The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA2011-11City of Grapevine, TX P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, TX 76099 (817) 410-3165 Voice (817) 410-3012 Fax CONTRACTOR BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT {BZA) Issue Date: August 1, 2011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BZA1 1 -11, Section 43.E.3, Allowing the Relocation of an Existing Pole Sign (APPROVED) PROJECT # (817) 410-3010 WWW.Mygov.us BZA-11-2521 inspections permits LOCATION TENANT LEGAL 604 S Main St. Blagg Tire City Of Grapevine 1131k 14 Grapevine, TX 76051 Lot 1A BZA - BBA - MIB - HELICOPTER 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 (817) 410-3158 Phone OWNER P F Capital Lie 624 E Pipeline Rd Hurst, TX 76053-5937 INFORMATION * APPLICATION STATUS Approved "APPLICANT / TENANT'S Perry Leonard NAME "APPLICANT / TENANT'S 817-454-4183 PHONE NUMBER County Tarrant DESCRIPTION OF WORK Relocate Existing Pole Sign BEING PERFORMED Zoning CBD - Central Business District FEES TOTAL = $ 100.00 BZA APPLICATION FEE $100.00 PAYMENTS TOTAL = $ 100.00 BZA - BBA - MIB - HELICOPTER (City of Grapevine Applicant) ($100.00) Check on 0710712011 Note: CK 18982 MYGOV.US City of Grapevine I BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT {BZA} I BZA-11-2521 Printed 08/26/11 at 3:48 p.m. Page 1 of 1 I I• 0) +Z m STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in regular session, Monday evening, August 1, 2011, at 6:15 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas with the following members present: Ron Cook Secretary Debbie Holt Member Richard Adams Member Ken White Member Robert Rainwater Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present were City Council Representative Roy Stewart, City Attorney, Matthew Boyle, and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Development Services Director / Building Official Ron Stombaugh Planning and Development Manager Albert Triplett Planner II Connie Cook Development Services Assistant sop - Secretary Ron Cook called the Public Hearing Session of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to order at approximately 6:35 P.M. Secretary Cook held roll call and announced that all were present. OATH OF OFFICE Connie Cook administered the Oath of Office to reappointed Member, Ken White, reappointed Secretary, Ron Cook, and new Alternate Robert Rainwater. ELECTION OF OFFICERS For office of Chairman, Richard Adams nominated Debbie Holt. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Adams, Cook, White, Rainwater Nays: None Abstain: Holt Debbie Holt was elected as Chairman. For office of Vice -Chairman, Debbie Holt nominated Richard Adams. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Holt, Cook, White, Rainwater Nays: None Abstain: Adams Richard Adams was elected as Vice -Chairman. For office of Secretary, Debbie Holt re -nominated Ron Cook. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Holt, Adams, White, Rainwater Nays: None Abstain: Cook Ron Cook was re-elected as Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE B ER, 1720 SAGEBRUSH TRAIL The first item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA1 1-06 submitted by Joji Sauer for property located at 1720 Sagebrush Trail, legally described as Lot 9, Block 1, Hood Ridge Estates. Section 42.C.3, Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings requires accessory buildings in a residential district be located on the rear one- half of the lot and at least 10 -feet from any dwelling or building. The applicant requested a special exception allowing construction of a detached accessory structure to be used as a garage to be located in the front one-half of the lot. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, placement of a detached garage in the rear yard was impractical because of the location of the dwelling, the existence of a swimming pool in the rear yard, and the lot was not a typical cul-de-sac configured lot. He stated that the existing dwelling was built in 1979; the carport and swimming pool were built in 2004 and 2009. He went on to state that the available required front yard far exceeded the minimum required setback of 30 -feet, that the detached garage would be approximately 1,440 square feet and would meet all other ordinance requirements. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Raquel Sauer representing property owner Joji Sauer of 1720 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; she explained to the Board that she was representing her father Joji Sauer and offered to answer any questions of the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request. Richard Adams asked if the structure would be all brick and why the structure was so large. She stated that the structure would be all brick and that her father drove a handicap van and there were several drivers in the house. Board of Zoning Adjustment 2 8/1/11 Robert Rainwater asked if there would be a separate approach. Greg Lee, representing property owner Joji Sauer of 2433 FM Road 917, Mansfield, Texas took the Oath of Truth. He stated he was helping the family construct the garage, and in regards to the drive approach; the existing approach would be widened. Mr. Rainwater asked why the structure was so far away from the residence, He stated that they wanted to keep some front yard intact. With no further questions for Ms. Sauer and Mr. Lee, David Bennett of 2102 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; and explained to the Board that he owned the home directly to the left of the proposed detached garage. He explained to the Board that when he was first made aware of the setbacks for the detached garage he did not approve of the location, but had spoken with Mr. Sauer and he had agreed to move it over ten -feet (10'). Mr. Bennett stated that he was not opposed to a garage, but did not like the original location. Some discussion was held regarding the photos that Mr. Bennett submitted. Robert Rainwater asked Mr. Lee how tall the structure would be. He stated that it was eleven -feet (11') to the eaves and thought it was eighteen -feet (18') to the peak. He further stated that Mr. Sauer was not opposed to relocating the structure. Mr. Bennett requested that the Board place a stipulation that if the structure was _allowed that it would be moved over further. Ken White asked Mr. Bennett to clarify if he was requesting the structure be relocated additional ten -feet (10'), he stated that was correct. Mr. Stombaugh clarified that height of structure was measured to mid point of roof and could not be more that sixteen -feet. With no further questions for Mr. Bannister, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, placement of a detached garage in the rear yard was impractical because of the location of the dwelling, the existence of a swimming pool in the rear yard, and the lot was not a typical cul-de-sac configured lot. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Nays: None Absent: None Holt, White, Rainwater Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the following special exception to Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings, allowing construction of a detached accessory structure to be used as a garage to be located in the front one- half of the lot with the stipulation that it be constructed twenty-seven feet (27') from the property line. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 3 Board of Zoning Adjustment >ut„t Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-09, MARK CEGIELSKI, 2111 FOREST HILLS ROAD The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-09 submitted by Mark Cegielski for property located at 2111 Forest Hills Road, legally described as Lot 9, Block 12, Reed Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant requested a special exception allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed and a new garage to be constructed as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff did not find a special condition exist for the requested special exception. Specifically, the proposed encroachment would be the result of a self imposed hardship and would increase the level of nonconformance to the subject site. Triplett explained - t. the Board 1e:..'! `request• r: new - !r r g'. a Staff recommended the Board approve a special exception allowing the existing carport to remain as on plot plan. He stated that records were unavailable to determine when the carport was constructed, and according to the applicant the carport existed when the dwelling was purchased in 2001. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Mark and Cynthia Cegielski of 2111 Forest Hills Road, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth. They explained to the Board that on the north side of the property there were existing mature trees, and on the south side they would have to relocate a sewer line, utility pole and electrical service to the house and two (2) other utilities. There was a lot of traffic due to access to the lake and people were constantly using there driveway to turn around, everything in the carport was exposed. They stated that they traveled a lot with there jobs and felt from a safety prospective they needed to construct a garage. The neighborhood was very eclectic, and they were trying to stay in line with the area. Chairman Holt announced that five (5) letters of approval had been received, along with the petition of 24 names submitted by the applicant. Ron Cook asked where the electrical pole was in relation to the house. Mr. Cegielski stated that it was on the south side of the residence and that a driveway would have to be constructed where the power pole was. He further stated that according to Oncor it would cost approximately $10,000 to relocate the pole and service, there were also two (2) other utilities that would have to be relocated. Mr. Cook asked if they were to remove the carport could a driveway be installed between the power pole and house to allow a detached garage to be constructed in the backyard. He stated that the power pole 4 Board of Zoning AdjWmen[ W,,, would have to be removed; he also stated that they were trying to utilize the existing roofline to make it look like one building. Scott Williams clarified that the power pole was on private property and was an unusual circumstance. With no further questions for Mr. and Mrs. Cegielski, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the subject site was a corner lot developed with a dwelling that was built in 1968. In addition to the dwelling an attached carport and detached accessory structures were present and the lot required a 35 -foot setback adjacent to each street frontage. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White Nays: Rainwater Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the following special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed and a new garage be constructed as shown on the plot plan. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White Nays: Rainwater Absent: None REDBIRD LANE The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-10 submitted by Bob Tatangelo for property located at 3504 Red Bird Lane, proposed to be platted as Lot 12R1, Block 6, Placid Peninsula Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant requested a special exception allowing the existing residential structure to remain as developed as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site was an existing developed lot, and the existing 5 Board of Zoning Adjustment B11111 residential structure was constructed in 1959 prior to the site being annexed within the City of Grapevine. The site was noncompliant with the current zoning ordinance (82-73) relative to the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling. He explained to the Board that the applicant intended to replat the subject site into two (2) lots. The southern portion of the site had a detached garage which was proposed to be remodeled into a single family dwelling, and the northern portion of the site would continue to be used as developed as a single family residence; the existing residence encroached approximately five (5) feet into the required 25 -foot rear yard setback. He stated that when the property was platted as two (2) lots in 1951, the subject site was outside of the City of Grapevine. In 1959 the dwelling was built and the site was incorporated into a second section of the subdivision. In 1966 the property was annexed into the City of Grapevine and in 1994 the subject site was replatted from two (2) lots into one (1) lot for the purpose of building a detached garage. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Bob Tatangelo of 3529 Red Bird Lane, Grapevine, Texas, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he gave a brief presentation to the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request and offered to answer any questions of the Board. With no questions for Mr. Tatangelo, Ms. Lynn Harper of 3421 Red Bird Lane, Grapevine, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; she explained to the Board her concerns regarding the properties becoming rental, if the Tatangelo's had no intentions of living on the property. She also voiced concerns of the replatting of the property. Ms. Holt clarified that the Board was only addressing the issue of the existing residence and it's encroachment into the rear yard setback. Chairman Holt announced that one (1) letter of protest had been received. With no questions for Ms. Harper, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site was an existing developed lot, and the existing residential structure was constructed in 1959 prior to the site being annexed within the City of Grapevine. The site was noncompliant with the current zoning ordinance (82-73) relative to the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the following special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the existing residential structure Board of Zoring Adjustment 6 811111 to remain as developed as shown on the plot plan. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None a. P • • �r • ,.� SOUTH The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-11 submitted by Perry Leonard for property located at 604 South Main Street, legally described as Lot 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine Addition. Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant requested a special exception allowing the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. Mr. Triplett explained that Staff found a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site is an existing developed lot, and rezoning of the property during the 1984 City Rezoning and the development and adoption of a new zoning ordinance (Ord. 82-73) placed the sign in a non -conforming status. He went on to explain that the subject sign, 32.53 feet in height, approximately 210 square feet in size was located adjacent to South Main Street, along the south portion of the site and approximately 50 -feet north of the new Convention and Visitors Bureau Headquarters, at Hudgins Street and South Main Street the sign would be relocated to the northeast corner of the site, to improve the visibility of the sign. Permit records for the original sign were unavailable but according to Tarrant Appraisal District, the building was built in 1966. With no further questions for Mr. Triplett, Perry Leonard of 330 Longview Drive, Keller, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he gave a brief presentation to the Board and requested favorable consideration of his request and offered to answer any questions of the Board. Chairman Holt announced that one (1) letter of approval had been received. With no questions for Mr. Leonard, and no additional speakers, Ken White made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None 7 Board of Zon ng Acjustment 8/1/11 Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition existed for the requested special exception. Specifically, the site was an existing developed lot, and the existing pole sign was in complete compliance under the established guidelines at the time. The subsequent 1984 City Rezoning of the property and adoption of a new zoning ordinance placed the sign in non-conforming status. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to grant the following special exception to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None OAR® OF ZONING A®JUST EI4T CASE BZA11-07, RICHARD ROTHIFELDER, 1701 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114 The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA11-07 submitted by Richard Rothfelder for property located at 1701 West State Highway 114, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition. Section 68.G, Board of Adjustment. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer of the department, board or bureau of the City, affected by any decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer of the City relative to the Zoning Ordinance. Such appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer has been rendered, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record from which the appeal was taken. The applicant requested the Board overturn the decision of the Building Official relative to the illegal alteration of a nonconforming use, specifically a billboard sign. Mr. Williams stated that Staff found no special condition existed to support the request. He went on to explain that CBS Outdoor Inc., owned an off site advertising sign located in front of the Sam's Club store, at 1701 West State Highway 114. On October 25, 2010, a letter was received from the law firm Rothfelder and Falick, L.L.P., which represented CBS Outdoor Inc. The letter requested permission to alter this billboard sign, specifically removing four -feet (4') from the sign that overhung the newly acquired State right-of-way. Board of Zoning Adjustment 8 811/11 On November 10, 2010, the State of Texas awarded damages to the property owner for removal of the sign. In response to the October 25, 2010, letter, the decision of the Building Official was provided to the applicant, delivered through the City Attorney, Boyle and Lowry, on December 8, 2010. This response clearly stated the nonconforming sign could not be moved, altered, or adjusted. Sometime after this decision, the sign was illegally altered. On February 22, 2011, a letter informed CBS Outdoor through their Attorneys; that due to the illegal remodeling of the sign, all legal nonconforming status had been lost. On February 24, 2011, the City Attorney sent the applicant a similar letter. On March 1, 2011, the applicant sent another letter to the City Attorney, admitting that CBS Outdoor altered the sign. On March 8, 2011, an appeal was received in the Development Services Department. The appeal was more than four (4) months after the original decision which stated the sign could not be altered. Mr. Williams stated that the appeal should be denied based on the following documents. Zoning Ordinance Section 68. Board of Adjustment, Paragraph G, required a maximum of fifteen (15) days; this submittal was four (4) months subsequent to that determination. Section 60, Sign Standards of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance did not list billboards or off -premise signage as a permitted use, therefore it could be established that this sign was a nonconforming use. Section 105, Permits, 105.1, of the 2006 International Building Code that was adopted by the City of Grapevine required a permit to enlarge, alter, repair, move or demolish a building or structure. These sign structures were not exempt from the list of "exemptions" in the adopted building code. No building permit was ever requested or received for this illegal alteration. Section 60.A, Sign Standards, Sign Permits of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance required a zoning permit for any alteration or remodeling of a sign. There was no zoning permit to alter or remodel this sign. Section 43.D.2, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance allowed a legal nonconforming use to exist, but did not allow the remodeling or enlargement of that nonconforming use. This nonconforming use was illegally remodeled in violation of this section. Section 43.D.3.b, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance stated: "The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or violation of any Ordinance of the City of Grapevine with respect to a nonconforming use shall terminate immediately the right to operate such nonconforming use." Staff had shown several violations of ordinances that included violation of the Building Code, not obtaining a building permit for the alteration, violation of Zoning Ordinance, altering a sign without a zoning permit and violation of the Zoning Ordinance for alteration of a nonconforming use. 9 Board of Zoning Adjustment 8/1111 Section 43.1.2.C.2, Right-of-way Acquisition by Governmental Agency, Compensation for Noncompliance of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance stated: "The exemption shall not apply to the property if the governmental agency offered compensation to the property owner for demolition, removal, relocation, or replacement of improvements or other measures curative of the violation of the City codes or ordinances caused by the right-of-way acquisition." Mr. Williams stated that this section had been added because the applicant felt that they were subject to relief under this section. The property owner had been offered compensation for the taking of this right- of-way easement. Therefore, exemption from compliance with the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was not applicable. Richard Adams asked Mr. Williams if the alteration took place after the Building Officials letter of December 8, 2010. He stated that it had. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, Richard Rothfelder, with Rothfelder & Falick, LLP, representing CBS Outdoor, of 1201 Louisiana Street, #550, Houston, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he proceeded by handing out his presentation to the Board. Mr. Rothfelder stated that what CBS Outdoor, joined with the State of Texas wanted was to take the billboard that had been permitted and operational since the early 1980's and remove the four -feet (4') that overhung the right-of-way. He stated they were appealing the February 22, 2011, order, not an order that was four (4) months previous on December 8, 2010. He stated that the February 22, 2011, i.ecision was appealed within the required fifteen days (15). He explained to the Board that the widening of State Highway 114 was an important key in this case. The actual billboard pole was outside of the proposed right-of-way but the billboard face overhung four -feet (4) of the new proposed highway. He stated that CBS Outdoor had three (3) alternatives to remedy the situation which were supported by the State of Texas. The first originally addressed in the October 10, 2010 letter to the City, was shifting the face four -feet (4'). The second was to remove the four -foot (4) panel that overhung the right-of-way. The third was to acquire the billboard through eminent domain by condemnation proceedings. He went on to explain the ramifications of not allowing the billboard to remain. CBS Outdoor received a letter from TxDOT dated January 7, 2011, stating aerial encroachments must be eliminated by February 1, 2011. In deference to Grapevine's letter dated December 8, 2010, that stated the face could not be shifted; CBS Outdoor did not do what Mr. Williams said they could not do. They removed the four -foot (4) panel that encroached into the aerial right-of-way. As a result, that triggered the letter of February 22, 2011; which was the subject of today's appeal, not the December 8, 2010, letter. Mr. Rothfelder stated that what was being appealed was not something which happened in December. He further stated this was important because within fifteen (15) days of that decision, notice of appeal was given. It was dated February 28, 2011, responding to the City Attorney who had written a similar letter. The City was advised of CBS Outdoor's intention to appeal in a letter dated March 1, 2011, which included a more exhaustive explanation why the decision was wrong and should be appealed. He went on to explain to the Board why removal of the four -foot (4') panel was something allowed without a permit. He cited City of Grapevine Zoning Ordinance Section 60, and Section 43. He maintained that a sign or substantial part of it was Board of Zordrig Adjustment 10 811/11 considered to have been destroyed only if the cost of repairing the sign was more than sixty (60) percent of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location. He explained to the Board the various cost involved in removal of the four -foot (4) panel, relocating the four -foot (4) panel to the other end of the billboard and the cost of constructing a brand new billboard. He continued to explain Grapevine's regulations Section 43.1 that addressed right-of- way acquisition by Governmental Agencies. He stated in the event a right-of-way acquisition by a Governmental Agency caused a property or it's existing improvements to be in violation of a City Zoning Ordinance, subdivision rule, or other land use regulation or ordinance, the property shall be exempt from the provision to the extent the violation was caused by the right-of-way acquisition, subject to certain conditions that did not exist here. He stated that Mr. Williams pointed out the exemption did not apply because CBS Outdoor had been compensated for the removal of the billboard. He said this was incorrect; CBS Outdoor had not been compensated. He stated that Stacey -Trip had not been compensated by the State of Texas for the elimination of her ground rental income. He also stated CBS Outdoor's exemption for the violation that occurred because of this Governmental Agency property acquisition applied for this case. There had been no compensation paid or offered to CBS Outdoor. Mr. Rothfelder went on to address why he felt CBS Outdoor, was not required to obtain permits for the work performed that caused the billboard to lose its nonconforming status. He specifically questioned the wording used in City regulations in the letter dated February 22, 2011, that ordered the sign to be removed. Section 60A, required a permit when a sign was painted, constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated, or expanded. Sec. 43.D.2, prohibited a sign from being remodeled or enlarged. Section 105.1, which required a permit to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure. He stated that none of these contemplated the activity that occurred, which was decreasing the size of the sign and its nonconformity. He also stated that the word, "modification" used in the February 22, 2011, letter was absent from City regulations. He went on to state that if the Board ruled the billboard to have been enlarged or expanded without a permit that justified the order for removal, he requested the Board consider a variance. He cited Section 68.H.2., that addressed the Boards ability to hear appeals and variance request. Mr. Rothfelder summarized by stating the appeal was timely and had been filed eight (8) days after the letter dated February 22, 2011. Decreasing the size of the sign was not among activities that were prohibited without a permit. It was not enlarged, expanded or modified. He stated that modified was not used in City regulations but was used in the February 22, 2011, letter, which was the subject of this appeal. He stated this was a classic situation for a variance, due to a substantial hardship and a situation where the taxpayers would be forced to pay over two -million dollars in acquisition cost. He requested the Board overturn the decision and grant a variance to allow the billboard to continue to remain as it was right now. Debbie Holt asked Mr. Rothfelder to clarify exactly where he was pulling from the ordinance that remodeling was defined only as an enlargement. She said remodeling was a term that did not define going smaller or larger. The term defined remodeling as a 11 Board of Zordng Adjustmerd &1/11 change. The letters received from the City were clear; change implied larger or smaller. He replied that confusion of words was due to vocabulary used in Grapevine regulations. She stated, no, they were clear, the City Attorney and City Official's letters were very clear that remodeling would be a change; why was a change only important if it was bigger. He stated the reason was the letter addressed an activity that was not the subject of this appeal; the letter prohibited a shifting of the face. Ms. Holt suggested they revisit the December 8, 2010, letter. She stated the City very clearly responded by stating that any alteration of that sign would be a violation, it said nothing about only shifting. He cited the first alternative that was authorized by the State of Texas, for a shifting of the face, "...a monopole sign face overhanging the proposed right-of-way to be shifted to the remainder..." so what was addressed in the letter was to shift the face. She stated it was not TxDOT's regulations that applied. It was the City of Grapevine's Zoning Ordinance that applied. The City of Grapevine stated that no change could be made to a nonconforming use without a permit. Discussion continued regarding clarification of vocabulary. Mr. Rothfelder stated that the choice was to defy the January letter from the State of Texas ordering the aerial encroachment to be removed. But out of deference to the City did not undertake the specific activity that Mr. William and Mr. Boyle stated could not be done. The October 25, 2010, letter asked for permission to shift the face. The City said no, and the face was not shifted. Subsequently a letter was received from the State of Texas ordering the aerial encroachment to be eliminated by February 1, 2011. CBS Outdoor removed the four -foot (4') panel that overhung the right-of-way. This was not an activity that was addressed in either the original request or the original denial, an action that had not been denied. Attorney Matthew Boyle asked Mr. Rothfelder who he was representing. He stated CBS Outdoor. Mr. Boyle asked if he was representing Stacey -Trip. He said no. Mr. Boyle asked if he was writing on behalf of Stacey -Trip and CBS Outdoor, in the letter dated October 25, 2010, and if he was representing Stacey -Trip at that time. He stated Mr. Scott signed the letter or his partner Edward Burbach. Mr. Boyle asked if CBS Outdoor was the client he was representing tonight and if their interest in this matter was currently the subject of an eminent domain case. He stated yes it was. Mr. Boyle asked if a good faith offer had been made by the State of Texas to CBS Outdoor, prior to the filing of the states eminent domain petition. He stated they did not. Mr. Boyle asked if they had appealed the Special Commissioners ruling. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if the sign in question had been altered since December 8, 2010. He stated that it had not. The face size had been reduced which was allowed under Grapevine's regulations without a permit. Robert Rainwater asked Mr. Rothfelder if any remedies were pursued with the State of Texas as far as variances to the right-of-way prior to starting procedures with the City of Grapevine. Mr. Rothfelder stated that there were no variance procedures under TxDOT's regulations other than the procedure under 21.160 to accommodate the road widening by either the shifting or face reduction. With no further questions for Mr. Rothfelder, Sejin Brooks, Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Texas, 300 West 15th Street, Austin, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; he stated that the State of Texas did not compensate nor make an offer to CBS Board of ZoNng Acgustmerd 12 811111 Outdoor. He stated the parties did file objections and if one party objected all parties are allowed to object. He acknowledged that the State of Texas had no jurisdiction in this case; and was a City of Grapevine issue. He went on to explain the procedures of eminent domain cases. Debbie Holt asked Mr. Brooks if the State of Texas told CBS Outdoor, how to address the concern. He stated the State of Texas told CBS Outdoor, to address the concern; the overhang in the right-of-way had to be removed, and as soon as the right-of-way lines were removed the State of Texas had no more interest. She asked if the State of Texas acknowledged the City of Grapevine's right to regulate the areas within their boundaries. He stated absolutely. Attorney Matthew Boyle asked Mr. Brooks if TxDOT condemned the billboard itself in regards to the eminent domain case. Mr. Brooks stated there was an overhang and the State of Texas filed suit against CBS Outdoor. Mr. Boyle asked if the State of Texas was looking and seeking to acquire by eminent domain a right to enter the property, with the sole purpose of removing all of said two (2) outdoor advertising signs. Mr. Brooks stated yes, the State of Texas had removed the Clear Channel Sign, but with the CBS Outdoor sign the only way the State of Texas could address it was to sue for the entire structure. Mr. Boyle asked if all statutory prerequisites were achieved in advance of filing the eminent domain petition on behalf of the State of Texas. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if that included making a good faith offer as required by law. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if CBS Outdoor had appealed the award of the Special Commissioner. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Brooks if the following excerpt was from an e-mail he had sent Mr. Rothfelder on February 23, 2011, "....TxDOT did not have jurisdiction over whether or not the sign was currently legal, to include the setback issue, as those were issues that were the City ordinances of the City of Grapevine...." he stated that was correct. With no further questions for Mr. Brooks, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition did not exist to support the request. MIA= seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams then made a motion to deny the request to overturn the decision of the Building Official relative to the illegal alteration of a nonconforming use. Ron Cook seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 13 Board of Zoning Adjustment Nt/7t Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE BZA11-08, RICHARD ROTHIFELDER, 1701 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114 The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA1 1-08 submitted by Richard Rothfelder for property located at 1701 West State Highway 114, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition. Section 43.D.2., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses allows a nonconforming use to be occupied, used, and maintained in good repair, but it shall not be remodeled or enlarged except as hereinafter provided. The applicant requested a variance for the illegal remodeling of a nonconforming use; specifically the removal of a four -foot (4') section of a billboard sign, and to add four -feet (4') to the opposite end of the sign. Section 43.F., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Limlitations of Changing Nonconforming Uses prohibits changing a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, and prohibits expanding a nonconforming use. The applicant cited Section 43.F., as a section of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requiring a variance. However, the City had never contended that there was a violation of this section of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that Staff addressed Section 43.F., because the applicant listed it in their request. The City had never contended that there had been any expansion of a nonconforming use. However in deference to the applicant, Staff included it in this request. Mr. Williams stated that Staff found no special condition existed to support the request. He went on to explain that CBS Outdoor Inc., owned an off site advertising sign located in front of the Sam's Club store, at 1701 West State Highway 114. On October 25, 2010, a letter was received from the law firm Rothfelder and Falick, L.L.P., which represented CBS Outdoor Inc. The letter requested permission to alter this billboard sign, specifically the removal of four -feet (4) from the sign that overhung the newly acquired State right-of-way. On November 10, 2010, the State of Texas awarded damages to the property owner for removal of the sign. In response to the October 25, 2010, letter, the decision of the Building Official was provided to the applicant, delivered through the City Attorney, Boyle and Lowry, on December 8, 2010. This response clearly stated the nonconforming sign could not be Board of Zoning Adjustment 14 8/1111 moved, altered, or adjusted. Sometime after this decision, four -feet (4') of the sign had been removed. On February 22, 2011, a letter informing CBS Outdoor, through there Attorneys, that due to the illegal remodeling of the sign, all legal nonconforming status had been lost. On February 24, 2011, the City Attorney sent the applicant a similar letter. On March 1, 2011, the applicant sent a letter to the City Attorney, admitting that CBS Outdoor altered the sign. On March 8, 2011, an appeal was received in the Development Services Department, more than four (4) months following the original decision that the sign could not be altered. Mr. Williams stated that the variance request must be denied based on the following: Section 68.H.3., Board of Adjustment, of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides the Board of Adjustment to authorize upon appeal in special cases, such variances from the terms of this Ordinance as would not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the provision of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The literal enforcement of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Any hardship was clearly self-imposed as the applicant's client knowingly and willfully proceeded in illegal remodeling and altering of a nonconforming use in disregard of the written direction and decision of the Building Official and City Attorney. Furthermore, the property owner's interest in the sign had been condemned by the Texas Department of Transportation, which would ultimately lead to the applicant being fully compensated for the removal of the sign. This case did not meet any established thresholds for a variance request. It was Staff's contention that the Board was not obligated to hear this case, because it was not timely appealed. Section 60, Sign Standards of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance did not list billboards as an approved use in the zoning ordinance; therefore this sign was considered a nonconforming use. Section 105 Permits, 105.1 of the 2006 International Building Code stated, "Any owner or authorized agent who intended to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, shall obtain a permit." No permits were ever applied for or issued. Mr. Williams stated there were engineered plans submitted for the illegal alteration in the Board's packet that showed a four -foot (4) removal of the portion that overhung the right-of-way. They were sealed by a State of Texas Professional Engineer and showed structural elements removed with reference to the 2006 International Building Code adopted by the City of Grapevine. 