The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-04-07AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 7, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS If. OATH OF TRUTH III. NEW BUSINESS A. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-08, SUBMITTED BY KEN JOHNSON AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-09, SUBMITTED BY GRAPEVINE TOWNSHIP AND REVITALIZATION PROJECT, INC., AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. IV. MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 1997, AND MARCH 3, 1997, MEETINGS. V. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION Vi. ADJOURNMENT IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT (817) 481-0377 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 1997 AT 5:00 P.M. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFF O�AL MARCY;RATCUFF, PLANNER �� RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-08 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 7, ` 1997 ww.,Co mmeVnA,rIrI : Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for Tract �RA�ce the requests to Grapevine 917 W. ;Sunset Street as follows: 9R3H, Abstract 518, addressed as EXISTING LOT FRONTING WEST SUNSET STREET 1 • Section. 15.F.2., R-7.5, Single Family Requirements, requires a minimum lot size of 77,500 t Regulations, Density square feet. The proposed variance x+cwld_aL(n '• - lot "i 2. Section 15.F.6., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations Density Requirements, requires the minimum square foota ge of a dwelling unit to not The proposed variance �-- 3. Section 15-G-2., R-7.5, Single Famil Requirements, ,requires the d Y District Regulations, D depth of the rear yard to be 25 feet ` Density The proposed variance W an -17 fpp. 4• Section 15.6,4., R_7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a lot width of 65 feet. The proposed variancef lot_width• ulations, Area Regulations, 5• Section 15.G.5., R-7.5, Single Family District Reg requires a lot depth of 100 feet. �auld The proposed variance PROPOSED TEXAS STREET LOT Regulations, Density Single Family District.. 9 1 • Section 15•F•2•t R-7.5, t size to have a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. Requirements, requires a to The proposedvariance Regulations, Density R-7.5, Single Family District 2. Section 15•G•1•• and lot depth of 30 feet. Requirements, requires a front Y The propOSed variance 15.G.4.,` R-7`.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density 3• Section requires the width of the lot to be 65 feet. Requirements, The proposed varaid of fe-PA egulations, Density Section 15•G•5 Single Family District R R-7.5, ,4,, „ th' of the lot to be 100 feet. Requirements, requires the dep The proposed variance` a�nth ��3-fit' Family District Regulations, off -Street Parking, R-7.5, Single F y `mobiles to be allowed as an accessory use to any 5. Section 15•x•- of auto requires the parking that such shall' not be located on a required principal permitted use provided front yard ing The proposed variance all nat fratsr yard setback f rell . Staff finds a special condition does exist due to the existing lot dimensions -- particularly the lot depth, and because of the existence of two street frontages. The applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot and construct a single family home on the new lot that will front on Texas Street is compatible with the surrounding single family development within the neighborhood. The lot immediately to the west is similarly developed with two separate single family homes occupying a total lot area that approximates that of the applicant's. Mr. Ken Johnson submitted the variance request. The applicant proposes to replat the lot and as a condition of his request will remove an existing detached garage. /RS 0:1BZA\97-08.4 r a� P y 40� U94 tl ODD 83 3 4$ s� C 9-12 HC ^_T _ C 8 -1 - -- ---- - v� m S� :H. O _, i H C, < L I` N SSaa7�, ra ap ,ate � L' - I � •,go .SI♦ 7 .SES P ° 1 2.Pa •-N � ��- __ •i ' r CU9 a .s1 cu90 WALL ST. PiR .1 rr :a �7- r Ia O,n a iF °4 >` a:l V { -I JR-7 , 5 � I �� I In to- PO K a T iF Wio I ra j"., fa 74 is (ra « I .a IPp ) 116 a tF / 84 -56 Iq b / .171 K ' �' n "F 9a i iP '� <-{7-17-84 leti \ 7< iF aP�eIt T, lvis ct26:29 � W. TEXAS ST. i 2t i 279 1 20A IR 1�`(� 25a 21qZ 16F E � :�� a)3 L222n m - T' 2q1211• 1 J o 5( SUNSET ST. / ue oc 223Pas 2� .a _ .. >y 2- X a .a>E GU I r "�♦ 6 _ aC J >F 1 8-0-53- z 60 .caz '2' R-7.5 I BZA97-08 auu t" I� KEN JOHNSON K---_-- �;L _ ira a.+Jia ' r ra Q 1 R —In IN ca 56 — / — I 'S� 1� -j 1 ra ! I Ei L' 3-01 I . 7° t2E 2C, -. R�—�f�.'- J, � � � K�z ,�, F+i'"t'RI: , N1PRES_ vatlOvi�Or� - �de + !), _� rR ( !..r• < i :� sac 7 5TGR1 L_--_ COLLEGE T. t : I.'- � I _ -� zae-06 r , p Z91-03 21 0.89 GC. I j 4bg —------- ;� _ �- - cx TA �p 2 2 1 ' , _ _ o} � -j- 3 j Y_ J2 I zGU 0. 14 aC _ CU69-03 2. CU94-38 0 --;, oz A 9-7-0g RE- C E I V E- D MAR 3 1997 CITY OF GRAPEVINE PLANNING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1. APPLICANT NAME: KEN J OHN SON ADDRESS: 525 DUNN COURT CITY/STATE: GRAPEVINE, TEXAS ZIP: oKl 0 a - v=%f Catlic 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) 11 NAME: n,N JOHNSON ADDRESS: 525 DUNN COURT CITY/STATE: GRAPEVINE, TEXAS -ZIP: 76o5i - HOME: 817-481-3309 WORK: 817-331-0349 FAX: 817--421-3142 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 914 W. Sunset Street Grapevine, Texas A. 518 TR. 9RO3H Foster, A. Heirs Survey (Survey Plat Attached) 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. Please see attached RECF1Vj-_ MAR 3 1997 PLANNING CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS APPLICATION Applicant: Ken Johnson 5. This request to the City of Grapevine's Board of Zoning Adjustment is to divide and plat the above described property into two equal size lots of 60.0' X 93.3'. The pertinent sections of Grapevine's Zoning Ordinance which I am requesting variances for both newly plated lots are as follows: yo Sec. 15. R-7.5 Single -Family District Regulations F. 2. Lot Size: F. 6. Minimum Floor Area: G. (. Depth of Front Yd. feet - 3 0 G. 2. Depth of Rear Yd. feet - 25 G. 4. Width of lot, feet - 65 709 W. Sunset St. Texas St. Lot Lot size would be 5598 Sq. Ft. 5598 Sq. Ft. Existing house is 1058 Sq. Ft. No Variance Req. per Tarrant Appr. District No Variance Required 17 Ft. Rear Yard Req 60 Ft. Yard Width Requested 22 Ft. Front Yard Requested No Variance Req. 60 Ft. Yard Width Requested G. 5. Depth of lot, 93.3 Ft. Yard Depth 93.3 Ft. Depth feet - 100 Requested Requested J. OFF-STREET PARKING: A variance for off-street parking is requested because the 30 Ft. front set- back will be 22' rather than the required 30'. MAR 3 1997 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPE L IT� S WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE R SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. Most of the residential lots in this area of Grapevine (Texas & Sunset Streets) are small and do not meet the R-7.5 Single Family District Regulations. These requested ya_riannes will allow an affordable new home to be built in anP of Cranevine•s older established neighborhood. 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. Please see attached CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS APPLICATION Applicant: Ken Johnson 7. This variance request is based on my desire to build an affordable new home in an older neighborhood in Grapevine. Since two new homes very similar to the plan presented in this variance request have recently been built on W. Texas Street, I believe this home will also be an asset to both the neighborhood and the City of Grapevine. To accomplish this plan I would proceed as follows: 1. Divide the 709 W. Sunset Street property into two equal lots of *9' X 93.3' and plat both lots. 2. Remove the existing detached garage and build a wood privacy fence to divide the two lots. 3. Add suitable landscaping and trees to the newly plat lot on W. Texas V c MAR 3 1997 RECc: LVED 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE,MAAD 4�070THER DRAWINGSHELP EXPLIN ESSARY ON THHE DIAGRAM ALLCEASEMENTOIS, BUDING LINES, E CL6V TO E BOARD. SHOW E CN&6W F811 AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (-: ► ,•ars • .0 • APPLICANT SIGNATURE i OWNER (PRINT OWNER SIGNATU w SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF ��tv TA PUBLIC OR THE STATE OF TEXAS Z, ( - Zc0 I DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF NOTARY P BLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS Z -1—z-()01 _ DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATIOi J DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DELIVERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 TXS '=-7REE7 O D,,, e O b. SCALz- r zo, i v. o-, 747PROPOSED I -STY. BRICK b RESIDENCE b 7.67 �10 co S �Gte or 'je,6) 17 7 Lu I n(IST� GAJRAS�E TO BE QOMOVED LC) ol 00 O EXISTING I -STY, FRAME RESIDENCElb 0"\ I b C WEST 6 K eL)N57-7 STREET DRAWNG PREPARED FOR USE BY KEN JOkNSON ALL DMENSIONS ARE APPDXNATE Z SUBJECT TO CHANGE DKEN DICK & ASSOCIATES, INC RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS 4320 WEST VICKERY BLVD. FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76107 800-368-6602 817-763-0555 MAP 3 1997 P"1I, I-.0 LA"d N I N 4 44'-8" patio L L KIT. bq 0 1 x 101$—,R GREAT RM. bath I 14V X 190' i 0'(r c1g. 2 DINING — PLAN X 9" q4- X 9 -8 - SJOPC I ov, cla. ov, c' I F"�j 11�� U/P1111 12V X 13'0-1 BP15-1208-NE hall kq4' 00 7 r— 7 lu'(rcla. AREAS: T bath 2 hall BED 2 Id. util. HOUSE 1208 SQ. FT. -.m. 0'0' x 1010^ i storage GARAGE 458 SQ. FT. --------------- PORCH 74 SQ. FT. PATIO 100 SQ. FT. porch [BE,,""PRM.3/- I 0-p- x 10-0- 10'0' C19 QLLBLE GARAGE 18*4' X 20V DKEN DICK & ASSOCIATES, INC RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS 4320 WEST VICKERY BLVD. FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76107 800-368-6602 817-763-0555 MAP 3 1997 P"1I, I-.0 LA"d N I N 4 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING A0FCIALJ--- MARCY RATCLIFF, PLANNER RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-09 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1997 RECOMMENDATION* Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the requests to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for Lot 113, Block 44R, Original 'Town of Grapevine Addition and addressed as 600 West College Street as follows: 1. Section 27.B.3., Professional Office District - requires parking facilities within 60 feet of a residentially zoned district be separated from said lot by a blind .