,. � ��, , �1 r ,iw� t� «t r + :i♦ ♦w ..' _ . ya - 1 r r I. �2 P MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER V t SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA96-44 RICHARD PEMBERTON MEETING DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 RECOMMENDATION:' Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment *foll : he variance request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 fhris Craft Drive, legally„ described as Lot 21, Shorecrest Acres Addition as 1. Section 15.F.2.,Single Family District Area Regulations, which requires a minimum lot size of seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. The proposed variance would allow a seven hundred (700) foot reduction of the minimum lot size. If approved. it would Allow a minimum lot size of sixty- eight hundred (6.`80( 1 ' quare feet for the existing, 2. Section 15.G.1.,` R-7.5 Single Family District - Area Regulations, requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot reduction of the front yard setback. If approved. it world allow a twenty (20) foot front yard setback. 3. Section 15.G.2., R-7.5 Single Family District - Area Regulations, which requires s twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. The proposed variance Mould allow a on (1) foot reduction of the rear' yard setback. If approved. it would allow a twenty-four (24) foot rear yard setback. 4.' Section 15.G.5., R-7.5 Single,Family District - Area Regulations, which requires a minimum lot depth of one hundred (100) feet. The proposed variance request would allow a fifteen J15) 'foot reduction of the minimum lot depth If approved it would allow an eighty-five (85) `foot minimum lot depth. 1 SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition does exist for the proposed variance due to the unusually small existing lot size. This lot size presents considerable hardship in placing'even`a small structure on the lot. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mr. Richard Pemberton, the property owner and builder, submitted a`variance request on October 29, 1996. The Board has previously granted'`several similar variances in the subdivision. 2 nR to,it l 6 12 . u 25 3 CT OU 47 \ \ M! 1 ,� 13 <� 2 2• ( \ � `" ` 3 232151 2 n >z 24 4c 46 63 2 3 R x 23 a TR am P L3 AC � l ® u z 22 r CA67 ! / f 5 IN 0 9 . . 31 {t o 66 63 0 ! / 7 so o ! TR y VIA sm7 g 51 / t�.a 8c �3 0 �g603 � so G c � al � BZA 96-44 cc' < V 34 1S3 Go I RICHARD 3 0 A J1 \ EMBERTON FP -- Nn �` �' >_ 16 36 39 55 5e Jz ` ` TR sc \ TR R TR im ` 14.25 K 1.04 AC 74 , i T6R 12 u is xP 66 57 75 1 TR � Rpm IN -^ 584aa REDBUD LN. ' I 9 7R 6 s L c U 15 24 32 33 < 1 TR 3AZ t< 23 25 � st a q � f TR ~ 2.25 1.�s AC u 22 � 26 � U � M .- u p " la 21 � 27 36 = 36 34 LL 45 / o _ I z9 .37 38 _� 46 HGHVEW tN ~ , TR tPSB ' HI 1 GU R s i , 2 3 5 6 7 8 ♦ 16 u >z t3 TR SSA "SAC 6 O 25 2< 23 22 21 26 14 to t7 1S 14 0 (� TR 55c: ' L 26 V a 2.33 AC LAKEWOOD LN TR 550 i LN ¢ Lot K 3 s ' 3g0 ' S 4 oil �y I 4 5i 5 25 24 23 22 20 M a 17 t5 14 `F 6 3 OAK LN Z78-14 CN 7 1 = OAK .LN TR 551 17 TR tsso rr 13 t , ` t ♦ 16 u 12 lf BUSHONG RD. z 3 l t 2 3 _ ti 12 13 14 38 1 2q 1 26 Z7 I 2C 23 24 ra tszE (f� iBJ a NO RiVSERSIDE NORTH 17 OR 4 _ S 16 tJ to 26 23 1 J is a 2 1 2 3 • 3 1 i 1 7 6 ♦ t6 7 ►4 O 1322 2' J 24 1♦ so 17 14 1 14 13 12 tt O � , u s r� a 23 � ® , 2 3 q Ry� to 1 36 4 (BE V7E—RL�T,s 7 1 1 ►—�� Al /st 1e CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1 . APPLICANTO ld44JZ , F I-- ��c e NAME•- ADDRESS:/?,2 FT CITY/STATE: OiC.Aj? e-UlAj -C,I; ZIP: 7L/, HOME:&7- 22—WORK:a2/k-12Y ff.- FAX: ?1.7-N1-,?h72 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) ( t3nJ ADDRESS: I& I'S CA , CITY/STATE: e L11tic.) e, ZIP: HOME:9Z 2-�S& X-c[7 2 WORK:��-J (41-7� fl FAX 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 4 S4 T /2CS . V2AQf-111mot , ri 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. /I 6-r- -Ti�.c- F-�j AA.e-A 0— ^- t 4c 'S i z <. t' .14A S., -;r. TA )'e-o'T4 L 7Z. 7k-c- I-'A sz A-) &ZA-1 J 164 IX- . .............. /VA 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. G b� v � 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE) 4- E'- -� e-oQ77-:) fJ Pam' CuS 1 c,,. ( f*c5 APPLICANT SIGNATURE OWNER (PRINT) /G� 4f OWNER SIGNATURE 7`11" SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DELIVERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 �H o fLEc.CZ EST fit:,�,ES PE V 1 �o FT UT L . EA5e, EXtsrtNG � �(tSTitJG ® GoNG. 8�cac.k p GLAES �: STv tZf1 G E t't 10 r ©n rioc.c WGtL PurtP P/kTi o 1 (o2 ~� FROOT POR.cN .9 ol 4' CONC• W A LK I ( (p` GoNG . PLOT PLAN SCALE .- 11 = -2- SQ. F T i IA. E 1A�� MS�L •�� �,t'J;� f 5ii 0 GIwUND A( IP4 II!!_ CITY � aQAa:av_L.,i _ _____ ` T -)C S'-DECSRIBL, AS FOLLOWS LOWS BEING LOT NO �) -._ 13L OCK _ _ Of �xnres�2E5sg €3, a sstttd�si�Lcf�dr ��* aQc.Jg.�. �d_�1�+,,AN AD0111ON 10 TtiE CI(Y OF �aLBP�YL� LAB _ �1, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO TIIE .P_-.ta±_____ i EF,U tD1_i) ItJ Ion__388- L -- $'- - ------ OF TIIE - --- - - - s�.a _ fZECORD� 01� _ Toaeq,.�-r--------Ct)lJMY, TEXAS. 4� au C�a t. F C, asp) rvv- l O U71.. �t Gp St Mi Jc� H— al1 ['y — iV �4 j o LU I V v /P J 'Q co G i Q ti U w o 0 0 — N ----- a � 00 � •,� Z 0 OF r�t C H P,15 - C FRq F T �✓R 1 V `�4�'� \;orE p GFJ/ EASEMEw7 T- >(AS ow�2 E LGN7 FE o2C£'v TO: ----- ------ �0o . 255Lo ) PL iZe, P /z-T- T Ooes r -T -r- TNc BE ST and to: OF M-f K.Dow UEPGe A F7 Tr ,S (QOrel2TY THE PLAT HEREON 15 A ?RUE, CORRECT ANO ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPERTY F.E.M.A. AS DETERMINED BY SURVEY, THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF SAID PROPERTY BEING AS INDICATED BY PUT, TIIE S12E LOCATION AND TYPE OF BUII DINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY AS SHOWN, ALL IMPROVEMENTS ©LING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT PANEL PROPERTY 5IS LOCATED 'HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS SI10WN, SET BACK fl20M THE ('ROPERTv IINCS TfiE DISTANCES INDICATED. iN ZONE .G. THERE ARE NO ENCROAC MCNTS, CONFLICITS. PROTRu;,iu,, U,Z APPARENT U3[MENIS, MAP DATED: Nov. 17 982 EXCEPT AS SfIOWN. 1333 CORPORATE DRIVE p Texas SUITE # 103 S RVING, TEXAS 75038 Prcolesslonal HUGFI E. PEISER, R.P.L.S. N0. 3688 TN INC (214 570-5437 Survcyoro 11214� 714-0282 FAX NDATE: %- ;z ry ? '328 KINGS CAN`r N DR. PEISER SURVEYING CO . INC. GRAPEVINE, TEXA'a 76051 r (817) 481-37{J 5 MLTRO V"IMM Since 1977 COMMERCIAL. • RESIDENTIAL DOUNDARYS 'COPOGRAPIIY MORTGAGE. P # /I"i9 Y _ f. 'a } f F__: ..a EFFICIENT LAYOUT HIGHLIGHTS CLASSIC k4NCH PLAN 9849 (REFER TO PRICE LEVEL LI) •The bedroom wing of this home houses three gener- ously sized bedrooms which share a full bath with •A charming covered porch leads visitors directly into dual vanin . the living room where they view the dining area •Plan includes a daylight basement foundation. If heat- ahead. The living room features a fireplace. ed. it will add an additional 1.176 square feet to the •The dining area includes sliding glass doors and a con- total living area. venient entry to the garage. A10 •The L-shaped kitchen opens up to the dining area for TOTAL LIVING AREA- _J_ ESQ,FT serving ease. A worktop island with a snack bar pro- BEDROOMS: 3 BATHS: I vides plenty of preparation space. 