Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-04AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 4, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS • • • r 9 r II. OATH OF TRUTH III. NEW BUSINESS K ••'1 OF • ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIVI. HEARING• TO C••'D OF • ADJUSTMENT CASE i • i SUBMITTED BY ROBERT i DANA MORRIS, • . CONSIDERATION OF iV B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-20, SUBMITTED BY VIC WEST STEEL, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. C. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-21, SUBMITTED BY JASON AND NANCY BURR, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. D. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-22, SUBMITTED BY JAY YOUNG, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. E. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA97-23, SUBMITTED BY TIM LANCASTER, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. V. MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 7, 1997 MEETING. VI. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION ADJOU911VEILIT 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 AT 5:00 P.M. ID-11110MM"col Iml :9 m-,Avj Us] m MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-18 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment deny the request for variances to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 2907 Peninsula Drive, platted as Lot 32R, Block 4, Placid Peninsula, Section A, City of Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas as follows: Section 15.8.4. "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires permitted accessory uses (garages) to be located not less than forty-five (45) feet from the front lot line. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach twenty five (25) feet into the required forty five (45) feet front yard setback for accessory structures to develop a proposed three (3) bay garage. If approved, the variance would allow a garage to be developed twenty (20) from the front lot line as shown on the site plan. 2. Section 15.G. 1, "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting to encroach ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback to develop a garage. If approved, the variance would allow a ten (10) foot variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow a twenty (20) foot front yard setback as shown on the site plan. 3. Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations which requires a detached accessory building in a residential district to be located on the rear one-half of the lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a detached three (3) bay aarage to be developed in the front one-half of the lot. If approved, the variance would allow a three (3) bay garage to be developed in the front one-half of the ,yard as shown 0:\BZA\97-18.4 on the site plan. SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds no special condition for the requested variances because the property is currently undeveloped. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An application was submitted by Robert and Dana Morris requesting variances to a undeveloped residential lot based on the attached site plan. Variances on adjacent properties have been granted to allow garages to be developed in the front yard setback as stated in the request. However, each lot in this area is uniquely different from another in topography and the location of the 572 flowage easement. The subject property has enough depth to allow development of the garage without encroaching the front yard requirements. 0:\BZA\97-18.4 2 ( LJi a I ; FR l0 -- 2G5 KU (L �. Ta tEra -- ----- --- S Ac � to .E OLOMONI C -- — ' °c SURVEY / A-2 02 %� r, G U ru ice ra iCS 7R re ej K .tom CA 1116 OL I e > u• ._. a G CNSUR�gO ( Ac �. 223R R tt ? _ \\\ 1 is rE6 z, O 24 t� tR IE BZA97-18 �Nsv o t1 m 5 - Robert _Robert and Dana Morris - 103P 3 z 540 TR gRP� 27 ll (10 TR .aV K V TR am � 6 214A 4 Joee K 6 �„ q ASO &PC A o� G U ,R L06 E / LP St PZ f rape Lake `atr 2 _.132 K 2 25,0 - -- cN av _ / P ,.s., PtACIo IR G U ve ` T I� K , R 2"2 z ra rw � GU �<; \ OQ) R —7. 5� jL 13� oN° ra 21k3 I DOVE PO"O PO - -- + IR -- ,P 2u ra ,� Ie 2B rR 2N 6 -!0z-z2 .c I 2 , ac c K )� ri1T - -41n 3 -a- W TR , n,-7 \A k?) CITY OF GRAPEVINE 0 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICTION 1. APPLICANT }ANION NAME: ROBERT AND DANA MORRIS ADDRESS: 3413 Vine Ridge Bedford, Texas 76021 CITY/STATE: ZIP: HOME:— (817) 267-5956 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: SAME ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: HOME: WORK: (21 4) 443-8222 No FAX- FAX: 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 2907 Peninsula Drive, Lot 32R Block 4, Placid Peninsula, Section 'A' k P5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. Section 15. R 7.5 Single -Family District B. Accessory Uses 1. Detached Private Garage requires 45' Front Yard Set Back G. Area Regulations (General) 1. Depth of Front Yard Set Back is 30' Variance request is for the Detached Garage to be located at the nearest corner, 20' from the Front Property Line. Refer to attached Sitb Plan. 0:\ZCU\APPBZA 2 1/97 6. STATE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST AND DETAIL ANY-`$PECI`AV",,CONDITIONS WHICH CAUSE HARDSHIPS THAT IN YOUR OPINION JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE(S) OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING. EXAMPLES QP` SR jL 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. Along with the design of our new Home, we require a 3 -Bay Garage. This is a large mass to attach to the Residence, and a 'detached' configuration is much more desirable. There are numerous Building Site Restrictions which come into play when situating our House and Garage: 1. The irregular Lot Shape, 2. The stands of existing trees, 3. Retaining the Lake views for the Residence, and 4. The location of the 572 Grapevine Lake Flowage Easement. To retain the Lake views for our house, the Garage needs to be located @ the front of the Lot, with the House to the rear. No building, structure, pool, etc, can be constructed below the 572 Line. The siting of our House, to provide a usable back yard area with room for a future pool and deck, pushes the Garage into the existing Front Yard Set Back. We request the variance so that the development of our back yard isnot additionally restricted by requiring us to adhere to the 30'/45' Set Backs. 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 OTHI=R PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. Precedent has been set by adjacent property owners (next door to the North,,and across the street), who have built such Garage/Structures within the required Front Yard Set Backs 0..