The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-10-06MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMO TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, BUILDING OFFICIAL RON STOMBAUGH, PLANNER II JO ANN STOUT, PLANNER II STEPHEN D. KINDRICK, PLANNER SUBJECT: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #BZA97-26 MEETING DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustment deny the appeal of staff's interpretation to Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73 for Lot 2, Block 3, Meadows Addition and specifically addressed as 4202 Meadow Drive as follows: 1. Section 12.70., Customary Home Occupation - requires an occupation customarily carried on in the home by a member of the occupant's family without structural alterations in the building or any of its rooms and without the installation of machinery or additional equipment other than that customary to normal household operations, provided that no person other than a member of the family of the owner or the user of the principal single-family dwelling shall be employed or work in or at such home occupation. A customary home occupation shall not include the physical or medical treatment of persons or animals, professional services, business services, barbershops, beauty shops, dance studios, carpenter shops, electrical shops, plumber shops, radio shops, auto repairing or painting, furniture repairing, or sign painting. The request would allow the embroidery business to remain as a customary home occupation. SPECIAL CONDITION: The applicant is requesting an appeal of staff's interpretation of the definition of "Customary Home Occupation". The definition clearly defines "customary home occupation" as an occupation customarily carried on in the home by a member of the occupant's family without the installation of machinery or additional equipment other than that customary to normal household operations, provided that no person other than a member of the family of the owner or the user of the principal single-family dwelling shall be employed or work in or at such home occupation. The applicant is requesting an interpretation by the Zoning Board of Adjustment which would determine whether or not her business should be classified a "Customary Home Occupation". The Board of Zoning Adjustment does not have the authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance definition for "customary home occupation", to allow the continued use on the property for an embroidery business, but it may rule on staff's interpretation of the definition. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patricia Avants filed a special exception request on September 2, 1997, after she received notice of the zoning violation for operating a business out of a residence at 4202 Meadow Drive. Patricia Avants was first notified of the violation on July 25, 1997 after a complaint was filed with Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Butler. Mr. Butler has visited the property and worked with the applicant since July 25, 1997, to discontinue the business operation from her home. During Mr. Butler's visit to the site, he discovered an embroidery business being conducted from Ms. Avants' garage. A large piece of machinery was located in the garage, which has the capability of embroidering several shirts, hats, etc., in large quantities, in a short period of time. Several boxes of sweat shirts, t -shirts and hats were also being stored inside the garage. Ms. Avants informed Mr. Butler that she also had an employee help with her operation. f 1j EStL ` CufS 7 )) 1 ,1 a � 609 8 14 v zs3. AC. 3R 0 ��59� a z v !, 4 3 R a 10 1 > s 1, 1 .1 SON to T.Ma -4-L OR E\ {P O as K \ _ 3,3 is x kpd ]1 )• :{ It 1� :i `O 1, — jn'`+N R_20- ,,� ' J- - i ^ < Ir ` l oc V oHv.at C1 n I c Oo Y ----a 1. �zl r r, W • :, i 22 o Y 6 Sp I 24 Y I 1 \ 27 2,0 12 - Ck 1R 20 `,9 3 22 3 5 L \ b 9 4 —O n 21 e2 ` 89 23 61 '2� O. iQfacSxRC writBr LN 9 23 1 Ci K o O 3 cc 1 S a , e t ! �0 2. R_20 3 I 6 V Hall-Jo = (3 340+ 9 O le N «I 2 _(�.� S"VER LES e ) 3 6 16 Z 7 ■ IAV 6 3 3+ 33 . 6 2'3 U 3 46 z 3 e µ atricia ll W , 3s n v 21 T 6 tJ 0 11 7 i van is I 2 n 26 'S 7 ; 7 ] $ 3,o C e d e 9 II ! 1 3372 M� ` It 13 21' 13 s A E 1 1® �A t m V ACLE YMDR ♦o / 32 1 21 20 19 d 17 m t U 1 6 6 Z ` I OO •'1. •. ro 1. 27 2E n l• C •' ' _ 3 7 ` 1 2e ;ea s 9 E Co RE TR C S 6 s PdA Ecol ID, z. ` zc V ALLE 2'0 to W tap � � + � �' J f o •c 11 , Tx. 3� 1 22 GU -6, 2,� ts E e � —� — z OVA II Z8 S" R 2 0 0 6 aS4N 3 ( c O- 1 (all 11, RCD OO�c)� I n: x . 25 -c s S> O 4 DR t O x R" � r C a3�G v N �,I I .o , \� M MESH �-N From: David 1. Spoede To: Patricia Avant Date: 9/17/97 Time: 15:03:59 Page 2 of 5 08-29-1997 10: 52W DEQ&Zuth6AtT SERV I CES 18174240545 P. 03 �32A-17-ZG CITY OF GRAPEVINE BOARD OF ZONINGJUST E T APPLICATION(rlsm) 1. APPLICANT NAME: PATRICIA A. AVAMS ADDRESS. 4202 Meadow, Grapevine, Texas 76051 CITYISTATE:_ 9EARM roar Texas ZIP. 76051 HOME- (817) 354-0684 ,WORK:- (817) 318-0226 —FAX:__L817) .^,"'80.. 2� , 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Patricia A. Avants 2661 ?, T ' S ADDRESS. 4202 Magidow, CITY/STATE: rrm2m>{ j Texas ZIP. 76051 HOME: (817) 354-0684 WORK: (817) 318-0226 FAX:__(817) 354-8028 4, STREET ADDRESS AND LOT, BLOCK AND SUBDIVISION NAME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PLEASE ATTACH SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY) 4202 Meadow. Gr.22!► ne, Texas; Lot 2, Block 3, Meadows Addition 5. LIST THE PERTINENT SECTIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDICATE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE AMOUNTS BEING REQUESTED. IF NECESSARY USE A SEPARATE SHEET, 82-73 Definition of a "Customarh dame Occupation;" variance requested is a temporary variance of twenty-four (24) nmths to allow continued use of property for embroidery activities. Spoede To: Patricia Avant Date: 9/17/97 Time: 15:04:54 Page 3 of 5 -4--S-15197 10:53AM DEVELOPMENT SEWICES 18174240545 P.e4 8. 