Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 � AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BRIEFING SESSION BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT M4NDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 2Q11 AT fi:00 P.M. P�ANNING AND ZONING CONFERENCE ROOM SECOND FL.04R— GITY HAL� 2Q0 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. BRIEFING SESSI4N A. Board af Zoning Adjustment to conduct a briefing session to discuss items scheduled to be heard in the Rugust 1, 2011 public hearing. � IV. ADJOURNMENT IF YQU P�AN T4 ATTEND TNIS PUBLIG MEETING AND Y{3U HAVE A DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT$ AT THE MEETING, PLEASE C4NTACT THE CIFFICE OF DEVELC}PMENT SERVIGES AT {817} 410-3'1�8 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE T(} ASSIST YOUR NEEQS. IN ACCORDANGE WITH TEXAS GQVERNMENT CODE, CNAPTER 551.OQ1 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT BRIEFING SESSIC}N AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND P4STED ON THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2011 AT 5:OQ P.M. SCO VIIII.�IAMS EVE 4PMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR/ B ING C}FFICIAL � � AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 2011 AT fi:15 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FL40R 200 St1UTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS !. CALL TO 4RDER 11. ROLL CAL� Il1. OATH OF OFFICE IV. ELECTION t?F OFFICERS V. PUBLlC HEARING A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zaning Adjustment Case BZA11-06, submitted by Joji � Sauer, for property located at 172Q Sagebrush Trail, and consideration of same. B. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a pubiic hearing relative to Baard of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-09, submitted by Mark Cegielski, for property located at 2111 Forest Hilfs Road, and consideration of same. C. Board af Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board af Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-10, submitted by Bab Tatangelo, for property located at 3504 Red Bird Lane, and consideration of same. D. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zaning Adjustment Case BZA11-11, submitted by Perry Leonard, for property located at 604 South Main Street, and consideration of same. E. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative ta Board af Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-07, submitted by Richard Rothfelder representing owner CBS �utdaor, Inc, for properky located at 1701 West State Highway 114, and consideration of � same. F. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to � Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-08, submitted by Richard Rothfelder representing owner CBS Ou#doar, Inc, for property located at 17Q1 West State Highway 114, and consideration of same. VI. MINUTES Board of Zoning Adjustment #o consider the minutes of the May 2, 2011 meeting and take any necessary action. Vfl. ADJOURNMENT IF YQU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILiTY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFIGE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT �81?) 410- 3158 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REAS4NABLE ACCt3MMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YUUR NEEDS. IN ACCORDANGE WITH TEXAS GQVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.041 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED 4N THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2011 AT 5:00 P.M. � SCOT LIAMS DEVE NT SERVICES DIRECTOR 1 BUI�DING FFIGIA� � STATE OF TEXAS �, COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met on Monday evening, August 1, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. in the Planning and Zoning Conference Room, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, for a Briefing Session with the following members present to wit: Ron Cook Secretary Debbie Holt Member Richard Adams Member Ken White Member Robert Rainwater Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart, City Attorney, Matthew Boyle, and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Development Services Director / Building Official Ron Stombaugh Planning and Development Manager Albert Triplett Planner II Connie Cook Development Services Assistant � CALL TO ORDER Secretary Ron Cook called the Briefing Session of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Secretary Cook held roll call and announced that all were present. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Stombaugh, Mr. Triplett and Mr. Williams briefed the Board of Zoning Adjustment regarding the items scheduled to be heard in the regular public hearing. ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Richard Adams made a motion to adjourn. Debbie Holt seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None � Absent: None The Briefing Session was adjourned at approximately 6:30 P.M. � PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 5TH OF DECEMBER 2011. APPROVED: % / CHAIRMAN E � SE RETRRY � � 2 Board of Zoning Adjustmenl 8/1/2011 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY 4F TARRANT � CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular session, Monday evening, August 1, 2411, at 6:15 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 5outh Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the fallowing members present: Ron Cook Secretary Debbie Holt Member Richard Adams Member Ken White Member Robert Rainwater Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Cauncil Representative Ray Stewart, City Attorney, Matthew Boyle, and the following City Staff: �cott Williams Development Services Director J Building Official Ron Stombaugh Planning and Development Manager Albert Triplett Planner II Connie Cook Development Senrices Assistant CALL TO 4RDER �,,, Secretary Ron Cook called the Public Hearing Session af the Board af Zoning Adjustment to order at approximately 6:35 P.M. ROL� CA�L Secretary Cook held roll call and announced that all were present. OATH OF OFFICE Connie Gook administered the Oath of Office to reappointed Member, Ken White, reappointed Secretary, Ron Cook, and new Alternate Robert Rainwater. ELECTION OF OFFICERS For office of Chairman, Richard Adams nominated Debbie Holt. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the fallowing vate: Ayes: Adams, Cook, White, Rainwater Nays: None Abstain: Holt Debbie Holt was elected as Chairman. � For office of Vice-Chairman, Debbie Holt nominated Richard Adams. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the foiiowing vote: Ayes: Holt, Cook, White, Rainwater Nays: None � Abstain: Adams Richard Adams was elected as Vice-Chairman. For affice of Secretary, Debbie Holt re-nominated Ron Cook. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vate: Ayes: Holt, Adams, White, Rainwater Nays: None Abstain: Cook Ron Cook was re-elected as Secretary. PUB�IC NEARIN� BOARD OF ZQNING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-06, JQJI SAUER, 1720 SAGEBRUSH TRAIL The first item far the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-06 submitted by Joji Sauer for property located at 1720 Sagebrush Trail, legally described as Lot 9, Block 1, Hood Ridge Estates. � Section 42.C.3, 5upplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings requires accessory buildings in a residen#ia1 district be located on the rear one- half of the !ot and at least 1p-feet from any dwelling or building. The applicant requested a special exception allowing construction of a detached accessory structure to be used as a garage to be loca#ed in the front one-haif of the 1ot. Mr. Trip{ett explained #hat Staff found a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, placement of a detached garage in the rear yard was impractical because of the location of the dwel{ing, the existence of a swimming pool in the rear yard, and the lot was not a typical cul-de-sac configured lot. He stated that the existing dwelling was built in 1979; the carport and swimming pool were built in 2Q04 and 2009. Ne went on to state that the available required front yard far exceeded the minimum required setback af 30-feet, that #he detached garage would be approximately 1,440 square feet and would meet all other ordinance requirements. WitM no further questions for Mr. Tripiett, Raquei Sauer representing property owner Joji Sauer of 1720 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; she explained to the Board that she was representing her father Joji Sauer and offered ta answer any questions of the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request. �„ Richard Adams asked if the strueture wouid be all brick and why the structure was so large. She stated that the structure would be a!I brick and that her father drove a handicap van and there were severai drivers in the house. 2 Board oi ZoNng AdjusUnerrt �,,,, Robert Rainwater asked if there would be a separate approach. Greg Lee, representing property awner Joji Sauer of 2433 FM Raad 917, Mansfield, Texas took the Qath of � Truth. He stated he was helping the family construct the garage, and in regards to the drive approach; the existing approach would be widened. Mr. Rainwater asked why the structure was so far away from the residence, He stated that they wanted to keep some #ront yard intact, With no further questions for Ms. Sauer and Mr. Lee, David Bennett of 2102 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; and explained to the Board that he owned the hame directly ta the left of the proposed detached garage. He explained to the Board that when he was first made aware of the setbacks for the detached garage he did not approve of the location, but had spoken with Mr. Sauer and he had agreed to move it over ten-feet (10'). Mr. Bennett stated that he was not opposed to a garage, but did not like the ariginal location. Some discussion was held regarding the photas that Mr. Bennett submitted. Robert Rainwater asked Mr. Lee how tall the structure would be. He stated that it was eleven-feet �11'} to the ea�es and thought it was eighteen-feet {18') to #he peak. He further stated that Mr. Sauer was not opposed to relocating the structure. Mr. Bennett requested that the Board place a stipulation that if the structure was allawed that it would be moved over further. Ken White asked Mr. Bennett to clarify if he was requesfrng the struc#ure be relocated additionai ten-feet {10'}, he stated that was correct. � Mr. Stombaugh clarified that height of structure was measured to mid point of roof and could not be more that sixteen-feet. With no further questions for Mr. Bannister, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motian to close the public hearing. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adarns, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, placement of a �ietached garage in the rear yard was impractical because of the location of the dwelling, the existence of a swimming pool in the rear yard, and the lot was not a typical cul-de-sac configured lot. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the fo{iowing special exception to Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings, allowing construction �, of a detached accessory structure to be used as a garage to be located in the front one- half of the lot with the stipulation that it be constructed twenty-seven feet �27') from the property line. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 3 �ab ot�,��Ad;,�m�m 8/1/t 1 Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None � Absent: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11•09. MARK CEGIELSKI, 2111 FQREST HII.LS RC1AD The next item for #he Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-Q9 submitted by Mark Gegielski for property located at 2111 Forest Hills Road, legally described as Cat 9, Block 12, Reed Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nancanforming Uses and Structures allows the Board af Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant requested a special exception allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed and a new garage to be constructed as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff did not find a special candition exist for the requested special exceptian. Specifically, the proposed encraachment wauld be the result of a self imposed hardship and would increase the level of nonconformance to the subject site. Mr. Triplett explained that if the Baard denied the request for a new garage that Staff recommended the Board approve a special exceptian allowing the existing carport to � remain as shown on the plot plan. He stated that records were unavailable ta determine when the carport was constructed, and according to the applicant the carport existed when tha dwelling was purchased in 2001. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Mark and Cynthia Cegielski of 2111 Forest Hills Road, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the �ath of Truth. They explained to the Board that on the north side of the property there were existing mature trees, and on the south side they would have to relocate a sewer line, utility poie and electrieal senrice to the house and two (2) other utilities. There was a lat of traffic due to access to the lake and people were constantly using there driveway to turn around, everything in the carport was exposed. They stated that they traveled a lat with there jobs and felt from a safety prospective they needed to construct a garage. The neighborhaod was very eclectic, and they were trying to stay in line with the area. Chairman Holt announced that five (5) letters of approval had been received, along with the petitian of 24 names submitted by the applicant. Ron Cook asked where the electrical pole was in relation to the house. Mr. Cegielski stated that i# was on the south side of the residence and that a driveway would have to be constructed where the power pole was. He further stated that accarding to �ncor it would cost approximately $10,000 to relocate the pole and service, there were also finro �, (2) other utilities that would have to be reiocated. Mr. Cook asked if they were to remove the carport could a driveway be installed befinreen the power pole and house to allow a detached garage to be constructed in the backyard. He stated that the power pole 4 0oartl of Zoring Adjustmerrt e�i/N would have to be removed; he also stated that they were trying #o utilize the existing roofline to make it look like one building. �,► Scott Williams clarified that the power pole was on private property and was an unusual circumstance. With no further questions for Mr. and Mrs. Cegielski, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Ken White s�conded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes; Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the subject site was a carner lot developed with a dwelling #hat was built in 1968. In additian to the dwelling an attached carport and detached accessory structures were present and the lot required a 35-foat setback adjacent to each street frontage. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Hoit, White Nays: Rainwater Absent: None � Richard Adams then made a motian to grant the folbwing special exception ta Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed and a new garage be constructed as shown on the plot plan. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vate: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White Nays: Rainwater Absen#: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-10, BOB TATANGELO, 3504 REDBIRD LANE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to cansider was BZA11-1t3 submitted by Bob Tatangelo for property located at 3504 Red Bird Lane, proposed to be platted as Lot 12R1, Bloek 6, Piacid Peninsula Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Use� and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment ta approve the remodeling and/or enlargement af a nonconforming use. The appiicant requested a special exception allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed as shown on the plat plan. � Mr. Triplett explained that Staff found a special condition existed far the requested speciai exception. Speci�cally, the site was an existing developed lot, and the existing 5 �ab o+zo��Ad;��mern �„�„ residential structure was constructed in 1959 prior to the site being annexed within the City of Grapevine. The site was noncampliant with the current zoning ordinance (82-73� � relative to the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling. He explained ta the Board that the applicant intended ta replat the subject site into two {2} lots. The southern portian af the site had a detached garage which was proposed to be remodeled into a single family dwelling, and the northern porkian of the site would continue to be used as developed as a single family residence; the existing residence encroached approximately five (5) feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. He stated that when #he property was platted as two (2) lots in 1951, the subject site was autside of the City of Grapevine. In 1959 the dwelling was built and the site was incorporated into a second section of the subdivision. In 19fi6 the property was annexed into the City of Grapevine and in 1994 the subject site was replatted from two (2) lots into one (1} lo#for the purpos� of building a detached garage. With na further questions for Mr. Triplett, Bob Tatangelo of 3529 Red Bird �ane, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he gave a brief presentation to the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request and offered ta answer any questions of the Board. With no questions for Mr. Tatangelo, Ms. Lynn Harper of 3421 Red Bird Lane, Grapevine, Texas, took the {�ath af Truth; she explained to the Board her concerns regarding the properties becoming rental, if the Tatangelo's had no intentions of living on the property. She also voiced cancerns of the replatting of the property. Ms. Holt � clarified that the Baard was only addressing the issue of the existing residence and it's encraachment into the rear yard setback. Chairman Nolt announced that one (1) letter of protest had been received. With no questiorrs for Ms. Harper, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motian to close the public hearing. Rabert Rainwater seconded the mation which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site was an existing developed lot, and the existing residential structure was constructed in 1959 prior #o the site being annexed within the Ci#y of Grapevine. The site was noncompliant with the current zoning ordinance (82-73) relative ta the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling. Ken White seconded the motian which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None � Richard Adams then made a motian to grant the following special exception to 5ection 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the existing residential structure 6 �ab o«��,Aa;�srn a,�„ to remain as develaped as shown on #he plat plan. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the follawing vote: �r Ayes: Coak, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absen#: None BOARD 4F ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11•11, PERRY I.EONARD, fiO4 SOUTH MAIN STREET The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-11 submitted by Perry �eanard for property located at 604 Sauth Main Street, legally described as Lat 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling andlor enlargement of a nanconforming use. The applicant requested a special exception allowing the relocation of an existing pole sign as shawn on the site plan. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff found a special candition existed far the requested special exception. Specifically, the site is an existing developed lot, and rezoning of the property during the 1984 City Rezaning and the development and adoption of a new � zoning ordinance (Ord. 82-73) placed the sign in a non-conforming status. He went an to explain that the sub�ect sign, 32.53 feet in height, approximately 210 square feet in size was located adjacent to South Main Street, along the south portion of the site and approximately 5Q-feet north of the new Convention and Visitars Bureau Headquarters, at Hudgins Street and South Main Street the sign would be relocated to the northeast corner of the site, to improve the visibility of the sign. Permit recards for the original sign were unavailable but according to Tarrant Appraisal District, the building was built in 1966. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Perry Leanard of 330 Longview Drive, Keller, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he gave a brief presentation to the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request and offered to answer any questions of the Board. Chairman Holt announced that one (1) letter af approval had been received. With no questions for Mr. Leonard, and no additional speakers, Ken White made a motian to close the public hearing. Rabert Rainwater seconded the mation which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None �„ Absent: None 7 8oartl of 2pning AAjustmerrt 8/i/11 Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site was an existing develaped lot, and the exis#ing pale sign � was in camplete compliance under the established guidelines at the time. The subsequent 1984 City Rezoning of the property and adoption of a new zoning ordinance placed the sign in non-confarming status. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the fallawing vote: Ayes: Cook, Rdams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the follawing special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the relacation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. Ken VlJhite seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None BOARD QF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-07, RICHARD ROTHFELDER, 1701 WEST STATE HIGNWAY 114 The ne� item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-07 submitted � by Richard Rathfelder for property located at 1701 West State Highway 114, legally described as Lo# 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition. Section 68.G, Board of Adjustment. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer of the department, board or bureau of the City, affected by any decision of the building inspector or other administra#ive o�cer af the City relative ta the Zoning Ordinance. Such appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days after the date of the deeisian of the building inspector or other administrative officer has been rendered, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record from which the appeal was taken. The applicant requested the Board overturn the decision of the Building Official relative to the illegal alteration of a nonconfarming use, specifically a billboard sign. Mr. Williams stated that Staff found no special condition existed to support the request. He went on to expiain that CBS Outdoor Inc., owned an off site advertising sign iocated in front of the Sam's Club store, at 1701 West State Highway 114. Qn C?ctober 25, 2010, a letter was received from the law firm Rothfelder and Falick, L.L.P., which represented CBS Outdoor Inc. The letter requested permission to a{ter#his billbaard sign, specifically remaving four-feet (4') from the sign that overhung the newly � acquired State right-of-way. 8 BoarO oi Zoning Adjustmerrt �„�„ On November 10, 2Q10, the State of Texas awarded damages to the property owner for removal of the sign. � In respanse to the tJctober 25, 2410, letter, the decision of the Building Official was provided to the applicant, delivered through the City Attorney, Boyle and Lowry, on December 8, 2010. This response clearly stated the nonconforming sign could nat be moved, altered, or adjusted. Sometime after this decision, the sign was illegally altered. On February 22, 2011, a letter informed CBS Outdoor through their Attorneys; that due to the illegal remodeling of #he sign, all legal nanconforming status had been 1ost. 4n February 24, 2011, the City Attorney sent the applicant a similar letter. On March 1, 2011, the applicant sent another letter to the City Attorney, admitting that CBS Ou#door altered the sign. On March 8, 201�, an appeal was received in the Development Services Department. The appeal was more than four (4) months after the ariginal decision which stated the sign could not be altered. Mr. Williams stated that the appeal shauld be denied based on the following documents. Zoning Ordinance Section 68. Board of Adjustment, Paragraph G, required a maximum of fifteen (15} days; this submittal was four �A�} months subsequent to that determination. Section 6t}, Sign Standards of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning 4rdinance did not list billboards or off-premise signage as a permitted use, therefore it could be established that this sign was a noncanforming use. �,, Section 105, Permits, 105.1, of the 2006 International Building Code that was adopted by the City of Grapevine required a permit to enlarge, alter, repair, move or demolish a building or structure. These sign structures were not exempt from the list of "exemp#ions" in the adopted building code. No building permit was ever requested or received for this illegal alteration. Sect'ron 60.A, Sign Standards, Sign Permits of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zaning Ordinance required a zoning permit for any alteration ar remodeling of a sign. There was no zoning permit to alter ar remodel this sign. Section 43.D.2, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance allowed a legal nonconforming use to exist, but did not ailow the remodeling or enlargement of that nonconforming use. This nonconforming use was illegally remodeled in violation of this section. Section 43.D.3.b, Nonconforming Uses and 5tructures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance stated: "The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance ar vioiation of any Ordinance of the City of Grapevine with respect to a nanconforming use shall terminate immediately the right to operate such nonconfarming use." Staff had shown several violations of ordinances that included violation of the Building Code, not obtaining a building permit far the alteration, �, violation of Zoning Ordinance, altering a sign without a zoning permit and violation of the Zoning Ordinance for alteration of a nonconforming use. 9 �ab o��p��Aa;��m� 8/1/11 Sectian 43.1.2.C.2, Right-of-way Acquisition by Gavernmental Agency, Compensation for Noncompliance of #he Grapevine Gomprehensive Zoning 4rdinance stated: "The � exemption shall not apply to the praperty if the governmental agency offered campensation to #he property owner for demolitian, removal, relocation, ar replacement af improvements or other measures curative of the violation af the City codes ar ordinances caused by the right-of-way acquisition." Mr. Williams stated tha# #his sectian had been added because the applicant felt that they were subject to relief under this section. The property owner had been offered campensation for the taking of this right- of-way easement. Therefore, exemption from compliance with the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Qrdinance was not applicable. Richard Adams asked Mr. Williams if the altera#ion taak place after the Building 4fficials letter of December 8, 2010. He stated that it had. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, Richard Rothfelder, with Rothfelder & Falick, ��P, representing CBS Uutdoor, of �201 Louisiana Street, #550, Houston, Texas, #aak the Oath of Truth; he proceeded by handing ou# his presentation to the Board. Mr. Rathfelder stated that what CBS Outdoor, joined with the State af Texas wanted was to take the billboard that had been permitted and operatianal since the early 1980's and remave the four-feet (4'}that overhung the right-af-way. He stated they were appealing the February 22, 2Q1�, order, not an order that was four (4) months previous on December 8, 2010. He stated that the February 22, 2011, decision was appealed within the required fifteen days {15). �„ He explained ta the Board that the widening of State Highway 114 was an important key in this case. The actual billboard pale was outside of the proposed right-of-way but the biilboard face overhung faur-feet (4'} of the new proposed highway. He stated that CBS Outdoor had three (3) alternatives ta remedy the situatian which were supported by the State of Texas. The first originally addressed in the October 10, 2010 letter to the City, was shifting the face #our-feet (4'). The second was to remove the four-foot (4') panel that overhung the right-af-way. The third was to acquire the bil)board #hrough eminent domain by condemnation proceedings. He went on to explain the ramifications of nat allowing the billboard ta remain. CBS 4utdoor received a letter from TxDOT dated January 7, 2011, stating aerial encroachments must be eliminated by February 1, 2011. In deference to Grapevine's letter dated December 8, 2010, that stated the face could not be shifted; CBS Outdoor did not do what Mr. Williams said they could not do. They removed the four-foot (4') panel that encroached into the aerial right-of-way. As a result, that triggered the letter of February 22, 2011; which was the subject of today's appeal, not the December 8, 2010, letter. Mr. Ro#hfelder stated that wha# was being appealed was not something which happened in December. He further stated this was important because within fifteen (15) days of that decision, notice of appeal was given. It was dated February 28, 2011, responding to the City Attorney who had written a similar letter. The City was advised of CBS Outdoor's intention ta appeai in a letter dated March 1, 2011, which included a more exhaustive explanation why the decision was wrong and should be appealed. �, He went on to explain to the Board why removal of the four-foot (4'} panel was something allowed withaut a permit. He cited City of Grapevine Zoning Ordinance Section 64, and Section 43. He maintained that a sign or substantiai part of it was 1 0 Bpard oi Zpflinp Atljustmettt &1/11 considered to have been destroyed only if the cost of repairing the sign was more than sixty (60� percent of the cast of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location. He explained to the Board the various cost involved in removal of the four-foot �,r (4'� panel, relocating the four-foot �4'� panel to the other end af the billboard and the cost of constructing a brand new billboard. He continued to explain Grapevine's regulatians Section 43.1 that addressed right-of- way acquisition by Governmental Agencies. He stated in the event a right-of-way acquisition by a Governmental Agency caused a property or it's existing improvements ta be in violation of a City Zaning Grdinance, subdivision rule, or other land use regulation or ordinance, the property shall be exempt from the provisian ta the extent the vialation was caused by the right-of-way acquisition, subject ta certairt conditians that did not exist here. He stated that Mr. Williams pointed out the exemption did not apply because CBS Uutdoor had been compensated for the removal af the biNbaard. He said #his was incorrect; CBS Outdaor had not been compensated. He stated that Stacey-Trip had nat been compensated by the State of Texas for the elimination of her ground rental income. He also stated CBS Outdoor's exemption for the violation that occurred because of this Governmental Agency property acquisition applied for this case. There had been no compensatian paid or affered to CBS Outdoor. Mr. Rothfelder went on to address why he felt CBS Outdoor, was not required to abtain permits for the work performed tha# caused the billboard to lose i#s nonconforming � status. He specifically questioned the wording used in City regulatians in the letter dated February 22, 2011, that ordered the sign to be removed. Section 60A, required a permit when a sign was painted, constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated, or expanded. Sec. 43.D.2, prohibited a sign from being remodeled or enlarged. Section 1 t}5.1, which required a permit to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure. He stated that none of these contemplated the activity that occurred, which was decreasing the size of the sign and its nonconformity. He also stated that the word, "modification" used in the February 22, 2011, letter was absent from City regulations. He went on to state that if the Board ruled the billboard to have been enlarged or expanded without a permit that justified the order for removal, he requested the Board consider a variance. He cited Section 68.H.2., that addressed the Boards ability to hear appeals and variance request. Mr. Rothfelder summarized by stating the appeal was timely and had been filed eight (8} days after the letter dated February 22, 2011. Decreasing the size of the sign was not among activities that were prohibited without a permit. it was not enlarged, expanded or modified. He stated that modified was not used in City regulations but was used in the February 22, 2t311, letter, which was the subject of this appeal. He stated this was a classic situation for a variance, due to a substantial hardship and a situation where the taxpayers would be forced to pay over two-million dollars in acquisition cost. He requested the Board overturn the decision and grant a variance to allow the billboard to continue to remain as it was right now. �, Debbie Holt asked Mr. Rothfelder to clarify exactly where he was pulling from the ordinance that remodeling was defined only as an enlargement. She said remodeling was a term that did not define going smalier ar iarger. The term de�ned remodeling as a 1� Board of Zqninp AAjustmwtt 8/i/11 change. The letters received fram the City were clear; change implied larger or smaller. He repli�d that confusion of words was due to vocabulary used in Grapevine � regulations. She stated, no, they were clear, the City Attarney and City OfficiaPs letters were very clear that remodeFing wotald be a change; why was a change only important if it was bigger. He stated the reason was the letter addressed an activity that was not the subject af this appeal; the letter prahibited a shifting af the face. Ms. Nolt suggested they revisit the December 8, 