\ZCU\APPBZA 3 1/97 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, APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE) APPLICANT SIGNATURE kQla OWNER (PRINT) j 'Lou-- l �' aa OWNER SIGNATURE ��Ge\-a` fkA-z-;-e'1 7 - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF' CHARLOTTE CHAMBERS j� MYCCiAMIS0O1998 ES NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS April 10, 1998 DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF .` 19 �_/ /,co' NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS q ,� CHARLOTTE CHAMBERS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES — �1 C� ,•� ...,�+: April 10, 1998 G /� DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT (817) 481-0377 FAX NUMBER (817) 424-0545 F0141FIF1041AW2,r�� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 200 S MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 C-ORR,ESP-ONDENCE-ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION P.O. BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 O:\ZCU\APPBZA 4 1 ia7 IST GRAPEVINE LAKE FLOWAGE EASEMENT ---___BELOW 5-72.0 ELEVATION FUTURE I POOL TREES .. 5(;ALE - F= 20' MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-20 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request for a special exception and deny the variance to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82- 73 for 404 East Dallas Road, platted as Lot 3 & 4, Block 1, Hilltop Addition, and a portion of the property is proposed to be platted as Lot 1-R, Block 2, Hilltop Addition, City of Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas as follows: 1. Section 43.E.3. Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow the existing development to remain as currently developed, and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. If approved, the special exception would allow the development to remain as currently developed and to expand or remodel the nonconforming use as shown on the site plan. 2. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, to be constructed of brick, stone or other masonry. The applicant is requesting a one -hundred (100) percent variance to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. If the Board of Zoning Adjustment approves the request, it would allow a 100 percent variance to the masonry requirement for the proposed expansion as shown on the site plan SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition exists for the special exception to allow the existing 0:\BZA\97-20.4 development to remain as currently developed and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. Staff has been assured by the applicant that the remodeling will greatly improve the appearance of the site and the expansion will eliminate the need for any outside storage. However, Staff does not find a special condition for the request to vary to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. 1-7_To3: C] leiII �I9lI0T; us] N�T_� An application was submitted by Jenisys Engineered Products, Inc. For VicWest Steel. The development was built prior to the requirement for property located in the "LI" Light Industrial District to be seventy (70) percent masonry. They are a major manufacturer of metal building components and masonry wall finishes represent their competition. 0:\eza\97-20.4 2 In Ii 1 ! PSO EN MMUOWN59" REMMMM 30 xll�- 9J-1 PIC C) cA- GU 2 Z81-2 -: 1 \c 88- 2 - 80 - tfz-1� M,9 -/w '9-1e: CBD' ........ P, 0 A61' Yl PCD SPQN ct 292, O Z82-39 -08 1 CU9329 Z9-1 1 c I :4- ,"f ---� : 82-40! Z90-09, C 5 L I OQ �cue :U112 -25 tb . 90- 7 tp p'l Gu Z92-35 L t -w - p tit -2- e, R-oad�-- Mailas In Ii 1 ! PSO EN MMUOWN59" REMMMM 30 xll�- 9J-1 PIC C) cA- GU 2 Z81-2 -: 1 \c 88- 2 - 80 - tfz-1� M,9 -/w '9-1e: BZA97-20 VIC WEST STEEL cit of Z9 - Ic f Gra evine GRAPEVINE- :.1 RAPEVINE ........ Me PCD BZA97-20 VIC WEST STEEL cit of Z9 - Ic f Gra evine GRAPEVINE- :.1 RAPEVINE i 2. JUN -26 '97 07:17RM VICWEST TEXAS r.L14 JUN 25 '97 '05=12PM JOHNSON MCKIBBEN ARCHITECTS INC P.e JUN 25 '97 04:12PM CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLI x K�eAPPLICANT JeniBys Engineered Products, Inc. DHA VicWest Ser- 7 199 NAME: ADDRESS : 904 Z. Dallas Road CITY/STATE: Grapevine, TX _ZIP: 7GQ51 HOME: WORK: PROPERTY OWNER(S) (617) 481-3521 NAME: BEE Steel. Building Products, USA. Inc. 2110 Enterprise Blvd. West ADDRESS. CITYISTATI=: Sacramento, CA ZIP: 95691 HOME: WORK: (916) 372-0933 FAX. (817) 488-0446 FAX: 4. STREET 'ADDRESS AND LOT, BOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 404 E. Dallas Road'ie��p�3 7� ,'lAT7�-� f2- Gra ev f ne , TX 76051 ( See Attached Survey) I?. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BE-ING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. In the Zoning Ordinance Development and Design Standards, Section 54 Masonry Requirements, exterior walls should be constructed of at least 70% brick, stone or other materials of equal characteristics. We request a variance for this standard. Our proposal would retain the existing metal cladding and roofing and replace with new metal wall and roof panels. Our planning also involves the expansion of our present production facility, the remodeling of our offices and new site work including new landscaping. r� �yr���aDoR7n 2 7/si JJUN Lb Jar BUY: 17AM VICWEST TEXH�N RRCHITECTS INC JUN 25 '97 04:12PM 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 EXISTS) 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. VicWest Steel is a major maqufacturer of metal building components in the United States. We have been at our present location for seven years. Most of the buildings have been at this site for over 30 years. We are requesting to update our image and improve our existing buildings. We propose to replace the existing metal wall and roof panels. Since our primary business is the production of metal building components, adding masonry would be difficult to explain in marketing our products. Metal wall and roof systems being manufactured in masonry faced buildings is not the image we would like to present to our clients. Masonry wall finishes are our competition in the building industry. 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. At our present site, part of the site has been platted and several building additions have been made in the past using new metal wall and roof panels. Since E. Dallas Road was widened and Berry Street abandoned we have decided to replat our property. The new improvements including a new building addition, parking, and landscaping will enhance this area in the City of Grapevine. 