■i-40W.1WIN i.r.nI_n'a-140am Raw-. _Ir.,Mr. 1.,"014111.. 3 linea If approved it would allow the existing glnnnq the western jicnP.rty line to separate the two uses as shown on the sitp plan - 2. Section 50.13,1. Screening - requires a non-residential use adjacent to a single family district to provide screening of not less than 6 feet in height in accordance with screening Alternates A'or E. The applicant is rentiesting a variance to eliminate the 6 foot Screenialong the western property line If approved it would allnw the existing vegetation along the western property line to sPnaratP the two uses as shown on the siteIp an 3. Section 27.H. Professional Office Buffer Area Regulations require an appropriate buffer screen to be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, no building or structure shall be located nearer to any residentially zoned property than a distance equal to two times the height of such building or structure or 25 feet, whichever is greater. The height of the structure is 17.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a 16 font variance to the 3-,5 font building_spzbt If approved it property on the north as shown on the siteIn an ' 1 4. Section 27.M.4 Professional Office Design Requirements requires'a 10 foot buffer ''strip whenever a Professional Office District is adjacent to ` any residentiallyzoned' property. The 'applicant is regtiestina' a variance of 9t 5 feat on the w*dth of the buffer strip along the_north property line_ If apt rn nved Wnuld allnW a 1 to 5 fnnt wide landscanPd huffPr strip along the north propprty as chnwn on rhe siteIn an. 5. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations - require a 10' foot perimeter landscape area to be located between the property line and the edge of the adjacent off-street' parking or vehicular use area. The applicant is requesting �arian�P of 9 to 5 feet on the wodth of the perimeter' landscane`area'along the nnrth E)rnnertVlinP if approved it would allow a 1 to 5 foot wide perimeter landscape area along the nnrth�nrnnPrty as shown' on the site tp Win' 6. Section 54, Masonry Requirements' - require all buildings and structures in the Professional Office District to have at least 70 percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, constructed of brick, stone or other masonry or material of equal characteristics in accordance With the City's Building Code and Fire Prevention Code. The 'applicant is mclupstina a variance for a 100 percent reduction of the masonry requirement If apprnved it"wnuld allnw the'Pxistina wond n structure lnnsed addition to he c'nnstructPd of wooden materials 'which c•nmplpmPnt the historic intpgr ty of the structurn and maintain the apsthptic appearance of the West CnlleaP Strppt H stnric: District_ SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition exists for proposed variances #1 and #2, that being installation of a screening fence in the middle of a creek bed is not; practical. Additionally, the existing natural vegetation and trees help serve as a buffer and still maintain the residential appearance of the development. Staff finds a special condition exists for proposed variance #3, that being the addition to the existing structure was designed to complement the structure, while maintaining its historical integrity and is in keeping with the residential feel of the West College Street corridor. Staff finds a special' condition exists for proposed variance #4 and #5, that being the physical constraint created by the location of the addition to the existing structure and the required handicapped parking space. The driveway access also provides a second entrance and exit to the property creating good traffic flow. 2 Staff finds a special condition exists for proposed variance #6, that being the existing structure is wooden and the proposed addition is in keeping with the historical integrity and with most of the residential structures in the West College Street Corridor. City Council adopted the Grapevine Township Revitalization Plan to stimulate reinvestment and restoration of the orignal township area which is bounded by Ball Street on the west, Dooley street on the east, Dallas Road on the south and Northwest Highway on,the north. The plan encourages adaptive reuse of existing residential structrues for commercial and office uses where it is no longer economically or physically possible to renovate the structrues for residential use. The City chartered the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project, Incorporated to assist in creating interest and involvement of the private sector in the renovation of properties in the area. The subject property is one of the first projects undertaken by the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project (GTRP). The property and house were acquired through a land exchange with the Grapevine First United Methodist Church. The Grapevine First United Methodist Church received a tract of land on South Scribner which will provide needed additional off-street church parking. The variance application is being submitted in conjunction with a request to rezone the subject property from R-7.5 Single Family to PO, Professional Office. The variances are necessary for the rezoning to be approved. !m. K, I. ...,• Z tt v U" ss Z 7 el ' 2 32 38 t� U91 3 CU02 '. )Sa .SIi "1 a,•< 11` _' 7ea .,c '�` -�`+C 1�Q•- '9 � , ° — .x? ✓ iter S ° � _ i ,.• o Z 7 f 0 3 � QIP _ 8 Qc CN [G U L II n C ,A W 10 a IF t5 iA (in 1 •�b ^+ L � — I i 1 � I tE.aS cr , 61 z ! I `092 0 6o 611d 0 �L�2 - j-' I1 K 1.11• 1 i ' IT ,.8 11.- �RPP�� —TH , I 7 N I ra m7E ` GU C � .T-7S� C ,6 v. Ic v3�r T ` cc -R— R-7 , 5 z GU 06 A-4 U88- A m c v --•. .•-- diX U °- - Z71-Z� �. 9 R i VJ _ -G,J. V - i - _ f � J ' r--�o 'I _ U8 � �� f ° p�E MOS -r- J 1` r pr ry rt � SU89-�01'' , L ,IN ST m ) ( <�e..��. r_ -- �Z80-1 4- ---- o r� — a R =7 . — R —;7 . J s` t9 err �' '• 1M .o r - - 5 . i^, , CBD z86 A 58 COLLEGE ST. �2 r Z,9 t 5 P QN r,4 CU93 08 ; Y E•F� ' -rte-- '-�-1- Ru82-40 1�0 z 90-09 100 ,� -- - ., 2.8a aC. � �' 90-64 ' Z9i-03 p�� X97-25 FU95-i2 0-89 AC._�- - — — —` GU BZA97-09 GRAPEVINE L i REVITALIZATION A li - - -- PROJECT, INC. P =L GU s- - -- P 0 comes -08 j'� y `r' ; �'i HC0794- CU89 -03 0 '1 a aC CU94-38 _ nx a m , 1 WALL I I i r i r U�7 ( SITE COLLEGE IRA E WDODS l s t i 1 BASED UPON PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES j ARE REQUESTED: BUFFER AREA BETWEEN A PO DISTRICT AND A RESIDENnAL DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAT 25 FEET TWICE THE BUILDING'S HEIGHT. VARIANCE REQUESTED OF 16 FEET VARIANCE FROM THE MASONRY FEQUIF43AENTS IS REQUESTED. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PRDJECT. 1DDR VARIANCE RECUESIED PARKING OF AUTOMOBILES SHALL BE SEPERATED FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS BY A 6 FOOT BUND FENCE OR 60 LINEAR FEET. 3&2 FOOT VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IN LINEAR SEPERATION A PO DISTRICT SHALL BE SEPERATED FORM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 8Y A 10 FOOT BUFFER STRIP. VARIANCE REQUESTED IS X -6 - WHEN A NON RESIDENTIAL USE IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE THEY SHALL BE SEPERATED BY A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE ETC. VARIANCE REQUESTED 1003 OTHER NOTES FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLAVAM: I.D PROVIDED: MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED 10,DOD S.F. PROVIDED: 16.801.28 SF MINUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 2D% PROVIDED: 32% (5,450 SF) MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE PERMITTED: 60% PROVIDED: 11% (1761 SF) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURVACE PERMITTED- 80% PROVIDED: 68% (11,451) L07 VAOTH REQUIRED: 80 FEET PROVIDED: 160 FEET LOT DEPTH REQUIRED: 100 FEET PROVIDED: 106 FEET FRONT YARD REQUIRED 25 FEET PROVIDED: 31 FEET HEIGHT OF BUILDING 17' - 6' REAR YARD REQUIRED: 25 FEET PROVIDED: 77-8" LIGHTING WILL BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WLL BE CONTAINED UPON THE SITE. PARKING LOT ILLUMINATION ® 1 LUMEN PER SF OFF SITE LITE .2 LUMEN PER SF PARgNC REI7UIRED: S + 1/700 S.F. - it PARIONG PROVIDED: II EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 805 SF AREA OF ADDITION: 978 SF TOTAL AREA: 1781 SF ZONING CASE Z96-17 (ORDINANCE 96-50) CHANGED THE ZONING FROM RTH, TOWNHOUSE TO R-7.5, SINGLE FAMILY REQUEST IS TO REZONE TO P09 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDEN11AL USE W -Q BACK OF CURB TO 13ACK OF CURB I u� ON TANGENT CURVE =200 -31.34 '-W`12103'W 2&23 2022 WEST NORTHWEST HWY. (817)424-3284 METRO�� L©T 1 R BLOCK 44R WAPEWNE TEXAS 74051 (8171946-1625 IF W-STGG. GRAPEVINE. TEXAS: 76051 nPlr.'INAI Tnv&,j np, r.RAPr*%nKlc OMER: CHARLIE AND BARBARA NUNN STAIR AND TOILET ELEVATIONS GALVALUME STANDING SEAM ROOF OVER 154 FELT OVER 1/2' PLYWOOD ON 2x8 #2YP JOIST O 24' ON CENTER GALVALUME METAL FASCIA 1/2' PLYWOOD SOFFIT - R30 FIBERGLASS MOLDING 1.0 MATCH BATT INSULATION EXISTING 2X12 CEILING JOIST O 16' O.C. 1/2' PLYWOOD SHEATHING 15# FELT WRAP CORNERS LAP SIDING TO MATCH ' 1X4 MOLDING EXISTING SIDING t4GE ACCESS DRIVE DRY UTIUTIES c� U ZO � N NEW WINDOW ': 'i 3088EX TO MATCH PHOTO CELL EXISTING SINK, GARBAGE m O• OI SP DSA WORX ORC TEl REFG NYLGYP S EID IT / 3D6B 36 x Q CEILING HEIGHT 3 QEA MATCH EXISTING CCS t� MOOD/GYP BD -a es n.. N = _ / R _ NEW WINDOW CEILINC EIGHT TO TO MATCH 5/8' INCH GYP, 8D, 111NO R11 FIBERGLASS 388 BATT INSULATION R25 FI RGLASS 1x8 MOLDING BATT INSULATION ON i CHICKEN WIRE 1 1/4' STURDIFLOOR GALVANIZED