2010, letter. She stated the City very clearly responded by stating that any alteratian of that sign would be a violation, it said nathing abaut only shifting. He cited the first alternative that was authorized by the S#ate of Texas, for a shifting of the face, "...a monopole sign face overhanging the proposed right-of-wray to be shifted to the remainder,.." so what was addressed in the letter was to shift the face. She stated it was not TxDOT's regulations that applied. It was the City of Grapevine's Zoning 4rdinance that applied. The Gity of Grapevine stated that no change could be made to a nonconforming use without a permit. Discussion continued regarding clarification of vocabulary. Mr. Rothfelder stated that the choice was to def}r the Januar}r letter #rom the State of Texas ordering the aerial encroachment to be remaved. But aut of deference to the City did not undertake the specifiic activity that Mr. William and Mr. Boyle stated eould nat be done. The Octaber 25, 2010, letter asked for permission to shift the face. The City said no, and the face was not shifted. Subsequently a letter was received fram the State af Texas ordering the aerial encroachment to be eliminated by February 1, 2011. CBS Outdoor removed the four-foot {4'} panel that overhung the right-of-way. This was not � an activity that was addressed in either the original request or the original denial, an action #hat had not been denied. Attorney Matthew Boyle asked Mr. Rothfelder who he was representing. He stated CBS Outdoor. Mr. Boyle asked if he was representing Stacey-Trip. He said na. Mr. Boyle asked if he was writing on behalf of Stacey-Trip and CBS Uutdoor, in #he letter dated October 25, 2010, and if he was representing Stacey-Trip at that time. He stated Mr. Scott signed the letter or his partner Edward Burbach. Mr. Boyle asked if CBS Outdoor was the client he was representing tonight and if their interest in this matter was currently the subject of an eminen# domain case. He sta#ed yes it was. Mr. Boyle asked if a good faith offer had been made by the State of Texas to C65 Outdoor, prior to the filing of the sta#es eminent domain petition. He stated they did not. Mr. Boyle asked if they had appealed the Special Commissioners ruling. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if #he sign in quesfron had been altered since December 8, 20'10, He stated that it had not. The face size had been reduced which was allowed under Grapevine's regulations without a permit. Robert Rainwater asked Mr. Rothfelder if any remedies were pursued with the State of Texas as #ar as variances to the right-of-way prior to starting procedures with the City of Grapevine. Mr. Rothfeider stated that there were no variance procedures under TxDOT's regulations other than the procedure under 21.160 to accommodate the road widening by either the shifting or face reductian. �,; With no further questions for Mr. Rothfelder, Sejin Brooks, Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Texas, 3C?Q West 15th Street, Austin, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he stated that the State of Texas did not compensate nor make an offer to CBS 12 6oaid ot ZoNng AdlustmerK 871/N Outdoor. He stated the parties did file objections and if one party objected all parties are allawed to object. He acknawledged that the State of Texas had na jurisdiction in this � case; and was a City of Grapevine issue. He went on to explain the procedures of eminent damain cases. Debbie Holt asked Mr. Brooks if the State of Texas told CBS Outdoar, haw to address the concern. He stated the State of Texas told CBS Outdoor, to address the concern; the overhang in the right-of-way had to be removed, and as soon as the right-of-way lines were remaved the State af Texas had no more interest. She asked if the State of Texas acknowledged the City of Grapevine's right to regulate the areas within their boundaries. He stated absolutely. Attorney Matthew Boyle asked Mr. Broaks if TxDOT condemned #he billboard itself in regards to the eminent domain case. Mr. Brooks stated there was an overhang and the State of Texas filed suit against CBS Outdoor. Mr. Boyle asked if the State of Texas was looking and seeking ta acquire by eminent domain a right to ertter the property, with the sale purpose of removing all of said finro (2) outdoor advertising signs. Mr. Brooks stated yes, the State o# Texas had removed the Clear Channel Sign, but with #he CB5 Outdoor sign the only way the State of Texas could address it was to sue for the entire structure. Mr. Bayle asked if all statutory prerequisites were achieved in advance of filing the eminent domain petition on behalf of the State of Texas. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if that included making a good faith offer as requiced by law. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if CBS Outdoor had appealed the award of the Special Commissioner. He stated yes. �,,, Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Brooks if the #allawing excerpt was fram an e-mail he had sent Mr. Rothfelder on February 23, 2011, "....TxDOT did not have jurisdiction over whether or not the sign was currently legal, to include the setback issue, as those were issues that were the City ordinances of the City of Grapevine...." he stated tha#was correct. With no further questions for Mr. Brooks, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special conditian did not exist to support the request. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to deny the request to overturn the decision af the Building O�cial relative to the illegal alteration of a noncanforming use. Ron Cook � secanded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 13 BoaN of 7onin0 AdluslmeM &1/11 Ayes: Caok, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None � Absent: None BOARD OF Z4NING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-08, RICHARD ROTHFELDER, 1701 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114 The ne�ct item for the Board of Zaning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-08 submitted by Richard Rothfelder for praperty located at 17Q1 West State Highway 114, legally described as Lot 2, Black 1, Wal-Mart Addition. Section 43.D.2,, Nanconfarming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses allows a nonconforming use to be occupied, used, and maintained in good repair, but it shall nat be remadeled or enlarged excep# as hereinafter provided. The applicant requested a variance for the illegal remodeling of a nonconforming use; specifically the removal of a four-foot �4'} section of a billboard sign, and ta add four-feet (4') to the opposite end of the sign. Section 43.F., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Limitations of Changing Nonconfarming Uses prohibits changing a nonconforming use to another nonconfarming use, and prohibits expanding a nonconforming use. � The applicant cited Section 43.F., as