0:1ZCUTAPPBZA 3 119 YJf1f1'111 YlI.WGJi ILnri JUN L.:> '�i u3aft .u7000 11 '3NIn3dV'dD 'Qa S111VG 1SV3 404 a eels. ►'► i Q �i n_ Z n. w F— N Gy O A RIU j z �o) �/ ZS ink pp i °f S 6 © ZiIIR• nc �? r 77 < Ct e V g (� @ ^ 9 Z b � Cit : o p6 03au NVV F3 F� / I i i 3a5�No I I A 7 l 5 i I I 3 LS09L SVX >�t arvr3 AASIHIZ %Vf Od1fSr[itt M1Nfilfl 9ur[oisc SY)m Vnwa 133 LL5 w vo" s9s ONI '&031JHOW N3961X3W/NOSNHO( 4 -LL9 u3aft .u7000 11 '3NIn3dV'dD 'Qa S111VG 1SV3 404 a eels. ►'► i Q �i n_ Z n. w F— N Gy O A RIU j z �o) �/ ZS ink pp i °f S 6 © ZiIIR• nc �? r 77 < Ct e V g (� @ ^ 9 Z b � Cit : o p6 03au NVV F3 F� / I i i 3a5�No I I A 7 l 5 i I I w"uq�m( W&3 smoi� xvi �-Sttw No"am 9LZI-zom SY)GL ISYTTYO MW wn:)Ols S% INI 'SIDMHOSY N3991)(31W/NOSNHO .1 W, LS09L SVX31 INIMdV� '0*8 SYnVCI ISV3 t'Ot' '7 1 TR rg 133115 M'3f H I t r r w 133115 M'3f H I wrw.•zw-1 ans.+uX" omv+�POHaW S � d LS09L SVX31'3NVA3dVdD 'aa SVl1VO 1SV3 1104 'SY133X1$ � O W [OM SYX311N13 O 3X1$ WrOOIS 596 .N1 7NI'S D311K)SV N3991)(YMNOSNHOf 9 �aa�s •,r, t Q n� Q � S S 2 I Zj Z Z 0 Q < Q L K w b D 4 7 t bF wrw�HW Zl StA5TL1U XY! 06lLi�L1U FlOIlALl 5 d LS09L SVX31 `3NIA3dVII0 'ClSV1lVQ IM 6Ob W1 ZOLSL Sr%31 VI(Two 133:S Z; IS S% — ONI'S1)31JHJ2lV N399DIYtW/NOSNHO( 3� • �'� , a 0i Q 0I T T T T MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-21 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request for a variance to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 1731 Autumn Ridge, platted as Lot 9, Block 5, Hunters Ridge Addition, Tarrant County, Texas as follows: Section 42.C.4, Supplementary District Regulations, which requires that swimming pools be subject to the same side yard requirements as the principal structure; and Section 16.6.3, Zero Lot Line District, which requires an eleven (11) foot side yard setback on one side and a twelve (12) inch side yard setback on the opposite side. The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot variance to the required eleven (11) foot side yard setback on the south property line. If the Board of Zoning Adjustment approves the request, it would allow a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool on the south property line as shown on the plot plan SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition exists for the request to allow the proposed swimming pool to encroach into the side yard setback to preserve an existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree. If compliance with the eleven (11) foot side yard setback requirement was met, the root system of the existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree could be jeopardized by the proposed swimming pool. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Jason and Nancy Burr submitted an application for a variance to the side yard setback requirement of their property. The property is currently zoned "R-5.0" Zero Lot Line District which requires an eleven (11) foot side yard setback on the south property line and a OAKAW-21.4 twelve (12) inch side yard setback on the north property line. If allowed, the variance to allow a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool would not interfere with the access easement to be provided between adjacent lots to allow the adjacent property owner to access the twelve (12) inch side yard on each lot in the zero lot line district. SK/tw 0:\BZA\97-21.4 2 e ) - �� L a R 2 _ 00 210 rKSIL(wC�oo o x + E= U to xF f ou--- P - N z , � 3 � � 2 ON 13 21 11 ' sb ) s SS ° 13 2 Z 11 11 10 i C n < b I' \ \� 9 c e BPI ARC RLST —7 wDC-t CT N 852 .- 1 1 1 ) s c ) a • o� �\ �� �' 1_ J`• I s l 6 7 6 9, p � n r2 U u 1 1 J . � `e 7 e I • i■ S: ' A e HUNTERS RIDGE DRIVE ° — 9 t SA"T< << TR Z ' ° 17 c 9� 6 .��.� • 1 3 / g�o5 , r h \ z O / w• , 21 z 17 m _ 11 _q Gv,a HalOw v" AUTUMN RIDGE % rn JG ``II BZA97-21 T I / , I ! JASON AND NANCY BURR o ON=57 _ �- ' Ct+OTEW CR --- 1r, p i t e 1 - T �� , ) --- , d I JUL - 7 1997 CITY OF GRAPEVINE 'g 2,4 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLIC, APPLICANT DUNN 01TITRWN; A CITY/STATE:C-.2' IT zip: l(oOql HOME: Z11 -,A'qo,'4' -WORK: X214) q,91-8339 _FAX: (ZA'Q631-6ZDD NAME:_�CjSw) I IYdA yNr:! L : ADDRESS' I rW AUIAn Com.._ by ft, CITY/STATE: 7x,---Zlp: 7(oosl HOME: (.Lt])3Z2 A904 WORK: (2(4)9 5) -03E FAX:f,2A96LPZ_00 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) )2 31 &ct"v� gig= Lri ve, L-,Ot'cl 610de- u l4tk� 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. -tot uLl'-L 0AZCU\APP-BZA 2 6/97 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. •y ci t)o 30 /,.o v pos�, ct- to a 'n La� I I wk ba� 30 km u Mj2v�Omq±EU LD 10t Wv*--tk� AN-tt MShi4w �1- 30 [p2b t v v Qwl CLt dA -t UnvigL n -t* a� U&P- tre's— -j± � s alw uu, wast tr4p, tA t�'-L Vic; f-1-1 Poo I voa's . I a4loL 71k 0 0 -ch -1 C-. 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. if Ma �' HIM I r -l -Ml I of 0:\ZCU\APP-BZA 3 6/97 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.) THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF WILL DETERMINE THE AGENDA FOR EACH OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATES. BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE RESCHEDULED TO A LATER DATE. APPLICANT ( APPLICANT mylkl►1a Zig 11 OWNER SIGt SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 244 DAY OF '107 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR T y lk-- STATE OF TEXAS •10 601:8 WA - - A • SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF ,19 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS e" DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION 0AZMAPP-BZA 4 6/97 - SURVEY PLAT JUL -7.1997, BARRY S. [.w-iij Stjrveynr (211t) 1475 - 89a0 This is to certify that I have, this date. mode a careful and accurate survey on the Around of property located at No. / 7__:71 4 In the city of G.PfJPE !/i t/E Too&$ Lot No. 9 Block No. S City Block No. of ✓��/ .�/Te-=a A7/Z7G Z AOA/ Tion./ an addition to the City of tPA/ "!/i��/c� T/y,F A,✓7�e, Taxer, according to the 7`.yE.PE0,-J recorded in at --,"e / e 4� of the AAap Records of �"A�p,QA.a%T" COUNTY, TEXAS. Al,'> T ,C 47,r o QE�I TY /X JdrGJ" !� _ r/oG 734 s Rc- //oG .rr ': t'n-' -_'t:l.; rpt .: ;ry •r.f-: ...i' 4 riAllfs.'r'�'IU.+1F1!!'j -, .., :'r•' -"i M'' 't` 100 I- 1' 0.1 A. ILCOU IN:iURRRCE nkiE (M!`.r, —y-2 O F f4�2 �o ti 4.1�o q9. id 9i, zs • Cey h- 4-7 G �AcCE-ss I ` yG. 3.9; LA a -77Z_1.,Wt1 The plat hereon is true, correct. and accurate #*presentation of the property as determined byGiSrEq`•'fp survey. the , lines end dimensions of acid property being as indicated by the plot: the size, location, �irQrc. �¢� �p-.�' and type of buildings and improvements are a shown, alt Improvements being within the boun- _ : . dories of the property, set back from property linos the distance indicated, and that the distance BARRY• S. RIt00ES from the nearest Intersecting street, or road, Is as shown on said plat. ""'••"' THERE ARE NO ENCROACI►MENTS, CONFr_ICTS, OR PROTRUSIONS. -t-- YGG,oT �9+c s/.to•��✓ 3691 r ft'1►� :IUZVFY WA, m:RFt)e;M U ExC�u`�IVELY FUn-Ve/ Scall. /= ZoU / LAa.e/f/E-,�s .