2.801 S O � 71u;!igrifi(VI Yso ��o 16ol�ro _ T i I 6 10 WONL1N'S DAY FAVORITE HOME PLANS WINTER 1996 frs ureter bl«epnrrts,plrOue tvl!jrt-e 1 526-460`: MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER (2c.S SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA96-45 DONNA CASE POTTER MEETING DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the variance request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 1423 Rio Bend Court, and platted as Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates as follows: 1. Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations, requires an accessory structure to be at least ten (10) feet from the main residence and have the same sideyard setback as required for the main structure. The proposed variance request would allow an accessory structure to encroach five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot building separation, If approved, it Myould allow a minimum sepa[ation of five (5) feet betyVeen the accessory building and the main residence, . SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition does exist for the proposed variance due to an effort to preserve trees, and if granted, will result in greater setbacks from the side and rear property lines than are required. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; Ms. Donna Potter submitted a,request for the variance to allow the development of a proposed detached garage to supplement the existing two car 'garage on the property. The applicant has indicated that the proposed structure will be designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing house. 0:\bza\96-45.4 -''°K '— s K J Ac � .n Ac TR in Tot xs E , O 2 1 . ! S'a • �TR 29381 TR 30a 30 V i K 30 43 Ac ri .243 AC .a3 AC 8 > 3 C ' tC n to C n K tot 2113A TR 2t Ry I 7.as a �! 3610 „y.., i3 22 L .71 AC GUCHAR. HOLLOWoR .AC 23383 .23 Z73-35 wr 0 1R t 1131 is 3°ta` 312 7R]A J TR � tr azs K �, 0 t. tl 1� n • N to It 22 v za 23 38ta TI! 3e 13 ra 24 161 2317 354 OtJetw• C AC14 At7 TR in t` r 2, ` QH t f t 0 u 79R R ' p... GL ON--57 2 , J 2 q n -"��S TR -VS t2 26 t 1,4 j� t 10 9 .32 -c it Yf,. 3 CHOTEAU OR 27 ALIBI p a 5 iR 6 , s I t A rt sev t 1 2 3 c s a tR 7827 13 AC 1 S' TR♦` i2a2 AC DOVE RD. _ >s GU to t5 ,3 t2 It .1 , Z77-22 R a - TR to , 16 AS�WO D IN pow CU9 t—13 u•7� F rart (! t t7 1 9 to ,t 215°a t 19 a 4z C• _ f 2 799 t to :J 2 K 2 : 10 2: 5.. 1ft� q 3 is 3 II 3 3 a 1R— �. i l'� 2p s •: d u: a n •: -j T J �V 21 N 10 S Z 9 tz s 3 , c ; rR 101 '( TR 3 t2 a r / 23 is zs zb N a e T tD 2.572 a SUPv�g 3t.O AC 30 C ��; -Qt7 TR am 3, f 12 a ,o AR It TR t°8 /�TR 3.75 AC G U 61S N' r 26 27 a t2 R K� 9 3 rn a 3 vt`�''_ t / p 'a t 2�s 12 IS n u taa' `� ,E t� Esa T" Ic �c3A csm 2 7 ` '0 ,� • ;.33:Ar' 2E i a Ta 31 (((( 3 3a 2�` \ w' -"'S a ON pRa•c < R ICa f . 2J 211 35 1,L t 27 b 11 - .to�_ K K IT a a rTN oG1ti TR Kt2 TR Il �. 1. ^} It ° E IC t I / V" fR 1810 iR Yt0 - 2 11 If 20 TR ) 'Cs la°AC R— . C is n a u 3 2• '0• •Nt rn tcl4 f rR ra m l u rn i Z85 22 ZZ • y 1Ct at �!` • lUa fc S • I 4 a ` 1" A R TR t���14 it tit 1 f W _ 2 i10 iJ r • KQW MR T" 32 2 1. i ICU i 0 tc t 5 t : i :�r rr MpSR ; a a 8 :c Is 2l 1^OAp 42 Is t 3 +T, r al Ia MEROOYBROOK. 1l'' zr GNE � ra sa 7 (/a/�� a„A[ a. 12 3 a 7 BZA 96- ■ 12 11 / �1 s Q 2 to l7 t°, 13. tv... K It to 15 DONNA POTTER 1. v CT az ' u Aalc LL � l • Sir, 1 z t5 6 r �' TR SOI n % 77 T iG 't5 u a.at Ac Sd a Z 7 , 13 It to s< a� a i T 7 2 f Ctr000n7OOR st. C a 13 SHA 0 a a 2':: a ,a. / \\ p ♦� w 52 S S la Q s a U s 17 If 11 to �RR� y� 30 w o 22 la f�i (V= z 11 t • t5 4 a N 31. 1 G 1 `2S v a to , 7 jo�19 - 27 26 r >~ S< 3-31 ) K Y 3 u 20 c Is 1 13 12 u a 2.3 Ac / 'za 2 SANDHURST CT 55 2 2 17 3a Ze // COl1NTR`. FORE n. 12. 21 a 2 23 � 21 2a ry Sc 1 t to 1 IV / 6 23 2+ 25 26 27 a / 13 \8 12. 13.. A'Z\� 22 O J ,z �42 St1Ao I�IIu��lili�� to \ 75 4 s f u t3 IG 17 34 Y J 2 1 ) to 17 -3 3z n 30 zo 26 a a CIRCLE YIEW CT 2 2 rn SH t%3 a 7 tc 15 16 1aa TIFFANY FOREST: OR is a v a a c _5 a 3. 1. 15A iJ 12 it �P 9 a 7a 6a 5 . J 2 � Ta aOIA t' a a 1 t t 7 K F CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1. APPLICANT NAME- C OC�, E PC, T- TF- P, ADDRESS: x CITY/STATE: \j T� ZIP: 7(o c, q ci ;:. � I e HOME 7 30 2� WORK: Q� Z - Z43 - 40 FAX. 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME- T F-\i C �'J POTT", A N;D K! N pt Pt S E PO T T ADDRESS:— 1421) Rio ZE:N-D CIDjp -r CITY/STATE: R A P E\; i N T( ZIP: 76 HOME. 2 1#7 3U2/,-- n R FAV.q 7Z - 7-43 - -4 cOl 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) Iz- r - OOD 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. -4 c , 3 0F THE R - S ' OZ F- P,o - LL T - Ll Ave c r- ot t-,j -" ' --'j%) c c -D F- SEPARA-TEf) f7R(,,M G i L I N 1-3 E7 VA c "I E'7- 15 uE Q v E L-) 2 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. �JeE EXHt 1BiT5 I - 7 ATTAco 0e In an effort to preserve a 14 inch oak tree, we are submitting this application to request an adjustment to Section 42 C.3 of the R-5.0 Zero-Lot-Line District Regulations. Our intent is to construct a detached accessory building, of the-same material and style as the house, on the driveway side of our new home. Section 42 C.3 requires minimum distance of 10 feet between the dwelling and the detached accessory building. We would like to request an adjustment to 5 feet for that distance. If the variance is granted, we will be able to construct the accessory building without removing a 14 inch oak tree. The shade and beauty from this mature oak tree graces not only our property but that of the neighbors behind us and future neighbors to the side. 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 3 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHEF DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE) -DOQQA Ckse ' POTTER APPLICANT SIGNATURE OWNER (PRINT) 57EVE71.j R. PpTTE� AND -DOY4)JA CA5EOTTER - OWNER SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS -_� _DAY OF Z,�� 1 9__ ELIZABETH J. PENNYtJ 7� I AKY PUBLIC FOR THESTATE F TEXAS Notry ii,;biir SSate off To= My Q-ammin Expim M-99 DATE OF LICE SE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARYi�PUBLIC FOR THESTATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION IUN DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DEL/VERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, 7X 76051 GRAPEVINE, 7X 76099 4 Steven and Donna Potter P.O. Box 863 Grapevine, Texas 76099 (817) 242-3026 November 4, 1996 Board of Zoning Adjustment Development Services Department City of Grapevine 307 West Dallas Road, Room 209 Grapevine, Texas 76051 cc: Mr. Scott Williams, City of Grapevine Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, We have recently purchased a new home at 1423 Rio Bend Court in Wood Creek Estates and look forward to becoming part of and enjoying the Grapevine community. In an effort to preserve a 14 inch oak tree on our property, we are submitting the attached application to request an adjustment to Section 42 C.3 of the R-5.0 Zero-Lot-Line District Regulations. Our intent is to construct a detached accessory building, of the same material and style as the house, on the driveway side of our new home. Section 42 C.3 requires 10 feet of distance between the dwelling and the detached accessory building. We would like to request an adjustment to 5 feet for that distance. If the variance is granted, we will be able to construct the accessory building without removing the 14 inch oak tree. The shade and beauty from this mature oak tree graces not only our property but that of the neighbors behind us and future neighbors to the side. Please accept the attached application, photographs, supporting information, and filing fee