15 Board of Zondng Adjustment 8/1/1 t Section 60.A, Sign Standards, Sign Permits of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance required a zoning permit for any remodeling of a sign. There was no zoning permit to alter or remodel this sign. Section 43.D.2, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance allowed a legal nonconforming use to exist, but did not allow the remodeling or enlargement of that nonconforming use. This nonconforming use was illegally remodeled in violation of this section. Section 43.D.3.b, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance stated: "The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or violation of any Ordinance of the City of Grapevine with respect to a nonconforming use shall terminate immediately the right to operate such nonconforming use." Staff had shown several violations of ordinances that included violation of the Building Code, not obtaining a building permit for the alteration, violation of Zoning Ordinance, altering a sign without a zoning permit and violation of the Zoning Ordinance for alteration of a nonconforming use. Section 43.1.2.C.2, Right-of-way Acquisition by Governmental Agency, Staff contended this was not applicable in this case as there was compensation through the award of the Special Commissioners to the property owner. With no questions for Mr. Williams, Richard Rothfelder, with Rothfelder & Falick, LLP, representing CBS Outdoor of 1201 Louisiana Street, #550, Houston, Texas, took the Oath of Truth; Mr. Rothfelder stated time could be saved by incorporating comments of case number BZAI 1-07 as well as written materials that had already been distributed to the Board. He requested that all background and legal issues applicable only to the variance request under case number BZA1 1-08 be reflected. Mr. Rothfelder explained TxDOT's and the State of Texas means to accommodate highway improvements. He stated CBS Outdoor, preferred the alternative of shifting the face of the sign as addressed in the October 25, 2010 letter to the City. This was denied in the City's letter dated December 8, 2010. The State ordered CBS Outdoor, to eliminate aerial encroachments by February 1, 2011. CBS Outdoor, in accordance with the State's letter removed a four -foot (4') panel that overhung the aerial encroachment. That removal triggered letters from the Building Official and City Attorney on February 22, 2011, and February 24, 2011, stating the act was an illegal modification. He stated the term; "modification" was not among the prohibited activities without a permit. The letters further stated removal of the four -foot (4) panel was illegal and terminated the non -conforming use and ordered the billboard to be removed. Mr. Rothfelder stated that within fifteen (15) days of the letter from the City dated February 22, 2011, CBS Outdoor, gave notice of appeal, and for this particular case gave notice of its intent to seek a variance. CBS Outdoor, provided notice in a letters dated February 28, 2011, and supplemented with March 1, 2011, and March 8, 2011. Mr. Rothfelder quoted various sections of the City of Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 68.H.3, explaining why the Board should grant a variance. He stated the spirit of the ordinance would be preserved; the ordinance was not to enlarge or enhance non conformities, and the nonconformity had actually been decreased. He went Board of Zoning Adjustment 16 811/11 on to say that the sign had been there 30 years and if allowed to remain would save taxpayers approximately four -million dollars. He requested that the billboard be allowed to remain in its current configuration and in the interest of equity and justice that a variance be granted. Richard Adams asked Mr. Williams if the Board followed Staff's recommendation what would be the implications. Mr. Williams stated that would be up to the applicant. The question was then redirected to Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle stated the variance would be denied based on the Board's prior decision and testimony of Mr. Williams. The City's position was the sign had been illegal ever since the illegal modification or alteration of the sign. The Board's prior decision upheld Staff and the Building Official's decision. In the absence of a variance the sign would remain illegal and would be pending the eminent domain case brought forward by TxDOT. With no further questions for Mr. Williams, or Mr. Boyle, and no additional speakers, Richard Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Adams asked Mr. Boyle if it was the City Attorney's position that a variance not be granted based on the nonconforming status. Mr. Boyle stated he was only there in his capacity as the Assistant City Attorney advocating on behalf of Staffs position. Debbie Holt asked Mr. Williams if a case could be re -filed as a nonconforming use. Mr. Williams deferred the question to Mr. Boyle, but stated only if the case was substantially different. Mr. Boyle stated he thought the Board was asking a hypothetical question as to what the applicant may or may not do in response to the Board's decision and was not able to answer. Ms. Holt asked Mr. Boyle to clarify why the City had nonconforming uses. Mr. Boyle advised Staff to reopen the Public Hearing so questions could be asked of Mr. Williams, Mr. Rothfelder or anyone else who might provide rebuttal. Richard Adams made a motion to re -open the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Williams what his position was regarding the sign as it was today. Mr. Williams stated that the sign was an illegal nonconforming use that had lost all of its nonconforming status due to the illegal alteration and remodeling. Mr. Boyle asked if the fundamental premise behind the provision that stated a legal nonconforming use could not be changed without permission was in order to specifically avoid situations like this. He stated that it was and read Section 43.1), of the City of Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Boyle asked if what the applicant effectively was asking for 17 Board o, Zor®rg Ad ustmerd BJ,t„ amounted to a waiver of something that had become illegal as a result of their own action. He stated that in his opinion it was. Mr. Boyle asked; if it would be consistent or not consistent with Chapter 43, to grant a variance allowing somebody who did something illegally to effectively get away with that illegal action. He stated that Staff felt they not be allowed to get away with it and the nonconforming use be terminated. Mr. Boyle asked if variances in general were not granted when the proposition for the variance was necessitated by the applicant's own action. He stated that was Staff's contention. Mr. Boyle opened the floor for any statements or questions. Mr. Rothfelder stated that he wanted to focus on Mr. Williams' contention that the violation was caused by the applicant CBS Outdoor. Mr. Rothfelder asked about the Grapevine regulations provided in Section 43.1. Mr. Williams stated the property owner was compensated as part of the State's eminent domain case. Mr. Rothfelder had no additional questions for Mr. Williams, but requested that Mr. Brooks testify to a question. Mr. Rothfelder asked Mr. Brooks if CBS Outdoor had been compensated for the removal of the billboard. Mr. Brooks stated they had not. Ms. Holt asked Mr. Brooks if there was a means for CBS Outdoor to be compensated. Mr. Brooks stated yes, through a jury verdict. Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Brooks if CBS Outdoor was a named Defendant in the pending eminent domain case. He stated that was correct. Mr. Boyle asked if they had appealed the Special Commissioners hearing ruling. He stated yes, all parties appealed. Mr. Boyle asked if Stacey -Trip was one of those who appealed. He stated yes. Mr. Boyle asked if he recalled what the Special Commissioners results were. He stated Stacey -Trip was awarded approximately 1.5 million dollars. With no questions # Boyle,• no additional r . w r Adams made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Rainwater seconded t motion which prevailed by the following vote: I Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None Richard Adams made a motion that a special condition did not exist to support the request, and deny the variance request to Section 43.D.2. and Section 43.17, Nonconforming r •Structures.Robert Rainwaterseconded the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the May 5, 2011, Briefing Session and Public Hearing. Ron Cook made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 5, 2011, Briefing Session and Public Hearing, Ken White seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 1 Board of Zoning Adjustment 811/11 Ayes, Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays.; None Absent: None ADJOURNMENT With no further discussion, Richard Adams made a motion to adjourn. Ken White seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Adams, Holt, White, Rainwater Nays: None Absent: None The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 P.M. E Lei I VA 191 alfANK mew M,- Aw SECRETARY Board of Zoning Adjustment19 8/1/11 August 2, 2011 Perry Leonard 604 South Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 RE: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA11-11 604 South Main Street, legally described as Lot 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine Mr. Leonard, This letter confirms on August 1, 2011, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved the following request: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zonin,v Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming The Board approved a special exception to allow the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. Please do not hesitate contacting our office if you have any questions. A copy of the minutes will be available after they have been approved at the next regular Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. If you need a copy for your records, please contact Connie Cook at 817-410-3158. nk you, S<-ott Williams De4 � e pment Services Director/ Building Official cc: Don Ellison, Plans Examiner Allen Hunt, Plans Examiner DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of Grapevine - P.O. Box 95104 - Grapevine, Texas 76099 - (817) 410-3154 Fax (817) 410-3018 - www.grapevinetexas.gov MEMORANDUM CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1, 2011 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2011 At their August 1, 2011 meeting, the Board of Zoning Adjustment acted on the following case: BZA1 1-06 — J2ji Sauer, 1720 Sagebrush Trail, legally y described as Lot 9, Block 1, Hood Ridge Estates The Board approved the followinq request: Section 42.C.3, Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings requires accessory buildings in a residential district be located on the rear one- half of the lot and at least 10 -feet from any dwelling or building. The Board approved a special exception to allow the construction of an accessory structure to be used as a garage to be located in the front one-half of the lot, with the provision that the structure maintains a twenty-seven foot side yard setback from the western property line. BZA1 1-09 — Mark Ceqielski, 2111 Forest Hills Road, legally described as Lot 9, Block 12, Reed Addition The Board approved the following request: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The Board approved a special exception to allow the existing residential structure to remain as developed and a new garage to be constructed as shown on the plot plan. BZA11-10 — Bob Tatangelo, 3504 Red Bird Lane, proposedtobe platted as Lot 121111, Block 6, Placid Peninsula Addition The Board_ approved the following request: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. 