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 DETERNNED THAT NO SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, THE MOTION MUST BE TO DENY THE REQUEST. I am a mother of five (5) children, two of wh*rn are in college and the youngest two are 15 & 17 year old boys. Since my husband's work causes him to travel extensively (he is gone 80-90% of the time), I need to be at hams when my two boys return frcrtt school each afternoon. My oldest son, who is a junior in high school, was arrested, as a miner in possession of alcohol this past May, so I need to be at hams when he is not at school. My embroidery activities cause no dilr` ion in t� 2e19hborixxad Customers cane by only 2-3 times per week I cannot afford to rent other space. (Continued on AttachT ent A.) 7, EXPLAIN ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF APPLICABLE, NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. EXAMPLES: (1) IF THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAT PRIOR TO PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; OR (2) THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED OR A POLICY CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AFTER INITIATION OF THE PLANS CHECK PROCESS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. It is difficult to imagine an occupation that is more of a "Custm ary HcrrL. Occupation,, than a wrman 6041V or embroidering at ham probaLbly the first have Occupation was spinning wool at hcane as iece t�rk Gran the requested variance X11 not be acDtra y to the public interest However, the literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Granting the requested variance will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance will be obsezved and that will be dome. 3poede To: Patricia Avant Date: 9/17/97 Time: 15:06:14 Page 4 of 5 A3-25-1 W7 10.5:w (.- = •:ter=.I 19174240545 P.05 8. ATTACH A DETAILED DIAGRAM OF THE SITE DRAWN TO SCALE, AND ANY OTHER DRAWINGS OR PICTURES NECESSARY TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CASE TO THE BOARD. SHO`W*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.) APPLICANT (PRINK' OR APPLICANT OWNER (PRI OWNER SIGf SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS _DAY OF ��►19__,� E00000000000o0o000000000000 gtS86WOZ-80 s9jidx3 u0lsslwwo0 svx,9MS'311qnd KAON.. 8 o X000M 'W 3NIISIMX ':'a ; ev` S$g oox00000cxiy,;-,,,_�coDooc000000000b NOTARY PUBLIC F THE STA OF 79UR SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS -DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF S DATE OF LICENSE EXPIRATION Spoede To: Patricia Avant Date: 9/17/97 Time: 15:07:08 Page 5 of 5 Several businesses are being operated out of homes in my neighborhood and elsewhere in Grapevine. For example, in my immediate neighborhood, a person is operating a yo-yo business out of their home, and another person is operating a wallpaper business out of their home. Elsewhere in Grapevine, I am aware of a child care facility, a toy shop, a commercial sewing business, and a lawn service being run out of residences. I will provide more detail on each of those businesses and other businesses being operated out of residences at the hearing on my application. In addition, the ordinance is probably unconstitutional and unenforceable in its present form. It is vague, since one cannot tell from reading it whether one is in violation. Is someone giving piano lessons at home in violation? Is practicing law at home? Is trading stocks on a home computer? The ordinance is also selectively enforced. If necessary, we can subpoena delivery records of UPS, Federal Express, and other shippers to show the extremely large number of persons engaged in home occupations in apparent violation of the ordinance. In summary, the temporary variance I am requesting would have no impact, detrimental or otherwise, on my neighborhood. Furthermore, enforcement of the variance would work a significant hardship on my family and upon myself. CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS CODE ENFORCEMENT 2y IC 11q NAM CITY.ST,ZIP x � PHONE DRIVER LICENSE NO-- 17 LOCATION - STREET ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,/fOLATION(S )ATE )RDINANCE )EADLINE FOR CORRECTION - �ORRECTION REQUIRED 7 VFW 7—,-S e�7— IL 'HIS IS A ARMING! There will be no pertalty assessed against you if the violation(s) idicaled above is (are) corrected by the deadline Indicated. Failure 10 comply may result , In fines )r each day the violation(s) continue to exist_ ;SUED..B -�zY S I G N A T U R E -X-___ L-A July 25, 1997 Patricia Avants 4202 Meadow Grapevine, TX 76051 RE: CONDUCTING A BUSINESS IN A RESIDENCE Dear Property Owner, The City of Grapevine receives numerous telephone calls and inquiries from citizens concerning the guidelines which allow the operation of businesses from personal residences. Therefore, in order to provide information concerning the City Zoning Ordinance restricting these businesses, we are currently contacting various individuals, such as yourself, who may be operating a business from their home. To operate a business from your home, it is required that your business must fall within the definition of a "Customary Home Occupation." The definition of a "Customary Home Occupation," as defined by the Grapevine Zoning Ordinance, is: Customary Home Occupation shall mean an occupation customarily carried on in the home by a member of the occupant's family without structural alteration in the building or any of its rooms and without the installation of machinery or additional equipment other than that customary to normal household operations, provided that no person other than a member of the family of the owner or the user of the principal single-family dwelling shall be employed or work in or at such home occupation. A customary home occupation shall not include the physical or medical treatment of persons or animals, professional services, business services, barbershops, beauty shops, dance studios, carpenter shops, electrical shops, plumber shops, radio shops, auto repairing or painting, furniture repairing, or sign painting. If you feel that there is a conflict between your business and the zoning regulations, or if you have any questions concerning the ordinance, please contact me at (817) 251-4828. 