Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-01AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1981, AT 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM - 413 MAIN I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board of Zoning Adjustments to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 81-7 sub- mitted by Southland Builders, Inc. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 81-8 sub- mitted by Mr. Mike Davis. C. Board of Zoning Adjustments to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 81-9 sub- mitted by Walter Bransford. D. Board of Zoning Adjustments to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 81-10 sub- mitted by Mr. Kenneth McWaters. III. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES IV. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSIONS V. ADJOURNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S., AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981 AT 5:00 P.M. City Secrgtary STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in a Regular Session on this the lst day of October, 1981 in the Conference Room, 413 Main Street, with the following persons present to -wit - James Buckner Jesse Woods Charles Cox Doug Lamb Jerry Spencer Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member First Alternate constituting a quorum with Member Gerald Thompson and Second Alternate Rickey Wright absent. The following staff members were also present: Marc Guy Tommy Hardy Sue Sanders Terry Pennington CALL TO ORDER City Planner Building Official Building Inspector Secretary Chairman James Buckner called the meeting to order. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE 81-7, Southland Builders. Inc. Variance Request: a twenty-one foot (211) variance in the front yard setback requirement at 1401 Hampton Road, or lot 1, block 1, Hampton Road Addition. OATH OF TRUTH was administered to Mr. Milton Broyle, president of Southland Builders, Inc. Mr. Broyle explained that in order to position his temporary building behind the building line, eleven mature oak trees, seven of which would be in a parkway between the curb and building line, would have to be cut down. Therefore he was requesting a nine (9') foot setback rather than a thirty (30') foot setback. Members._discussed in length the lot in question and possibly relocating the office down the street to a lot with no trees. Vice Chairman Jesse Woods also questioned the legality of moving the building in before permiting. Alternate Jerry Spencer suggested setting a time limit of not more than eighteen months for the building to remain on the lot with the variance requested. Alternate Jerry Spencer made a motion to approve a variance up to eighteen months but no more than eighteen months. Member Charles Cox seconded the motion and it prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Buckner, Woods, Cox, Lamb, Spencer Nays: None Absent: Thompson, Wright BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE 81-8, Davis Variance Request: a twenty foot (20') variance in the rear yard setback require- ments at 3312 Marsh Lane, or lot 14, block 1, Woodcrest Estates. OATH OF TRUTH was administered to the applicant Mr. Mike Davis. Mr. Davis then addressed the Board requesting that his application be withdrawn. He stated that his plans had changed and he would no longer need a variance at this time. Members therefore accepted Mr. Davis' withdrawal. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE 81-9, Bransford Variance Request: approval for the expansion and enlargement of a non -conforming use at 1705 Anglers Plaza or lot 38, Shorecrest Addition. OATH OF TRUTH was then administered to the applicant Mr. -Walter Bransford, and guest Mr. Joe Coke of 1733 Anglers Plaza. Mr. Bransford began by explaining that he was trying to improve his home by 1 of 4 painting fences, making repairs, etc. One of these improvements included adding a covered porch to his mobile home. He later understood that there was an ordinance restricting the expansion or enlargement of a non -conforming use. Mr. Guy was then called upon to explain non -conforming use zoning. Mr. Joe Coke stated Mr. Bransford had done considerable work and had already improved his property and that he was in favor of the requested variance so Mr. Bransford could continue improvements. Member Charles Cox stated that no one was in disagreement with the improvements being made, however, the original permit application did not state the porch would be enclosed. Secretary Terry Pennington advised that she was in receipt of two letters and one petition regarding the case. They were as follows: To: All Concerned As concerned homeowners we are very much in favor of any and all action that will improve our neighborhood. However, some questions have been raised with regard to Mr. Bransford's request for a variance to allow expansion and enlargement of the non -conforming use trailer home located on lot 38, Shorecrest Acres, which need to be answered. Basically these questions are: 1. What would the legal ramifications be if this variance is granted? Would the Zoning Board then be forced to grant similar requests made by others wanting to expand and enlarge a non -conforming use in our area. Of specific concern are the trailer park, the apartment buildings and the duplexes all presently located along Redbud? 