•f,••r cA? Ic.v.✓ -T/rte F Oete: - 3 /- 9Z t!'•(_ Ur 1III'� `+LII'{Vf'v r'r1R nrJv U1TtE11 I'lliRf'r)�;r G. F. No.. 92029a-i7SV rtrz 01111,U r'nrlt if II/tt-1_ ltl: rat' tfa-IR r I':K �1 job No.: Al•IrI Ilrlftl Fl:)r;Flf,I. ( . riflr RF-_:f'fjrr'IIll. 1 Ill ()Tilt W, Chocked by: _. t 1 in Ar4'r', I?f '.I JI I I r.rt� f I If: f>[ -FROM. rt\t*T" POST u•>Pn S''r/ �„!.. 7 4 ;�:z :�y it �, �,�. � Lit, i• � � ,.. . k f r � r. 777 ail MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-22 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request for a variance and a special exception to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 327 East College Street, legally described as the east thirty (30) feet of Lot 2, and the west seventy two (72) feet of Lot 3, Block 29, Original Town of Grapevine, City of Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas as follows: 1. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The appiicant_is requesting a special_ exception to allow the existina residential structure to remain as currently developed and to expand to provide off-street parking along the west side of the property. If approved, the special condition would allow a photographic studio to be developed in an existing residential structure and provide off-street parkina for the use in the Colleae Street Historic District as shown on the site plan. 2. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent masonry in the "PO" Professional Office District. The applicant is reauestina a one hundred (100) percentvariance to the sevent (70) percent masonry requirement in the "PO" Professional Office District. If the Board of Zoning Adjustment approves the request, it will allow a zero (0) percent masonry requirement for the proposed photoarwhic studio in a residential structure in the College Street Historic District. 0:\BZA\97-22.4 SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition to allow the special exception request. The Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission approved, on first reading of an ordinance, a zone change request to rezone an existing structure from "R-7.5" Single Family District to "PO" Professional Office District to allow a deed restricted photographic studio in the College Street Historic District. Council requested the applicant voluntarily deed restrict the property because of concerns expressed about increased traffic generated from the proposed use or any future uses of the existing structure. Staff finds a special condition to allow the variance request. A variance to the masonry requirement would be appropriate for structures located in the College Street Historic District. The Board of Adjustment has previously allowed similar variances in the district. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An application was submitted by Jay Young requesting to allow a photographic studio to be developed in an existing residential structure in the College Street Historic District. Mr. Young requested, and was approved on first reading of the ordinance, to rezone the property from "R-7.5" Single Family District to "PO" Professional Office District on July 15, 1997 pending the outcome of the requests before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission. A second reading of the ordinance is required to complete the zone change request and is currently scheduled for the August 7, 1997 Council meeting. Council requested Mr. Young to voluntarily deed restrict the property to be used as a photographic studio only. Concerns were expressed regarding the future of the property should Mr. Young ever sell it to another type of user which could increased the level of traffic on College Street. Because the property is located in the College Street Historic District, Mr. Young went before the Historic Preservation Commission with proposed changes to the property to comply with the preservation criteria. The Historic Preservation Commission did not approve of the expansion to the residentially developed driveway to allow a commercial driveway. The board felt that in order to keep the property compatible with the other commercial developments in the College Street Historic District, the driveway must remain as currently developed for the existing residential structure. 0:\BZA\97-22.4 2 n23 1 m ITR 2881 LAS .5I6 4C CU92-04 g G1{ TR TP TR TR ti 76-20 R 34Fo ci v -T C9 C 0 aqR X981 9 TR �g 7R T9 TR T T tAQCaA 0�NPRO 6 a0A]0A1 al 42 ,f 44TH]ur`" 1 c, �Z 7 9 �� I 23010 FPP�15t g Will eT t 2 P{ Z86 c ), Q• • CU93-08 Z90-09) 1 ORO. X38 TEkr4S TR 52E TP .28 AC 62� .2` AC � TR 6 ;A co �og N FT ? !' 1 T E �— fT I1 6 1 P - 2 �I CUd5-¢2 a 2 I I CU91 -1 6 1 CC ZA�g 7 1 < r j R 29D I i t.8y38 c cz j l R- a h _—_i I 17 PT C 7 IEli a, 6 P I b 2' a CI s IfL el I j s ] �I ? III �_ 9 0 2 ( EST,L- T—T.._.. see2 ; N P T TR 58C TR I -T r —IT 2 3 d I q 1 ! 11 S PT J j (LµTS T9kc� c6cjI,)9l0�CE �lllf v� N` i' >T i 2� I ! I 14�si ,. 2 11�i6i,� Z 91 ? w j _... F PT C —1--, 2 '�121 PT j" j .-�-2 s E - — I I Gni Pt, � F BZA97-22 ; I �� �l��=� JAY r� r.:k, YOUNG ! , S'REEr CLnSEE h .y n � 1 _ 1 � Ute? I 3 J 7 � � I 2 � � ° 5 ���` � � 9 1:0 i u 111 f- }�}�} ° r: Idl 1A I W W TP 2tj J G- •'r'• - 'C:�c �I 6 �� � I ; 1 I 1 Ia;::: —1 -R ,� yjT I i� 3 o, Lu I TR d o ' �•: � I I� : L� D EAST COLLEGE STREET I= ---- — —i - t � j cn 1 SD 58, 5C °Z914 -1'2 ,R ti 50 2.2 cu i r 06-2-7-1997 10: ---'4R['l DEUELOPMENT SERQ I CES 181'T4240545 P.04 CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION APPLICANT D NAME:- JUL 1 4 1997 ADDRESS - I CITY/STATE: ZIP:_ 766) 2-fA - _!�WORK. kLAg ea Ak .,r HOME:— _L _O FAX: 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: -- ADDRESS- g lzt> CITY/STATE:-7&2,ecS;__ -ZIP: 7 � HOME : o,7 WORK: L'� dcll'V 71'5 FAX: 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. 0:2CUTAPP-BZA 2 6/97 PHONE NO. B17 329 6016 Jul. 07 1997 11:49Arl P4 FROM : JAY YOUNG PHOTOGRAPHY JUI 114-"-4ljj4J r. u-3 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. REGEIV See 4zT,&cog---D 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 ORDINAN05 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. 