Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1993-01-21 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS January 21, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Tom Duer. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Members Tom Duer Jeff Bunting Bill Cypert Robert Skinner Barry LeBaron Steve Pence Clayton Husband Mark Barfield Steve Ingham Jim Kemp Dir. Plan/Insp. Building Official PZ Coordinator ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1992 Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bunting, and the motion carried 4-0. 1. BA 92-16 Request of Pace Membership Warehouse to vary from the Zoning Ordinance No. 1080 on Lot 2R, Block A, Richland Oaks Addition, to vary from the screening fence requirement around Lot 4. This property is located at 8561 Airport Freeway. Chairman Duer opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak to come forward at this time. Mr. Gary Devleer, Charles Hodges Associates, came forward to speak. He stated that installation of a fence would require the removal of many trees. He stated there are a considerable number of trees on the east and north property lines. Chairman Duer asked if he had contacted the business owner. Mr. Devleer stated he did not think so. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Devleer if anyone at his firm had contacted anyone. Mr. Devleer stated he did not think so. Mr. Skinner asked if what they are concerned about is the trees coming down. Mr. Devleer stated yes, that the trees are on the property line. Chairman Duer asked if they had property on all three sides, or just two of the three. Mr. Devleer stated only on the north and east sides. Chairman Duer asked Mr. LeBaron who owns the property to the south. ZBA Minutes - Page 2 21 January 1993 Mr. LeBaron stated Pace owns the property, but it is a separate lot. Chairman Duer asked what the zoning was on the property. Mr. LeBaron stated C-2. Chairman Ouer asked when the fence would normally be installed. Mr. LeBaron stated that when a building permit is issued for the property, that is when the fence requirement would be triggered. Chairman Duer asked if they had looked into the costs of putting a fence up. Mr. Oevleer stated the cost is not really the issue. He stated they could put up a partial fence on the north side to block the view of the store. Chairman Ouer asked about the possibility of filling in the bare areas with trees to create a natural barrier. Mr. Oevleer stated that is certainly an option, but would cost quite a bit more than the fence. Mr. Bunting asked if there was a medium that could be reached between the trees and the fence. Mr. Oevleer stated the trees are right on the fence, and they could not install the fence without removing the trees. Mr. Skinner asked if they could move the fence back six inches. Mr. Oevleer stated they would have to move the fence back several feet due to the size of the trees. He stated Pace would not be willing to off- set the fence onto their property and donate the leftover property to the homeowner. Mr. Bunting asked if the City could work with Pace to come up with a scheme to put up the fence and keep the trees. Mr. LeBaron stated that the issue came when the construction was near completion, and they discussed offsetting the fence. He stated that the problem that would arise would be an area that could not be mowed. He stated they thought the best way to handle it was to put up the fence or leave the trees, and that is why the applicant is here tonight. Mr. Cypert asked if the homeowner has made any indication as to what he would want. Mr. LeBaron stated staff went to visit with Mr. Fuller last week, and the answers they could get were contrasting in nature. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Devleer what the scheme for the future was if the homeowner moved out tomorrow and donated the land to Pace. Mr. Devleer stated they would probably sell the land. He stated it would make a decent pad site. ZBA Minutes - Page 3 21 January 1993 Mr. Skinner stated that a pad site would not even need the trees. Chairman Ouer stated that if that property sells, it would probably be a commercial use. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ouer closed the Public Hearing. He stated that the Board1s rules require four affirmative votes for a request to pass. He stated that for any request to pass tonight, it must receive a unanimous vote since there are only four members present. Chairman Duer asked Mr. Oevleer if, in light of that information, he would like to postpone until next month. Mr. Oevleer stated no. Chairman Ouer asked if any written correspondence was received concerning this case. Mr. LeBaron stated no. Mr. Bunting stated they need to protect the property for the next homeowner. He stated he would like to see the trees remain, but it must be screened. Chairman Ouer stated the east side is completely covered with trees. He stated Mr. Oevleer had suggested putting up a fence on the north side. Mr. Skinner asked how many trees were lost when Pace went in. He stated the trees are basically scrub trees, and no one would want to move into that house with all the commercial activity around them. Chairman Ouer stated that if