Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-09BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1976 5:30 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM, 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER II. OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW MEMBER, JERRY SPENCER I III. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1976 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of the application submitted by Foster & Kleiser. (BZA 76-4) B. consideration of the application submitted by Jim Burger and Richard Eakins. 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 AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 3:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Tuesday, November 9, 1976 PRESENT: Jesse Woods, Conrad Heede, and Joe Wright ABSENT: Jerry Spencer and A. J. Harper MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF PRESENT: Joe Lipscomb and Shirley Armstrong Chairman Joe Wright called the meeting to order. The first order of business was consideration of the minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1976. Member Jesse Woods made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and approve them as published. The motion was seconded by Member Conrad Heede and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Woods, Heede and Wright Absent: Spencer and Harper The next order of business was consideration of the application submitted by Foster & Kleiser Company (BZA 76-4). Mr. Raymond L. Golding, representative of Foster & Kleiser Company explained that his firm wished to illuminate three nonconforming advertising signs presently located on property zoned "C-111 and 11R-111. Mr. Golding explained that the signs were located on the land when it was annexed into the City of Grapevine. He then pointed out the area where the signs were located. The City Secretary reported that she was in receipt of a letter from the owner of the property, Mr. Hurshel J. Reese request- ing that -the request be granted. Member Jesse Woods stated that he could see little improvement in granting permits which extended non conforming uses. He added that it was his understanding that exceptions were granted in instances where a certain stipulation in the zoning ordinance created a hardship. He commented that he would not be in favor of granting the application. - Member Conrad Heede expressed agreement with Mr. Woods. Chairman Joe Wright commented that all applications that came before the Board of Zoning Adjustments would be requesting some type of variance to the zoning ordinance and added that he saw no reason for denying the application. There was little other discussion. Member Conrad Heede made a motion to deny the application sub- mitted by Foster and Kleiser. The motion was seconded by Member Jesse Woods and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Heede and Woods Nays: Wright Absent: Harper and Spencer The next order of business was consideration of the application submitted by Jim Burger and Richard Eakins. Mr. Eakins explained that they were requesting a rear yard set back justified by the unusual shape of the lot. Mr. Eakins 'pointed out the location of the lot in question (Lot 4, Block 2, LaPaloma Estates). He added that they were requesting a variance of four feet in the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet. I � I Member Jesse Woods asked developer, Lanny Tate if all lots along that section would require a setback variance. Mr. Tate answered that that would depend on the house plans. Member Conrad Heede asked how the City felt about variances in rear yard setbacks. Building Inspector Joe Lipscomb answered that the City Ordinance stated that a building permit could not be issued without a twenty-five foot rear yard un- less otherwise instructed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Member Jesse Woods asked if there was any response from neighboring property owners. The City Secretary answered that letters had been sent to property owners within 200 feet of the lot in question, but that she had not received any response either for or against the application. Member Conrad Heede commented that the only reason he would be in favor of granting the application was because of the un- usual shape of the lot. Member Conrad Heede then made a motion to approve the requested variance on the basis that he did not feel the decision would cause a major conflict and because of the location and shape of the lot. The motion was seconded by Member Jesse Woods and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Wright, Heede and Woods Nays: None Absent: Spencer and Harper There being no further business to come before the board, Member Jesse Woods made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member Conrad Heede and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Wright, Heede and Woods Nays: None Absent: Spencer and Harper PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1976. 2-z' --t - Gt City Secre-tory Note: The above meeting was declared null and void because the required number of four members of the board were not in attendance. The meeting was rescheduled for November 30, 1976.