METAL OVER 2X12'S m 12' G.c CLOSURE PANELS DOUBLE 2x12 0 WALLS BLOCK AT 10' rp(i1?CI BLOCK ENDS SLOPE TO DRAIN HURRICANE CLIPS AT EVERY THIRD STUD 4X12 SILL PLATES ; EXSITN 1/8' METAL STRAP CONC. PIER W/ 1 #8 IN CENTER. PIER TO 38" 2ELOW GRADE. TYPICAL WALL SECTION Ll TRUITT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 2022 WEST NORTHWEST HWY, (�AMAUr' T[VIC 'MAC1 817^4.24-3286^METRO t4GE ACCESS DRIVE DRY UTIUTIES c� U ZO � N NEW WINDOW ': 'i 3088EX TO MATCH PHOTO CELL EXISTING SINK, GARBAGE m O• OI SP DSA WORX ORC TEl REFG NYLGYP S EID IT / 3D6B 36 x Q CEILING HEIGHT 3 QEA MATCH EXISTING CCS t� MOOD/GYP BD -a es n.. N = _ / R _ NEW WINDOW CEILINC EIGHT TO TO MATCH MATCH 111NO n f EXISTING 388 °j i CARPET YP BD i F� JaTEL I 3068E T I ©` STI AGE N I it NI rp(i1?CI WINDOW i „ /To ATCH6 / TO MATCHuu EXISTING Qpr' HANDICAPP PARKING B'-0„ 18'-1D 3/4" Y-11 1/2' EXISTING SOFT = 805 NEW SQ.F7. = 976 TOTAL SQ.FT. = 1781 MINUS 208 SQ.FT. STORAGE AND TOILETS 600 WEST COLLEGE; GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 EXISTING TEL 208 S.F. lz�•� •ESTABUSH Cd REFINISHED 3068 WOOD FLOOR *ODD R gg EXISTING PORCH K. z� z FIRST FLOOR I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'— PARKING REQUIRED 5+1/300 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 11 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED INCL. -+-1 HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE OWNER: CHARLIE AND BARBARA NUNN RAMP 1 12 SLDPE MAX TEL ; HV 5 ©` STI AGE Jz 87 S.1NF. NEW ORIEL WINDOW REiISHED 267 S.F. ; EXSITN WOOWxO FTAORs ILESTABUSH CEI N ITEL REFINISHED S WOOD FLOOR TEL z N n la L - TRACK IGHTSI TLEPFiCNE ESMTEm RE—ESTABLISH CEIUNC vALL 4"PLYW EAR I; 3 �7 z v� REFINISHED WOOD FLOORS co oz 242 S. F. 3065 Til PON OF V ALL TO BEII TEL REMOVED 6 - HIQi TRACK IGHTSI i' XISTING 8 DING 18'-1D 3/4" Y-11 1/2' EXISTING SOFT = 805 NEW SQ.F7. = 976 TOTAL SQ.FT. = 1781 MINUS 208 SQ.FT. STORAGE AND TOILETS 600 WEST COLLEGE; GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 EXISTING TEL 208 S.F. lz�•� •ESTABUSH Cd REFINISHED 3068 WOOD FLOOR *ODD R gg EXISTING PORCH K. z� z FIRST FLOOR I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'— PARKING REQUIRED 5+1/300 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 11 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED INCL. -+-1 HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE OWNER: CHARLIE AND BARBARA NUNN EAST ELEVATION W4TC,— EX|ST|m0 DVERH AN GS SEALANT TO BE LAYTEX ACRYLIC MATC—. EX|ST|N,�- TRIM SEAL ALL VERTICAL JOINTSMAT'-- EXISTING SIDING REMOVE EXISTING PAINT BY REWUYE SH|N-�LE S|D|NC AND NON O|STRUCTVE MEANS REPL—�CE AS REQUIRED WITH SEAL THE EXPOSED WOOD WITH NEW WATCM|Nr, SID|N� APPROVED WOOD SEALER PIERS TO BE J6" DEEP INTO APPLY TWO COATS OF PAINT UND|—S'TURBED S&L AND SPACED AS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURE AT 6 TO B FEET ON CENTER TO LEAVE 1 CAL. OF EACH COLOR REC|EVE 4x12 SILL BEAMS WITH THE OWNER. BOLT S|LL BE41VI3 INTO PIERS TOUCH UP PAINT UPON SUBSTANTIAL SUE FLOOR TO BE l l/4^ 5TURD|FLDOR COMPLETION, PLYWOOD 0YER 2x12 #2YP 4 12^ OZ PORCH TO 8E PAINTED W|TH FLOOR CRDES BRACED AT 10 FEET AND OOUBLED ENAMEL AS SELECTED BY THE UNDER WALLS WHEN PARALLEL. OWNER EXTERIOR COLORS CHOSEN FROM SHERVwN vNLUAW5 PRESERVATION PALETTE AS APPROVED BY THE H|370R|CAL CDMW|TTEE /A\ DOWN|NIG SLAT[ sw2819 /l �� G4LV4LUME METAL RD0FNS Z1 �1� RENWCK BEIGE nn2805 /�` �LASS|CAL WHITE sw2829 Z1 L�� DOWN|NC SAND s*2822 From J_QUAD & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PHONE Ho. : 214 631 732=, 11. x. 31 199 1:44PN PC12 RE Ck CU MAN i 1997 ATTACHMENT is BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION PLANNING LIST TIIE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNT BEING REQUESTED, SECTION 27.B.3. - Parking of automobiles, providW that such facilities arc within 60 foot of a rasident:Wly zoned district be separated, t«i thin said lot by blind fencc or wall at least 6 fest high. Requested Varianoe- Request a 100% vrt smoe of tic rcgturc d six foot blind fence or wall on the western property lino along the creek as required under Soctioo 27.B.3. of the Zoning Ordinance to sepamto a parking area from a residentially zoned district. The natural vegetation will serve as separation between the residential zoning and commercial zoning. SECTION 27.H. - Buffer Area Regulations: Whenever a PO District abuts a Residential District, an appropriate buffer screen shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of this ordinance. In Addition, no building or structure shall be located nearer to any residontially zoned Property than a distance cqual to 2 times the height of such building or structure or 25 feet, whichever is greater. Requested Variance: Request a variance of 9 toy fart on the width of the perimeter landscape arra along the north property line. This would provide lbr a perimeter landscape area of 1 to 5 feet wide along the north property line. SECTION 27.M.4. - Whenever a PO District is adjacent to any residentially zoned district, a buffer strip, at least 14 feet in width shall be provided between the two districts. A wall, fence or berm shall be erected to effectively screen the PO District from the residential area. Requested Variance: Request a variance of 9 toy fort on the width of the buffer strip of landscape area along the north property line. This would provide for a buffer strip of landscape arca of 1 to 5 feet wide along the north property line and the required fenced wall. SECTION 50.B.1 - Where the side, roar, or service side of a four family, multifamily, or non- rusidmWal district use Is adjacent to a single -f roily, two-family, or townhouse residenbaI district, screening of not less than 6 feet in height shall be erected separating fire use from the 4accirt residential district, said &crooning shall be in accordance; with screening Alternatives A or E. No screening is requirod adjacent to the ==. Requested Variance: Request a 100% variance of the screening requirements deleting the required six foot screening fence on the western property line along the creek as required under Section 50.13.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for all nonresidential uses adjacent to residential. The natural vc3getation will serve as separation between the residential zoning and c4xiunercial zoning. SECTION 53.H.2.b. - Whenever an off-street parking or vehicular use area abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape area of at least 10 feet in Ridth shall be maintained between the odge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. Requested Variance: Request a 100% variance of the 10 Beet perimeter landscape area requirement along the northern property line as required under Section 53.11.2.b. of the Zoning Ordinance, From J_QUAD & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PHONE No. 14 631 732(=l Har. 31 1991 1:44PN P03 MAK 3 1 1997 SECTION 54... All buildings and struetures in the Professional Office Zoning D 8Im tfe`b exterior fire rosisb3 t construction having at Icust 74 percxmt of the total exterior waits, excluding doors and windaws, eollstruetod pf brick, stone or other ma9021ry rtiatrflal cf equal characteristics in amordancc with the City's Building Code and Firo PFeven iun Code or too pG'rcem of the total extorior wAlls may be an extorior wall insulation and finish system Product. Requested Variance: The exterior of the building will be 100% wood. siding;. We request a 100% variance of the masonry roquircmont that 70% of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and ,"rindows be 0onstrueted of brick, 90110 Of 01bur masonry materials as rcquirud under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 56.C.4 - Office, Professional or Finantial Uses require 1 parking space per 300 Square flout of grass floor arcs, plus S. Requested Variance: The square footage of the proposed building is 1,781 square feet which under Section 56.CA would require I I parking spas, We therefore, request a variance of two parking spaces to provide nine (9) parking spaces rather than eleven (1 I) parking spaces as requires, STATE THE OROLrNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 'WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIP THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. SECTION 27.5.3. - Requested variance needed to avoid disruption and damage to the crock and associated natural vegetation. The creek also serves as a natural buffer between this proposed use and the adjaoeat residential use. SECTION 27.11. - The prrpaed addition has been designed to compliment the existing historic structure and tate College Street Historic District. The placement of the existing structure and the design of the addition make it impossible to meet the perimeter landscape width as required. SECTION 27.M.4. - The proposed addition has been designed to compliment the existing historic structure and the College Stred Historic District. The placement of the existing structure and the design of the addition make it impossible to meet the buffer strip landscape width as Inquired. SECTION 50.11.1 - Requested varianoo needed to avoid disruption and damage to the creek and associated natural vegetation. The creek also serves as a natural buMr between this proposed use and the adjacent residential use. SECTION 53.H.Z.b. - The proposed addition has been designed to conVlirnent the exigting historic structure and the College Stred Historic District. The ptacemont of the existing structure and the design of the addition make it impossible to meet the perimeter landscape width as required. From —QUAD & ASSOCIATES, LTh. PHONE Ho. : `14 5?1 7320CR( x 1�� .