0A8ZM201 IXCRyManagarOut-me The Board approved a special exception to allow the existing residential structure to remain as developed as shown on the plot plan. BZA11-11-- Perry Leonard, 604 South Main Street, legally described as Lot IA, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine The Board approved the following request: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The Board approved a special exception to allow the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. BZA11-07 - Richard Rothfelder, 1701 West State Highway 114, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition The Board denied the following request: Section 68.G, Board of Adjustment. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer of the department, board or bureau of the City, affected by any decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer of the City relative to the Zoning Ordinance. Such appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer has been rendered, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record from which the appeal was taken. On December 8, 2010, the Building Official issued a written determination that the billboard could not be "moved, altered, or adjusted." As you affirmed during the hearing, that determination was never challenged. Contrary to this determination, the billboard was in fact altered through the removal of a four foot section of the billboard. No permit was sought or obtained for the work on the billboard. The billboard previously held the status of being legal nonconforming. As a result of the non -permitted and illegal work on the sign, the billboard lost its legal nonconforming status and is now an illegal billboard. By denying your request to overturn this determination, the Board affirmed the decision of the building official. BZAII-08 - Richard Rothfelder, 1701 West State Highway -114, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition The Board denied the following request: Section 43.D.2., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses allows a nonconforming use to be occupied, used, and maintained in good repair, but it shall not be remodeled or enlarged except as hereinafter provided. O:\BZA\2011XC RyM anagerO utwme The Board denied a variance that would have allowed for the alteration or remodeling of a nonconforming use; specifically the removal of a four -foot (4') section of a billboard sign, and/or to add four -feet (4') to the sign. Section 43.F., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Limitations of Changing Nonconforming Uses prohibits changing a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, and prohibits expanding a nonconforming use. The Board denied a variance request to Section 43.F., as a section of the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requiring a variance. The Board ruled that no special condition existed to support the requested variance or special exception. The hardship in question was self imposed. The variance sought to continue an illegal use, and use based variances are not permitted by law. ON3ZAX201 1 \ChyManagerOutmme AGENDA • F; CITY OF SESSIONBRIEFING BOARD • •ADJUSTMENT MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST i 6:00 PLANNING AND ZONING CONFERENCEROOM SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 11 SOUTH GRAPEVINE, A Board • • Adjustment to conduct briefing session : • discuss items scheduled to be heard in the August 1, 2011public hearing. Hill aw . . • • A - •, •: • C. 111HA0116'1f.0111 i AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 1, 2011 AT 6:15 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS III 1�9711 9 M tQ41:1 a Lai • A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-06, submitted by Joji Sauer, for property located at 1720 Sagebrush Trail, and consideration of same. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-09, submitted by Mark Cegielski, for property located at 2111 Forest Hills Road, and consideration of same. C. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-10, submitted by Bob Tatangelo, for property located at 3504 Red Bird Lane, and consideration of same. D. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZA11-11, submitted by Perry Leonard, for property located at 604 South Main Street, and consideration of same. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZAI 1 -07, submitted by Richard Rothfelder representing owner CBS Outdoor, Inc, for property located at 1701 West State Highway 114, and consideration of same. F. Board , • • Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case BZAI 1-08, submitted by Richard Rothfelder representing owner CBS Outdoor,for property located at 1701• 4 and consideration of VI. MINUTES Board • • • Adjustment to consider the minutes of 2011 meeting and take any necessary action. +r ! IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING ArID DISABILITY THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT (817) 410- 3158 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 ACTS t• . LEGISLATURE, THE :•A'i OF • ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AT P ! ,, Y .�� ,� '� n , �.a'M F F I i I A ; • IT R 1111 T1 =•. MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES \ BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER ALBERT L. TRIPLETT JR, PLANNER II SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA11-11 604 SOUTH MAIN STREET Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the following special exception to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for property located at 604 South Main Street, platted as Lot 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine Addition as follows: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. F'i*o-.Vwelip1��t�I A Staff finds that a special condition exists for the special exception requested. Specifically, the site is an existing developed lot, and rezoning of the property during the 1984 City Rezoning and the development and adoption of a new zoning ordinance (Ord. 82-73) placed the sign in a non -conforming status. The subject sign, (32.53 feet in height, approximately 210 square feet in size) is adjacent to South Main Street, along the south portion of the site and approximately 50 -feet north of the new CVB Headquarters at Hudgins and Main Street. It is intended to relocate the sign to the northeast corner of the site, to improve the visibility of the sign along North Main Street. Sign permit records for the original sign are unavailable but according to Tarrant Appraisal District the building was built in 1966. The property is currently zoned "CBD" Central Business District. The application was submitted by property owner Perry Leonard. O:\BZA\2011 \Cases\BZA11-11.4 1 inch = 42 feet F- U) U W D U CBD Subject Property W COLLEGE ST - E COLLEGE ST R-7.5 w - z n s u Q GU L/ d n T L/ a CBD GU 0 1 inch= 100 feet r91111111 . ��U � 0�U��RIFY IN�. PART 1.APPLICANT INFORMATION ��F� /�� r��J|hJ(� ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ^~~~, ^^ `�� ~�^ "_~^.~."~~ ^ `^��^�^+ / m'�_/a . Applicant Name: PFCapital (BbggTire &Service) Applicant Address: [604SK4ain3treet City/State/Zip Grapevine, Texas 7605l Phone No. 817-481-4578 Fax No. [817-481-236� Email Address Mobile Phone Applicant's interest in subject property �Re|ucateexisting pole Goodyear sign tonorth side ofproperty toincrease visibility PART 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Property Owner JPF Capital _ Prop Owner Address 1604 S Main Street City/State/Zip f6rapevne,Texas 7d0 l PhoneNo. F8l7-454-4183 FoxNo� F7'7961O97 Part 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Street Address ofsubject property 604 S Main Street Legal Description: Lot�l A Block [144 Addition [Orig�ina�TownonofGmpevinFe � Please attach Survey ofthe Subject Property 4. List the pertinent Section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance and indicate the specific variance amounts being requested. If necessary, use aseparate sheet: 5. 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. 6. 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. t 9 I 7. Attach a detailed diagram of the site drawn to scale, and any other drawings or photographs 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 0FTHE PUBLIC HEARING DATES. BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE AGENDA, YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE RESCHEDULED TO A LATER DATE. [Perryy Leonard >40 Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature The State of } County of Beh�neme(no�/�� y| /\ _ unthisdnypor ona|�appeared(app|ivanU| le, 01 Y'<kYA known tome(or proved tomeonthe oath ofcard mother document) tobethe person whose name issubscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given ur PF Capital Print Property Owner's Name The State of day of .A.O.r- 21() /_\ Notary In and For State of ------------- �'- �14�gp Property Owner's Signature County of Before me(nohary) on known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, day of A.D (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office thisr-��— �� Notary In and For State of terminated by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with provisions of Section 67A of this Ordinance. E. CHANGING NONCONFORMING USES: Any nonconforming use may be changed to a conforming use, and once such change is made, the use shall not thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use. 2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a change of use from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use provided such change is to a use permitted in a zoning district where the original nonconforming use would be permitted, or provided that such change is to a use permitted in a more restrictive classification. However, such change of use and occupancy shall not tend to prolong the life of a nonconforming use. Upon review of the facts in accordance with Section 67A, the Board of Adjustment may establish a specific period of time for the return of the occupancy to a conforming use. 3. The Board of Adjustment may approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use