1 am available to discuss these regulations with you over the telephone or in person. Thank you for your consideration in working with the City of Grapevine in this matter. Sincerely, Mike Butler Code Enforcement Officer oAmb\busi.ava ♦ • �. ♦ •' • ALL WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1997. Procedure to Respond: F pertOwner within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citizen), I (approve) and/or (have the following comments) Print Name, Address, City, Zip, Lot, Block and Subdivision: C1s Signature: C J��'` Phone #: u� Telephone: 817-410-3155 Fax: 817-410-3012 Mail responses to: Board of Zoning Adjustment Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P. O. Box 95104 Grapevine, TX 76099 Direct questions/deliver responses to: Planning Division & Building Inspections Division Department of Development Services City of Grapevine 200 S. Main Street Grapevine, TX 76051 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, August 4, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice -Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate Ron Cook 2nd Alternate Kip Bruner 3rd Alternate constituting a quorum with Dennis Luers absent. Also present was City Council Representative Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Ron Stombaugh Gerrie Anderson • •.� Building Official City Planner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. OATH OF OFFICE Gerrie Anderson administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed 3rd Alternate, Kip Bruner. The first item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was a request from Robert and Dana Morris for 2907 Peninsula Drive, platted as Lot 32R, Block 4, Placid Peninsula, Section A, Grapevine Texas. The following requests were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 15.13.4. "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires permitted accessory uses (garages) to be located not less than forty-five (45) feet from the front lot line. The request would allow an encroachment of twenty five (25) feet into the required forty five (45) foot front yard setback for accessory structures to develop a proposed three (3) bay garage. If approved, it would allow a garage to be developed twenty (20) feet from the front lot line as shown on the site plan. Section 15.G. 1, "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. BZA Minutes 8/4/97 The request would allow an encroachment of ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback to develop a garage. If approved, it would allow a ten (10) foot variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow a twenty (20) foot front yard setback as shown on the site plan. Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations which requires a detached accessory building in a residential district to be located on the rear one-half of the lot. The requested variance would allow a detached three (3) bay garage to be developed in the front one-half of the lot. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found no special conditions existed for the requests because the property is currently undeveloped. Robert Morris, of 3413 Vine Ridge, Bedford, Texas, and applicant, took the Oath of Truth and presented the Board a site plan of the lot showing the location of the 572 lake flowage easement and the portion of the property was not buildable. Mr. Morris showed the Board another exhibit showing that if the garage was placed on the 30 foot front building line, then the line of trees along the lot line would be disturbed. Mr. Morris expressed that he would like to have the same opportunity as his neighbors in being able to save the existing trees. Mr. Cook asked the applicant why he would be opposed to attaching the garage to the house. Mr. Morris explained that they would like to have room in the future for a pool and deck and again does not want to remove many trees. Jill Davis expressed her concern of the setback requirements stated in the zoning ordinance taking precedence over tree preservation. Sandra Dennehy, of 3124 College Avenue, Fort Worth, and architect for the applicants, took the Oath of Truth and explained how the maneuvering area for the parking needed to be 20 feet. Ms. Dennehy explained that they worked to save as many of the trees on the property as possible. Randy Howell suggested that the applicant place the garage on the other side of the property and then it would be set back 45 feet from the front property line and would have the same setback as his neighbors' accessory structures. This would also preserve trees. Mr. Morris explained to the Board that he wanted his new home to be appealing to the community and a hardship would be created if the location of the garage was moved, because he would have to rearrange all plans for the lot. q BZA Minutes 8/4/97 With no one to speak either for or against the request, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that no special conditions existed for Section 15.B.4. which requires permitted accessory uses (garages) to be located not less than forty-five (45) feet from the front lot line, and for Section 15.G.1. which requires a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. Carl Hecht also made a motion that a special condition existed for Section 42.C.3., Supplementary District Regulations and the special condition being the location of the 572 flowage easement. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Carl Hecht then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 42.C.3., allowing a three bay garage to be developed in the front one-half of the yard. The structure must meet setback requirements and the variance shall not be tied to a plot plan. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers BZA97-20, VICWEST STEEL The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-20, submitted by VicWest Steel who requested variances for 404 East Dallas Road, platted as Lot 3 & 4, Block 1, Hilltop Addition. The following requests were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3. Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The requested special exception would allow the existing development to remain as currently developed, and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors and windows, to be constructed of brick, stone or other masonry. BZA Minutes 8/4/97 The request would allow a one -hundred (100) percent variance to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. If approved, it would allow a 100 percent variance to the masonry requirement for the proposed expansion as shown on the site plan. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found special conditions existed for the special exception to allow the existing development to remain as currently developed and to allow the remodeling and expansion of the development. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Staff was assured by the applicant that the remodeling would greatly improve the appearance of the site and the expansion would eliminate the need for any outside storage. However, Mr. Stombaugh noted that Staff found no special condition existed for the request to vary to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement. An application was submitted by Jenisys Engineered Products, Inc. For VicWest Steel. Mr. Stombaugh explained that the development was built prior to the requirement for property located in the "LI" Light Industrial District to be seventy (70) percent masonry. Mr. Stombaugh noted that staff had received two responses that were in favor of the request and one response against the request. Gary McKibben of 965 Slocum, Dallas, Texas, and architect for VicWest Steel took the Oath of Truth and explained about upgrading the exterior and interior of the property and the quality of the development. Mr. McKibben explained that the owner wants to reclad the building with their own metal product and feels it would be infeasible to put masonry on the structure. The Board asked Scott Williams, Building Official, if synthetic stucco was considered masonry under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Williams replied that it was an acceptable masonry product. Fred Seal of 2909 Creek View Drive, Flower Mound and General Manager for VicWest Steel, took the Oath of Truth and explained that the business moved to the United, States nine years ago and at that time purchased the property from Omega. Mr. Seal noted that they plan on spending 4 million on upgrading the property which will become their United States headquarters. After further discussion concerning what other types of material could be used and the percentage required for the overall building, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers 4 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 Randy Howell explained that the applicant's hardship is financial, which the Board of Zoning Adjustment cannot consider. Jill Davis made a motion that a special condition existed for the request to Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures, as the remodeling would greatly improve the appearance of the site, and the expansion would eliminate the need for any outside storage, and that no special condition existed for the request to Section 54, Masonry Requirements. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis then made a motion to approve the variance request to Section 43.E.3, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, allowing the development to remain as currently developed and to expand or remodel the nonconforming uses as shown on the site plan. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers BZA97-21 JASON AND NANCY BURR The next item for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was BZA97-21, submitted by Jason and Nancy Burr who requested variances for 1731 Autumn Ridge, platted as Lot 10, Block 107, College Heights Addition. The following variance was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 42.C.4, Supplementary District Regulations, which requires that swimming pools be subject to the same side yard requirements as the principal structure. Section 16.G.3, Zero Lot Line District, which requires an eleven (11) foot side yard setback on one side and a twelve (12) inch side yard setback on the opposite side. The request would allow a five (5) foot variance to the required eleven (11) foot side yard setback on the south property line. If approved, it would allow a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool on the south property line as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Staff