Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-12 AGENDA � CITY OF GRAPEVINE BRIEFING SESSION BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MONDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M. PLANNING AND ZONING CONFERENCE ROOM SECOND FLOOR— CITY HALL 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. NEW BUSINESS A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a briefing session to discuss items scheduled to be heard in the September 12, 2005 public hearing. IV. ADJOURNMENT � IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC MEETING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT (817) 410-3158 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 BRIEFING SESSION AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. SC TT ILLIAMS BUIL G OFFICIAL/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES � � STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met on Monday evening, September 12, 2005, at 6:00 P.M. in the Planning and Zoning Conference Room, 2"d Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, for a Briefing Session with the following members present to wit: Dennis Luers Vice-Chairman Ron Cook Secretary Debbie Holt Member Richard Adams Alternate Scott Baker Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart, City Attorney Matthew Boyle, and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Building Official Ron Stombaugh Development Manager Connie Cook Development Services Assistant � CALL TO ORDER Dennis Luers called the Briefing Session of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Dennis Luers held roll call and announced that all were present except Chairman Carl Hecht and Member Kip Bruner. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Williams and Mr. Stombaugh briefed the Board of Zoning Adjustment regarding the items scheduled to be heard in the regular public hearing. ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Debbie Holt made a motion to adjourn. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None � Absent: Hecht, Bruner � The Briefing Session was adjourned at 6:35 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005. APPROVED: � � �c.e �C AN dz�?-�c�. C SECRETARY � � AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE � BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 AT 6:15 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OLD BUSINESS A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA05-11, submitted by Alma Goltz, for property located at 151 South Dooley Street. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to � Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA05-13, submitted by Nosa Evbuomwan, for property located at 238 Austin Street. B. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA05-15, submitted by Bob Broussard, for property located at 926 Hummingbird Trail. C. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA05-16, submitted by Dennis Alise, for property located at 604 Austin Street. D. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA 05-17, submitted by Wier& Associates (Buffalo Wild Wings), for property located at 1525 William D. Tate Avenue. D. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA05-19, submitted by Daniel T. � Groulx, for property located at 2923 Peninsula Drive. � V. MINUTES Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider the minutes of the August 1, 2005 Public Hearing and Briefing Session. VI. STAFF REPORTS Development Manager to brief board on status of new construction projects. VII. ADJOURNMENT IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT (817) 410-3158 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 2"d DAY OF � SEPTEMBER 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. SCO ILLIAMS BUILD OFFICIAL/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEVEL PMENT SERVICES � � STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular session, Monday evening, September 12, 2005, at 6:15 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Dennis Luers Vice-Chairman Ron Cook Secretary Debbie Holt Member Richard Adams Alternate Scott Baker Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart, City Attorney Matthew Boyle, and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Building Official Ron Stombaugh Development Manager Connie Cook Development Services Assistant CALL TO ORDER �, Dennis Luers called the public hearing to order at approximately 6:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Dennis Luers held roll call and announced that all were present except Chairman Carl Hecht and Member Kip Bruner. NEW BUSINESS Due to the anticipated length of time to properly present BZA05-15, The Board of Zoning Adjustment chose to reorder the Agenda, relocating BZA05-15, 926 Hummingbird Trail from third position to sixth position. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-11. ALMA GOLTZ, 151 SOUTH DOOLEY STREET The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-11 submitted by Alma Goltz, for property located at 151 South Dooley Street, and proposed to be platted as Lot 1 R, Block 2, A.F. Leonard Addition. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: � Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Section 43.E.3., Non-conforming Uses and Structures, allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to grant a special exception to allow a non-conforming use to exist as developed. The applicant requested a special exception and if approved by the board, the existing site would be allowed to continue as developed as a boat and marine sales and service business with outside display. Mr. Stombaugh explained Staff found a special condition for the requested special exception. Specifically, prior to the re-platting of the property the subject site and its current use were conforming. Section 26, "HC" Highway Commercial District requires that this particular use have frontage along a state highway. When the property was platted as one lot the marine sales business met this requirement since the lot had frontage on Northwest Highway, which is a State Highway (Business 114). Since the lot was proposed to be subdivided, it would no longer have frontage along a state highway. No other changes were proposed other than the subdivision of the existing lot. If approved, the property would be allowed to continue as developed, a boat and marine sales and service business with outside display. With no further questions for Mr. Stombaugh, the applicant's representative, Engineer Surveyor, John Zimmerman, of 908 West Main Street, Arlington, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the current family owned business would be on a separate � lot and that the property owners would like to be able to sell the additional portion of the lot. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Debbie Holt made a motion to close the public hearing. Richard Adams seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Abstain: Luers Debbie Holt made a motion that a Special Condition existed, specifically, prior to the re- platting of the property, the subject site and its current use were conforming. When the property was platted as one lot the marine sales business met this requirement. No other changes are proposed other than the subdivision of the existing lot. Richard Adams seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Abstain: Luers � 2 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Debbie Holt then made a motion to grant a variance to Section 26, "HC" Highway Commercial District allowing property to continue as developed, as a boat and marine sales and service business with outside display. Scott Baker seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Abstain: Luers BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-13, NOSA EVBUOMWAN, 238 AUSTIN STREET The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-13 submitted by Nosa Evbuomwan, for property located at 238 Austin Street, and legally described as Lot S '/2 7 & 8, Block 104, College Heights Addition. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.F.2, "R-7.5" Single Family District, Density Requirements, requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The applicant requested a variance of 500 square feet to this requirement allowing a lot size of 7,000 square feet. � Section 15.G.1, "R-7.5" Single Family District, Area Regulations, requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant requested a variance of eight- feet (8') to this requirement allowing a front yard setback along Austin Street of 22-feet for a covered porch. Section 15.G.4, "R-7.5" Single Family District, Area Regulations, requires a minimum lot width of 95 feet for reverse frontage lots. The applicant requested a variance of 25-feet to this requirement allowing a lot width of 70-feet along Austin Street. Mr. Stombaugh explained Staff found a special condition for the requested variances. Specifically, the original plat for the College Heights Addition was approved in 1909 predating the City's first zoning ordinance adopted in 1955. Numerous sales of land in this area have occurred by deed over the years making many parcels nonconforming relative to today's standards. Staff recommended the Board approve the variances to lot size and to the reverse frontage requirement given that this is a platted lot with no means of expansion to meet the requirements. Staff recommended the Board approve the variance to encroach into the front yard setback for the covered porch only if there is no opposition by any surrounding property owners. Most of the front yard setbacks in the College Heights Addition were 25-feet with some being shown at the 20-foot line. With no further questions for Mr. Stombaugh, the applicant, Nosa Evbuomwan, of 238 Austin Street, Grapevine, Texas took the Oath of Truth and requested favorable �, consideration of his request. 3 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � With no further questions and no additional speakers, Debbie Holt made a motion to close the public hearing. Scott Baker seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt made a motion that a special condition existed. Specifically, the original plat for the College Heights Addition was approved in 1909 predating the City's first zoning ordinance adopted in 1955. Richard Adams seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt then made a motion to grant the following variances: Section 15.F.2, a variance of 500 square feet, allowing a lot size of 7000 square feet. Section 15.G.1, a variance of eight-feet (8'), allowing a front yard setback along Austin Street of 22-feet for a covered porch. Section 15.G.4, a variance of 25-feet, allowing a lot width of 70-feet. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: �, Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-16, DENNIS ALISE, 604 AUSTIN STREET The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-16 submitted by Dennis Alise, for property located at 604 Austin Street, and legally described as Lot 3, Block 117, College Heights Addition. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.4, Single Family District, Area Regulations requires a minimum lot width of 65-feet. The applicant requested a variance of finro-feet (2') to this requirement and if approved by the Board would allow a lot width of 63-feet for an existing platted lot. Mr. Stombaugh explained Staff found a special condition for the requested variance. Specifically, the original plat for the College Heights Addition was approved in 1909 predating the City's first zoning ordinance adopted in 1955. � 4 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � With no further questions for Mr. Stombaugh, the applicant's representative, John Alises of 205 Benton Drive, Roanoke, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was representing his brother who wanted to build a house on this lot and requested favorable consideration of his request. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Scott Baker made a motion to close the public hearing. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt made a motion that a special condition existed. Specifically, the original plat for the College Heights Addition was approved in 1909 predating the City's first zoning ordinance adopted in 1955. Scott Baker seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner � Debbie Holt then made a motion to grant a variance of finro-feet (2') to Section 15.G.4, allowing a lot width of 63-feet. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-17, WIER & ASSOCIATES (BUFFALO WILD WINGS), 1525 WILLIAM D. TATE AVENUE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-17 submitted by Wier & Associates, for property located at 1525 William D. Tate Avenue, and legally described as Lot 6, Block 1, Crossroads of DFW Addition. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 53.H.1.c., Landscaping Regulations requires that a landscaped planter island be located no further apart than every 12 parking spaces and at the terminus of all rows of parking in any parking area. The applicant requested a variance for the elimination of one (1) planter island to this requirement and if approved by the Board would allow one (1) planter island in a row of � 27 spaces along the southern property line. 5 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Mr. Stombaugh explained Staff found a special condition for the requested variance. Specifically, a wooden TXU Electric power pole and supporting guylines were overlooked during the site planning of the subject site. During construction it was discovered and the utility company refused to relocate the supporting guylines for the pole which fall within the easement on the subject property. A landscaped planter island was relocated to accommodate the supporting guylines. However, the restaurant on the site (Buffalo Wild Wings) met the minimum number of parking spaces exactly and could not give up a parking space to substitute for the relocated landscaping island taken from the row of parking along the southern property line without becoming non- compliant relative to required parking. With no further questions for Mr. Stombaugh, the applicant's representative, Engineer, John Henderson, of 4300 Belfinray Place, Arlington, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was available for any questions the Board might have and requested favorable consideration of his request. Scott Baker had a question regarding the elimination of an island; John Henderson explained that they did not eliminate the island, just relocated it, causing the parking spaces to have 13 stalls on one side of the landscape island and 14 stalls on the other side. By moving the island it caused a shortage of islands on the south row of parking. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Debbie Holt made a motion to � close the public hearing. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed. Specifically, a wooden TXU Electric power pole and supporting guylines were overlooked during the site planning of the subject site. A landscaped planter island was relocated to accommodate the supporting guylines, thereby eliminating the 12 parking space limit. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Richard Adams then made a motion to grant a variance to Section 53.H.1.c., Landscaping Regulations required that a landscaped planter island be located no further apart than every 12 parking spaces and at the terminus of all rows of parking in any parking area, by eliminating one (1) planter island on the south property line allowing a row of 27 parking stalls. Debbie Holt seconded the motion which prevailed by � the following vote: 6 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams Nays: Scott Baker Absent: Hecht, Bruner BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-19, DANIEL T. GROULX, 2923 PENINSULA DRIVE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-19 submitted by Daniel T. Groulx for property located at 2923 Peninsula Drive, and legally described as Lot 27, Block 4, Placid Peninsula Addition. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.2, "R-7.5" Single Family District, Area Regulations, requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25-feet. The applicant requested a variance of 15-feet to this requirement for the construction of an attached carport with a second story deck, allowing the carport and deck to be constructed within ten-feet (10') of the rear property line. Mr. Williams explained Staff found a special condition for the requested variance. Specifically, the applicant owns the adjoining property to the rear of the subject property and that the adjoining property could not be built on as a stand-alone lot (due to having � no access to public right-of-way). Mr. Williams also stated that if the Board determined that a variance for the second floor deck was not appropriate, that the structure at least be approved for use as a carport. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, the applicant, Daniel Groulx, of 2911 Peninsula Drive, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the lot behind him was also in the flood plain and could not be built on, he also stated that he was available for any questions and requested favorable consideration of his request. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Scott Baker made a motion to close the public hearing. Richard Adams seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Vice-Chairman Luers announced that one (1) letter of protest and one (1) letter of approval had been received. Scott Baker made a motion that a special condition existed. Specifically, the applicant owns the adjoining property to the rear of the subject property. Also, the adjoining � property is not buildable and has no access to public right-of-way. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 7 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Scott Baker then made a motion to grant a variance without conditions of 15-feet to Section 15.G.2, allowing a carport and second story deck to be constructed within ten- feet (10') of the rear property line. Richard Adams seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA05-15. BOB BROUSSARD, 926 HUMMINGBIRD TRAIL The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA05-15 submitted by Bob Broussard for property located at 926 Hummingbird Trail, and legally described as Lot 61, Block 2, Russwood Estates. The following appeal is to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: � Section 15. "R-7.5" Single Family District Regulations The applicant was appealing the issuance of a building permit for a detached garage built on his neighbor's property; specifically, the applicant objected to the height of the structure, and the setback from the side property line. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found no special condition existed for this request. Specifically, the subject structure was legally permitted, inspected and finaled in compliance with all city ordinances. On March 3, 2005, a building permit application was submitted for a detached garage, located at 926 Hummingbird Trail, by property owner Mr. David Hodges. The survey submitted showed a setback of six-feet (6') from the side property line at the closest point. The building permit was issued, and inspections were performed. All inspections showed that the structure complied with all codes and ordinances, and the final inspection was approved. When construction was complefe, Mr. Bob Broussard contacted the Building Department complaining that the structure was too tall, and too close to the property line. The Inspector made another inspection of the property and verified the setback was proper. The height was also re-measured, and the structure was determined to be less than 16-feet tall, as required. Subsequently, Mr. Broussard obtained his own survey indicating that the accessory building was possibly built as much as ten-inches (10") too close to the side property line. Mr. Williams added that surveys occasionally conflict. � The Building Inspection Department does not require a new survey to be submitted for an accessory structure, as the cost of having a new survey performed oufinreigh the 8 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � benefits. Mr. Williams stated that even if the surveys conflicted and Mr. Broussard's survey was completely accurate, the most severe violation of the ordinance would be that Mr. Hodges garage was ten-inches (10") too close to the property line. It would create an undue hardship on Mr. Hodges to require him to partially or totally demolish or move his accessory building. Mr. Williams emphasized that Mr. Hodges acted in good faith, providing all information required and obtained all inspection approvals from the city that were necessary. Mr. Broussard had also made complaints regarding the accessory structures height. Mr. Broussard has continuously refused to accept the definition of height contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding the reference to violations of Section 15.G. Area Regulations and 15.1. Height Regulations, these are invalid complaints as well. The height of a structure with a sloping roof is measured to the midpoint of the sloping roof. Lastly, Mr. Williams emphasized that there was an ongoing neighborhood dispute befinreen the finro property owners, with both parties calling in complaints on each other. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, City Attorney Matthew Boyle addressed the Board; he reminded them that The Rules of Procedure in the Zoning Ordinance provides for a 15-day appeal or challenge deadline for a decision of the Building Official. As an accommodation the applicant was allowed to submit an appeal on July 15, 2005, however, subsequent to the original application for appeal, the applicant attempted to submit a supplemental appeal a month after the 15-day deadline. The City Attorney's � office recommended that the additional supplemental appeal was not timely filed and should not be considered. With no further questions for Mr. Boyle, the applicant, Bob Broussard of 932 Hummingbird Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and requested a continuance. Dennis Luers requested Mr. Broussard to proceed with his statement and questions, then the Board would address his issues. Mr. Broussard proceeded to explain his interpretation of the Submittal Time Table, the violations he alleged on his initial application, the additional violations he had noted on his amended application; city's neglect to post the proper signage for the case, and city's improper property owner notifications. With no further questions for Mr. Broussard, the neighbor, Mr. David Hodges of 926 Hummingbird Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the structure had been completed with all permits and inspections required by Grapevine Code Enforcement. Mr. Hodges explained that his intentions to build a 2-car garage was known for well over a year, furthermore, the addition of an accessory structure added value to his property and would therefore increase the value of adjacent properties. � 9 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � With no further questions for Mr. Hodges, Gary Neuschaeffer of 933 Hummingbird Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth, he explained that both neighbors additions were very attractive and he looked forward to his property values increasing. He did not feel that making Mr. Hodges remove or alter his structure was the solution. He stated that there was personal tension befinreen both families, and that the long standing feud befinreen the neighbors needed to end, as he was concerned that it was escalating to the point of criminal charges being filed. With no further questions for Mr. Neuschaeffer, City Attorney, Matthew Boyle addressed the Board, he stated, that in light of the fact that the Board had a pending request for continuance in advance of any decision on closing the public hearing, the request for continuance should be considered in as much as if the continuance was not to be granted, the applicant would need to be allowed to present their case. If for any reason the Board granted the continuance it should be a motion to continue the public hearing and the case to a date specific. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Debbie made a motion to close the public hearing. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None � Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt made a motion to deny a continuance. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Scott Baker seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Since the applicant's request for continuance was denied the applicant, Mr. Broussard addressed the Board again, he stated, that he had submitted 60 pages of information on August 29, 2005. Dennis Luers asked Mr. Broussard why he hadn't addressed any of his concerns of the construction of this structure with the Building Department from the very beginning. Mr. Broussard provided no direct answer to this question, and proceeded to present his case to the Board. He said, that he told Mr. Hodges that he better be careful about the property line because the fence was not the property line, �, that the survey showed the fence to be one-foot (1') five-inches (5") inside the property 10 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � line. Mr. Broussard voiced his concerns regarding the setback of structure from property line, height of structure, placement of garage door in relation to street frontage, and changes in approved building plans without revisions being submitted. Kristin Broussard of 932 Hummingbird Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth, and explained that her main reason for requesting a continuance was for a review of the performance of city officials and how they are handling permits, that they were not always following guidelines. With no further statement, from Mrs. Broussard, Mr. Broussard resumed his presentation to the Board. Richard Adams stated to Mr. Broussard that he understood he wanted to appeal the issuance of the building permit and violation of city codes, but questioned his desire for the outcome of this appeal. Mr. Broussard stated that the structure needed to be modified per code. The structure needed to be 20' from side property line, 25' from rear property line, ten-feet (10') from the current structure and the structure was too tall. Ron Cook asked Mr. Broussard to clarify his statement about a 20' side yard setback. Mr. Broussard stated that it was part of his amended application of August 15, 2005. Ron Cook then asked Mr. Boyle if the Board was to consider the information they had been given or were they to consider the new information Mr. Broussard was presenting. � Mr. Boyle stated his advice was that only the July 15th filing was timely submitted and that any additional appeal subsequent to that was not timely filed and should not be considered. Mr. Broussard then proceeded to address the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Adjustment, questioning the order of business. He again referred to a request for continuance. Debbie Holt reminded Mr. Broussard the Board had denied his request for continuance, and that he was selectively interpreting the code. Mrs. Holt asked Mr. Broussard to clarify whether or not he was accusing city officials of intentionally doing something wrong. Mr. Broussard stated that the city definitely dropped the ball. He then began to address new concerns, stating that the structure had wiring above the eight-foot (8')wall height and that it was a potential safety risk, he also stated Mr. Hodges was repairing engines and working on vehicles that he does not believe are his. Debbie Holt stated that not everyone was in agreement that the structure was in violation of any codes, and again reminded Mr. Broussard that he was selectively interpreting the code. Discussion was held between Mr. Broussard and Mrs. Holt regarding interpretation of codes, specifically, height, conflict of surveys and 20' foot setback for garage door. Ron Cook asked Mr. Broussard what he would have Mr. Hodges do. Mr. Broussard stated that the structure needed to be modified. Ron Cook responded by stating that the only way for it to be modified was to tear it down or move it. He asked if Mr. Broussard thought that was unreasonable. Mr. Broussard stated that he did not. He said that he had followed all the requirements for his own room addition �„ and balcony. Mr. Broussard then proceeded to present what he felt was wrong with the 11 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � city ordinances. Ron Cook stated that he was confused on what they were to be considering. First, Mr. Broussard had stated that he was not appealing the issuance of the permit, but the violation of the ordinances, now he was arguing that the ordinances were wrong, in which case he needed to go Council and have them changed. With no further statement from Mr. Broussard, Mrs. Laurie Hodges of 926 Hummingbird Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth, she stated that it was her understanding that the city had received letters opposing the appeal of the permit. Furthermore, notification was sent out at least three (3) weeks prior to the meeting, and if Mr. Broussard had an issue with the wording of the appeal why didn't he address it at that time. With no further questions and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Debbie Holt seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner Debbie Holt asked Scott Williams to clarify the ordinance regarding the 20-foot side yard setback for garage doors, Mr. Williams quoted the ordinance and explained to the Board � the cities interpretation. Mr. Williams explained that when garage doors faced a property line, the ordinance required a 20-foot setback from the door to the property line. He said that staff consistently interpreted that the 20-feet did not apply when a garage was at an angle to a side property line, and the access to the garages was from the front or rear. He stated that if the city enforced the ordinance like Mr. Broussard was interpreting it, many of the homes in the City of Grapevine would be in violation. The intent of the ordinance is to keep the garage moved back 20-feet so that cars park without hanging across the property line. The ordinance had always been interpreted this way and this was a reasonable, practical, and consistent interpretation. Ron Cook stated that even if a mistake had been made, it was not reasonable to require the Hodges to tear down, move, or alter their structure. Richard Adams stated that if the Building Official had made an error, the time to address the error was prior to or during construction, not at completion. Furthermore, if the Building Official was in error it was an internal matter within city staff and needed to be addressed to that particular Building Inspector. Tearing down the building would not solve the problem or create neighborhood harmony. Ron Cook made a motion to deny the appeal. Debbie Holt seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: � 12 Board of Zoning Adjustment 09/12/05 � Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the August 1, 2005 Briefing Session and Public Hearing. Ron Cook made a motion to accept the minutes of the August 1, 2005 Briefing Session and Public Hearing. Scott Baker seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner STAFF REPORTS ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Richard Adams made a motion to adjourn. Scott Baker � seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Luers, Cook, Holt, Adams, Baker Nays: None Absent: Hecht, Bruner The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005. APPROV D: f �� �- CH AN oa��P c SE RETARY � 13