Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-04AGENDA CITY OF BOARD OF i MONDAY,.8 AT • 00 P. COUNCILCITY HALL . • • li SOUTH GRAPEVINE, TEXAS I II. OATH OF TRUTH 111. NEW BUSINESS A. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-09, SUBMITTED BY A T & T WIRELESS SYSTEMS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 STATE HIGHWAY 114 WEST, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. r : r -• t •- - •-Mum • :• -a• • lr • • r - •- �MVRJ V91 il 411"If A 1A r •&J Ir d• •, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO :s. -r OF •NING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-12, SUBMITTED BY CHRIS & TAMMY SONDERHOUSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2509 BEAR DRIVE,HAVEN CONSIDERATION OF E. BOARD OF •NING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT . PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF • ADJUSTMENT CASE : A•: SUBMITTED BY MIRANDA F. WORTHINGTONFOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1218 CIRCLE VIEW COURT, AND CONSIDERATION OF SAME. F. BOARD OF • TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING G. BOARD OF •NING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-15, SUBMITTED BY SIGNS NOW — MASON HARPER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326 E. NORTHWESTAND CONSIDERATION OF IV. MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6,1998, MEETING. 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) 410-3155 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR NEEDS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENTrr - 551.001 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 24TH DAY OF ...AT00 P.M. STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, May 4, 1998, 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 Dennis Luers Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate Ron Cook 2nd Alternate Kip Bruner 3`d Alternate constituting a quorum with Member Jill Davis absent. Also present were City Councilmen Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Scott Williams Stephen Kindrick Betsy Dunham Gerrie Anderson CALL TO ORDER Director of Development Services Building Official Planner I Plans Examiner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-09 — AT&T WIRELESS SYSTEMS 400 STATE HIGHWAY 114 WEST The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-09, submitted by Bob Steinweg for AT&T Wireless Systems for property located at 440 State Highway 114 West and platted as Lot 1 R-1, Block 1 R, Payton Wright Addition. The following requested variance is from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 26.1.1., Highway Commercial District Height Regulations which restricts the height of principal structures to thirty-five (35) feet. The applicant requested a variance to allow a fifty-three (53) foot variance resulting in an eighty-eight (88) foot maximum height for a flagpole. Mr. Kindrick explained that Staff found a special condition existed, specifically that the BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 ordinance did not take into account the height of flagpoles when district height restrictions were set. Mr. Kindrick explained the past variances granted on the property. Mr. Kindrick also explained that a Conditional Use Request CU98-16 and Special Use Request SU98-03 was heard by City Council on April 21, 1998 to amend the approved site plan of Conditional Use Permit CU96-06 (Ordinance 96-24) for automobile sales, specifically to relocate an existing eighty-eight (88) foot flag pole, and a special use permit to allow the collocation of a cellular tower in conjunction with a flagpole. Mr. Kindrick explained that Council approved the first reading of the ordinance and the second reading of the ordinance to be held on Tuesday May 5, 1998. Mr. Kindrick noted that the approval or denial of the Conditional and Special Use requests would be based in part on the outcome of the variance request. Bob Steinweg, representing AT&T Wireless Systems of 17300 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas, 75248, took the Oath of Truth and explained that AT&T Wireless Systems approached Payton Wright about attaching an antenna to their flagpole for the upgrade of service on State Highway 114. Mr. Steinweg explained that a small amount of space was needed to locate the equipment cabinet and that was the purpose for relocating the flagpole. Mr. Steinweg noted that the antenna would not be visible and that the flagpole would still be used to fly the American flag only. 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, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Carl Hecht made a motion that a special condition existed, being that the ordinance did not take into account the height of flagpoles when district height restrictions were set. 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 request to Section 26.1.1., Highway Commercial District Height Regulations allowing a fifty -three -(53) foot variance resulting in an eighty-eight (88) foot maximum height for a flagpole which would still be used to fly BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 the American flag only. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis RIVERSIDE r,; , r The next item of business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA98-10, submitted by Danny Parlington for 607 N. Riverside Drive, platted as Lot 2, Block B, The Woods Addition. The following variance requests was to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C., Accessory Building Regulations which require detached accessory buildings to be located at least six (6) feet from side property lines. If approved, it would allow a four (4) foot - six (6) inch variance resulting in a one (1) foot - six (6) inch side yard setback. Section 42.F., prohibits the face of a private garage from being located less than twenty (20) feet from a side or rear lot line. If approved, it would allow a reduction of fourteen (14) feet, resulting in a 6'-0" setback from the rear property line. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found no special condition existed; it was a self imposed hardship. Mr. Williams explained that there was adequate parking in the form of an attached front entry garage. It was noted that the applicant worked with Staff to modify the carport to gain a ten (10) foot separation from the main structure, however, due to the location of the existing pool and the twenty (20) foot rear setback requirement, the side and rear encroachments could not be rectified without a variance. Danny Parlington, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and expressed confusion concerning other carports in the area and the twenty (20) foot setback. Mr. Williams explained to Mr. Parlington that there were violations throughout town and that many carports were built when the zoning ordinance did not address carports, or were built illegally without staff's knowledge. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 Tim Dunning, 613 N. Riverside Drive, took the Oath of Truth and explained how Mr. Parlington had improved the property and expressed that he had no problem with the variance requests. 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 discussion concerning whether or not there was a hardship, Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition did not exist. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-11- DAVID WINTERS 517 ESTILL STREET The next item of business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA98-11, submitted by David Winters for property located at 517 Estill Street, platted as Lot 5, Block 100, College Heights Addition. The following variance requests are from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-72: Section 15.F.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Lot Size, requires lots for any permitted use shall have a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. If approved, it would allow the reduction of 875 square feet, resulting in a lot size of 6,625 square feet for the existing lot. Section 15.G.1., Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a minimum front yard depth of 30 feet. If approved, it would allow a reduction of eight (8) feet, resulting in a front yard setback of twenty-two (22) feet. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 Section 15.G.4., Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a minimum lot width of sixty-five (65) feet. If approved, it would allow a reduction of fifteen (15) feet, resulting in a fifty (50) foot lot width for the existing lot. Section 15.G.6., Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, requires a minimum of twelve (12) feet between principal or accessory buildings on adjacent lots. If approved, it would allow a reduction of six (6) feet resulting in a six (6) foot setback between the proposed residence and the carport on the adjoining property. Section 15.J., Off Street Parking Regulations, prohibits off-street parking from being located in the required front yard. If approved, it would allow the location of one off-street parking space within the required front yard. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found that special conditions existed for the request to Section 15.17.2., as the lot is existing; Section 15.G.1., in order to maintain continuity of setbacks with other houses along the street; Section 15.G.4., as the lot is existing; Section 15.G.6., being the proposed structure would meet the setback requirements for R-7.5; Section 15.J., as the narrow lot width leaves the applicant little choice but to provide one parking space in the front yard. Marcia Willett of 618 Highview Lane, Grapevine, and representing the applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the applicant wanted to build a house that would be similar to the neighborhood. Ms. Willett also explained that they had been working with Hugo Gardea with the Grapevine Township Revitalization Project about changing the roof line to more of a traditional look instead of modern. Randy Howell mentioned that four letters of approval had been received. There were questions concerning the residence only having a one car garage and there being five (5) feet between the garage and the living area. Ms. Willett explained that they had another plan with a two -car garage and the plan was not possible without encroachments. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 Mr. Howell expressed that he was hesitant about the one car garage. Mr. Howell noted that he felt that a two -car garage could be built on a fifty (50) foot wide lot, with the same square footage of living space. David Winters, applicant of 547 N. Rice, Hamilton, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and explained that a two car garage would come very close to the living area of the residence on the adjacent lot. Mr. Winters explained also that if the house were to be moved back on the lot, it would be too close to Wall Street and too close to the noise of the auto body shop located on Wall Street. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Russell Anderson 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 Section 15.17.2., as the lot is existing; Section 15.G.1., in order to maintain continuity of setbacks with other houses along the street; Section 15.G.4., as the lot is existing; Section 15.G.6., being the proposed structure would meet the setback requirements for R-7.5; and Section 15.J., as the narrow lot width leaves the applicant little choice but to provide one parking space in the front yard and to be consistent with other lots in the area. Carl Hecht 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 requests to Section 15.F.2., Single Family District Regulations, Lot Size, allowing the reduction of 875 square feet, resulting in a lot size of 6,625 square feet for the existing lot; Section 15.G.1., Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations, allowing a reduction of eight (8) feet, resulting in a front yard setback of twenty-two (22) feet; Section 15.G.4., Single Family District Regulations allowing a reduction of fifteen (15) feet, resulting in a fifty (50) foot lot width for the existing lot; Section 15.G.6., Single Family District Regulations allowing a reduction of six (6) feet, resulting in a six (6) foot setback between the proposed residence and the carport on the adjoining property; and Section 15.J., Off Street Parking Regulations allowing the location of one off-street parking space within the required front yard. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis • I • . .1711:�. The next item of new business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA98-12, submitted by Chris and Tammy Sonderhouse for property located at 2509 Bear Haven Drive, platted as Lot 24, Block 1, Timbercreek Village. The following variance requests were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 20.B., R-TH, Townhouse Zoning District Regulations prohibits accessory uses between the front building line and the front property line. If approved, it would allow a pool to be located beyond the front building line, ten (10) feet from the front property line. Section 20.13.1., prohibits private swimming pools closer than seventy-five (75) feet from adjacent residential districts. If approved, it would allow a fifty-five (55) foot reduction to the setback, resulting in a twenty (20) foot setback from the adjacent R-7.5, Single Family Zoning District. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found special conditions existed being the lot is unusually shaped, with no ability to locate a swimming pool without a variance and that the front of this lot faces the rear of adjoining properties. Mr. Williams explained that the subdivision has site plan zoning, with the stipulation that any specific issue not regulated by the site plan requirements would revert to the regulations in the R-TH Zoning District. Mr. Williams explained that Staff felt that the unusual arrangement of the lot within the subdivision warrants a variance from the prohibition of accessory uses in the front yard. Mr. Williams also explained that Staff felt that it was possible that the seventy-five (75) foot setback requirement for swimming pools from adjacent residential districts may not have been considered at the time the subdivision was approved. Mr. Williams noted that the Building Board of Appeals, at their March 9, 1998, meeting granted a request allowing a solid fence in the required and established front yard. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 Randy Howell announced that five letters of protest and one letter of approval had been received. Tammy Sonderhouse, applicant of 2707 Martin Drive, #1026, Bedford, Texas, took the Oath of Truth and clarified that she would have a private yard, completely enclosed with a seven (7) foot solid stucco wall. Kim Koogler of 2505 Bear Haven Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that she was protesting the request for the construction of the pool. Ms. Koogler explained that she was concerned for the safety of children that walk through the area from Timberline Elementary and cross a bridge that is on the Sonderhouse's lot. Ms. Koogler was also concerned about the trees that would be lost because of the construction of the pool and her property value decreasing with the construction of a pool that would be adjacent to the back of their lot. Marilyn Robertson of 2513 Bear Haven Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that originally she was in agreement about the construction of the wall and pool, but having spoken with a real estate agent about the construction of the pool effecting the value of her property, she was now protesting the variance requests. Chris Sonderhouse, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the bridge over the creek that the children use for going to school would no longer be available to the public. Mr. Sonderhouse also noted in response to the safety of children in the area, this situation is not unusual; all neighborhoods have children and pools. 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 There was discussion concerning the location of pools in the R-TH, Townhouse Zoning District. Mr. Williams explained that the subdivision was zoned SP, Site Plan Zoning District, not outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Williams explained that anything not specifically addressed in the ordinance was required to comply with the R-TH Zoning District and according to the R-TH requirements, a pool could not be built in the front yard. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that no special condition existed. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-13 - MIRANDA F. WORTHINGTON 1218 CIRCLE VIEW COURT The next item of new business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA98- 13, submitted by Miranda F. Worthington for property located at 1218 Circle View Court, platted as Lot 14, Block 1, Forest Lake Addition. The following variance request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.1., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. If approved, it would allow a six (6) foot reduction, resulting in a twenty-four (24) foot front yard setback. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed being the house was existing and was built prior to the requirement for setback inspections. Mr. Howell announced that three letters of approval had been received. Ms. Miranda Worthington, applicant of Clear Springs Road in Dallas took the Oath of Truth and explained that she had lived in the house for 10'/ years and, in process of selling the home the survey showed the encroachment. Brian Rush of 1225 Circle View Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he lived across the street from the property and was in approval of the request. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Dennis Luers made a motion to close the public hearing. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 Dennis Luers then made a motion that a special condition existed being the house was existing and was built prior to the requirement for setback inspections. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis Dennis Luers made a motion to grant the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 15.G.1., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations allowing a six (6) foot reduction, resulting in a twenty-four (24) foot front yard setback. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis CAMELOTBOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-14 — DENNIS AND SHARON VANDESTEEG, 1834 DRIVE The next item of business was for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider BZA98-14, submitted by Dennis and Sharon Vandesteeg for 1834 Camelot Drive, platted as Lot 4, Block 2, Canterbury Village. The following request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 14.G.1., Depth of Front Yard for R-12.5, Single Family District Regulations which requires a front yard setback of thirty-five (35) feet. If approved, it would allow a five (5) foot variance to the front yard setback requirement, resulting in a front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. Mr. Stephen Kindrick explained that Staff found a special condition existed, being an existing structure on an existing lot. Randy Howell noted that two letter of protest had been received. Mr. Dennis Vandesteeg, applicant, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the house had been constructed in 1992. Mr. Vandesteeg explained that his contractor had said he had checked the building lines, a building permit was issued and inspections were made on the foundation. BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 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 then made motion that a special condition existed being the structure was existing on an existing lot. 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 grant the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 14.G.1., Depth of Front Yard for R-12.5, Single Family Zoning District allowing a five (5) foot variance to the front yard setback requirement, resulting in a front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-15 — SIGNS NOW MASON HARPER 326 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY The last item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-15, submitted by Mason Harper representing Signs Now for property located at 326 E. Northwest Highway, legally described as Tract 49E, Abstract 946, A. F. Leonard Survey. The following variance request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 60.J., Sign Regulations for HC, Highway Commercial Zoning District. If approved, it would allow a roof mounted sign on a structure in a HC, Highway Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Williams explained that Staff found that special conditions existed being the structure does not have adequate wall space for a wall sign. Mr. Williams also explained that the BZA MINUTES MAY 4, 1998 site does not have an acceptable space to locate a pole, ground, or monument sign. Mr. Williams explained that the sign structure was erected in 1996, after a permit was issued by Staff. Mr. Williams explained that the drawings submitted did not indicate that the sign was a roof sign, and no inspections had been requested. Mr. Williams went on to explain that Mr. Harper recently applied for a permit to change the copy on the sign, and staff was using that opportunity to bring the sign into compliance. Randy Howell noted that one letter of approval had been received. Ruth Ann Smith of 7721 Douglas Lane, North Richland Hills and owner of the company took The Oath of Truth and explained that a new sign was necessary because the company name had changed. Forest Smith of 7721 Douglas Lane, North Richland Hills and owner of the company took the Oath of Truth. Mr. Smith showed photographs of the sign and structure. Mr. Smith explained that if the sign were lowered to the edge of the roof, he would not be able to change out the lighting in the sign. Mr. Williams explained that he had spoken with Mason Harper and Mr. Harper had agreed to lower the sign. Mr. Williams explained that he would have recommended denial if they had not agreed to lower the sign. Mr. Williams explained that a permit was issued for the existing sign and that the comparison of the sign plans submitted and the actual sign that was constructed were different. Mr. Williams also noted that the sign had never been inspected. Mr. Cook suggested the property owner build a fagade and then the sign would be legal. Mr. Williams noted that such modification would comply. There was discussion concerning how the sign and/or building would be modified to comply with the ordinance. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Dennis Luers made a motion to close the public hearing. Russell Anderson 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 a special condition existed being the building does not have adequate wall space for a wall sign and the site does not have an acceptable space to locate a pole, ground, or monument sign. Dennis Luers 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 grant the variance to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 60.J., to allow a roof mounted sign on a structure in a HC, Highway Commercial Zoning District having the bottom of the sign be flush with the bottom front edge of the roof that faces Northwest Highway. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the April 6, 1998, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 6, 1998, meeting. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 1998. ATTEST: SECRETARY Yy