found that a special condition existed for the request to allow the proposed swimming pool to encroach into the side yard setback to preserve an existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree. Mr. Stombaugh further explained that If 5 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 compliance with the eleven (11) foot side yard setback requirement was met, the root system of the existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree could be jeopardized by the proposed swimming pool. Jason Burr, applicant of 1731 Autumn Ridge Drive, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained that when he purchased the property in 1992, there were no trees on the property and since then has placed trees on the lot. Mr. Burr explained that he was wanting to preserve the willow tree in the rear yard and maintain the side yard. Randy Howell explained that two letters of approval had been received. With no one else to speak either for or against the request, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Further discussion followed with Mr. Cook and Ms. Davis expressing strong feelings that tree preservation should not be a consideration for setback variances. After further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion that a special condition exists to allow the proposed swimming pool to encroach into the side yard setback to preserve an existing thirty (30) foot tall Willow tree. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Anderson Nays: Davis Absent: Luers Carl Hecht then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 42.C.4. Supplementary District Regulations allowing a six (6) foot side yard setback for the proposed swimming pool on the south property line as shown on the plot plan. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Anderson Nays: Davis Absent: Luers A BZA Minutes 8/4/97 BZA97-22 JAY YOUNG Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered BZA97-22, submitted by Jay Young who requested variances for 327 East College Street, platted as Lot 3, Block 29, Original Town of Grapevine. The following variances were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 43.E.3., Nonconforming Uses and Structures which allows the Board of Zoning Adjustment to approve the remodeling or enlargement of a nonconforming use. The request would allow the existing residential structure to remain as currently developed and to expand to provide off-street parking along the west side of the property. If approved, the special condition would allow a photography studio to be developed in an existing residential structure and provide off-street parking for the use in the College Street Historic District as shown on the site plan. Section 54, Masonry Regulations which require seventy (70) percent masonry in the "PO" Professional Office District. The request would allow a one hundred (100) percent variance to the seventy (70) percent masonry requirement in the "PO" Professional Office District. If approved, it would allow a zero (0) percent masonry requirement for the proposed photography studio in a residential structure in the College Street Historic District. Ron Stombaugh announced that Jay and Kathy Young had submitted a letter requesting their case, BZA97-22, be removed from the agenda. Mr. Stombaugh explained that Mr. and Mrs. Young, stated in their letter that due to problems that had emerged during their attempts to re -zone the property (specifically deed restrictions), they believed it was in their best interest to forego the purchase of the property. With no further discussion, Carl Hecht made a motion to close the public hearing. Ery Meyer seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Carl Hecht made a motion to deny BZA97-22 since the applicant requested to have the case withdrawn. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers BZA Minutes 8/4/97 BZA97-23 TIM LANCASTER Next, the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered BZA97-23, submitted by Tim Lancaster who requested a variance for 1815-1819 Fern Court, platted as Lot 19, Block 5, Ridgecrest Addition. The following variance was from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: Section 17.H. "R-3.5" Two -Family District Regulations which requires a forty (40) foot buffer yard setback between a multifamily district and any non-residential district. The request would allow a twenty six (26) foot variance to the forty (40) foot buffer yard setback requirement. If approved, the variance would allow a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback as shown on the site plan. Ron Stombaugh explained that Staff found a special condition existed being the property is located on a cul-de-sac street and has an unusual shape which reduces the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Stombaugh explained that the applicant was previously granted a fifteen (15) foot variance (BZA94-15) to the buffer yard requirement to allow a twenty five (25) foot buffer yard setback in the rear yard, however, the applicant did not develop the subject property at that time. Mr. Stombaugh explained the proposed structure, shown on the recently submitted site plan, exceeds the variance granted in 1994 and now requires the applicant to request an additional variance to the buffer yard requirement. Tim Lancaster, applicant, of 2010 Forest Hills Road, Grapevine, took the Oath of Truth and explained about his previously approved variance. After further discussion, Jill Davis made a motion to close the public hearing. Russell Anderson seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis made a motion that a special condition existed and the special condition being the property is located on a cul-de-sac street and has an unusual shape which reduces the buildable area of the lot. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: 8 BZA Minutes 8/4/97 Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers Jill Davis then made a motion to grant the variance to Section 17.H. R-3.5, Two -Family District Regulations allowing a fourteen (14) foot buffer yard setback as shown on the plot plan. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers MINUTES Next the Board of Zoning Adjustment considered the minutes of the July 7, 1997, meeting. Ery Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7, 1997, meeting. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION Ron Stombaugh introduced to the Board the new City Planner, Joann Stout. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Carl Hecht seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Meyer, Hecht, Davis, Anderson Nays: None Absent: Luers The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M. OJ BZA Minutes 8/4/97 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997. ATTEST: SECRETARY CHAIRMAN 10 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas met on Monday evening, September 8, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, with the following members present to wit: Randy Howell Chairman Carl Hecht Vice -Chairman Ery Meyer Secretary Dennis Luers Member Jill Davis Member Russell Anderson 1 st Alternate Ron Cook 2nd Alternate constituting a quorum. Also present was City Council Representative Roy Stewart and the following City Staff: Scott Williams Ron Stombaugh Stephen Kindrick Teresa Wallace CALL TO ORDER Building Official City Planner City Planner Secretary Chairman Randy Howell called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. BZA97-24 - LARRY MYERS The first item of business for the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider was a request from Larry Myers who requested variances for 3309 Burninglog Drive, platted as Lot 102, Block 1, Countryside Estates, Grapevine, Texas. The following variances were from Grapevine Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 82-73: 1. Section 15. G. 2., - "R-7.5" Single Family District which requires a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. The request would allow a variance of twelve (12) feet to the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback requirement. If approved, it would allow a rear yard setback of thirteen (13) feet. 1 BZA Minutes 9/8/97 Ron Stombaugh, City Planner, explained to the Board that Staff had received an application from Larry Myers requesting a variance to rear yard setback requirements to allow an attached garage to encroach into the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback. Further, he explained, the applicant was proposing to develop a new house on a lot that had two easements that significantly reduce the size of the buildable area of the lot. There is a fifteen (15) foot access easement along the east property line allowing access to property in the City of Colleyville and a twelve (12) foot drainage easement along the west side of the property providing drainage for the Trinity River Authority. Mr. Stombaugh stated that Staff found a special condition for the request because the easements reduced the buildable pad site area. Mr. Larry Myers was introduced to address the request. He told the Board that the easement on the east side of the property would also be used as a driveway for the subject lot to access the proposed garage in the rear yard as well as the property in the City of Colleyville. Mr. Myers stated that he was proposing to develop a 2,172 square foot house on the vacant lot. Mr. Randy Smith, adjacent property owner, was introduced to speak to the request. He stated he was concerned about the privacy of his yard if Mr. Myers were allowed to build a two story residence which included the garage area. He asked the Board to consider placing a restriction on the variance that would stipulate there would be no second story above the garage. With no further questions, Carl Hecht moved to close the public hearing. Dennis Luers seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Member Jill Davis arrived at 6:10 p.m. After Chairman Randy Howell shared the information concerning the request with Ms. Davis, members proceeded with discussion about the existing easements on the property and how it would affect the buildable pad site area. Ron Stombaugh, Planner stated the minimum building size in the zoning district was 1200 square feet. The property is deed restricted to a minimum building size of 1800 square feet. Members discussed the average size of homes in the area as being more than 2000 square feet. Further discussion concerning the access easement to the property that is located in the City of Colleyville and the Trinity River Authority easements throughout the Countryside Estates Addition. With nothing further, Ery Meyer moved that a special condition did exist for the request and 2 BZA Minutes 9/8/97 that being the lot was restricted by the easements imposed on the plat which reduced the buildable lot area. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None Ery Meyer moved to approve the request to BZA97-24 with the stipulation that the builder could not develop a second story above the garage. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis Nays: None ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Ery Meyer made a motion to adjourn. Jill Davis seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Howell, Hecht, Meyer, Luers, Davis, Anderson, Cook Nays: None The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997. ATTEST: SECRETARY 3