�f1 P0,1 4`•..n6r rar MAR 1 1997 PLANNING RVC'TION 54. - Requested variance for the masonry squire nonts necessary in order to maintain/preserve the historic integrity of tic building's exterior cvnsistcnt with cla iracw of I-irtorie College Street.. SECTION S6.C.4 - Requested variance needed based on the size and configuration of the lot. I3asned an the proposed square footage of the addition and the locadm and plaoontetrt of existing gtTu`C m an the lot, the additional two spaces would have to be eoustructc d in violation of the required so*a&s. The proposed addition has boon designW to cauzplimeut the existing historic structure and the College Streat Historic District. CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1. APPLICANT 2 CAI NAME: Grapevine Township Revitalization Project Inc. City Hall, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas 76051 ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: Grapevine, Texas ZIP: 76051 HOME: WORK: 817-481-0380 —FAX: 817-481-0484 PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Same As Above) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: ZIP: HOME: WORK: FAX: STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 6A) &). CollcOcje Street, Grapevine, Texas 76051 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. Please See Attachment 1 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE: HILLS, VALLEYS, CREEKS, POWER POLES, ELEVATIONS, IRREGULAR LOT OR TRACT SHAPES, ETC. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CONDITIONS EXIST(S) BEFORE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. Please See Attachment 1 7. EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM ALL EASEMENTS, BUILDING LINES, ENCROACHMENTS, AND THE VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) SHOULD BE QUANTIFIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE) Trent Petty, President GTRP Inc. APPLICANT SIGNATURE— OWNER (PRINT) OWNER SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 2L/ DAY OF I l S xxxxxxxxUxx- ^;Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE E OF TEXAS x x x x ,VERA x x 11" x -BLIC - TEXAS X x x V',; SSION EXPIRES x X x x DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION 8. 1998 x x Xxxxxxi. V !xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF 19L! NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 DELIVERY ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 307 WEST DALLAS ROAD, ROOM 209 P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, February 3, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Carl Hecht Ery Meyer Dennis Luers Chairman Vice -Chairman Secretary Member Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present was City Councilman Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Marcy Ratcliff Gerrie Anderson CALL TO ORDER Building Official City Planner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. BZA96-49 JESSE C. SAENZ The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-49 submitted by Mr. Jesse C. Saenz who requested variances for 1911 Mill Pond Drive, platted as Lot 6, Block 6, Parkwood Addition, Grapevine, Texas. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3., Accessory Buildings, which requires an accessory building to be located no nearer than six (6) feet to any rear lot line and shall be subject to the same side yard requirements as the principal structure. In the case of a corner lot, no accessory building shall be located within any side yard required on the street side. The proposed variance would allow a fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the required fifteen (15) foot side yard for an accessory storage building and to allow an encroachment of five (5) feet into the required six (6) foot rear yard setback. Mr. Williams explained that staff found no special conditions existed, that there was adequate space on the lot for a complying structure. BZA Minutes 02/03/97 Jesse Saenz took the Oath of Truth and explained that he interpreted the code to be that structures are to be fifteen (15) feet from the curb for corner lots. The shed was built in accordance with his interpretation of those regulations. Tent' Walker of 1912 Wood Creek, the neighbor directly behind Mr. Saenz, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the shed looked professionally built and recommends the Board grant the variance. Bryan Kline of 1836 Meadowcrest, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he had followed the regulations to build his shed. Mr. Kline noted that there is no unusual topography of Mr. Saenz's lot and the shed could be located in another area of the yard. Mr. Kline also noted that this project was started three years ago and has not been completed. The Board asked Mr. Saenz why he did not obtain a building permit. Mr. Saenz explained that he had talked with someone from the City and was told he could do anything he wanted in his back yard. He did note he obtained a permit to move his fence and for paving for his R.V. which is parked legally in his side yard. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that no special condition existed. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None The variance was denied. The next item of new business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96- 50, submitted by Jerry Loban who is requesting the following variances to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 917 Meadowbrook Drive, platted as Lot 6, Block J, Brookhollow Estates: z BZA Minutes 02/03/97 Section 15.G.1., Single Family District Regulations, Front Yard Setback, requires a front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. The applicant requested a variance to allow a five (5) foot reduction of the front yard setback for the existing residence. Section 15.G.1., Single Family District Regulations, Front Yard Setback, requires a front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. The applicant requested a variance to allow a five (5) foot reduction of the front yard setback for the proposed garage addition. Section 15.J., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Off Street Parking, requires all required off-street parking to be located behind the front building line. The applicant requested a variance to allow required off-street parking to encroach five (5) feet into the required front yard setback. Mr. Williams explained that Staff recommended approval for the first request because the existing encroachment is not the fault of the owner, but denial was recommended for the second and third requests because no special conditions could be found. Mr. Williams also explained that the encroachments could be slightly less than five (5) feet, but since the survey does not show the actual setback at various points across the front of the house, Staff modified the applicants request to a conservative five (5) feet. Mr. Loban, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that ten years ago, he had planned to build a garage with the survey which showed the residence to be one (1) foot behind the setback line. Mr. Loban explained that when he had a recent survey done, it showed the existing house encroaching three and one-half (3.5) feet. Mr. Loban explained he could build the garage at an angle and not encroach into the front yard setback, but it would be costly With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None 3 BZA Minutes 02/03/97 After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion to reopen the public hearing and Ery Meyer seconded the motion in order for the Board to discuss with Mr. Loban an alternate way of building a garage without encroaching the front building line. The motion to reopen the public hearing prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None After discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition existed for Section 15.G.1., Front Yard Setback Requirements because the existing encroachment is not the fault of the owner. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 15.G.1., Front Yard Setback Requirements to allow a five (5) foot reduction of the front yard setback, allowing a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback for the existing residence as shown on the plot plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer then made a motion that no special conditions existed for Section 15.G.1., Front Yard Setback Requirements allowing a five foot reduction of the front yard setback for the proposed garage and for Section 15.J, Off -Street Parking, allowing required off-street parking to encroach five (5) feet into the required front yard. Jill Davis seconded_ the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None 4 BZA Minutes 02/03/97 The second and third variance requests were denied. BZA97-01. DAVID BARNHOUSE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-01, submitted by David Barnhouse who is requesting a variance for 221 Starnes Street, platted as Lot D, J. J. Hall Addition. The variance was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to permit the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The proposed special exception would allow the construction of an accessory garage building to be constructed on a lot with an existing single family residence in a R -MF -1, Multi -Family Zoning District as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed, as the setbacks would comply with R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations for accessory building requirements. Mr. Williams explained that the erection of the structure will result in the demolition of an existing nonconforming accessory building per the application submitted by the owner. David Barnhouse, the applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the existing storage building would be demolished and he would like to build a new accessory building that would be the same size as the house that is located on the lot. Mr. Barnhouse explained that the accessory building would be used for his Father's hobby of rebuilding vintage cars. The Board asked Mr. Barnhouse if the structure would at any time be used for any type of business operation. Mr. Barnhouse stated that it would not. With no one else to speak either for or against the request and only one letter received in favor of the request, Dennis Luers made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None After some discussion, Dennis Luers made a motion that a special condition existed and the special condition being the zoning is improper for the existing use and the existing non- conforming structure will be removed and a new one built. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 9 BZA Minutes 02/03/97 Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Dennis Luers made a motion to approve the special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures to allow the construction of an accessory garage building to be constructed on a lot with an existing single family residence in a R -MF -1, Multi Family Zoning District as shown on the plot plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None BZA97-03 TEXAS BANK The next item of new business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA97- 03, submitted by Texas Bank for 1205 South Main Street, proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Texas Bank Addition. The variance is to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The proposed special exceptions would allow the existing building to remain as developed and to allow the remodeling of the existing parking lot area. If approved, it would allow Texas Bank to remodel the drive through lanes and the entrances and exits of the property as shown on the site plan. Marcy Ratcliff explained that the bank was built under the 70-10 Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Ratcliff explained that Municipal Boulevard, which runs along the bank's north property line will be realigned with Vine Street to provide better traffic flow in and out of the parking area of the bank and the Public Library. She explained that Mr. James L. Hewlett, the architect, submitted a request for the special exception to allow the redevelopment of Texas Bank's parking lot. Texas Bank originally submitted a layout upgrading their parking lot and the drive through lanes to better serve their patrons. The City worked with the applicant to help solve the traffic hazard at the entrances to Municipal Way (which accesses the Library and the Community Activities Center) and to Texas Bank. Marcy Ratcliff explained that Staff found special conditions existed because the building was developed under the prior Zoning Ordinance and the applicant is attempting to create 2 BZA Minutes 02/03/97 a better traffic flow through his property. Additionally, the applicant has worked with the City to redevelop the driveways and intersections along Main Street to help alleviate a traffic hazard. Mr. Jim Hewlett, architect for Texas Bank and applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that they were working with the City on alternative ways to locate the traffic lanes around the building and traffic flow. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that special conditions existed, being the building was developed under the prior Zoning Ordinance and the applicant is attempting to create a better traffic flow through his property. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht then moved to grant the special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures to allow the existing building to remain as developed and to allow Texas Bank to remodel the drive through lanes and the entrances and exits of the property as shown on the site plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None The special exception was approved. BZA96-51 - GRAPEVINE KAWASAKI -POLARIS Next for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA96-51, submitted by Grapevine Kawasaki -Polaris who requested special exceptions for 418 East Northwest BZA Minutes 02/03/97 Highway, platted as Lot 1, Block 2, A.F. Leonard Addition. The special exceptions are to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: The requested special exceptions would allow the existing non -conforming development to remain as developed and allow the remodeling of the exterior gravel area. If approved, it would allow the existing development to remain as developed and the remodeling of the exterior gravel area as shown on the site plan. Marcy Ratcliff noted the applicant had submitted a revised proposed site plan dated February 3, 1997. As a result of the revised site plan dated February 3, 1997, Staff revised the recommendation from consideration to approval. The revised site plan indicates some landscaping along the front property line adjacent to East Northwest Highway and a revised pole sign which meets the current sign regulations. As a result of these changes, Staff found a special condition for the existing development. The building as exists has a metal exterior, and the development and layout of the property limits the amount of landscaping allowable along Northwest Highway. Ms. Ratcliff went on to explain that Mr. Wilbur Goltz submitted the request for the special exception to allow Grapevine Kawasaki -Polaris to use the non -conforming development in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit CU97-04 for automotive sales and service for motorcycles, all terrain vehicles and watercraft. The applicant proposed to pave the existing graveled area up to the surrounding fence line and provide a screening wall for proposed storage areas. Phil Morley, architect and applicant of 920 South Main Street, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained about the property being built in 1985, prior to the current zoning ordinance and that the existing sign is shown as 26 feet which will be cut down to 20 feet. Mr. Morley explained that the owner will pave the area as per City specifications. Ms. Ratcliff commended the applicant with his efforts in working with Staff on the signage. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer then made a motion that a special condition exists being it is an existing development has provided additional landscaping and revising the existing pole sign to 8 BZA Minutes 02/03/97 conform with the Sign Regulations. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion to grant the special exceptions to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 to allow the existing non -conforming development to remain as developed and allow the remodeling of the exterior gravel area with modifications of the pole sign to meet requirements as shown on the February 3, 1997, site plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None MINUTES Next, the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the December 2, 1996, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2, 1996, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the January 6, 1997, meeting. Carl Hecht made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 6, 1997, meeting. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None E BZA Minutes 02/03/97 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION The Board was informed that their next meeting would be held in the new City Hall at 200 South Main Street and all were invited to the open house to be held February 18, 1997, at 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Dennis Luers made a motion to adjourn. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 1997. ATTEST: SECRETARY 10 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, March 3, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Room #205, 307 West Dallas Road, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice -Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Dennis Luers Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate constituting a quorum with Member Jill Davis absent. Also present was City Councilman Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Marcy Ratcliff Gerrie Anderson Building Official City Planner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-02 submitted by Mr. G. Philip Morley who requested a special exception for 1321 Minters Chapel Road, Suite C, and platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Air -Land Addition, Grapevine, Texas. The special exception was from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3 Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to permit the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The proposed special exception would allow the existing building to remain as developed and would allow the construction of a fire lane at the east end of the existing building. Ms. Ratcliff explained that Staff found that special conditions existed since the building was constructed prior to the adoption of the existing development standards and currently occupied by two other tenants, Payton -Wright Ford Bodyshop and BZA Minutes 03/03/97 Houston Electric. Ms. Ratcliff also explained that the first reading of the Ordinance was approved at the joint public hearing held February 18, 1997, which was contingent upon receiving approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Mr. Philip Morley, applicant, representing Spectrum Collision, took the Oath of Truth and explained that Spectrum Collision, who has been in business for 12 years, would occupy 5,500 square feet out of the 25,000 square foot existing metal building. Mr. Morley also noted that the applicant agreed to put the 24 foot fire lane at the east end of the building. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that special conditions existed, being the building was constructed prior to the adoption of the existing development standards and was currently occupied by two other tenants, Payton Wright Ford Bodyshop and Houston Electric. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Carl Hecht then made a motion to approve the special exception to Section 43.E.3., to allow the existing building to remain as developed and allow the construction of a fire lane at the east end of the existing building as indicated on the site plan. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis 2 BZA Minutes 03/03/97 The next case for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-04, submitted by Gary Panno, who requested variances for 2944 Parr Lane, platted as Lot 2, Block 1, The Vineyards Addition. The variances were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings, requires an accessory building to be located on the rear one-half of the lot. The proposed variance would allow the existing accessory garage to not be located in the rear one-half of the lot. If approved it would allow the existing accessory garage to be located in the established front yard. Section 13.8., "R-7.5" Single Family District Regulations, requires accessory uses detached from the principal single family dwelling to be located not less than forty- five (45) feet from the front lot line. The proposed variance would allow the existing accessory garage to encroach ten (10) feet into the required forty-five (45) foot setback. If approved it would allow the existing accessory garage to be located thirty-five (35) feet from the front lot line. Section 13.G.1. "R-7.5" Single Family District Regulations, requires the depth of the front yard to be forty (40) feet. The proposed variance would allow the existing accessory garage to encroach five (5) feet into the required forty (40) foot setback. If approved it would allow the existing accessory garage to be located thirty-five (35) feet from the front lot line. Ms. Ratcliff explained that Staff found special conditions existed due to the existing topography on the sides of the proposed house and the existing stand of trees and pond along the west side lot line. Additionally, the accessory garage building is an existing structure that was in conformance when constructed. 3 BZA Minutes 03/03/97 Gary Panno, applicant of 2944 Parr Lane, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was building a new residence in back of the existing house. Mr. Panno explained that when the new residence is completed, the existing house will be donated to charity and moved from their property. Mr. Panno also explained that he would like to keep the existing two -car garage for storage purposes and remodel it to look like the new structure. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis After discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion that special conditions existed due to the existing topography on the sides of the proposed house and the existing stand of trees and pond along the west side lot line and in addition, the existing accessory garage, when built, complied with the zoning ordinance. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Ery Meyer then made a motion to grant the variances for 2944 Parr Lane, Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3., to allow the existing accessory garage to not be located in the rear one-half of the lot, allowing the existing accessory garage to be located in the established front yard. Section 13.B., to allow the existing accessory garage to encroach ten (10) feet into the required forty-five (45) foot setback, allowing the existing accessory garage to be located thirty-five (35) feet from the front lot line. Section 13.G.1., to allow the existing accessory garage to encroach five (5) feet into the required forty (40) foot setback, allowing the existing accessory garage to be located thirty-five (35) feet from the front lot line. 4 BZA Minutes 03/03197 Ery Meyer further moved that the old house be removed when the final inspection is approved on the new house and that the garage be improved to conform with the new house. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-05, submitted by David and Nancy Samblanet who requested a variance for 3039 Parr Lane, proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Oceanview Estates. The following variance is from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 12, Definitions, No. 222 defines a Lot as a tract of land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, and including such open spaces as are required under this ordinance, and having its principal frontage upon a public street or officially approved place. The proposed variance would allow the platting of a residential lot that does not have any frontage upon a public street or officially approved place. Ms. Ratcliff explained that staff found special conditions existed being the proposed lot, once platted, will front on an existing private drive that already provides access to four other single family residences. Once platted, the private drive will be shown on the plat as a mutual access easement. Mr. Samblanet, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he would answer any questions the Board may have. Fred Johnson of 3031 Parr Lane, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he encourages the development but is concerned of the change of drainage, due to the development of the property, effecting his property, which is located below Mr. Samblanet's. Mr. David Pennington of 2516 Hall Johnson Road, Colleyville, and property owner within 200 feet of Mr. Samblanet's, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was BZA Minutes 03/03/97 concerned about the sewer service to this property. Staff indicated that the Public Works Department will ensure that all ordinances regarding utilities are met when the lot is developed. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, and one letter of protest and one letter of approval received, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Carl Hecht made a motion that a special condition existed and that being once platted, the proposed lot will front on an existing private drive that already provides access to four other single family residences and will be a mutual access easement. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Carl Hecht made a motion to approve the variance for 3039 Parr Lane to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 12, Definitions, No.222 to allow the platting of a residential lot that does not have any frontage upon a public street or officially approved place. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-06, submitted by Alan Berg who is requesting variances for 845 Dawn Lane, platted as Lot 3131 and 3B, Sunshine Harbor Industrial Addition. The following variances are to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-72: R BZA Minutes 03/03/97 Section 31.G.1. Light Industrial District - Area Regulations, requires a minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet. The proposed variance would allow a ten (10) foot reduction to the minimum lot width as shown on the site plan. If approved it would allow a ninety (90) foot lot width as shown on the site plan Section 31.G.4. Industrial District - Area Regulations, requires a fifteen (15) foot side yard building setback.. The proposed variance would allow a five (5) foot reduction to the side yard building setback on the northern property line and a seven (7) foot reduction to the side yard setback on the southern property line as shown on the site plan. If approved it would allow a ten (10) foot side yard building setback on the north and a three (3) foot side yard building setback on the south. Ms. Ratcliff explained that staff recommended the Board approve the requests to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 except for the side yard setback on the south side of the property and with the stipulation that all other requirements of Section 31, Light Industrial shall be met. Mr. George Day, owner of the subject property, of 5411 Challenger, Dallas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that a construction company wanted to occupy the building and wants to convert the property to a conforming use. Mr. Williams explained the Building Board of Appeals, at their November 11, 1996, meeting, ordered that a building permit be applied for within 30 days from the date of the hearing and that the repairs be completed within 90 days. Mr. Williams explained that a building permit was applied for within the 30 days but the renovation had not been started. There was discussion about the variance requested along the driveway on the southern property line. Ms. Ratcliff explained that the side yard building setback variance request on the on the south side was not necessary, because the building met the setback requirements. Ms. Shirley MaCarthy of 2728 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, who owns the lot behind Mr. Day's property, (834 Rainbow Trail) took the Oath of Truth and explained that she 7 BZA Minutes 03/03/97 was concerned about the amount of noise being made from the breaking of concrete from the business behind her property. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Ery Meyer made a motion that special conditions existed for the lot width because it is on an existing platted lot and for the existing side yard setback on the north side of the property, and that a special condition did not exist for the ten (10) foot side yard setback on the south side of the property. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the variances to Section 31.G.1. to allow a ten (10) foot reduction to the minimum lot width, allowing a ninety (90) foot lot width as shown on the site plan and to Section 31.G.4., to allow a five (5) foot reduction to the side yard building setback on the northern property line, allowing a ten (10) foot side yard building setback on the north, and that all other regulations of Section 31, LI, Light Industrial District be met. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-07,' submitted by U.B. & T. Holding Company who requested variances for 161 State Highway 114 West, platted as Lot 3 and 4, Block L, Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition. The following variances are from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: !3 BZA Minutes 03/03/97 Section 26.G.3. Highway Commercial District - Area Regulations, requires a twenty- five (25) foot landscaped front yard setback. The proposed variance was for a ten (10) foot reduction to the landscaped front yard setback to allow three off-street parking spaces to encroach as shown on the site plan. If approved it would allow a fifteen (15) foot landscaped front yard setback where the three off-street parking spaces encroach as shown on the site plan Section 53.H.2.b. Landscaping Regulations, which requires a ten (10) foot perimeter landscaped area when off-street parking or vehicular use areas are adjacent to a property line. The proposed variance would allow a seven (7) foot reduction of the required perimeter landscape area along the rear property line as shown on the site plan. If approved it would allow a three (3) foot perimeter landscape area along the rear property line as shown on the site plan. Section 43.E.3. Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allows the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The proposed special exception would allow the existing metal building to remain as developed for an unspecified time and allow for future remodeling for a new porch and exterior building elevations. Ms. Ratcliff explained the case and that Staff found special conditions existed for the encroachment into the landscaped areas because of the lot shape and the location of the existing office building and driveway areas. Additionally, Ms. Ratcliff noted that the applicant in the future wants to improve the exterior of the existing building to match the proposed bank building by adding a porch and masonry to exterior building elevations. Ms. Ratcliff also explained the applicant was proposing to amend the plat of the property by removing an interior lot line in order to build a bank building. As a result of the amended plat, a concept/site plan is required to be approved by City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The site plan as submitted has nonconforming issues that are being addressed by this application. Terry Cunningham, 1905 Central Drive, Suite 401, Bedford, Texas, and architect for the applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained the variances requested and that they were looking at improving the existing building in the future with a historical look to match the appearance of the new building. Mr. Cunningham explained that all 9 BZA Minutes 03/03/97 parking would be to the side of the building and not in the front and that the main entrance would be on the north side of the building. Mr. Cunningham noted that Texas Cellular and a State Farm Insurance office was presently occupying the existing building. Jack Young, of 4632 Pine Valley Drive, Frisco, Texas, and Chairman of United Bank & Trust Holding Company, took the Oath of Truth and explained the existing building was not proposed to change because one of the tenants had a two year and the other three year lease and there was not a specific time in which to start the project. Mr. Young also noted if he lost three parking spaces for the required landscaping, he would not have enough off-street parking. Mr. Cunningham added that the old concrete would be taken out in the front of the existing building and replaced with landscaping. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Dennis Luers made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis After further discussion, Dennis Luers made a motion that special conditions existed being the lot shape and the location of the existing office building and driveway areas and in the future the existing building will be changed to match the proposed new building. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Dennis Luers then made a motion to approve the variances to Section 26.G.3., to allow three off-street parking spaces to encroach as shown on the site plan, allowing a fifteen (15) foot landscaped front yard setback where the three (3) off-street parking spaces encroach as shown on the site plan; to Section 53.H.2.b., to allow a seven (7) foot, reduction of the required perimeter landscape area along the rear property line, allowing a three (3) foot perimeter landscape area along the rear property line as shown on the site plan; and to Section 43.E.3., to allow the existing WE BZA Minutes 03/03/97 metal building to remain as developed for an unspecified time, allowing for future remodeling for a new porch and exterior building elevations. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Due to the minutes of the February 3, 1997, meeting not being ready, Ery Meyer made a motion to table the minutes until the April 7, 1997, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Ms. Ratcliff announced that Council will be reviewing the Mills Mall 30 screen theater and that Sega Gameworks will be coming to the Mall. The Gameworks concept is created by Stephen Spielberg and is an interactive entertainment concept. With no further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion to adjourn seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M. Ery Meyer BZA Minutes 03/03/97 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 1997. ATTEST: SECRETARY m ;uT-ril STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OFTARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, April 7, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Carl Hecht Ery Meyer Dennis Luers Jill Davis Russell Anderson Chairman Vice -Chairman Secretary Member Member 1st Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present was City Councilman Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Marcy Ratcliff City Planner Chris Hooper Assistant to City Manager Tim Fleming Plans Examiner/Field Coordinator Gerrie Anderson Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-08 submitted by Mr. Ken Johnson who requested variances for 914 West Sunset Street, legally described as Tract 9R3H, Abstract 518, Grapevine, Texas. The following variances were from the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: FOR THE EXISTING LOT FRONTING WEST SUNSET STREET Section 15.17.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 1,902 square feet to the lot size. If approved, it would allow a minimum lot size of 5,598 square feet. BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Section 15.F.6., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires the minimum square footage of a dwelling unit to not be less than 1,200 square feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 142 square feet. If approved, it would allow a minimum floor area of 1,058 square feet. Section 15.6.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires the depth of the rear yard to be 25 feet. The proposed variance would allow an 8 foot reduction of the rear yard setback. If approved, it would allow the depth of the rear yard setback to be 17 feet. Section 15.G.4., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a lot width of 65 feet. The proposed variance would allow a 5 foot reduction of the lot width. If approved, it would allow a 60 foot lot width. Section 15.G.5., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a lot depth of 100 feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 7 feet. If approved, it would allow a 93 foot lot depth. Section 15.17.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires a lot size to have a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 1,902 square feet. If approve it would allow a lot size of 5,598 square feet. i Section 15.G.1., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires a front yard lot depth of 30 feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 8 feet. If approved, it would allow a front yard lot depth of 22 feet. K' BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Section 15.G.4., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires the width of the lot to be 65 feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 5 feet. If approved, it would allow a lot width of 60 feet. Section 15.G.5., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Density Requirements, requires the depth of the lot to be 100 feet. The proposed variance would allow a reduction of 7 feet. If approved, it would allow a lot depth of 93 feet. Section 15.J., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Off -Street Parking, requires the parking of automobiles to be allowed as an accessory use to any principal permitted use provided that such shall not be located in a required front yard. The proposed variance would allow parking to encroach within the front yard setback. If approved, it would allow an 8 foot encroachment for the parking of automobiles within the required 30 foot front yard setback. Marcy Ratcliff explained that Staff found that special conditions existed due to the existing lot dimensions --particularly the lot depth, and because of the existence of two street frontages. The applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot and construct a single family home on the new lot that will front on Texas Street is compatible with the surrounding single family development within the neighborhood. The lot immediately to the west is similarly developed with two separate single family homes occupying a total lot area that approximates that of the applicant's. Ms. Ratcliff also noted that Mr. Johnson, the applicant, proposed to replat the lot and as a condition of his request remove an existing detached garage. Mr. Phil Parker of 326 Pebblebrook Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was representing Mr. Johnson and would answer any questions the Board may have. Randy Howell announced that one letter of protest had been received. 3 BZA Minutes 04/07/97 With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht then made a motion that special conditions exists due to the existing lot dimensions --particularly the lot depth, and because of the existence of two street frontages. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Carl Hecht made a motion to grant the following variances, in accordance with the site plan, to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: FOR THE EXISTING LOT FRONTING WEST SUNSET STREET Section 15.F.2., to allow a reduction of 1,902 square feet to the lot size allowing a minimum lot size of 5,598 square feet. Section 15.F.6., to allow a reduction of 142 square feet, allowing a minimum floor area of 1,058 square feet. Section 15.G.2., to allow an 8 foot reduction of the rear yard setback, allowing the depth of the rear yard setback to be 17 feet. Section 15.G.4., to allow a 5 foot reduction of the lot width, allowing a 60 foot lot width. Section 15.G.5., to allow a 7 foot reduction of the lot depth, allowing a 93 foot lot depth. 9 BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Section 15.F.2., to allow a reduction of 1,902 square feet, allowing a lot size of 5,598 square feet. Section 15.G.1., to allow a reduction of 8 feet, allowing a front yard lot depth of 22 feet. Section 15.G.4., to allow a reduction of 5 feet, allowing a lot width of 60 feet. Section 15.G.5., to. allow a reduction of 7 feet, allowing a lot depth of 93 feet. Section 15.J., to allow parking to encroach within the front yard setback, allowing an 8 foot encroachment for the parking of automobiles within the required 30 foot front yard setback. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None The next item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-09 submitted by James Gilleylen, representing the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project for 600 West College Street, platted as Lot 1 R, Block 44R, Original Town of Grapevine Addition. The following variances were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 27.13.3., Professional Office District requires parking facilities within 60 feet of a residentially zoned district be separated from said lot by a blind fence or wall at least 6 feet high. The proposed variance would eliminate the 6 foot blind fence or wall requirement along the western property line. If approved it would allow the existing vegetation along the western property line to separate the two uses as shown on the site plan. 9 BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Section 50.13.11., Screening, requires a non-residential use adjacent to a single family district to provide screening of not less than 6 feet in height in accordance with screening Alternates A or E. The proposed variance would eliminate the 6 foot screening requirement along the western property line. If approved it would allow the existing vegetation along the western property line to separate the two uses as shown on the site plan. Section 27.H., Professional Office District Buffer Area Regulations requires an appropriate buffer screen to be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, no building or structure shall be located nearer to any residentially zoned property than a distance equal to two times the height of such building or structure or 25 feet, whichever is greater. The height of the structure is 17.5 feet. The proposed variance request would allow a 16 foot reduction to the 35 foot building setback requirement. If approved it would allow the structure to be located 19 feet from the adjacent residential property on the north as shown on the site plan. Section 27.M.4 Professional Office Design Requirements requires a 10 foot buffer strip whenever a Professional Office District is adjacent to any residentially zoned property. The proposed variance request would allow a reduction of 9 to 5 feet on the width of the buffer strip along the north property line. If approved it would allow a 1 to 5 foot wide landscaped buffer strip along the north property as shown on the site plan. Section 53.H.2.b, Landscaping Regulations requires a 10 foot perimeter landscape area to be located between the property line and the edge of the adjacent off-street parking or vehicular use area. The proposed variance request would allow a reduction of 9 to 5 feet on the width of the perimeter landscape area along the north property line. If approved it would allow a 1 to 5 foot wide perimeter landscape area along the north property as shown on the site plan. Section 54, Masonry Requirements requires all buildings and structures in the Professional Office District to have at least 70 percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, constructed of brick, stone or other masonry or I BZA Minutes 04/07/97 material of equal characteristics in accordance with the City's Building Code and Fire Prevention Code. The proposed variance would allow a 100 percent reduction of the masonry requirement. If approved it would allow the existing wooden structure and the proposed addition to be constructed of wooden materials, which complement the historic integrity of the structure and maintain the aesthetic appearance of the West College Street Historic District. The variance application is being submitted in conjunction with a request to rezone the subject property from R-7.5 Single Family to PO, Professional Office. The variances are necessary for the rezoning to be approved. James Gilleylen, representing the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project, took the Oath of Truth and explained that this was the first project being brought before the Board for the revitalization project. Mr. Gilleylen explained that Charles and Barbara Nunn would be taking over this project and would be in charge of the construction. Ms. Ratcliff explained that in order for the house to be moved onto the lot, the church had to rezone the property in 1996, from R-TH, Townhouse to R-7.5, Single Family. Ms. Ratcliff explained to the north the property is zoned R-TH, Townhouse. Jill Davis expressed concern about College Street being too narrow for commercial business and that the property was surrounded by residential. Chris Hooper, Assistant to City Manager addressed a question from the Board concerning how the west runway would effect this area. Mr. Hooper explained that the property was not within the west runway zone, which commences just below State Highway 114 and east of the Super 8 Hotel that is now under construction. Mr. Gilleylen explained the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project Committee was established to make opportunity for the restoration of the historical areas and to make sure the plans for renovation to the structure would not hurt it from being on the National Register. Mr. Gilleylen explained that Charles and Barbara Nunn plan to completely renovate the exterior and interior of the structure, and the structure will exceed the quality of most of the buildings on College Street. 7 BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Barbara Nunn took the Oath of Truth and explained that the house dates back to the 1880's and was owned by the Buckner family. Chris Hooper added that there is varied office and residential occupancies along College Street. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer then made a motion that special conditions exists for the following proposed variances: #1 and #2, being the installation of a screening fence in the middle of a creek bed is not practical; #3, that being the addition to the existing structure was designed to complement the structure, while maintaining its historical integrity and is in keeping with the residential feel of the West College Street corridor; #4 and #5, that being the physical constraint created by the location of the addition to the existing structure and the required handicapped parking space. Additionally, the driveway access also provides a second entrance and exit to the property creating good traffic flow; #6, that being the existing structure is wooden and the proposed addition is in keeping with the historical integrity and with most of the residential structures in the West College Street Corridor. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers Nays: Davis Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion to grant the following variances to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, for 600 West College Street: Section 27.8.3., to allow the elimination of the 6 foot blind fence or wall requirement along the western property line, allowing the existing vegetation along the western property line to separate the two uses as shown on the site plan. E-A BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Section 50.B.1., to allow the elimination of the 6 foot screening requirement along the western property line, allowing the existing vegetation along western property line to separate the two uses as shown on the site plan. Section 27.H., to allow a 16 foot reduction to the 35 foot building setback requirement, allowing the structure to be located 19 feet from the adjacent residential property on the north as shown on the site plan. Section 27.M.4, to allow a reduction of 9 to 5 feet on the width of the buffer strip along the north property line, allowing a 1 to 5 foot wide landscaped buffer strip along the north property as shown on the site plan. Section 53.H.2.b, to allow a reduction of 9 to 5 feet on the width of the perimeter landscape area along the north property line, allowing a 1 to 5 foot wide perimeter landscape area along the north property as shown on the site plan. Section 54, to allow a 100 percent reduction of the masonry requirement, allowing the existing wooden structure and the proposed addition to be constructed of wooden materials, which complement the historic integrity of the structure and maintain the aesthetic appearance of the West College Street Historic District. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers Nays: Davis Absent: None Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the February 3, 1997, and the March 3, 1997, meetings. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 3, 1997, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None E BZA Minutes 04/07/97 Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes, with one correction, of the March 3, 1997, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None With no further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion to adjourn. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 1997. ATTEST: SECRETAlt jet✓"s>..d+ �.-'� �/ �.' /- � i � `F- C 10