Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-06AGENDA CITY OF ' BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, JULY 6,1998, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCILCHAMBERS,D FLOOR 200 SOUTH GRAPEVINE, TEXAS Z I Dili" 91-11:111:14 B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-24, SUBMITTED BY HUGO A. GARDEA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 225 AUSTIN STREET, AND CONSIDERATION OF A BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22,1998, MEETING. BRIEFING BY STAN LOWRY, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST 0 • 41U-3155AT LEAS T -7-40A =1 IN ADVANCE. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL BE MADE TO ASSIST YOUR PREPAREDIN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551.001 et seq. ACTS OF THE 1993 TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS POSTEDON THIS THE 25TH DAY OFJUNE, 1998 5:00 P.M. F U LDI G O ICIAL STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular session, July 6, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice -Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Dennis Luers Member Russell Anderson Member Ron Cook 1 st Alternate Kip Bruner 2nd Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Councilman, Ted Ware, City Attorney, Stan Lowry and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Building Official Gerrie Anderson Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. OATH OF OFFICE Gerrie Anderson administered the Oath of Office to reappointed members, Carl Hecht, Ery Meyer, Dennis Luers and Russell Anderson. NEW BUSINESS BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE 98-22 WILLIAM G. SMITH 5311 ALTACREST COURT The first item of New Business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-22, submitted by William G. Smith for property located at 5311 Altacrest Court. The following request was to 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. Board of Zoning Adjustment 7/6/98 If approved, it would allow a four (4) foot encroachment into the required twenty- five (25) foot rear yard, resulting in a twenty-one (21) foot rear yard setback. Scott Williams explained that Staff found no special conditions existed, as the hardship was self imposed; the addition was constructed without a permit or inspection. Mr. William Smith took the Oath of Truth and explained that his contractor told him that he did not need a permit because there were not going to be any changes to the roof line or foundation. Mr. Smith said that he believed his contractor and let him proceed. Mr. Smith explained that he was in the process of building a new home and needed to sell his current home. He added that his realtor explained to him that he could not sell his home with its illegal addition, without a building permit and inspection. Mr. Smith approached the City concerning a permit and discovered that a variance was required before a permit could be issued. Mr. Smith mentioned that City Staff made an investigation inspection on the addition and there were three items that needed to be brought to code, which had been corrected. He explained that he had his house sold pending the outcome of the meeting. Mr. Hecht pointed out that Mr. Smith, on his written application, stated that his contractor had said "probably" he would not need a permit. Mr. Hecht said that he, the homeowner, should have inquired whether a permit was needed. Mr. Smith again explained that he had asked whether he needed a permit and the contractor said he did not. Randy Howell announced that two letters of protest had been received. At the Board's request Mr. Williams explained that an unenclosed patio cover could project within six (6) feet from the rear property line, but when it was an enclosed portion of the living area of the residence, it becomes a violation when it's less than twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Williams explained that the additional metal patio cover that was built complies with the ordinance. Additionally, Mr. Williams stated that the nature of the foundation construction was not addressed by the ordinance. Randy Howell asked if the slab of the patio with the four concrete columns was independent or integral with the slab of the house. Mr. Smith explained that it was combined with the slab of the house. Mr. Smith explained that there was a concrete beam below the columns, where the wall was located. Russell Anderson asked Mr. Williams what the three items were that needed to be corrected. 2 Board of Zoning Adjustment 7/6198 Mr. Smith explained the three items were two receptacles in the new brick walls, two windows needed safety glass or security film, and three deadbolt locks that needed to be changed to thumblatch locks from the inside. 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: None Randy Howell asked Mr. Williams to clarify the measurement of a roofed patio from the property line. Mr. Williams explained that an unenclosed patio cover, with or without a slab, could extend to within six (6) feet of the property line, but the fact that it was enclosed makes the setback the same as the main structure for the zoning district. Mr. Smith asked to speak again. Carl Hecht made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Smith commented that if he had built a screened -in porch, he would have not needed a variance. Mr. Smith commented that his addition was attractive and because he built an add-on with hard walls, he needed a variance. Carl Hecht then 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: None The Board discussed the fact that Mr. Smith's problem was self-imposed. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Williams if there had been a bay window and not solid to the ground, would that have been in noncompliance? 3 Board of Zoning Adjustment 7/6/98 Mr. Williams explained that a balcony, bay window and chimney may project no more than three (3) feet in front yards and not more than two (2) feet into side or rear yards so an enclosed bay window or enclosed balcony could have projected two (2) feet into the twenty-five (25) foot rear yard. Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Smith's addition encroached four (4) feet into the rear yard. After discussion concerning the difficulty of finding a special condition, Carl Hecht made a motion that no special condition existed. Ery Meyer seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: Howell Absent: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA98-24 HUGO A. GARDEA 225 AUSTIN STREET The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA98-24 submitted by Hugo A. Gardea for 225 Austin Street. The following request was to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.F.2., "R-7.5", Single Family District Regulations requires a minimum 7,500 square foot lot size. The request was to allow a 500 square foot variance. If approved, it would allow a lot size of 7,000 square feet for the existing property. Section 15.G.4., "R-7.5", Single Family District Regulations requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet. The request was for a 15 foot variance. If approved, it would allow a 50 foot lot width for the existing property. Section 42.D., Supplementary District Regulations, requires the side yard on the street side to be the same as required for the front, except on corner lots adjacent to a segment of a side street upon which no property fronts, the minimum side yard shall be 15 feet. This regulation shall not be so interpreted as to reduce the buildable width of a corner lot to less than 28 feet. This requirement results in a 16 foot required side yard for this particular lot. The request was for a 10 foot maximum variance for a proposed residence and garage. If approved it would allow a minimum six (6) foot side yard setback along Austin Street as shown on the plot plan. 0 Board of Zoning Adjustment 716198 Mr. Williams explained that Staff found a special condition existed being the lot was unusually narrow, and the side yard request was consistent with other properties in the area. Mr. Hugo A. Gardea, applicant of 1400 Park Boulevard, #707, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that he intended to build a new house with a historic look. Mr. Gardea mentioned that in the future he would like to build a house to sell on the adjacent lot. Mr. Gardea explained that the frame house he plans to build would be 1,370 square feet with porches on three sides. Randy Howell announced that three letters of approval and three letter of opposition had been received. Mr. Howell also commented that the letters of opposition received felt that the adjacent lot should be bought to make the house conform to the zoning requirements, but Mr. Howell commented that that would not be in keeping with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. 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: None Ery Meyer then made a motion that a special condition existed, being the lot was unusually narrow, the side yard was consistent with other lots in the area and the lot size and subdivision was approved prior to the existing ordinance. Carl Hecht seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the variance requests to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73, Section 15.17.2., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations allowing a lot size of 7,000 square feet for the existing property, Section 15.G.4., ., R-7.5, Single Family District Regulations, allowing a 50 foot lot width for the existing property, and Section 42.D., Supplementary District Regulations, allowing a minimum six (6) foot side yard setback along Austin Street as shown on the plot plan. Russell Anderson seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None Board of Zoning Adjustment 7/6/98 MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the June 22, 1998, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 22, 1998, meeting. Carl Hecht seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None OVERVIEW OF LAWS RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT BY L. STANTON LOWRY Next, Stan Lowry of the City Attorney's office spoke about the powers of the Board and conflict of interest. Mr. Lowry explained that the Board of Zoning Adjustment was different than most boards in that they have the ultimate decision. Mr. Lowry applauded the Board about how they were handling the cases in trying to find elements to determine whether there are or are not special conditions. _ Mr. Lowry spoke on the Powers of the Board, Voting Procedures and Variances. Mr. Lowry explained that the Board could use vegetation as determining a special condition. Mr. Lowry talked about examples of lawsuits concerning the outcome of cases. Mr. Lowry explained that not only the applicant could sue the City, but neighbors, taxpayers and staff. Mr. Lowry told the Board to make sure they have the evidence to determine their decision, and if they feel there is inadequate evidence, to confirm it and deny the case. Mr. Lowry spoke about conflict of interest and suggested that if a Board member has any interest in the case, that member should not participate in the discussion and should certainly not vote. He suggested moving to the audience until the case was over. Mr. Lowry commended the Board on sticking to the rules and stressed the importance of finding elements to make motions of approval or denial. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION Mr. Howell asked about the development of Joe Wright's property, Silverlake Addition, between Dooley Street and North Main. Board of Zoning Adjustment 7/6/98 Mr. Williams explained that the plans had been approved, and construction authorized by the Public Work's Department, but no building permits had been issued. There was discussion about moving the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 1998, to Monday, September 14, 1998. The Board agreed to move the meeting to Monday, September 14, 1998. ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Dennis Luers made a motion to adjourn. Ery Meyer seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Anderson Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING BOARD OF APP ALS OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THE, -5A, -t, DAY OF 1998. 1� SECRETARY 7