as our request for your favorable consideration. We are available at your convenience to provide any additional information or to discuss the application. Sincerely, Steven R. Potter Donna Case Potter i �; Address: 1423 Rio Bend Court, Grapevine, Texas 76051 Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates, Grapevine, Texas 76051, Tarrant County Index of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Plat of Wood Creek Estates showing Rio Bend Court Exhibit 2: Survey of Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates Exhibit 3: Tree Survey - Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates The yellow highlights indicate which trees were left by the developer, The Counter Companies, Inc. Exhibit 4: Tree Survey, showing tree size, of a portion of Wood Creek Estates, including Lot 5, Block 1. The yellow highlights indicate the trees which were left by the developer. Note the 14 inch oak close to the rear property line. Exhibit 5: Lot 5, Block 1 plot plan of site. This shows the tree survey overlayed on the site with the existing dwelling and the future accessory building at a distance of 10 feet. Exhibit 6: Lot 5, Block 1 plot plan of site. This shows the tree survey overlayed on the site with the existing dwelling and the future accessory building at a distance of 5 feet 1 inch. Exhibit 7: Photographs of the existing dwelling, the 14 inch oak tree, and the site area where the future detached accessory building will be constructed. �n C) O C) 0 A reird 01 CD C3 CD v) Ln vi Ln to LL. 4' in L'i .54:1 L6 A- 0) T< 4- 0 0 4e 0 4", C) '01 9'5:t, >< � � / �_ U-) JAMOD amma Om 00 00 06 3 GtP.f9.G9 N 3N 1 -1 XZ)V913S­1 1 9 N "IAS3 $S3 Ov '9 b -„Tlw, 3 N 5T5W6 f j 9 1 r, vi r 0 \., — to �2 I d> a� JN 1 8L3, E.99 N 3NI XJV81�)S j uh=— 5*68 N 'iAST—SS30.-�V—.9 -)NI T Nvi U� to in N CO is cn m :4 C) co -.1 2 vi to r— C4 V CO �3 JR I'ZZ 00-c I M .,9S;.91P*66 N xfdj 008ZXd:1�3 I NO-1:C I GV:VT 96, SzzOT i R GFt1 71,ig it to dec;are that have+: atr'e a., careftji ant} accurate survej on the property located at iA23 BHOORB$D�Gt�t1R Tn R ground of the � � I i r5 {he City of GRAPEVINE TAB County, Texas deFGribmd:ec follows: 1AT S, BLOCK 1, WMD CRC LAST S an Addition to the City of GRAPLVtNE'7 TARRAWT County, Texas, according fo the Plat'of the same recorded in CABINET K , SLIDE 2498, PLAT Records of TARRANT County, Texas: _ 14 �3 uor t_ ABC. (.Ot»-iJt-tzoi A1Z& C.nppE-t� ff''11 t�.C..t 1 1/2" c-irEfL tzOoc�, �1eMpE ��V f,lt� {\►� " MOAK. C�u rzv. �9 \. U 0 p o 2 ' �D � f Ow Ly v.r yT E.. 1-aAMt'r u kann Anb i Exhibit 2: Survey of Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates Nb�`F k2iO 13EiJt�.C011tzr I�i TOWN ON YNE coTV-t-&j g1(_1K11 IbWt VE !� T 11E kzi Go121�en pLAT ( IIWOWS I�WZ�OK5E-1,10 Coulz-r The Piat'hereonAs an accurate representation of ah actual survey made on the ground under my suparv'islon 'and the Imes, corners, and dimensions of said property are as indicated; itic; .eiae, jocat•ion, and type of buildings' and improvements shown are as indicated: Said lirtpcov9ments 1peinS wi,thin the boundaries of the property, except as shown, .And'set back fr,oA' the paundprW '.lines' the'• distances' ,Indicated,. The distance ,frbm; .the nearest itit¢ Sgct ng s{reet or road fs as shown; There are no apparent encroachIe ts,' protrusions, t`tpun�al�9",ine conflicts, ,visible easements a e4ept is shown or noted otherw.ise, r easements of record as furn{shed to us,` LEGEND r ti: FOU(VD 4TErL' ROD s7ul Vi�y� ✓ 1r' !°��. ;. .SET»t6PERcSTEEI, R60 RE0ISTERED QkOF�SidwAL cRp43 gT fN .CONCE ET£ LAND SURIAY60i P IpE P.Q. BOX 1034 <6 7.)'289-22! t D'�ARC, STAKE PROS E LINE, kSURST, 7EKAS EL7ib53 DAT£_r� .Z,ra• +��o. on imptss►icn Beal and + Jft Mgtt qi Ted�n al�nadurq'at�oul ar}ym�d o eo t on ,,r IiSaM un orlthd'aljaYaH • Exhibit 3: Tree Survey - Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates The yellow highlights indicate which trees were left by the developer, The Counter Companies, Inc. Ory,/�/ .1 If I" ® / 5O'A" ♦ 9� ® N 18' ` 44 Innovative New Ideas PLOT PLAN For Traditional Home Design I" - 50'-0" LOT 5, BLK. I Between The Lines YVOODGR�K ESTATES 6RAI'EVINE, TEXAS COUNTER GOMPANILS Residential Designers and Planners 5/I5/qb i Arlington, Texas Metro 817-261-4121 FAX 817-274-4717 CAD # q8 Builder/Owner to verify and check all aspects of this site and plot plan prior to any construction Exhibit 4: Tree Survey, showing tree size, of a portion of Wood Creek Estates, including Lot 5, Block 1. The yellow highlights indicate the trees which were left by the developer. Note the 14 inch oak close to the rear property line. EX. V G.—E LANL'rNG-P`"ASE .N[ JCL. IR5 pr 1.. r ;P SL� N 01'28'32' W �380.33' 3WALE a tt AM P���NaDCI?ION � c''Y • F- i J' 1 O.J'�' •o- �. ;t '^— ��►C .P �, C' E. EF P, . 9tAK •'' W J,P� ^ • xS • 8 w .mac 't ^� 0" i � .P •➢ !- -'' $. .¢ rG I •� `' `t \ r` - F- `P � r FF ;t 0, r c{ E. IC SOAK / N Jw n — -- °f nA AK tB C•fi r T� nj f OIre t ,1 < :T Q!- P� j TGS O FB: _ ; '4 DAK FOP 'y0 - K! ��47 u ��Old O S LrJr ti y K JJ 3Yv.. F8L z 6' Ii Y�- P , u ' 4 r P. O s •trE•. 3` • P� ,!.. �.'Z. K '��^ FO+�. FC` /,7 •e f` � PJ '$ JAjk �i .• OOP it 8"OAR o t •� C .� Z \9�� yr . i UcE K 4 �CAK a EvtNE. ^OAK sc- N c 0 663 �ACT N0 CCi 4 A r o p 0G Exhibit 5: Lot 5, Block 1 plot plan of site. This shows the tree survey overlayed on the site with the existing dwelling and the future accessory building at a distance of 10 feet. y / / i 1 2b°-01 A ;� o corvG.-- pRivE Innovah,e New ideas PLOT PLAN For Traditional Home Design = 50'-0" SOT 5, BLK. I JeBetween The Lines °OAREVIN ESTATES GRAPE✓INE, TEXAS GOUNTER COMPANIES Fesidentiai 'Sesgrersanaiannes REv✓15ED 5/221a6 c� a Teas 71ir�ngton. GAD g6058 z + BuilderJOwr,er �o verify ona check ,i aspects ,-f this si'e cmj pot pion prior to any construction S Exhibit 6: Lot 5, Block 1 plot plan of site. This shows the tree survey overlayed on the site with the existing dwelling and the future accessory building at a distance of 5 feet 1 inch. V ry I / v vSl, I \ y t -- 1 \ I \ \\ \ \ 1 v ml SONG. \ i �nnovc'ive New ;dens PLOT PLAN for Trcditioncl Home Design I" = 50'-0" LOT 5, BLK. OODRREIN E�TATE5 Between The Lines GRAPEVINE, TEXAS GO�NTER COMPANIES Residential Des!gners and Planners RE/ISED 5/22/46 a q 05 A iagton, Texas Metro gl?-261-4E21 �Ay, Q17-2i4-w7t7 ODD 8 j Builder/Owner to verify and check oil aspects cf this site and plot plan prior to any construction Iv ! Lz10. R 4 - It-I F x _ . rn t F v Aw e 1 .R Jr 74Po •'R' �.�' y �` � `A.y 7.•. ' ts� i �i` STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT, CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, November 4, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice-Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Dennis Luers Member Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present was City Councilman Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Director of Development Services John Boyle City Attorney Scott Williams Building Official Ron Stombaugh City Planner Tim Fleming Plans Checker/Field Coordinator Gerrie Anderson Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. BZA96-41 - JAMES D. AND TERESA BRODRICK The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-41 submitted by James D. and Teresa Brodrick who requested a variance for Lot 70, Shorecrest Acres Addition and addressed as 1806 Silverside Drive. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.A., R-7.5 Single Family District Regulations which allows specific permitted uses but does not include any commercial uses. The proposed special exception, if approved, would authorize a commercial use to operate in a R-7.5, Single Family District. Mr. Williams explained the case and that Staff found no special condition existed. James Daryl Brodrick, applicant of 1806 Silverside, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that when he and his wife purchased Lots 69 and 70, it was BZA Minutes 11/04/96 obvious the out building had been used as a commercial building. Mr. Brodrick noted they had renovated the house and out building, put in landscaping and cleaned the property. Mr. Brodrick explained that his business hours were 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., there were no signs on the property and all his trucks were new and in good working condition. Mr. Brodrick did have available a petition from approximately 20 neighbors in favor of their request. Teresa Brodrick, applicant of 1806 Silverside, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the business does not cause any problems to the neighbors. Art Brown of 1822 Silverside Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he had lived in the neighborhood since 1981 . Mr. Brown noted that the Brodricks had improved the deteriorated building and that he was in favor of the request. Richard Grant of 1846 Anglers Plaza, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth. Mr. Grant explained that he was concerned with safety of children playing in the streets and elderly people that walk in the neighborhood with the increased truck traffic from the Brodrick's business and from another business being run in the neighborhood. Mr. Grant noted that the streets are narrow and there are no sidewalks. Bob Lowry of 1710 Silverside Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained he was against the request. Mr. Lowry explained that he had built a new home in the neighborhood and did not want to see a continuation of commercial businesses in residential areas. Bob Fahey of 1730 Silverside Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he had no complaints concerning the business. Mr. Fahey noted how the Brodricks have cleaned up the property. Kenneth Tucker of 1805 Silverside Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained he had built a new home in the neighborhood two years ago and does not have a problem with the Brodrick's business. Geraldine Lowry of 1710 Silverside Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that she and her husband were the newest residents in the neighborhood and was not in favor of the request. Ms. Lowry noted that where she lives, she sees 20 trucks a day going to and from the business. 2 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Kathy Owens of 1734 Chris Craft Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that she lives two streets from the Brodricks, feels the streets are safe and does not see many commercial vehicles in the neighborhood. Mrs. Brodrick also noted that their business only has four commercial vehicles. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Mr. John Boyle, City Attorney spoke and explained that the property was residentially zoned and being utilized for a commercial purpose with employees and there is no ability to grant a variance for a principal use. Mr. Boyle noted that the Brodricks could seek to change the zoning and go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ery Meyer made a motion that no special condition exists. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-34 - GRACE The next item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-34 submitted by Grapevine Relief and Community Exchange who requested a variance for the west portion of Block 3, Grapevine Service Center Addition and addressed as 604 Shady Brook Drive. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 54, Masonry Requirements, which requires all structures in the Government Use District to have at least seventy (70) per cent of the total exterior walls constructed of masonry. The requested variance would allow a one hundred (100) per cent reduction of the exterior masonry requirement on an existing building. If the Board of Zoning 3 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Adjustment approves the request, it would allow an existing structure to be moved onto the site with no exterior masonry. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the request being that the existing building was originally designed without masonry veneer, and the energy and expense of adding masonry would preclude its utilization, resulting in its demolition, and the loss of a resource. Mr. Williams explained that the garage was originally built adjacent to the residential structure that was recently moved to the property. The Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a 100% reduction in masonry to the main structure at its May 13, 1996, meeting. Ms. Tricia Wood, representing GRACE, was present to answer any questions. There being one letter in opposition of the request and no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht then made a motion that a special condition existed, being the garage was originally built to match the structure that was moved to the property in May and that the garage and house do not have masonry. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht moved to approve the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 54., Masonry Requirements, to allow a one hundred (100) percent reduction of the exterior masonry requirement on an existing building, allowing an existing structure to be moved onto the site with no exterior masonry. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None 4 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 BZA96-35 - SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-35, submitted by Ms. Shirley Armstrong who requested a variance for 1041 Riverside Drive South, legally described as Lot 1, Block H, The Woods Subdivision, Phase II. The variance was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.1 ., Single Family District Regulations which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. The requested variance would allow a three (3) foot encroachment of the existing house into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback. If approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it would allow the existing house a twenty-seven (27) foot front yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed and the special condition being that the encroachment is not the fault of the current owner. Shirley Armstrong, applicant, of 2934 Oak Forest, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that she had purchased the property in 1986 and resided there for 10 years. Ms. Armstrong explained that during the sal this property, it was again surveyed and she was advised of the three (3) foot encroachment. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Jill Davis made a motion that a special condition existed, that being the structure is existing and the encroachment is no fault of the owner. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Jill Davis then made a motion to approve the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 15.G.1 ., Single Family District Regulations, allowing 5 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 a three (3) foot encroachment of the existing house into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback, allowing the existing house a twenty-seven (27) foot front yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-36. RICHARD CARTER COMPANIES The next item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-36, submitted by Richard Carter Companies who requested a variance for Lot 16R, Block A, Bear Run Addition, addressed as 1972 North Port Court. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.H., R-7.5 Single Family District, Buffer Area Regulations, which requires a forty (40) foot buffer yard along the western property line whenever a R-7.5, Single Family development is located adjacent to a non-residential district, without any division such as a dedicated public street, park or permanent open space, and all principal buildings or structures shall be set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from the adjoining property line. The requested variance would allow a reduction of one (1) foot to the forty (40) foot buffer yard required between residentially and commercially zoned property. If approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it would allow a thirty-nine (39) foot buffer yard along the western property line. Mr. Williams explained the case and noted that Staff found no special condition for the proposed variance; therefore, recommended denial of the request. Mr. Williams explained that the purpose of the buffer yard was to provide separation between residential and commercial uses. Mr. Jackie Fluitt, with Washington and Associates, representing Mr. Carter, took the Oath of Truth and explained that early in the process of developing this property, there were negotiations with the City of Grapevine concerning park land. He explained the subdivision was designed to accommodate the park land to the north and east property lines. Mr. Fluitt went on to explain that Drees Homes currently has 38 homes constructed, the remaining lots are under contract and because the buildable area on this lot is only forty (40) feet wide, this is the last lot to be built on in the subdivision. 6 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Tim Denihan with Drees Homes, took the Oath of Truth and explained that a variance was needed in order to build a home compatible with what is marketable in the area. Mr. Denihan also explained that if a variance was not granted, Drees Homes would not buy the lot. Richard Carter, applicant of 3838 Oak Lawn, Suite 915, Dallas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that because of negotiations with the City of Grapevine about the 45 acre park, the whole subdivision was pushed south and four (4) lots were lost. Mr. Carter noted that this lot has not sold within two years because a forty (40) foot wide house is not marketable. Mr. Carter noted that the deed restrictions for the subdivision requires 1650 square feet. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Chairman Randy Howell, remarked that there was usually a reason for a lot to be sold last and he hated to see lots sitting vacant. After discussion among the members about not being able to find a hardship, Jill Davis made a motion that no special condition existed. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-37,_TERRY BOUTON The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-37, submitted by Terry Bouton who requested a variance for Lot 6, Windmill Estates, addressed as 3257 Oak Tree Lane. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations which requires an accessory structure to be at least ten (10) feet from any dwelling. 7 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 The requested variance would allow a carport to encroach a minimum of four (4) feet into the required ten (10) foot building separation. If approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it would allow a minimum separation of six (6) feet between the carport structure and the existing house. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the proposed variance due to the existing topography of the lot, and the existing four foot retaining wall and existing tree, and in addition, the available rear yard was very limited. Mr. Williams also explained that the applicant submitted a request for the variance to allow the development of a proposed 11 x 21 foot carport at the rear of the existing house. Mr. Terry Bouton, applicant, of 3257 Oak Tree Lane, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he had lived in the house for 11 years and with a teenager and a third car, a covered carport was needed. Mr. Bouton noted that the existing garage would still be used as a garage. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht then made a motion that a special condition existed due to the topography of the lot and the existing four foot retaining wall and existing tree, and in addition, the available rear yard was very limited. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht made a motion to approve the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations to allow a carport to encroach a minimum of four (4) feet into the required ten (10) foot building separation, allowing a minimum separation of six (6) feet between the carport structure and the existing house. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 8 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-38. LINDA L. LAER The next item of business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA96-38, submitted by Linda L. Laer who requested variances for 3125 Trail Lake Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Trail Lake Addition. The following variances were from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations which requires a twenty- five (25) foot rear yard setback. The requested variance would allow the proposed garage to encroach a maximum of nineteen (19) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. If approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it would allow a principal structure with a minimum six (6) foot rear yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Section 15.G.1 ., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. The requested variance would allow the existing house an encroachment of two (2) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback. If approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it would allow the existing house a minimum twenty-eight (28) foot front yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the proposed variance to the rear yard setback due to the inaccessibility to the existing two car garage and the current drainage problems of the lot. Staff also found a special condition existed for the proposed variance to the front yard setback because the house was existing and was not the fault of the owner. Linda Laer, applicant, of 3125 Trail Lake Drive, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the house was built in 1985 and was left unfinished for six to eight months due to the builder declaring bankruptcy. Ms. Laer also explained that two cars could not fit in the garage because of the way it was oriented. With no one to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 9 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition existed for the rear yard setback due to the inaccessibility to the existing two car garage and the current drainage problems of the lot, and that a special condition also existed for the proposed variance to the front yard setback because the house is existing and is not the fault of the owner. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the variances requested to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 15.G.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, to allow the proposed garage to encroach a maximum of nineteen (19) feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback, allowing a principal structure with a minimum six (6) foot rear yard setback as shown on the plot plan and to Section 15.G.1 ., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, to allow the existing house an encroachment of two (2) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback allowing the existing house a minimum twenty-eight (28) foot front yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-39, JUNE STEVENSON The next item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider as BZA96- 39, submitted by Ms. June Stevenson who requested a special exception for 409 West Wall Street, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Sathre Addition. The special exception was to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 54 Masonry Regulations which requires 70% of the exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, to be constructed of brick, stone or other masonry or material of equal characteristics in accordance with the City's Building Code and Fire Prevention Code. 10 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 The proposed special exception would allow construction of a new structure with a 100% reduction to the masonry requirements. Mr. Williams explained the case and that Staff found that a special condition existed for the proposed special exception because the applicant was trying to recreate a historic structure which was close to the original site location. Mr. Williams also noted that the Historic Preservation Commission informally reviewed the proposed exterior building elevations at their October 23, 1996, meeting and recommended approval of the conceptual renderings of the exterior. Phil Morley, representing Ms. Stevenson, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the original building was built in 1912 at the corner of Wall Street and Main Street, until Ms. Stevenson bought it and moved it to 409 West Wall Street. Mr. Morley explained that the building burned to the ground late last year and Ms. Stevenson retained his firm to attempt to recreate it exactly as it was before. Mr. Morley also explained that he had met with the Historic Preservation Commission and that P.W. MCCallum, Acting Foundation Director, pointed out the exact type of siding that was almost certainly used on the original structure. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that a special condition existed because the original house burned and that the applicant was trying to recreate a historic structure which is close to the original site location. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: Luers Carl Hecht then made a motion to approve the special exception to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 54 Masonry Regulations, to allow construction of a new structure with a 100% reduction to the masonry requirements. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 11 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: Luers MINUTES Last for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider were the minutes of the October 7, 1996, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 7, 1996, meeting as corrected. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION There were questions asked about a dent repair shop being run from Mr. Daniel's building at the corner of Dallas Road and Main Street. Mr. Hardy explained to the Board that the dent repair business in Mr. Daniel's building was for estimates only, they would have to go before City Council as a Conditional Use Request to do repairs. Mr. Williams explained to the Board that Certificate of Occupancies are required for all change of businesses. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M. 12 BZA Minutes 11/04/96 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996. APPROVED: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY 13 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 2, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice-Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Dennis Luers Member Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present was City Councilman Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Building Official Ron Stombaugh City Planner Tim Fleming Plans Checker/Field Coordinator Gerrie Anderson Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. BZA96-40, DAVID WILSON The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-40 submitted by David Wilson who requested variances for 829 South Dooley Street. The variances are from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 31 .F, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot size of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The proposed variance would allow a ten thousand-six hundred and twenty-one (10,621) square foot reduction in the required lot size. If approved, it would allow a lot size of nine thousand-three hundred and seventy nine (9,379) square feet. Section 31 .G.1, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet. The proposed variance would allow a fifteen (15) foot reduction in the required lot width. If approved, it would allow a lot width of eighty-five (85) feet. BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Section 31 .G.2, Light Industrial District, requires a minimum lot depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. The proposed variance would allow a seven (7) foot reduction in the required lot depth. If approved, it would allow a lot depth of one hundred forty-three (143) feet. Section 31 .G.3, Light Industrial District, requires a front yard of not less than thirty (30) feet in depth which shall be utilized as a landscaped setback area. Front yards shall not be used for any building, structure, fence, wall, parking or storage area, except that signs shall be permitted in this area. The proposed variance would allow parking in the required front yard setback. If approved, it would allow two (2) parking spaces in the required front yard setback. Section 31 .G.4, Light Industrial District, requires every lot to have two side yards, each of which shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet in width. The proposed variance would allow a three (3) foot reduction to the required side yard to the north. If approved, it would allow a side yard of twelve (12) feet along the north property line. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations, requires that whenever an off-street parking or vehicular use area abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape area of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. The proposed variance would allow a five (5) foot reduction in the perimeter landscape area depth. If approved, it would allow a perimeter landscape area of five (5) feet. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Staff found special conditions existed for all the proposed variances because the lot and structure, previously used as a single family residence, were existing in a zoning district now zoned Light Industrial. Mr. David Wilson, applicant, of 501 Smith Street, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained about the lot, parking and that the plat was going before the City Council December 17, 1996. There was discussion about there being enough parking for future uses of the property. The Board discussed the option of deleting the two head-in parking spaces 2 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 shown on the plot plan and adding a third parallel space in line with the two parallel spaces shown on the plot plan. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht made a motion that special conditions existed being the existing zoning of the property is now LI-Light Industrial and had previously been single family and that the structure is also existing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht then made a motion to approve the variances to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 as follows: Section 31.F, Light Industrial District, allowing a ten thousand-six hundred and twenty one (10,621) square foot reduction to the required twenty thousand (20,000) square foot lot size, allowing a lot size of nine thousand-three hundred and seventy nine (9,379) square feet. Section 31.G.1, Light Industrial District, allowing a fifteen (15) foot reduction to the required one hundred (100) foot lot width, allowing a lot width of eighty-five (85) feet. Section 31 .G.2, Light Industrial District, allowing a seven (7) foot reduction to the required one hundred-fifty (150) foot lot depth, allowing a lot depth of one hundred forty-three (143) feet. Section 31 .G.3, Light Industrial District, allowing the required thirty (30) foot front yard, which shall be utilized as a landscaped setback area, be reduced to twenty (20) feet, allowing a ten (10) foot variance; where one (1) parallel parking space would be permitted. The two (2) head-in parking spaces as shown on the plot plan are to be deleted. 3 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Section 31 .G.4, Light Industrial District, allowing a three (3) foot reduction to the required fifteen (15) foot side yard requirement, allowing a side yard of twelve (12) feet along the north property line. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations, allowing a five (5) foot reduction in the required ten (10) foot perimeter landscape area depth, allowing a perimeter landscape area of five (5) feet. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-42 - JON KENNEDY The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-42, submitted by Jon Kennedy who requested variances for 1060 East Northwest Highway, platted as Lot 1, Block 1, TWK Addition. The variances were from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The requested special exception would allow the enlargement of an existing building and the use of an existing concrete pad for parking. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations, which requires that whenever an off- street parking or vehicular use abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape area of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. The requested variance would eliminate the required ten (10) feet of perimeter landscape area around the proposed off-street parking area. If approved, it would allow the development of an off-street parking area without the required ten (10) foot perimeter landscaping. Section 31 .H, Light Industrial District, which requires whenever a Light Industrial District abuts a residentially zoned district, a landscape buffer zone of not less than twenty-five (25) feet in depth shall be provided from the lot line. 4 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 The requested variance would allow a nine (9) foot reduction in the required buffer zone at the new building line, and a twenty-two (22) foot reduction in the required buffer zone at the end of a concrete pad at the entrance of the new building. If approved, it would allow a buffer zone of sixteen (16) feet at the building line and three (3) feet at the end of the concrete pad. Mr. Stombaugh explained the case and noted that Staff found that special conditions existed for the proposed special exception since the building and concrete pad already exist; for the proposed variance to the landscaping requirement around the concrete pad to be used as a parking area because the concrete pad is in place two hundred- twelve (212) feet along the rear lot line and one hundred-ninety-five (195) feet along the east lot line; and for the proposed variance to the buffer requirement due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing building placement within the lot. A solid wood screening fence already existed along the rear.and west property lines. A one thousand-nine hundred and forty two (1,942) square foot warehouse addition is proposed to be added to the existing 6,978 square foot warehouse. The concrete pad will be used for loading/staging access to the new warehouse addition. A five thousand-ninety two (5,092) square foot proposed office addition will be added to the four thousand-six hundred and sixty seven (4,667) square foot existing office area. Additional parking will be provided at the front of the building. Mr. Jon Kennedy, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the building was built in 1980 and there were variances at that time. Mr. Kennedy explained that he was proposing to double the office size. Mr. Stombaugh noted that the required number of parking spaces, (37) per the gross square footage of the building, were provided. Mr. Kennedy explained that the area to the north, that is shown with slash marks on the plot plan, is already existing concrete and will be removed for the expansion of the building on the north end. The front entry will be changed to the north side. There was discussion concerning how trucks would enter the property. Mr. Kennedy explained that the trucks would enter the property through the north entry between the concrete area west of the parking area and the building. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Dennis Luers made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 5 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion that special conditions exists for the proposed special exception since the building and concrete pad already exists; for the proposed variance to the landscaping requirement around the concrete pad to be used as a parking area because the concrete pad is in place two hundred-twelve (212) feet along the rear lot line and one hundred - ninety-five (195) feet along the east lot line; and for the proposed variance to the buffer requirement due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing building placement within the lot. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the special exception and variances to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 43.E.3., to allow the enlargement of an existing building and the use of an existing concrete pad for parking; Section 53.H.2.b. to allow the elimination of the required ten (10) feet of perimeter landscape area around the proposed off-street parking area; and to Section 31 :H., to allow a nine (9) foot reduction in the required buffer zone at the new building line and a twenty-two (22) foot reduction in the required buffer zone at the end of a concrete pad at the entrance of the new building, allowing a buffer zone of sixteen (16) feet at the building line and three (3) feet at the end of the concrete pad. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-43 WILLIAM S. EASTWOOD Mr. Williams explained that Mr. Eastwood submitted a letter to the Board requesting his case be tabled until the January, 1997, meeting. Carl Hecht made a motion to table BZA96-43, submitted by Mr. William S. Eastwood, until the January 6, 1997, meeting. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 6 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-44. RICHARD PEMBERTON The next 'item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-44, submitted by Mr. Richard Pemberton who requested variances for Lot 21, Shorecrest Acres Addition.- The following variances are from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.F.2.,Single Family District - Area Regulations, which requires a minimum lot size of seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. The proposed variance would allow a seven hundred (700) foot reduction of the minimum lot size. If approved, it would allow a minimum lot size of sixty-eight hundred (6,800) square feet for the existing lot. Section 15.G.1 ., R-7.5 Single Family District - Area Regulations, requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot reduction of the front yard setback. If approved, it would allow a twenty (20) foot front yard setback. Section- 15.G.2:, R-7.5 Single Family District - Area Regulations, which requires a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. The proposed variance would allow a one (1) foot reduction of the rear yard setback. If approved, it would allow a twenty-four (24) foot rear yard setback. Section 15.G.5., R-7.5 Single Family District - Area Regulations, which requires a minimum lot depth of one hundred (100) feet. The proposed variance ..request would allow a fifteen (15) foot reduction of the minimum lot depth. If approved, it would allow an eighty-five (85) foot minimum lot depth. Mr. Williams explained that staff found special conditions existed for the proposed variances due to the unusually small existing lot size. Mr. Williams explained that the lot size presented considerable hardship in placing even a small structure on the lot. 7 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Mr. Larry Dickherber of 1830 Teton Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth .and explained that when he purchased his house, he was informed by the City and his builder that nothing would be built on the lot behind him because of it being too small. Richard Pemberton, applicant, of 1829 Chris Craft Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the well on the property used to be a community well for Shorecrest Acres, but it was shut off when new City water lines were installed. Mr. Pemberton explained that the well was plugged and the house would not be built over the well. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None . Absent: None Carl- Hecht then made a motion that a special condition existed for the proposed variance due to the unusually small existing lot size and that the lot size presents considerable hardship in placing even a small structure on the lot. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht made a motion to approve the following variances to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.F.2., to allow a seven hundred (700) foot reduction of the minimum lot size, allowing a minimum lot size of sixty-eight hundred (6,800) square feet for the existing lot. Section 15.G.1., to allow a ten (10) foot reduction of the front yard setback, allowing a twenty (20) foot front yard setback. Section 15.G.2., to allow a one (1) foot reduction of the rear yard setback, allowing a twenty-four (24) foot rear yard setback. 8 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 Section 15.G.5., to allow a fifteen (15) foot reduction of the minimum lot depth, allowing an eighty-five (85) foot minimum lot depth. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA96-45, DONNA CASE POTTER The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-45, submitted by Ms. Donna Potter for 1423 Rio Bend Court, and platted as Lot 5, Block 1, Wood Creek Estates. The variance was to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations which requires a detached accessory structure to be at least ten (10) feet from the main residence and have the same sideyard setback as required for the main structure. The proposed variance request would allow an accessory structure to encroach five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot building separation. If approved, it would allow a minimum separation of five (5) feet between the accessory building and the main residence. Mr. Williams explained that staff found a special condition existed for the proposed variance due to an effort to preserve trees, and if granted, will result in greater setbacks from the side and rear property lines than are required. Mr. John Metzler of 1412 Hampton Road, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and asked Ms. Potter what was intended to be built and would any trees be removed. Ms. Donna Potter, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained the need for an extra two car garage and wanting to move the garage closer to the house in order to protect the root area of the oak trees toward the rear of the lot. Cyncha Farris, who lives behind the property, took the Oath of Truth and expressed concern to which trees would be removed. 9 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition existed and that being due to an effort to preserve trees, and if granted, will result in greater setbacks from the side and rear property line than are required. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer than made a motion to approve the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 42.C.3.,' allowing an accessory structure to encroach five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot building separation, allowing a minimum separation of five (5) feet between the accessory building and the main residence. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None MINUTES Next, the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the November 4, 1996, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes, with changes, of the November 4, 1996, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None 10 BZA Minutes 12/02/96 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND DISCUSSION Cart Hecht asked why the zoning ordinance required a ten (10) foot separation from the auxiliary structure and the main structure. Mr. Williams explained that the requirement for separation between buildings is for access, and open space reasons to avoid clutter in the neighborhoods. Carl Hecht briefed the Board on the TransComp 1996 meeting that he attended in Atlanta. Mr. Hecht explained that the North Texas Commission attended the annual meeting of the National Industrial Transportation League to get the word out nationally that the Metroplex is a logistic center; a place to do warehousing and distribution. Mr. Hecht explained that there was excellent response of people inquiring at their booth. Mr. Hecht also explained that Grapevine had all the entities with the adoption of the Freeport Tax Exemption, to be a truly logistic center. ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyers, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1997. APPROVED: CI1iAIRUWK- ATTEST- SECRETARY r 11