when such an enlargement would not tend to prolong the life of the nonconforming use. Upon review of the facts, the Board of Adjustment may establish a specific period of time for the return of the occupancy to a conforming use. F. LIMITATIONS ON CHANGING NONCONFORMING USES: No nonconforming use shall be changed to another nonconforming use, which requires more off-street parking spaces or off-street loading space than the original nonconforming use, unless additional off-street parking and loading space is provided so as to comply with the requirements of Sections 55 and 56. The number of dwelling units or rooms in a nonconforming residential use shall not be increased so as to exceed the number of dwelling units or rooms existing on the effective date of this Ordinance. No nonconforming use may be expanded or increased beyond the lot or tract upon which such nonconforming use is located as of the effective date of this ordinance except to provide off-street loading or off-street parking space upon approval of the Board of Adjustment. All nonconforming uses being expanded under the provisions of this Ordinance shall comply with the other applicable provisions of this Ordinance. G. TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: 1. In the event of damage or destruction of a nonconforming structure to the 011910 3 Section 43 July 15, 2011 Ms. Christine Lopez Fort Worth Star Telegram P.O. Box 1870 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 RE: Grapevine Account # CIT 25 Dear Ms. Lopez, Please find enclosed the following for publication on Sunday, July 17, 2011, in the Northeast Edition of the Neighborhood Extra Section of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. (One time only) Item Notice of Public Nearing: BZA11-06, Joji Sauer BZA11-07, Richard Rothfelder BZA11-08, Richard Rothfelder BZA11-09, Mark Cegielski BZA11-10, Bob Tatangelo BZA11-11, Perry Leonard August 1, 2011 August 1, 2011 August 1, 2011 August 1, 2011 August 1, 2011 August 1, 2011 As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (817) 410-3158. Sincerely, Ron Stombaugh Planning & Development Manager CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS On Monday evening, August 1, 2011 at 6:15 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Grapevine will hold a public hearing to consider the following items: Case Number/Name: BZA11-06 Applicant: Joji Sauer Location: 1720 Sagebrush Trail, Lot 9, Block 1, Hood Ridge Estates Current Zoning: "R-7.5" Single Family District Proposal: The request is for the following special exception to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.3, Supplementary District Regulations, Accessory Buildings which requires that accessory buildings in a residential district shall be located on the rear one-half of the lot and at least ten feet from any dwelling or building. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow construction of an accessory structure to be used as a garage to be located in the front one-half of the lot and if approved by the Board will allow a detached garage in the front one-half of the lot. Case Number/Name: BZA11-07 Applicant: Richard Rothfelder Location: 1701 West State Highway 114, Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Current Zoning: "CC" Community Commercial District Proposal: The request is for the following appeal to the Building Official's decision to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 68.G, Board of Adjustment. The applicant is requesting the Board overturn the decision of the Building Official relative to the illegal alteration of a nonconforming use. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer of the department, board or bureau of the City, affected by any decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer of the City relative to the Zoning Ordinance. Such appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision of the building inspector or other administrative officer has been rendered, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record from which the appeal was taken. Case Number/Name: BZA1 1-08 Applicant: Richard Rothfelder • 1701 West State Highway 114, Lot 2, Block 1, Wal-Mart Current • "CC" Community Commercial District Proposal- The request is for the following variance's to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43,D.2, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Termination of Nonconforming Uses allows a nonconforming use to be occupied, used, and maintained in good repair, but it shall not be remodeled or enlarged except as hereinafter provided. The applicant is requesting a variance for the illegal remodeling of a nonconforming use; specifically the removal of a four -foot (4) section of a billboard sign, and to add four -feet (4) to the opposite end of the sign. Section 435, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Limitations of Changing Nonconforming Uses. Case Number/Name: BZA1 1-09 Applicant: Mark Cegielski Location: 2111 Forest Hills Road, Lot 9, Block 12, Reed Addition Zoning: "R-12.5" Single Family District Proposal: The request is for the following special exception to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3, Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. If approved by the Board the existing residential structure would be allowed to remain as developed and a new garage to be constructed as shown on the plot plan. Case Number/Name: BZA1 1 -10 Applicant: Bob Tatangelo Location: 3504 Red Bird Lane, proposed to be platted as Lot 12R1, Block 6, Placid -Peninsula Addition Zoning: "R-7.5" Single Family District Proposal: The request is for the following special exception to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3, Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. If approved by the Board the existing residential structure would be allowed to remain as developed as shown on the plot plan. Case Number/Name: BZA1 1-11 Applicant: Perry Leonard Location: 604 South Main Street, Lot 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine Current Zoning: "CBD" Central Business District Proposal: The request is for the following special exception to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3, Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant is requesting the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the plot plan. After all parties have been given an opportunity to speak, the public hearing will be closed and the Commission will deliberate the pending matters. Please contact the Department of Development Services concerning any questions, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, 76051 or P.O. Box 95104, Grapevine, Texas, 76099, 817-410-3158. Connie Cook - RE: August News Notice From: "Lopez, Christine" < To: Connie Cook <Ccook@grapevinetexas.gov> Date: 7/15/2011 11:58 AM Subject: RE: August News Notice ad received O Christine Lopez Star -Telegram Legal Advertising 400 W 7th Street Ft Worth, Texas 76102 Phone: 817-390-7522 Fax: 817-390-7520 From: Connie Cook [mailto:Ccook@grapevinetexas.gov] Sent: Friday, July 15, 20118:35 AM To: Lopez, Christine Subject: August News Notice To be published in Sunday, July 17, 11 paper. Thanks Connie Star -Telegram 400 W. 7TH STREET FORT WORTH, TX 76102 (817)390-7761 Federal Tax ID 26-2674582 Bill To: CITY OF GRAPEVINE SECRETARY PO BOX 95104 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099-9704 BEN CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS On Mo Sales Discount Misc .Fee THE STATE OF TEXAS County of Tarrant I3580 Customer ID: CIT25 Invoice Number: 316864251 Invoice Date: 7/17/2011 Terms: Net due in 21 days Due Date: 7/31/2011 PO Number: Order Number: 31686425 Sales Rep: 073 Description: CITY OF GRAPEVI Publication Date: 7/17/2011 1 166 166 LINE $3.62 $600.92 ($278.92) $10.00 Net Amount: $332.00 Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, this day personally appeared Deborah Baylor Norwood, Bid and Legal Coordinator for the Star -Telegram, published by the Star -Telegram, Inc. at Fort Worth, in Tarrant County, Texas; and who, after being duly sworn, did depose and say that the attached clipping of an advertisement was publish e n the above named paper on the listed dates: BIDS & LEGAL DEPT. STAR TELEGRAM (817)215-2323 ( \ — C_% *--I r SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, THIS Monday, July Notary C) Thank You For Your Payment ----------------------------------- --------- Remit ---..._--___---,_..--._--------------------...._----- Remit To: Star -Telegram P.O. BOX 901051 FORT WORTH, TX 76101-2051 Customer ID: CIT25 Customer Name: CITY OF GRAPEVINE SECR Invoice Number: 316864251 Invoice Amount:. $332.00 PO Number: Amount Enclosed: RW • N !X9J 2Fk4J Because you are a property owner within 200 feet of the subject tract of land as shown by the last City -approved tax rolls, you received this notice If you cannot or do not wish to attend the public hearing, the attached form is provided for your convenience. Purpose of Request: The applicant has submitted an application to the Department of Development Services for 604 South Main Street, legally described as Lot 1A, Block 14, Original Town of Grapevine. The following variance is to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling and/or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow the relocation of an existing pole sign as shown on the site plan. MONDAY, WHAT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET 1. City Staff Introduction of Case and Applicant 2. Applicant and Other Speakers' Presentation 3. Public Input from Neighborhood Associations, Property Owners within 200 feet, Interested Citizenry 4. Questions from Board of Zoning Adjustment for Applicants, City Staff and Guests Present 5. Public Hearing Closing 6 Determining if a Special Condition Exists 7. Vote 02 W COLLEGE ST R-7.5 4 from vm um me smanAwam"MI-0 GU 1 inch = 100 feet r i= E COLLEGE ST GU • .. • • • I will 9:3 ' •Z I J, Lei ROM1 As (a Property Owner within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citizen), I (approve) (protest) and/or (have the following comments) Print Name, Address, City, Zip, Lot, Block and Subdivision: Signature: Mail responses to: • Telephone: 817-410-3158 Fax: 817-410-3018 Board of Zoning