the property sells, it would most likely become a commercial use. Mr. Bunting stated it is zoned residential now. Mr. Skinner stated it has to be zoned residential because someone is living there. He stated it will stay that way until someone buys the property. There was general discussion about where the trees were on the property. Mr. Bunting asked if they thought it was worthwhile to leave the trees. Chairman Duer stated yes, because there is no way to put a fence on the east side without offsetting the fence several feet. He stated he would not want to donate that much property to someone else. Mr. Bunting stated that they must assume that the property will stay residential until it is actually changed. He stated by not screening the property, are they putting the future homeowner in jeopardy. Mr. Skinner stated it is highly unlikely that another homeowner would purchase the property. Mr. Bunting stated that the entire area should be fenced. ZBA Minutes - Page 4 21 January 1993 Mr. Cypert stated the fence would have a deterioration factor, but the trees would fill out in the spring and summer. He stated that the homeowner could always install their own fence. Mr. Bunting stated that by ordinance, the fence should be installed by Pace. Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve BA 92-16 with the following stipulations: that a fence be installed on the north side of the property, and that a fence is not required on the east side. Mr. Skinner offered an amendment to motion that the holes on the east side be filled in with greenscape. Mr. Cypert stated it could become a maintenance problem. Mr. Skinner stated they have already planted grass and a few trees on that side. Chairman Duer asked what kind of maintenance is required for a fledgling tree to grow. Mr. Skinner stated you plant it and let it grow, with occasional watering. Mr. Bunting stated he could accept a big green barrier. Mr. Skinner stated that a hardy plant like a red-tipped fotinia could be planted that would provide year-round green and color. He stated they have already planted rye grass and some other small trees in the area. He stated they have to check that area already, and the Board would not be adding to the maintenance problem at all. Mr. Cypert asked Mr. Devleer what his preference was. Mr. Devleer stated that there would be maintenance involved, and that it , would be more cost effective to put up the fence. He stated it would be more beneficial to the homeowner to screen the north property line where the store is, rather than screening an empty parking tot to the east. Chairman Duer asked if they put too many stipulations regarding greenscape, Pace may just put up the fence. After further discussion regarding maintenance and costs, Mr. Skinner withdrew his amendment. Mr. LeBaron stated that the area being referred to is a permanently landscaped area, and may be fully irrigated already. Mr. Cypert repeated his motion to approve BA 92-16 with the following stipulations: that a fence be installed on the north side of the property, and that a fence is not required on the east side. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skinner, and the motion failed 3-1, with Mr. Cypert, Mr. Skinner, and Chairman Duer voting for approval, and Mr. Bunting voting against approval. ZBA Minutes - Page 5 21 January 1993 2. SA 92-27 Request of Abe Lang to vary from the Zoning Ordinance No. 1080 on Lot 1, Block 1, Cochran Addition, to allow temporary banners to be displayed on a pole sign. This property is located at 8230 Bedford-Euless Road. Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and called for those wishing to speak to come forward at this time. Mr. Abe Lang, 821 Warwick Drive, Piano, came forward to speak. He stated they are leasing a space in the Crossroads Plaza Shopping Center. He stated as part of the lease, they will be putting a sign on the highway pole sign. He stated due to the highway expansion, the sign will be taken down and replaced with a new sign closer to the building. Mr. Lang stated he was told the new sign has been approved by the City. He stated that it would be very expensive to replace the panels on the current sign, since it will be torn down very soon. He stated that discussions with the landlord resulted in putting up vinyl coverings over the old sign. He stated it would cost several thousand dollars to replace the Plexiglas panels. He stated if he lost the sign, he would end up with a retail space with no sign. Chairman Duer asked if the owner had applied for a new sign permit. Mr. LeBaron stated staff has talked to them for the last eighteen months about whether they could move the sign or build a new one, but the owner has not taken either route yet. Mr. Skinner stated they have to take out a permit showing size, height, and location. Chairman Duer asked what the cost to replace the existing sign would be. Mr. Lang stated close to $4,000. He stated there would also be electrical modifications to the current sign as well. Chairman Duer asked how much the vinyl signs cost. Mr. Lang stated roughly $1 ,200. Chairman Duer stated that if the Board does approve the variance with a time limit, it would be necessary for Mr. Lang to push the landlord on the sign issue. Mr. Lang stated he would be glad to step in. He stated he has seen plans for the new sign. Mr. Skinner stated Western Realty is holding up the process because they should know where the highway is going to go. He stated that there are two tenants in the center without signs. Mr. Lang stated that if he were granted the variance, he would make it his business to get the new sign situation on the go. Chairman Duer asked how long it would take to build a sign like this. Mr. Pence stated about two days. ZBA Minutes - Page 6 21 January 1993 Mr. Lang stated it took him ten weeks to get a pole sign manufactured and installed at his I rving location. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Duer closed the public hearing. Mr. Cypert stated that signs are very difficult to deal with. He stated they must look at the businesses supporting our City. He stated he could provided some leniency in this case, but not much. He stated he could agree to a stipulation for a time limit. Mr. Skinner stated the model for the highway expansion has been around for over two years. He stated that many buildings have come down as part of the expansion. He stated Western Realty is not taking care of their tenants in this respect. Mr. Cypert stated since it is a tenant requesting this variance, and not the owner, the Board should show some compassion. Mr. Lang stated that it would take at least ten weeks to get a new sign erected. He asked that the variance be extended to cover this time period . Mr. Cypert stated they are working with Home Depot on a sign. He stated that under time constraints, people work better. He stated he would not be opposed to give staff the option to extend the variance for up to thirty days. Mr. Lang asked if the landlord would have to come before a board to get a sign permit. Chairman Duer stated no, unless the landlord was asking for something that was not in agreement to the zoning ordinance. Mr. LeBaron stated one reason why the property owner is not moving forward with the sign is that the highway department is in the process of buying that sign. He stated they don" know when the highway department will buy the sign. He stated that another issue is that the zoning ordinance does not allow message boards unless it is a time and temperature type of sign. Mr. LeBaron stated that if they move the sign, they could keep the message board. He stated if they build a new sign, they could not. He stated that the message board is in such a deteriorated condition that they want a new one. He stated the owner may be back before this board. He stated he could not see the highway department buying that sign within the next sixty days. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Lang when he moved into the property. Mr. Lang stated around the end of October. Mr. Skinner asked when he put the sign up. Mr. Lang stated he was not sure. He stated they have opened ten stores since May, and it is difficult to pinpoint a date. Mr. Skinner stated they have a letter from the City dated November 30, 1992, so it must have been up before that time. He asked what other ZSA Minutes - Page 7 21 January 1993 signs are up on the building right now. Mr. Lang stated they have a sign on the front and the side wall. He stated the pole sign gives them visibility along the highway and Bedford- Euless Road. Chairman Duer stated that the temporary sign looks like a solid sign until you get right up on top of it. Mr. Lang stated that banners are not a real attractive means of advertising. He stated there was another tenant that did put up a banner sign on the pole. Mr. Bunting asked that of the ten stores, do any of them have a sign like this one. Mr. Lang stated no. He stated he has never come across a pole sign that is in limbo. He stated all the other signs are permanent ones, and that is his intention here also. He stated that they have spent up to $20,000 for signs at a given location. Mr. Lang stated that signs are very important for retail business. Mr. Skinner stated that they have asked one person to take a sign down. He stated why has Western Realty not taken care of their tenants. Chairman Duer stated that with a time limit, it would be incumbent on the tenant to get the owner moving on the sign. Mr. Skinner stated there are other tenants that may sneak out and put up banner signs on the pole. Chairman Duer asked if any of them would go out and spend $1200 to put up a sign for sixty days. Mr. Bunting stated that Mr. Lang has proven that he does not put this type of sign up at his stores. He stated that a temporary variance could not hurt anyone. Chairman Duer stated that this Board looks at hardship cases. He stated it is a hardship to make a business owner buy a $4,000 sign, and then turn around in two months and buy another one. Mr. Skinner stated that if Mr. Lang has enough pull with the realty company to get this done within sixty days, then he should start working right now. Mr. Cypert stated he does not mind putting a time limit on it. He stated that the real problem is with the landlord and not the tenant. Chairman Duer stated that any business in that corridor could be seriously affected if the highway department continues to drag its heels. He stated that this Board must do everything to keep these businesses. He stated he does not feel that Mr. Lang is trying to skirt the ordinance. He stated he feels this is a genuine hardship. ,Mr. Skinner stated that sixty days is much too long. He stated the realty fompany knows where it can put a new sign. He stated he would agree ZBA Minutes - Page 8 21 January 1993 to forty days. Mr. Cypert asked if Mr. Skinner would agree to forty-five days with staff given an option to extend it another thirty days depending upon the progress of the sign. Mr. Skinner stated yes. Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve BA 92-27 for the period of forty- five days, with City Staff given the option for continuance of the variance for thirty more days at their discretion to allow for any contingencies, and if no continuance is granted, the sign comes down on the forty-sixth day. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bunting, and the motion carried 4-0. 3. BA 92-28 Request of John David Chalopiza to vary from the Zoning Ordinance No. 1080 on Lot 23, Block 5, Emerald Hills Addition, to allow the carport to encroach the front building line. This property is located at 7929 Emerald Hills Way. Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and called for those wishing to speak to come forward at this time. John and Cindy Chalopiza, 7929 Emerald Hills Way, came forward to speak. Ms. Chalopiza stated that on July 16, she contracted with T&N Construction to reroof the house and put up a carport. She stated they contracted T&N to do all the materials, labor, and permits. She stated T&N did not get a permit. She stated T&N has been paid. Mr. Chalopiza stated T&N did not do what they were supposed to do. He stated he has pictures of a few carports in the area. He stated T&N told him he went to the City and secured all the required permits. Ms. Chalopiza stated there is no recorded building line on the plat. Chairman Duer asked if they knew when the house was built. Ms. Chalopiza stated 1971. Chairman Duer asked if they put building lines on the plat at that time. Mr. Pence stated some did and some did not. Ms. Chalopiza stated she does have a copy of the plat. Chairman Duer stated a survey done many years ago may not meet current codes because of changes that may have occurred. Mr. Chalopiza stated the carport is not bad looking. Mr. Skinner asked who the person at T&N was. Mr. Chalopiza stated Ricky Rittenbury. Ms. Chalopiza stated he also goes by T&N Construction Company and Pyramid Construction Company. Chairman Duer called for those wishing to speak against BA 92-28 to ZBA Minutes - Page 9 21 January 1993 come forward at this time. Mr. Simon Torres, 7921 Emerald Hills Way, came forward to speak. He stated there are no carports along the street, but there are some to the north. He asked if Mr. Chalopiza gets to keep the carport, does that mean that anyone can build anything they want in front of their house. Chairman Duer stated that is a concern that the Board must keep in mind. Mr. Torres stated no one else has one. He stated he wondered how it will affect his property if he wanted to sell it. He stated the real question was whether Mr. Chalopiza was complying with the City ordinances or not. Chairman Duer stated that if the proper channels had been followed, the person doing the construction would have found out that the carport could not be built without a permit, and that to be approved they would have to come before this Board. Mr. Torres stated there are many people speeding on the street since they opened it up to Grapevine Highway. He stated that if Mr. Chalopiza is in violation of the ordinance, he should take the carport down. Ms. Tomie Renton, 8005 Emerald Hills Way, came forward to speak. She stated the carport does look nice, but it is really a patio cover. She stated if it had a roof like the house, then it would be a carport. She stated their front yards are twenty-five feet deep. She stated she checked with several Realtors, and if a carport does not fit the house, that is a strike against it. She stated she finds it difficult to believe they did not check the ordinances. She stated she does not like it being on the street. Ms. Renton stated there are many traffic problems on the street. she stated she would like to see speed bumps in the road. Chairman Duer stated the new street being constructed off of Davis should take some of the traffic off of Emerald Hills Way. Ms. Renton stated the carport does lower the value of the homes in the area. There being no one else wishing to speak concerning the request, Chairman Duer closed the public hearing. Chairman Duer asked if there had been any written correspondence concerning this case. Mr. LeBaron stated no. Mr. Chalopiza came forward again. He stated he got a contractor to put everything up. He stated he was not trying to put something up to depreciate property values. Chairman Duer asked Mr. Pence if a permit was needed to reroof a house. Mr. Pence stated no, it is just considered maintenance and the City does not require a permit for it. ZBA Minutes - Page 10 21 January 1993 Chairman Duer stated it is not clear where the blame lays. He stated we assume that the person we hire knows all the