a section of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requiring a variance. However, the City had never cantended that there was a vialation of this section of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that Staff addressed Section 43.F., because the applicant listed it in their request. The City had never contended that #here had been any expansion of a nonconfarming use. However in deference to the applicant, Staff included it in this request. Mr. Wiliiams stated that Staff found no special condition existed to support the request. He went on to explain that CBS Outdoor lnc., owned an off site advertising sign located in front of the Sam's Club store, at 1701 West State Highway 114. Un October 25, 2010, a letter was received from the law firm Rothfelder and Falick, L.L.P., which represented CBS Outdoor inc. The ietter requested permission to alter this billbaard sign, specifically the removal of four-feet (4') from the sign that overhung the newly acquired State right-of-way. On November 10, 2�10, the State of Texas awarded damages to the property owner for remaval af the sign. In response to the October 25, 2010, letter, the decision af the Building Official was � provided to the appiicant, delivered through the City Attorney, Boyle and Lowry, on December 8, 2Q10. This response clearly stated the nonconforming sign could not be 14 8oard of 2oNnp Adjustmorrt �,�„ moved, altered, or adjusted. Sometime after this decision, four-feet (4') of the sign had been remaved. �irr On February 22, 2011, a letter informing CBS 4utdoor, through there Attorneys, that due to the illegal remodeling of the sign, all legal nonconforming status had been lost. Un February 24, 2011, the City Attarney sent the applicant a similar letter. (3n March 1, 2011, the applicant sen# a letter to the City Attorney, admitting that CBS Outdoor altered the sign. On March 8, 2011, an appeal was received in the Development Services Department, more than four {4} months following the original decision that the sign could not be altered. Mr. Williams stated that the variance request must be denied based on the fallowing: Section 68.H.3., Board of Adjustment, of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Urdinance provides the Board of Adjus#ment ta autharize upon appeal in special cases, such variances from the terms of this Ordinance as would nat be contrary to the public interest, where, awing to special conditions, the literal enfarcement af the provision of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice dane. The {iteral enforcement of the Grapevine Camprehensive Zoning (�rdinance would not result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Any hardship was clearly self-imposed as the applican#'s client knowingly and urrillfully proceeded in illegal remadeling and � altering of a nonconforming use in disregard of the written direction and decision of the Building t�fficial and City Attorney. Furthermore, the property owner's interest in the sign had been condemned by the Texas Department af Transportation, which would ultimately lead to the applicant being fu{iy compensated far the removal of the sign. This case d'rd not meet any established thresholds for a variance request. It was 5taff's contention that the Board was not obligated ta hear this case, because it was not timely appeaied. Section 60, Sign Standards of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning C}rdinance did nat list billboards as an approved use in the zaning ordinance; therefore this sign was considered a nonconforming use. Section 1a5 Permits, 105.1 of the 2006 International Building Cade stated, "Any owner or authorized agent who intended to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, ar change the occupancy of a building or structure, shall obtain a permit." No permits were ever applied for or issued. Mr. Williams stated there were engineered plans submitted for the illegal alteration in the Board's packet that showed a four-foot (4'} removal of the portion that overhung the right-af-way. They were sealed by a State of Texas Professional Engineer and showed structural elements removed with reference to the 2006 International Building Code adopted by the City of Grapevine. � 1� BoaM of ZoNng AdjusGnerrt �,�„ Section 6Q.A, Sign Standards, Sign Permits of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning �}rdinance required a zoning permit for any remadeling of a sign. There was no zoning � permit to alter or remodel this sign. Section 43.D.2, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Camprehensive Zaning Ordinance allowed a legal noncanforming use to exist, but did not allow the remodeling or enlargement af tha# nonconforming use. This noncanforming use was illegally remodelec! in vialatian of this section. Section 43.D.3.b, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Gomprehensive Zoning Ordinance stated: "The violation of any af the provisions of this Ordinance ar violation of any Ordinance of the City of Grapevine with respect to a nonconforming use shall terminate immediately #he right ta aperate such nonconforming use." Staff had shown several violations of ardinances that included violatian of the Building Code, not obtaining a building permit for the alteration, violation of Zoning Ordinance, altering a sign without a zoning permit and violation af the Zoning Ordinance for alteration af a nonconfarming use. Section 43.1.2.C.2, Right-of-way Acquisitian by Governmen#al Agency, Staff contended this was not applicable in this case as there was campensation through the award of the Special Commissioners to the property owner. With no questions for Mr. Williams, Richard Rothfelder, with Rothfelder & Falick, �LP, � representing GBS Outdoar of 1201 Louisiana Street, #550, Houston, Texas, toak the Oath of Truth; Mr. Rothfelder stated time could be saved by incorporating comments of case number BZA11-07 as well as written ma#erials that had already been distributed to the Board. He requested that all background and legal issues applicable only to the variance request under case number BZA11-08 be reflected. Mr. Rothfelder explair�ed TxDOT's and the State of Texas means to accommodate highway improvements. He stated CBS �u#door, preferred the alternative of shifting the face of the sign as addressed in the October 25, 2010 letter to the City. This was denied in the City's letter dated December 8, 201 t3. The State ordered GBS 4utdoor, to eliminate aerial encraachments by February 1, 2011. GBS Outdoar, in accordance with the State's letter removed a four-foot �4'} panel that overhung the aerial encroachment. That removal triggered letters from the Building Official and City Attorney on February 22, 2011, and February 24, 2011, stating the act was an illegal modification. He stated the term; "modification" was not among the prohibited activities without a permit. The letters further stated remaval