Adjustment Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P. O. Box 95104 Grapevine, TX 76099 O:\BZA\2011 \Cases\BZA11-11.3 Direct questions/deliver responses to: Planning & Building Inspections Division Department of Development Services City of Grapevine 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 1 inch = 128 feet ' - . Itmid 'L01,414 . Is. Applicant: Perry Leonard Case No.: BZA11-11 Address/Legal Description: 604 South Main Street s, ®- e e U33�•e��Ec=•• Grapevine, City Of 210 W College St Lipscomb, Joe E & M Suzanne Blk 4 Lot 4 210 W College St CBD Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 520 S Main St Grapevine Main Street Ltd Blk 4 Lots 2 & 3B 7 Village Cir Ste 200 CBD Westlake Tx 76262 Grapevine, City Of 520 S Main St Grapevine Main Street Ltd Blk 4 Lots 2 & 3B 7 Village Cir Ste 200 CBD Westlake Tx 76262 Grapevine, City Of 530 S Main St Hubert Trust The Blk 4 Lot 3A 1833 Bedford Rd CBD Bedford Tx 76021 Grapevine, City Of 601 S Main St Harry Hines Medical Center Ltd Blk 15 Lot C 2331 Gus Thomasson Rd Ste 126 CBD Dallas Tx 75228 Grapevine, City Of 203 W College St P F Capital Llc Blk 14 Lot 2A 624 E Pipeline Rd CBD Hurst Tx 76053 Grapevine, City Of 215 W College St Cmpa-Eagle Inc Blk 14 Lot 2B PO Box 1178 CBD Grapevine Tx 76099 Grapevine, City Of 616 S Main St Kamprath, Jeffrey L & Ellen A Blk 14 N50'S111'1 2306 Carlisle Ave CBD Colleyville Tx 76034 Grapevine, City Of 523 S Main St S E Acqustion Of Texas Inc Blk 16 Lots B & C PO Box 829000 CBD Dallas Tx 75382 Grapevine, City Of 620 S Main St City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau Blk 14 S46.5'1 1 Liberty Park Piz GU Grapevine Tx 76051 Yates & Jenkins Addition 630 S Main St # A City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau Blk 14 Lot 9R 1 Liberty Park Piz GU Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 627 S Church St Grapevine, City Of Blk 14 S149'6 PO Box 95104 GU Grapevine Tx 76099 Grapevine, City Of 206 W Hudgins St City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau Blk 14 Lts 19-21 Less Row 1 Liberty Park Piz GU Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 218 W College St Tate, Sandra Kay Blk 4 S165'5 402 Azalea Dr R-7.5 Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 604 S Church St Shamrock Rental Properties Blk 24 Lot 1 R PO Box 92879 R-7.5 Southlake Tx 76092 Grapevine, City Of 221 W College St Kennedy, Edgar Blk 14 N167.5'W81 1/2'3 221 W College St R-7.5 Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 614 S Church St Armstrong, Deborah D Blk 24 Lot 1 B 614 Church St R-7.5 Grapevine Tx 76051 0:\BZA\2011\Cases 2011\BZA11-11.31.doc Development Service - • . Public- • Property Owner Applicant: Perry Leonard Case No.: BZA11-11 Address/Legal Description: 604 South Main Street egM Description Situs Address Tax Roll Name/Atic Grapevine, City Of 619 S Church St Blk 14 Lots 3C & 6A R-7.5 Moore, Ruby Tillery 619 Church St Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of 619 S Church St Moore, Ruby Tillery Blk 14 Lots 3C & 6A 619 Church St R-7.5 Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City of 626 S Church St Horobec, John M Blk 24 Lot 2R2 626 Church St R-7.5 Grapevine, TX 76051 O:\BZA\2011\Cases 2011\BZA11-11.31.doc BZA11-11 Lipscomb, Joe E & M Suzanne Moore, Ruby Tillery 604 South Main Street 210 W College St 619 Church St Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine Tx 76051 Perry Leonard Grapevine Main Street Ltd Moore, Ruby Tillery 604 S. Main Street 7 Village Cir Ste 200 619 Church St Grapevine, TX 76051 Westlake Tx 76262 Grapevine Tx 76051 Perry Leonard Grapevine Main Street Ltd Horobec, John M 604 S. Main Street 7 Village Cir Ste 200 626 Church St Grapevine, TX 76051 Westlake Tx 76262 Grapevine, TX 76051 Perry Leonard Hubert Trust The City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau 604 S. Main Street 1833 Bedford Rd 1 Liberty Park Piz Grapevine, TX 76051 Bedford Tx 76021 Grapevine Tx 76051 Harry Hines Medical Center Ltd Grapevine, City Of 2331 Gus Thomasson Rd Ste 126 PO Box 95104 Dallas Tx 75228 Grapevine Tx 76099 P F Capital Llc City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau 624 E Pipeline Rd 1 Liberty Park Piz Hurst Tx 76053 Grapevine Tx 76051 Cmpa-Eagle Inc Tate, Sandra Kay PO Box 1178 402 Azalea Dr Grapevine Tx 76099 Grapevine Tx 76051 Kamprath, Jeffrey L & Ellen A Shamrock Rental Properties 2306 Carlisle Ave PO Box 92879 Colleyville Tx 76034 Southlake Tx 76092 S E Acqustion Of Texas Inc Kennedy, Edgar PO Box 829000 221 W College St Dallas Tx 75382 Grapevine Tx 76051 City Of Grapevine C & V Bureau Armstrong, Deborah D 1 Liberty Park Piz 614 Church St Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine Tx 76051 CASE #BZAI 1 -11 JUL 2 5 2011 CITY OF GRAPEVINE PERRYLEONARD 604 SOUTH MAIN STREET ALL WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE s••., BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011. As (a Property Owner within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citize , I (approve) (protest) and/or (have the following comments) Print Name, Address, City, Zip, Lot, Plock and Subdivision: e .S-4 C Signature: Board of Zoning Adjustment Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P. O. Box 95104 Grapevine, TX 76099 O:\BZA\2011\Cases\BZA11-11.3 1 Li r,4 ,� vs t5 -2 t / 2 7 Yl — 'S-`/0 • : Direct questions/deliver responses to: Planning & Building Inspections Division Department of Development Services City of Grapevine 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 L Xkt f RES I' A R Case BGrapevine, W the ',9' {. a 3 have t'architecturalplans proposed by the e 'treplace. `E carport garage.understand } .1 proposed garage_ i.i's - conform ! the Grapevinett,i:e= t:is:i> . section43.E.3. We also further understand that their request is in keeping with the am!'. tk , fit, ;. that -i 'it from Lakeridge Drive. We have [< the i J drawings support at: r z building }fthegarage proposed. Date Sionature, 'i1 a i..+f [" 6— 111 33`Y dam! l l�` ( lam G le }' I /p' �� "°ate 9 / � ✓L.. mac, t o ,v�..i 4 t tr e i� , ,. x .. Z It ,, ,,r�pf +". �T ,dam M' / ! if` 6✓ V' / j G"'I"`�7 A el LCL AD F a Case # BZAII 2111 Forest Hills Rd. Gra.".11, MM= We the undersigned have reviewed architectural plans proposed by the Cegielski's to replace their carport with a garage. We understand that the proposed garage does not conform to •the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanace 82-73: sectionO.E.3. We also further understand that their request is in keeping with the T"jg t tt u t t r i 1 t Vh6—&Tf ftc exktiTg; that home from Lakeridge Drive. We have reviewed the architectural drawings and support the building of the garage as proposed. Date $gnaturpj_ Name Addrese E �2 rZA1 L 3 6`1' - 71 L r4' 4, iL-46"M E Case ff BZAII 2111 Forest Hills Rd. Grapevine, TX 76010, To the Board of Zoning Adjustment: We the undersigned have reviewed architectural plans proposed by the Cegielski's to replace their carport with a garage. We understand that the proposed garage does not conform to the Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordisnace 82-73-. section43.E.3. We also further understand that their request is in keeping with the -12 that home from Lakeridge Drive. We have reviewed the architectural drawings and support the building of the garage as proposed. 'nota Wa-.,oturu, Vgrffe Address „+ A�W L�t`�4'%t'�r/•/�).` f� nke , ("AA tCk -1 W10- dILWA OV d zz C/,,; L ell t�6v1 7, It received from City of Grapevine Applicant BZA - BBA - MIB - HELICOPTER 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 Transactions Fee type BZA APPLICATION FEE received by Connie Cook Development Services 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 (817)410-3158 Phone (817)410-3018 Fax ccook@grapevinetexas.gov Permit Receipt Receipt No.: 11-02270 Receipt No.: 11-02270 Receipt Date: 07/07/2011 Receipt Time: 9:35 AM Payment Method: Check Payment Note: CK 18982 Project ID #: BZA-11-2521 Project Type: Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) Address: 604 S Main St. Amount Paid $ 400-32940 Amount $ 100.00 �,�,_..,.® 100.00 Account Summary $ 100.00 R 27 PAINT CABINET AND POLES AND FILLER PANELS GRAY - 5.WIILLfAM5 5W4051 ArMX 'NEA ST , NG I"!TION 7E Nffi F/5 SIGN PROPOSED "-ED 'R' R5 RE-P05ITION F15 SIGN 604 AMAV 5TPEET- 7 EXISTING HR -27 P/F ILLUM SIGN W/"T5N"FANEL5 BACK TO BACK W1 GRAY FILLER PANELS 14 B PI -812$/07 -TO C, NEW PAINT AND ID IZ2-4j2eI17I-'TrN' PANEL TO REPLACE ON POLE SIGN R5 -5/1111 -POLE 51ON P051TION FZEV15EP II iYYYI IDENTIFICATION PPOP05AL FOR: JOB. 726-86 13LAGG TIRE & SERVICE 1 J 0"WNSY: '4sp 1144 EAST MARKET STREET 604 MAIN STREET &/29/07 AKRON, OH. 44316-0001 IDENTIFICATION DEPARTMENT GRAPEVINE, TX, SOME to-ROX) A5 NOTED ON 8.5711" FORMAT '5 90 A-��II Lj A 4W Fl"A" PAINT CABINET AND POLES AND FILLER PANELS GRAY - 5.WIILLfAM5 5W4051 ArMX 'NEA ST , NG I"!TION 7E F/5 SIGN PROPOSED "-ED 'R' R5 RE-P05ITION F15 SIGN 604 AMAV 5TPEET- 7 EXISTING HR -27 P/F ILLUM SIGN W/"T5N"FANEL5 BACK TO BACK W1 GRAY FILLER PANELS B PI -812$/07 -TO C, NEW PAINT AND ID IZ2-4j2eI17I-'TrN' PANEL TO REPLACE ON POLE SIGN R5 -5/1111 -POLE 51ON P051TION FZEV15EP II iYYYI IDENTIFICATION PPOP05AL FOR: JOB. 726-86 13LAGG TIRE & SERVICE 1 0"WNSY: '4sp 1144 EAST MARKET STREET 604 MAIN STREET &/29/07 AKRON, OH. 44316-0001 IDENTIFICATION DEPARTMENT GRAPEVINE, TX, SOME to-ROX) A5 NOTED ON 8.5711" FORMAT 9 N oz w Z 0 w 9 191110D — I HOI?i r N m(T z d Q i W J w z IL DZ d � N LL uj W Cn I z W/ U— Ni NW OL W 1~- N �u J �<o =�4 ZdUJ zw+ � N OaN J— WW J {i W I r z O W J W W : UJ a_ � llj = WUl Z4 Z < < ^ T� j jE+ ® W/r Cl \ o, O W H LtlU�� C`3 LL ^Ok C-Nuj ^, �- uj 0 d Li d 06 (S) z LU z j. z zz Q W U Q nz Ill ``O^^ LS Q w ._j N Qd' mz OC Z 3OYY WHO o3Ul�lmr N Iz < ~ Ni W 9 " Fob 009 oa�U °< <' Q 01 ON ZiUW. N�ok� N 0 �� Ndm?z O.;; S O Ov03 }}xx Z rb m W W Ww F H lm=LLZwI Z» ?u2 WW.�LL�NN xmL 2 „� N �� O lz U oW z W°o 1 F wW mzmeo Z Q w o ox,w Q m pua',ury<�9<�'� �nn v1 Q) -j F` e'�°WLLooI W ms<U'aam3N > _i -W w �N �ILZ N�2roo�a IQ UQ W<do�moa N �4 wU>-- °z Z _ L 2 _ LL w LL. Q o Iwmo io=n W Z lu 1) �.. t }- Z N .0188"�lNt9y W dowdzzo'�Ow<(, w Q � Z o wmw'ai I°z W � N �z <2jIz JmWF. n' j N} z � p �KYw6 O �=N lIL =UJ� JF W��Z4 bjpO ,•�1� Qd Wz0fI p�Fp W V2� '1 LLdOr OC �1-?J jZX W <u�w w O 0 Fo zw Ir W=Wn p W wz <Oy