0:1Z=APP-BZA 3 6/97 JUL - 7 1997 5. Pertinent Sections of Zoning — Specific Variance, Section 27, Professional Office District Regulations i B. ACCESSORY USES: The following uses shall be permitted as accessory uses, provided that such use shall be located not less than twenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way: 1. Mechanical equipment no nearer than one hundred twenty (120) feet to any residentially zoned district. Variance Request No. 1: Locate mechanical equipment (A/C) compressor adjacent to east side of existing structure, nineteen (19) feet from east property line, variance of one hundred one (10 1) feet. 2. Screened garbage storage on concrete pad and no nearer than fifty (50) feet to a residentially zoned district and not located between front of building and any street right-of-way. Variance Request No. 2: Locate screened garbage storage as proposed on concept plan thirty-five (35) feet from west property line, variance of fifteen (15) feet. 3. Parking of automobiles, provided that such facilities are within sixty (60) feet of a residentially zoned district be separated from said lot by a blind fence or wall at least six (6) feet high. Variance Request No 3: To use existing fence and landscaping as a buffer on east and west side of parking in lieu of six (6) foot fence. To use proposed fence as shown on concept plan as buffer on south side of parking, variance of 100%. H. BUFFER AREA REGULATIONS: Whenever a P -O 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 residentially zoned property than a distance equal to two (2) times the height of such building or structure or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is greater. Variance Request No 4: To locate building twenty-two (22) feet from west property line, variance of three (3) feet. JUL -7 .1997 6. Grounds for Request. The intent of the variance requests are to, as closely as possible, retain and restore the existing residential character of the property, while allowing its re -use as a photographic studio. Specifically addressed as follows: Variance Request No. 1 — Location of Mechanical Equipment. Due to location of the existing structure on the property and the nature of residential HVAC compressors, it would be infeasible to locate this equipment at a location other than adjacent to the building. Variance Request No. 2. Location of Garbage Stora. Due to the width of the property one hundred two (102) feet, it would be impossible to locate the storage structure fifty (50) feet from both property lines. Variance Request No. 3. Screening of Parking. Our proposal in this instance is to retain the existing vegetation and fencing that is located along the west, north and east property lines and would submit that further screening would be destructive and unnecessary. Variance Request No. 4. Twenty-five (25) foot Buffer Between Districts. The existing residence is located twenty-two (22) feet from the east property line, moving the structure is not feasible. Variance Request No. 5. Ten (10) foot Buffet Between Parking and Adjacent Propegy. In order to relate as closely as possible to the building and minimize the amount of hard surface area the required parking was placed adjacent to the west side of the existing parking leaving approximately one (1) foot to the west property line. However, the existing vegetation produce an effective screen without modification and modification would be destructive to the existing vegetation. Variance Request No. 6. Ten (10) foot Buffer and Fence. Same as Variance Request No. 5. Also the proposed fencing at the south side of the property is more in character with the historical context of the property. Variance Request No. 7. Seventy percent 70%) Exterior Masonry. The intent of this request of to restore the exterior more closely to its original state and masonry would not be appropriate. JUL J 7 .1997 b. Whenever an off-street parking or vehicular use areas abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape area of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. Accessways between lots may be permitted through all perimeter landscape areas. Maximum width for accessways shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscaping shall be designed to visually screen the parking area. Whenever such property is zoned or used for residential purposes, the landscape buffer shall include a wall, hedge or berm not greater than eight (8) feet in height nor less than three (3) feet in height. Variance Request No. 5: To locate edge of parking one (1) foot from west property line, variance of nine (9) feet. M. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: 4. Whenever a P -O District is adjacent to any residentially zoned district, a buffer strip, at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided between the two (2) districts. A wall, fence or berm shall be erected to effectively screen the P -O District from the residential area. Variance Request No. 6: To use existing fence and landscaping as buffer on west, north and east property lines and use the proposed fence as shown on concept plan as buffer on south side of parking, variance of 100%. 5. The masonry requirements of Section 54 shall be met. (Section 54. 70% exterior masonry. Variance Request No. 7: To use existing wood siding exterior, variance of 100%. FROM : JAY YOUNG PHOTOGRAPHY PHONE NO. : 817 329 6016 Jul. 09 1997 03:52PM P2 llu� L 4 7 7 g. 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 QUAN*1 !FIED BY AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT (DISTANCE, PERCENTAGE, ETC.) THE DEVELOPMENT, SERVICES STAFF WILL DETERMINE THE AGENDA FOR EACH OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATES. BAQED ON THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA. YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE RESCHEDULE32 M A LA MR DATE. APPLICANT (PR APPLICANT SIG OWNER (PRINT OWNER SIGNATU SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS DAY OF Q, 19q'1 U EVA JUNE LOGAN NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PU8LIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS My Comm. Exp. 12-202000 ATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS 19 I , LfJAN ESSUNGER Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Explres 08-09-99 0:\ZCU\APP-BZA :7 -NOTARY PUBLIC FORTHE STATE OF TEXAS V, /'? Aq f DATE OF f IC NSE EXPIRATION El VIA 4 OVA a its' A "YO Sh 1, Ish 'Nit AA ONO WA vwfjf� I �1'1) A 4 Q 4 Ski?, 1 1 1 f A, I "A 1 qj I Lm � � T� c I n"'� o •'J Cn O z p Z I L oJC a I `tiJ J n 1 3 3 'zi J- 5 3 h 3 "l l 0 3 L Z 6 o •. o° ry ° N .i E- o I J \ Jam,!°' _• ,�' \ Z , . T � 2 T • j"Yr o l � / • tI j \ ' � • y rIt I o I , O Q o . <%y........ ............ ............. • r " 4 l �Noc� 2 01- W 0 0. oL -- - -. - - NI W w 0 Z Z N Ewa MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-23 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request for a variance to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for 1815-1819 Fern Court, platted as Lot 9, Block 5, Ridgecrest Addition, City of Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas as follows: Section 17.H. "R-3.5" Two -Family District Regulations which requires a forty (40) foot buffer yard setback between a Multifamily District and any non-residential district. The applicant is requesting a twenty six (26) foot variance to the forty (40) foot buffer yard setback requirement. If approved, the variance will allow a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback as shown on the site plan. SPECIAL CONDITION: Staff finds a special condition exists to allow a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback requirement for the subject property. The property is located on a cul-de-sac street and has an unusual shape which reduces the buildable area of the lot. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An application was submitted by Tim Lancaster requesting a variance to the buffer yard requirement in the Multifamily District. The applicant was previously granted a fifteen (15) foot variance (BZA94-15) to the buffer yard requirement to allow a twenty five (25) foot buffer yard setback in the rear yard. However, the applicant did not develop the subject property at that time. The proposed structure, shown on the recently submitted site plan, exceeds the variance granted in 1994 and now requires the applicant to request an additional variance to the buffer yard requirement. 0:\BZA\97-23.4 BZA97-23 TIM LANCASTER A L STREET ' 1 � \ ...7 • 2e 30 �e 7 6 O 11 S.•3 K 2 r t, 3 W to Q Ie u 17 ` S \ 2 V I7 3 S 17 ` j7 • ¢ 0��� 1. it t1 Ii O >, �� Sa P O o W �- (ry 17 16 IS N • ,S W I IS { 1S � ` ` J 7• n V 7 ) A ERN COURT e 7 614 ' A •�� 153. 74 ' 12 13 r •.i 2♦ 3 .a • ra ee 23 u \LZ; • , Ii 1• 11 i• it U i. 1. X ✓ 1. y - P.o. VAN CLEVE OCL CSR' AD01 T I ON o t,e�i 1 8LK �OS3EP ttl. W : P--uRvE L I va.e r 1 Z 6 7 �� 1NP P 774 Gia CE PCD Za7 0 7 , 60 2 e 70 CU89-07 L�0(�Ff"" P�i95—ta SU89-02 A 1 m :! /OZ,�r CU94-30 r` cx'�� CU95-04 s SU95-0i p s �so0 7 L I C CU92-06 Gv9a r l Z 87- C 8 AC P m e LI g Z ,7 i I GJ 17 96 __ lRa c w000 _ p "CU9, ✓� ,j Z92 97 cc C ra,2- #,1 -, '° 3 95 CITY OF GRAPEVINE '_m"OARD OF ZONING ADJUSTITTEVT_ 1. APPLICANT /V ADDRESS- /0O � I PPLICATION -1 UL 5 1097 CITY/STATE: ZIP: 7(P HOME:— WORK:_� 7 FAX: — t/2 y 3,6-, � q 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Z_ Z,41-ticx- ADDRESS- 12a, CITY/STATE: zip: c, f HOME:— 2` q'` -WORK: FAX: 2 4. STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET. 0:\ZCU\APP-BZA 2 6/97 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. 13- P t 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. CIL ti -'t /�L �. �- ., ...yrr b k4 0:\ZCU\APP-BZA 3 6/97 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.) THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF WILL DETERMINE THE AGENDA FOR EACH OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATES. BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA, YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE RESCHEDULED TO A LATER DATE. APPLICANT (PRINT OR TYPE Q0 APPLICANT SIGNATURE — NZERM OWNER SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS RD • SUSAN M. HOWA Notary Public, State of TOM A ission Expires 02-18-01 A My Comm SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS /c/DAY OF 19�7 TARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION DAY OF We NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION 0:2CU\APP-BZA 4 6/97 IN \Ar-- 2 C: GAF RIVE ';T Y. 1S1% -ISIS FERN COURT I NOTE: GRAPEVINE SOIL AND '-:FO&ION 5HALL BE MET DUR NG G06TRZTION PEM101). . i SITE PLAN - SP BI -49 III = 301-011 LOT 19, BL< 5 BETWEEN THE LINES RIlDG;E(--IRE5T ADDITION WARD 5URVEYINI:a GfR4FEVINE, TEXAS 281-5411 P1,4�,aQNR�' L►�NDSCPINC� EXT. CALL �� 50% SET 5ACK: AREA L f EMENTS TE1✓5 R=Q'D. ACTU,, L LOT AREA 30000 155840 OPEN 5PACE —20io =1019 O &4S3$--42% REO. AREA 2i5 49i3 0 MAX, BLDG. COYG 9350 4575 0 ISL f=L00F' ARE - 1200 MIN. 4334 MAX. IMP. ARES; !, 1246 i #MAX. 9091 P1,4�,aQNR�' L►�NDSCPINC� EXT. CALL �� 50% SET 5ACK: 4 P4RCNG L..S. AREA =RONT PARD 1060 / 3117 0 FRONT 1"ARC'S 25 51DE YARDS 6 54�;K YARDS 25 PAf�CING PAG 5 4 P1,4�,aQNR�' L►�NDSCPINC� EXT. CALL �� 50% L.S. AREA 311—io r 11009 0 L..S. AREA =RONT PARD 1060 / 3117 0 NO. 04- TREE5 2 Cly NORTHWE5T HK'. GRAREVIKEE-KEGLER ►MALL D 51TE / o0 LOCATION COLLEGE 0 Q (26 ?6 1w ADPL ICANT: DE'_LlU00D DEYLOPMENT TIM LANCASTER — PRESIDENT 1001 W. NW HUJ ' GRAPEYI\IE, 7EX45 -l6015 DE5ISNER: BETWEEN THE LINE -5 4RLINGTON, TEXn5 011e ER= EDc�AR: L. MIrNIE LEE 5. LANc:.A5-ER 305 AZALEA G:RAE'EYIN" -EXa5 NOTES: • PRESE'�T ZONIN5 - R 3.5 (VACANT L.OT) • LAND USE DE515NATION - iv`EDII!M GENS TY RESIDENTIAL • DVELLING UNIT5/ACREA5E- IUNI ON APPROXHATEL" I/L ACRE OF LAND • BUFFER PLAN - NO SUFFER REG'G. • DRAINAGE PLAN - DRAINS TO FRONT AND REAR OF FROFER T Y. • GRADING PLAN - V,FILL R_QUIREG. • 51 TE CONDITIONS - iLEVEL AND DRAINAGE TO 5ACK AL -EY. STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, August 4, 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 Chairman Carl Hecht Vice -Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate Ron Cook 2nd Alternate Kip Bruner 3rd Alternate constituting a quorum with Dennis Luers absent. Also present was City Council Representative Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Ron Stombaugh Gerrie Anderson CALL TO ORDER Building Official City Planner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. OATH OF OFFICE Gerrie Anderson administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed 3rd Alternate, Kip Bruner. The first item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was a request from Robert and Dana Morris for 2907 Peninsula Drive, platted as Lot 32R, Block 4, Placid Peninsula, Section A, Grapevine Texas. The following requests were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.13.4. "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires permitted accessory uses (garages) to be located not less than forty-five (45) feet from the front lot line. The request would allow an encroachment of twenty five (25) feet into the required forty five (45) foot front yard setback for accessory structures to develop a proposed three (3) bay garage. If approved, it would allow a garage to be developed twenty (20) feet from the front lot line as shown on the site plan. Section 15.G. 1, "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. BZA Minutes 8/4/97 The request would allow an encroachment of ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback to develop a garage. If approved, it would allow a ten (10) foot variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow a twenty (20) foot front yard setback as shown on the site plan. Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations which requires a detached accessory building in a residential district to be located on the rear one-half of the lot. The requested variance would allow a detached three (3) bay garage to be developed in the front one-half of the lot. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found no special conditions existed for the requests because the property is currently undeveloped. Robert Morris, of 3413 Vine Ridge, Bedford, Texas, and applicant, took the Oath of Truth and presented the Board a site plan of the lot showing the location of the 572 lake flowage easement and the portion of the property was not buildable. Mr. Morris showed the Board another exhibit showing that if the garage was placed on the 30 foot front building line, then the line of trees along the lot line would be disturbed. Mr. Morris expressed that he would like to have the same opportunity as his neighbors in being able to save the existing trees. Mr. Cook asked the applicant why he would be opposed to attaching the garage to the house. Mr. Morris explained that they would like to have room in the future for a pool and deck and again does not want to remove many trees. Jill Davis expressed her concern of the setback requirements stated in the zoning ordinance taking precedence over tree preservation. Sandra Dennehy, of 3124 College Avenue, Fort Worth, and architect for the applicants, took the Oath of Truth and explained how the maneuvering area for the parking needed to be 20 feet. Ms. Dennehy explained that they worked to save as many of the trees on the property as possible. Randy Howell suggested that the applicant place the garage on the other side of the property and then it would be set back 45 feet from the front property line and would have the same setback as his neighbors' accessory structures. This would also preserve trees. Mr. Morris explained to the Board that he wanted his new home to be appealing to the community and a hardship would be created if the location of the garage was moved, because he would have to rearrange all plans for the lot. K BZA Minutes 8/4/97 With no one to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that no special conditions existed for Section 15.B.4. which requires permitted accessory uses (garages) to be located not less than forty-five (45) feet from the front lot line, and for Section 15.G.1. which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. Carl Hecht also made a motion that a special condition existed for Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations and the special condition being the location of the 572 flowage easement. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Carl Hecht then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 42.C.3., allowing a three bay garage to be developed in the front one-half of the yard. The structure must meet setback requirements and the variance shall not be tied to a plot plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers BZA97-20 VICWEST STEEL The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-20, submitted by VicWest Steel who requested variances for 404 East Dallas Road, platted as Lot 3 & 4, Block 1, Hilltop Addition. The following requests were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3. Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The requested special exception would allow the existing development to remain as currently developed, and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, to be constructed of brick, stone or other masonry. BZA Minutes 8/4/97 The request would allow a one -hundred (100) percent variance to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. If approved, it would allow a 100 percent variance to the masonry requirement for the proposed expansion as shown on the site plan. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found special conditions existed for the special exception to allow the existing development to remain as currently developed and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Staff was assured by the applicant that the remodeling would greatly improve the appearance of the site and the expansion would eliminate the need for any outside storage. However, Mr. Stombaugh noted that Staff found no special condition existed for the request to vary to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. An application was submitted by Jenisys Engineered Products, Inc. For VicWest Steel. Mr. Stombaugh explained that the development was built prior to the requirement for property located in the "LI" Light Industrial District to be seventy (70) percent masonry. Mr. Stombaugh noted that staff had received two responses that were in favor of the request and one response against the request. Gary McKibben of 965 Slocum, Dallas, Texas, and architect for VicWest Steel took the Oath of Truth and explained about upgrading the exterior and interior of the property and the quality of the development. Mr. McKibben explained that the owner wants to reclad the building with their own metal product and feels it would be infeasible to put masonry on the structure. The Board asked Scott Williams, Building Official, if synthetic stucco was considered masonry under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Williams replied that it was an acceptable masonry product. Fred Seal of 2909 Creek View Drive, Flower Mound and General Manager for VicWest Steel, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the business moved to the United States nine years ago and at that time purchased the property from Omega. Mr. Seal noted that they plan on spending 4 million on upgrading the property which will become their United States headquarters. After further discussion concerning what other types of material could be used and the percentage required for the overall building, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers 4 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 Randy Howell explained that the applicant's hardship is financial, which the Board of Zoning Adjustment cannot consider. Jill Davis made a motion that a special condition existed for the request to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, as the remodeling would greatly improve the appearance of the site, and the expansion would eliminate the need for any outside storage, and that no special condition existed for the request to Section 54, Masonry Requirements. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis then made a motion to approve the variance request to Section 43.E.3, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the development to remain as currently developed and to expand or remodel the nonconforming uses as shown on the site plan. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-21, submitted by Jason and Nancy Burr who requested variances for 1731 Autumn Ridge, platted as Lot 10, Block 107, College Heights Addition. The following variance was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.4, Supplementary District Regulations, which requires that swimming pools be subject to the same side yard requirements as the principal structure. Section 16.G.3, Zero Lot Line District, which requires an eleven (11) foot side yard setback on one side and a twelve (12) inch side yard setback on the opposite side. The request would allow a five (5) foot variance to the required eleven (11) foot side yard setback on the south property line. If approved, it would allow a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool on the south property line as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Staff found that a special condition existed for the request to allow the proposed swimming pool to encroach into the side yard setback to preserve an existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree. Mr. Stombaugh further explained that If 9 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 compliance with the eleven (11) foot side yard setback requirement was met, the root system of the existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree could be jeopardized by the proposed swimming pool. Jason Burr, applicant of 1731 Autumn Ridge Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that when he purchased the property in 1992, there were no trees on the property and since then has placed trees on the lot. Mr. Burr explained that he was wanting to preserve the willow tree in the rear yard and maintain the side yard. Randy Howell explained that two letters of approval had been received. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Further discussion followed with Mr. Cook and Ms. Davis expressing strong feelings that tree preservation should not be a consideration for setback variances. After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that a special condition exists to allow the proposed swimming pool to encroach into the side yard setback to preserve an existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Anderson Nays: Davis Absent: Luers Carl Hecht then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 42.C.4. Supplementary District Regulations allowing a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool on the south property line as shown on the plot plan. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Anderson Nays: Davis Absent: Luers C. BZA Minutes 8/4/97 BZA97-22 JAY YOU N G Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered BZA97-22, submitted by Jay Young who requested variances for 327 East College Street, platted as Lot 3, Block 29, Original Town of Grapevine. The following variances were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The request would allow the existing residential structure to remain as currently developed and to expand to provide off-street parking along the west side of the property. If approved, the special condition would allow a photography studio to be developed in an existing residential structure and provide off-street parking for the use in the College Street Historic District as shown on the site plan. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent masonry in the "PO" Professional Office District. The request would allow a one hundred (100) percent variance to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement in the "PO" Professional Office District. If approved, it would allow a zero (0) percent masonry requirement for the proposed photography studio in a residential structure in the College Street Historic District. Ron Stombaugh announced that Jay and Kathy Young had submitted a letter requesting their case, BZA97-22, be removed from the agenda. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Mr. and Mrs. Young, stated in their letter that due to problems that had emerged during their attempts to re -zone the property (specifically deed restrictions), they believed it was in their best interest to forego the purchase of the property. With no further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Carl Hecht made a motion to deny BZA97-22 since the applicant requested to have the case withdrawn. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers 7 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 BZA97-23 TIM LANCASTER Next, the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered BZA97-23, submitted by Tim Lancaster who requested a variance for 1815-1819 Fern Court, platted as Lot 19, Block 5, Ridgecrest Addition. The following variance was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 17.H. "R-3.5" Two -Family District Regulations which requires a forty (40) foot buffer yard setback between a multifamily district and any non-residential district. The request would allow a twenty six (26) foot variance to the forty (40) foot buffer yard setback requirement. If approved, the variance would allow a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback as shown on the site plan. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found a special condition existed being the property is located on a cul-de-sac street and has an unusual shape which reduces the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Stombaugh explained that the applicant was previously granted a fifteen (15) foot variance (BZA94-15) to the buffer yard requirement to allow a twenty five (25) foot buffer yard setback in the rear yard, however, the applicant did not develop the subject property at that time. Mr. Stombaugh explained the proposed structure, shown on the recently submitted site plan, exceeds the variance granted in 1994 and now requires the applicant to request an additional variance to the buffer yard requirement. Tim Lancaster, applicant, of 2010 Forest Hills Road, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained about his previously approved variance. After further discussion, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis made a motion that a special condition existed and the special condition being the property is located on a cul-de-sac street and has an unusual shape which reduces the buildable area of the lot. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: E? BZA Minutes 8/4/97 Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 17.H. R-3.5, Two -Family District Regulations allowing a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the July 7, 1997, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7, 1997, meeting. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION Ron Stombaugh introduced to the Board the new City Planner, Joann Stout. With no further business, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M. 9 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 ATTEST: KSECRETARY F.11 CHAIRMA 10