af the four-foot (4') panel was i{legal and terminated the non-conforming use and ordered the billboard to be removed. Mr. Rothfelder stated that within fifteen (15) days of the letter from the City dated February 22, 2011, CBS Outdoor, gave notice of appeal, and for this particular case gave notice of its intent to seek a variance. CBS Qutdoor, provided notice in a letters dated February 28, 2011, and supplemented with March 1, 2011, and March 8, 2011. Mr. Rothfelder quoted various sections of the City of Grapevine Camprehensive Zoning �„ Ordinance, Section 68.H.3, explaining why the Board should grant a variance. He stated the spirit of the ordinance wauld be preserved; the ordinance was not to enlarge ar enhance noncanformities, and the nonconformity had actualiy been decreased. He went 16 Qoard o(ZoNnp ntljustmern &7/11 on to say that the sign had been there 30 years and if allowed to remain would save taxpayers approximately four-million dollars. He requested that the billboard be allowed � to remain in its current configuration and in the interest of equity and justice that a variance be granted. Richard Adams asked Mr. Williams if the Board followed Staff's recommendation what would be the implications. Mr. Williams stated that would be up to the applican#. The ques#ion was then redirected to Mr. Boyle. Mr. Bayle s#ated the variance wauld be denied based on the Board's prior decision and testimony of Mr. Williams. The City's position was the sign had been illegal ever since the illegal modifica#ion or alteration of the sign. The Board's prior decision upheld Staff and the Building Official's decision. In the absence of a variance the sign wauld remain illegal and would be pending the eminent domain case brought forward by TxDOT. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, or Mr. Boyle, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vate: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Adams asked Mr. Boyle if it was the City Attorney's position that a variance not be granted based on the nanconforming status. Nlr. Boyle stated he was only there in his � capacity as the Assistant City Attorney advocating an behalf af Staff's pasition. Debbie Holt asked Mr. Williams if a case could be re-filed as a nonconforming use. Mr. Williams deferred the question to Mr. Boyle, but stated only if the case was substantially different. Mr. Boyle stated he thought the Board was asking a hypothetical question as to what the applicant may or may not do in respanse to the Board's decision and was not able to answer. Ms. Holt asked Mr. Boyle #o clarify why the City had noncanforming uses. Mr. Boyle advised Staff to reopen the Public Hearing so questions could be asked of Mr. Williams, IVIr. Rothfelder or anyone else who might provide rebuttal. Richard Adams made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded #he motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Halt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Williams what his position was regarding the sign as it was today. Mr. Williams stated that the sign was an illegal nonconforming use that had lost all of its nonconforming status due to the iliegal alteration and remodeling. Mr. Boyle asked if the fundamental premise behind the provision that stated a legal nonconforming use could �,,, not be changed without permission was in order to specifically avoid situations iike this. He stated that it was and read Section 43.D, of the City of Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Boyle asked if what the applicant effectively was asking for 17 BoarA o(Zonng AAjustmOM Wt/11 amounted to a waiver of something that had become illegal as a result of their own action. He stated that in his opinion it was. Mr. Boyle asked; if it would be consistent or � not consistent with Chapter 43, ta grant a variance allowing somebody who did something ilfegai{y to effectively get away with that iNegal action. He stated that Staff felt they nat be allowed ta get away with it and the noncanforming use tae terminated. Mr. Boyle asked if variances in generai were not granted whert the proposition for the variance was necessitated by the appiicant's own action. He stated that was Staff's cantention. Mr. Boyle opened the floor far any statements or questions. Mr. Rothfeider stated that he wanted to focus on Mr. Williams' contention that the vialation was caused by the applicant GBS Qutdoor. Mr. Rothfeider asked abaut the Grapevine regulations pravided in Section 43.1. Mr. Wiifiams stated the property owner was compensated as part af the State's eminent domain case. Mr. Rothfeider had na additional questions #or Mr. Wiiliams, but requested that Mr. Brooks testify to a ques#ion. Mr. Rathfeider asked Mr. Braoks if CBS Outdoor had been compensated for the removal of the billboard. Mr. Braaks stated they had not. Ms. Holt asked Mr. Brooks if there was a means for CBS Outdoor ta be compensated. Mr. Brooks stated yes, through a jury verdict. Mr. Boy{e asked Mr. Brooks if CBS Outdoor was a named Defendant in the pending eminent domain case. He stated that was carrect. Mr. Boyle asked if they had appealed the Special Commissianers hearing ruling. He stated yes, all parties appealed. Mr. Boyle asked if Stacey-Trip was one af thase who appealed. Ne stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if he recailed what the Special Commissioners resuits were. He stated Stacey-Trip was awarded appraximately 1.5 million dal{ars. � With no questions for Mr. Wiiliams, or Mr. Boy1e, and na additionai speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to ciose the public hearing. Robert Rainwater secanded the motion which prevailed by the follawing vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Nolt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition did not exist to support the request, and deny the variance reques# to Section 43.D.2. and Section 43.F, Nonconforming Uses and S#ructures. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Hoit, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the May 5, 2011, Briefing Session and Public Hearing. Ron Coak made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 5, 2011, Briefing Session �, and Public Hearing, Ken White seconded the motian which prevailed by the foilowing vote: ,�$ eoard ar zor:rq ndi�ern QJ7111 Ayes� Cook, Adams, Hoft, White, Rainwater Naysa r Nane � Rbsent: None ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Richard Rdams made a mation to adjourn. Ken White secanded the motion, which prevailed by the fallowing vate: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Rbsent: None The meeting was adjournad at approximately 9:Q0 P.M. PASSED AND APPR(�VED BY THE BORRD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT 4F THE CITY t�F GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE 5TH DAY 4F DEGEMBER, 2011. APPR4VED: � C I AN SECRETARY � �� Board of Zoring AtljustmeM ft{VN