Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-01AGENDA CITY OF BOARD • • ADJUSTMENT MONDAY11 COUNCILCITY HALL . r FLOOR i SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, i • • "• rffl BOARDA. OF • TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-16, SUBMITTED BY GOODWIN AND MARSHALL, INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 WESTPORT PARKWAY AND CONSIDERATION OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF •' ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-17, SUBMITTED BY •• •- PROPERTY • AT 3701 WILLIAMr . TATE AVENUE, AND CONSIDERATION OF 0tv-11 W-11101:1 141 D • • l i • ,, , • •: IV. MINUTES •� r • • �� • • r - OF r IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONINGADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 22ND DAY OF • AT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular session, June 1, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Randy Howell Carl Hecht Ery Meyer Dennis Luers Russell Anderson Ron Cook Kip Bruner Chairman Vice -Chairman Secretary Member 1St Alternate 2nd Alternate 3rd Alternate constituting a quorum with Member Jill Davis absent. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: H. T. (Tommy) Hardy Director of Development Services Scott Williams Building Official Ron Stombaugh Planner II Gerrie Anderson Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA 98-16 GOODWIN & MARSHALL INC. 640 WESTPORT PARKWAY The first item of New Business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-16 submitted by Goodwin and Marshall, Inc.,for property located at 640 Westport Parkway, platted as Lot 3, Block 1, Westport Business Park. The following requests were to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 31.H., Light Industrial District, Buffer Area Regulations requires a landscape buffer zone of not less than 25 -feet in depth from the lot line when a "LI" Light Industrial District abuts a residentially zoned district. If approved it would allow a 15 -foot variance to this requirement resulting in a landscape buffer of 10 -feet along the north and west property lines. Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 Section 31.H., Light Industrial District, Buffer Area Regulations requires that no building or structure shall be located nearer to any residentially zoned district than a distance equal to one and one half (1 1/) times the height of any building or structure. If approved it would allow a 60 -foot variance to this requirement to the west and a 45 -foot variance to this requirement to the north resulting in a building setback of 15 -feet from the west property line and a building setback of 30 -feet from the north property line. Section 31.1., Light Industrial District, Height, requires that no building or structure located contiguous to an existing single family district shall exceed one story or 35 -feet in height. If approved it would allow a 15 -foot variance to this requirement resulting in a maximum building height of 50 -feet. Section 50.B.1 Screening, requires that where the side, rear, or service side of a non-residential use is adjacent to a single family district, screening of not less than 6 -feet in height shall be erected separating the use from the adjacent residential district. The screening shall consist of a solid masonry, concrete or wood construction. If approved it would eliminate the requirement for screening from the adjacent single family district. Section 53.H.2.b Landscaping Regulations requires that whenever an off-street parking or vehicle use area abuts an adjacent property line, a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 10 feet be maintained between the edge of the parking area and the adjacent property line. In addition, when the adjacent property is zoned or used for residential purposes the landscape buffer shall include a wall, hedge, or berm not greater than 8 -feet in height nor less than 3 - feet in height. If approved it would eliminate the requirement for a wall, hedge, or berm in the landscape buffer area between the edge of the parking areas at the north and west property lines and the adjacent single family zoned property. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found that special conditions existed being the property and the surrounding area was designated as an Industrial/Commercial land use according to the City of Grapevine's Master Plan, even though the surrounding property was actually zoned residential. Mr. Stombaugh explained that the property in question and the surrounding property was never intended to be developed as single family residential. Mr. Stombaugh K Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 noted that when property is newly annexed into the City, it is brought in as R-20, Single Family Zoning District. Ed Kellie, representing Goodwin and Marshall, Inc., 6000 Bridge Street, Fort Worth, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the property was northeast of Pavestone, abuts the diagonal runway of the airport and was east of State Highway 360 by 2000 feet. Mr. Kellie explained that they were requesting to bring this property in line with the commercial development on adjacent property. Mr. Hardy explained that the property was owned by Mr. Stone who had requested his property be deannexed in the late 70's. Mr. Hardy explained that the property was reannexed into Grapevine's city limits in the late '80's. 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, Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition existed for all of the requested variances, being the property and the surrounding area is designated as an Industrial/Commercial land use according to the City of Grapevine's Master Plan, and that the property and the surrounding property has never been intended to be developed as single family residential. 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 approve the following requests to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, as shown on the concept plan: Section 31.H.,Light Industrial District, Buffer Area Regulations allowing a 15 foot variance, resulting in a landscape buffer of 10 feet along the north and west property lines. Section 31.H., Light Industrial District, Buffer Area Regulations allowing a 60 foot variance to the west and a 45 foot variance to the north, resulting in a building setback of 15 feet from the west property line and a building setback of 30 feet from the north property line. Section 31.1, Light Industrial District, Height Regulations, allowing a 15 foot variance, resulting in a maximum building height of 50 feet. 3 Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 Section 50.13.1., Screening, eliminating the requirement for screening from the adjacent single family district. Section 53.H.2.b., Landscaping Regulations eliminating the requirement for a wall, hedge, or berm in the landscape buffer area between the edge of the parking area at the north and west property lines and the adjacent single family zoned property. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Nays: None Absent: Davis Meyer, Luers, Anderson BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-17 JERRY PITTMAN 3701 WILLIAM D. TATE AVENUE Next, the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered BZA98-17, submitted by Jerry Pittman for 3701 William D. Tate Avenue, legally described as G.M. Bell Survey, Abstract 234. The following request was to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 27.1.1, PO, Professional Office Zoning District Regulations which prohibits principal structures in the PO, zoning district adjacent to a R-20, R-12.5, or R-7.5 Zoning Districts from exceeding one story or twenty (20) feet in height. If approved, it would allow an increase in one story and ten (10) feet in height, resulting in a two-story, thirty (30) foot tall office building. Scott Williams explained that Staff found special conditions existed being the topography results in a significant elevation change between the subject site and the adjacent residential district. Mr. Williams also explained that the proposed site had a much higher building pad, making the ordinance requirement of a lower building height inconsequential. Also Mr. Williams explained that the lot was heavily wooded and the applicant wanted to preserve as many trees as possible by reducing the size of the building footprint. Jerry Pittman, applicant, of 342 Pebblebrook, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and presented slides of the property to the Board. Mr. Pittman explained that a brick wall was located on the east side of the property, and on the left were trees five to 10 feet from the property line which should screen the height of a two- story building. Mr. Pittman explained that with the present zoning, a one story building could be built with a twenty-five (25) foot rear setback, but Mr. Pittman explained that he would rather build a two-story building with a sixty (60) foot side 4 Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 and rear setback in order to save as many trees as possible and to provide a larger setback between the building and the residential neighborhood. Richard Simmons of 1972 Northport Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he lived adjacent to the property and was not in favor of the request. Charles Sustek of 3611 Softwind Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was concerned about the drainage from the property. Mr. Sustek also asked if the building plan could be flipped on the property. Mr. Pittman explained that they located the parking lot on the south side of the property because the water will flow over the proposed parking lot into a drainage collector on the east side of the property. Howard Watson of 3603 Softwind Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he would rather have a one-story office building built closer to the property line than a two-story building built farther away from the property line. James Sampognaro of 3610 Park Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was concerned about the trees and wanted some guarantee that all trees and bamboo would be saved. Mr. Sampognaro explained that his lot backed up to the property and felt the additional height of the building would be an advantage and buffer the noise from State Highway 121. Mr. Williams noted that if the Board approved the request, they could require a tree survey documenting that the trees would be saved. Mr. Hardy explained that according to the City of Grapevine Tree Ordinance, 4'/2 foot tall trees with a 3 inch caliber could not be removed beyond the limits of construction. Jeff Kruger of 3602 Park Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he was concerned with the loss of trees and felt the driveway on the west side would create a hazard coming off of State Highway 360. Mr. Pittman noted that he agreed about the drive off of State Highway 360 being a hazard and was looking at a Bear Run entrance. Maureen Simmons of 1972 North Port Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and commented that her property backs up to Mr. Pittman's property and is in favor of the two-story office building. Roy Stewart, 309 Drexel Drive, Grapevine and City Council Representative, took the Oath of Truth and expressed that the proposed two-story office building would be desirable with the 65 foot setbacks from the north and east sides. 9 Building Board of Appeals 6/1198 Andre Hampton of 3606 Park Court, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he lived behind the proposed office building and was concerned about the trees. Mr. Hampton suggested that by adding additional trees would thicken the buffer between the office development and the neighborhood. Mr. Pittman commented that if trees were removed, he would try to replace them. Mr. Hardy commented that Mr. Pittman's development would undergo extensive review by the Engineering Department which would include a drainage plan. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Ery Meyer made a motion to close the public hearing. Carl Hecht 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 exist being the topography results in a significant elevation change between the subject site and the adjacent residential district, the proposed site has a much higher building pad, the lot is heavily wooded and the applicant wishes to preserve as many trees as possible by reducing the size of the building footprint, and having a setback of 65 feet in the rear and side yard setback as shown on the plot plan. 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 approve the request to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 27.1.1., PO, Professional Office Zoning District allowing an increase in one story and ten (10) feet in height, resulting in a two-story, thirty (30) foot tall office building. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis 0 Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-19 RANDY SULLIVAN 2629 JUNIPER LANE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-19, submitted by Randy Sullivan for 2629 Juniper Lane, platted as Lot 38, Block A, Western Oaks III. The following variance request was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.G.2., Single Family District Regulations, Area Regulations which requires a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. If approved, the request would allow a fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard on the west side of the property, resulting in a ten (10) foot rear yard setback from the west property line. Randy Sullivan, applicant of 2400 State Highway 121, Euless, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he had designed the house for himself and designed it to where all trees would be saved on the lot. Mr. Sullivan explained that he felt his hardships were due to the easements, having two rear yard setbacks and wanting to save as many trees as possible. Bill Crandall of 3302 Sweet Gum Lane, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he represented the homeowner's association and was Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee for the neighborhood. Mr. Crandall noted that many of the homeowners were against the request and felt that Mr. Sullivan should have to abide by the zoning regulations. Nevin Cunningham of 3365 Pecan Hollow, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he lived behind the lot in question. Mr. Cunningham explained that he had to change the architecture of his house in order to comply with the 25 foot rear yard setback, and that he opposed the request. Pat Strickland of 3369 Pecan Hollow Ct., Grapevine took the Oath of Truth and explained that to approve the 15 foot variance into the rear easement would be against the spirit of the ordinance and if the request was granted, a precedent could be set. Evelyn Zembrod of 3361 Pecan Hollow, Grapevine took the Oath of Truth and noted that she was against the request. Mr. Sullivan noted that he could build a detached garage that would be only eight feet from the property line and would be in compliance with the ordinance. 9 Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 Randy Howell commented that a detached garage is not living area and does not impact the neighbors like a main residence would being closer to the property line. 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, Ery Meyer made a motion that a special condition does not exist. Carl Hecht 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 May 4, 1998, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1998, meeting. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS Mr. Williams announced that the building permit for Cozymels Restaurant, located on Grapevine Mills Circle East, had been issued. 0 Building Board of Appeals 6/1/98 With no further discussion, Ery made a motion to adjourn. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Davis The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING BOARD 0 CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE DAY 0 1998. CHAIRMAN