rules. He stated that the burden in situations like this still falls back on the homeowner. Mr. Skinner asked how the building line is known on these properties. Mr. Pence asked Mr. Husband how he came up with the building line on the property. Mr. Husband stated it is on the plat. Mr. Bunting stated he has a hard time telling someone to take something down, but he has always taken the entire neighborhood into consideration. Chairman Duer stated the contractor should have pulled the permit or asked the homeowner to get the permit. Ms. Tomie Renton came forward again. She stated she has added on to her house and had to get a permit for it. She stated that during the construction, the contractor nailed the permit to the house so it was in plain sight. She stated that someone from the City would come out and check the work every so often. Chairman Duer stated the blame has to go around to everyone. He stated if done properly, this case would not be here. Mr. Bunting asked if the carport could be shortened. Mr. Pence stated the house is right on the building line. Mr. Cypert stated they must look at the overall neighborhood. He stated most of the carport cases come up in the older areas of town. He stated that when a carport does go in, many seem to follow. He stated in most areas they are a detriment to the area, not an asset. Mr. Cypert stated it is difficult to vote against someone who has paid that much money. Chairman Duer stated that he would like to look into the possibility of the application fee being waived if the request is turned down. Mr. Cypert stated the Board was told several years ago they have no authority to do that. Chairman Duer asked about the status of the contractor. Mr. Pence stated that the contractor1s registration has been revoked until this matter is taken care of. Chairman Duer asked what will happen if the Board denies this request. Mr. Pence stated that hopefully the Board will set a date as to when the carport should be removed. He stated that until the carport is removed, the contractor will not be able to work in this city. Mr. Cypert asked if the contractor applied for a permit. ZBA Minutes - Page 11 21 January 1993 Mr. Pence stated yes. Mr. Cypert asked who is responsible for removing the carport. Mr. Pence stated that is a civil matter between the contractor and the homeowner. Mr. Bunting asked if they have the right to ask the contractor to come before the Board. Mr. LeBaron stated that according to the State statutes, the Board can do that. Mr. Skinner stated that if they deny the request, the applicant has retribution to the courts where the contractor would have to appear. Mr. Pence stated the contractor was aware of the meeting. He stated the contractor knows he cannot get another permit until this matter is resolved. Mr. Skinner stated that if this case is denied, the homeowner can still drag the contractor into court. Ms. Tomie Renton came forward again. She asked if the contractor was fined. Mr. Pence stated the contractor was issued a citation. Ms. Renton asked how much he was fined. Mr. Pence stated that is up to the judge. Mr. Chalopiza came forward again. He asked when the contractor was coming before the court. Mr. Pence stated he did not know. He stated Mr. Chalopiza could probably call Linda Woodworth at the municipal court. Mr. Cypert asked if they have to remove the structure within a certain time if the request is denied. Mr. Pence stated that is up to the Board. He stated if the Board does not set a time limit, he would do it. Mr. Skinner stated that Mr. Pence could set a time limit. There was general discussion regarding a time limit for taking down the carport. Mr. Cypert stated that the time limit should be left up to city staff. Mr. Chalopiza came forward again. He asked who was liable to take it down. Mr. Skinner stated it is clear that the Board will not approve this motion, so the carport must come down. He stated Mr. Chalopiza could take it down, or appeal the decision to district court. He stated the Board is not ZBA Minutes - Page 12 21 January 1993 going to get involved in what Mr. Chalopiza does with the construction company. Mr. Cypert stated that the leverage involved is that the contractor cannot do business in the city until the carport is taken down. Mr. Pence stated that if the Board does not set a date, he will set one that is reasonable. He stated that if he appeals the decision to the court, this becomes a dead issue until the court decides. Chairman Duer stated that this Board is the last resort at the city level. He stated from here it goes to district court. He stated that until the matter is abated, the contractor cannot work in the city. Mr. Chalopiza asked if he took it down, could the contractor work in the City. Chairman Duer stated yes, because the homeowner is the one legally liable to take it down. Chairman Duer called for a motion on BA 92-28. No motion was made. He stated that due to the lack of a motion, the request is denied. 4. Election of Officers for 1993 Mr. Skinner made the motion to postpone this item until next week. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cypert, and the motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ?ù->. ¿- Tom Duer, Chairman