2. In oral discussions with our neighbors, many have stated that, "almost anything Mr. Bransford could do would be an improvement". Others have questioned whether the addition of a room or enclosed porch on the front of a trailer is in fact an improvement in so far as its affect on surrounding property values is concerned. Their contention is that it is still obviously a trailer with a room added on. We feel certain that the answer to the first question, whatever it may be, will be of primary importance in helping the Board reach a decision that will be equitable for all concerned. As to the second concern of some of the neighbors; perhaps Mr. Bransford already has plans to further improve his property by adding some form of siding that would make it appear as all one conventional structure as opposed to a trailer with an addition. If this should be the case, I am sure that knowledge of the fact would help alleviate this concern. If he does not already contem- plate such a course of action, perhaps he would consider it. I don't believe anyone would dispute the fact that it would be a decided improvement if the trailer were enlarged and made to appear as a conventional structure. We sincerely believe that a vast majority of the neighbors would welcome the type of improvement described so long as the home- owners can be assured that no additional duplexes, apartments, trailers or non-standard construction is allowed in our neighborhood and so long as this will not cause any additional variances to be granted to the aforementioned duplexes, apartments or trailer park for expansion. Very Sincerely, G. Richard Grant Jo Anne Grant 2 of 4 Carole Krier 1734 Anglers Plaza Grapevine, Texas 76051 Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to the notice of public hearing concerning Mr. Bransford's property on Anglers Plaza. I, as a property owner in the area, have no objection to Mr. Bransford making improvements to his property. However, if this would form a legal precedent to allow other variances, then I would object to this application being approved. I would like our neighborhood to be only single family houses. I would have to object to anything that would prevent that in the future. Thank you, Carole Krier Planning Committee Grapevine, Texas We, the following neighbors agree to allow Mr. Bransford a chance to improve his property. We have been made aware of the ordinances and Mr. Bransford's building improvement. We agree to his specifications outlined and we will hold him to this in minute detail. Therefore we respectfully petition you honorable citizens and the city of Grapevine for this improvement. There was a petition attached to the above letter containing 39 names. After a lengthly discussion, Member Doug Lamb made a motion to accept the variance of expanding and enlarging a mobile home non -conforming use. Alternate Jerry Spencer seconded the motion and it prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Buckner, Woods, Cox, Lamb, Spencer Nays: None Absent: Thompson, Wright RECESS Chairman James Buckner called a five minute recess. RECONVENE The Board reconvened with the same members present. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE 81-10, McWaters Variance Request: a three foot (3') variance in the front yard setback requirement and a three foot (3') variance in the side yard setback require- ment from the northeast corner of Park Boulevard and Brookside Drive, north 112.98 feet, east 167.5 feet, south 116 feet, than west 167 feet to the point of beginning. OATH OF TRUTH was administered to Mr. Kenneth McWaters, the applicant, and guests Mr. J.L. Abbott of 2014 Brookside Drive and Dennis Slechta of 2018 Brookside Drive. Mr. McWaters began by explaining the reason for the variance. Members discussed previous plats, setbacks, and the overall plan. Mr. J.L. Abbott stated he lived directly across the street from some of Mr. McWaters townhomes and he was satisfied with the townhome concept and he complimented Mr. McWaters. Secretary Terry Pennington advised that she was in receipt of one letter regarding the case. 3 of 4 Mr. Marc Guy, City Planner City of Grapevine P.O. Drawer 1547 Grapevine, Texas 76051 Subject: Dear Mr. Guy: 2028 Brookside Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 September 28, 1981 Board of Zoning Adjustments Application No. BZA 81-10 I am opposed to the granting of the 3' variance on the property on the northeast corner of Park Boulevard and Brookside Drive. Driveways facing Brookside Drive have just enough room to park two medium-sized cars, one behind the other, without reaching the street. Reducing the distance in the front yard by 3' will mean that it will not be possible to park two cars in driveways this way. We already have several cars parking on the street and I do not like the idea of forcing more cars to park there. I live on the opposite corner of Park Boulevard and Brookside Drive and there is enough room to walk safely between my fence and Park Boulevard. Reducing this side -yard distance by 3' will either make walking along the street more dangerous or reduce the yard size of the townhome on the end. I do not see a good reason for doing this. Your letter did not explain the reason for this variance request. It appears that there is plenty of room for the townhome foundations to have been laid as presently required by the zoning regulations. Because there is room for the townhomes to be built properly and because there are some problems with changing the requirements, I recommend that the variance not be granted. Very truly yours, Rebecca M. Talcott After a lengthly discussion, Member Charles Cox made a motion to grant the requested variance. Vice Chairman Jesse Woods seconded the motion and it prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Buckner, Woods, Cox,. Spencer Nays: None Absent: Thompson, Wright Abstain: Lamb CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES This item was not discussed because no minutes were available. An. TnT7RNMF.TVrp There being no further business to come before the Board, Alternate Jerry Spencer made a motion to adjourn. Member Doug Lamb seconded the motion and it prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Buckner, Woods, Cox, Lamb, Spencer Nays: None Absent: Thompson, Wright PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS THE 7th DAY OF January 1 1982. ATTEST: Karen Spann Secretary APPROVED: Jesse Woods, Jr. Vice -Chairman 4 of 4