Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1987-06-18 Minutes . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS June 18, 1987--7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Jack Roseberry at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Secretary Member Alt. Member Dir. Planning/Dev. Clerk Jack Roseberry Billy Cypert Ron Hubbard David Barfield Richard Royston Betty Sorrels Absent: Member Alt. Member Harold Schubert Forrest Grubb Consideration of the Minutes of April 16, 1987 Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Hubbard and the motion was carried 4-0. . 1. BA 87-3 Request of Darcy Boatman to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #1080 on Lot 1, Block 4, and Lot 18, Block 1, Western Oaks Addition, to allow to build an entrance wall beyond the building line. This property is located on both sides of Western Oaks Drive at Bursey Road. Chairman Roseberry opened the public hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to come forward. Darcy Boatman came forward and stated that in order to build two entrance walls he must come before the Board. Mr. Royston stated that it was necessary for Mr. Boatman to ask for the variance for sight clearance reasons. The walls were on the property line except for the curve in the wall which extend over the property line. . Chairman Roseberry asked Mr. Royston if the Board had not, in the past, had a similar situation on Smithfield Road. Page 2 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Mr. Royston stated that request had been in Spring Meadow at Cortland. Chairman Roseberry stated that since the fence had already gone up had it just been the length of those lots on each side in the Spring Meadow and Cortland request. Mr. Royston stated that was correct. Chairman Roseberry asked if that would be the case with these particular lots. Mr. Royston stated that the ownership of the walls go with the lots. The walls will serve as fences for the lots. Mr. Barfield asked for the set back requirement on a 45 degree corner to get a line of sight. Mr. Royston stated that the requirement called for a 35 foot set back from either direction at the intersection. . Mr. Barfield stated that would be about a 35 foot diagonal at the crossing. Mr. Royston stated that was correct. Mr. Barfield stated he had run into the same problem at Nob Hill. Mr. Royston stated that the 35 foot dimension is stipulated in the State Manual of Traffic Control Devices. Chairman Roseberry asked for the side building line requirement on Bursey Road. . Mr. Royston stated that the R-3 District would be 20 foot on the side building line. The only variance r~uirement area was between the front of the house, 20 foot back from Western Oaks Drive and the corner. The builder cannot build to the property line on the side street once he is past the front building line. This variance was requested because of the front yard. When opposing lots on the next street over causes the houses to be back to back, then one side street can be fenced to the property line. Page 3 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Mr. Barfield asked who would be responsible for the up keep after the Developer leaves. A lot of these walls are left to fall down. Mr. Boatman stated it was not his subdivision, he was only building his models within the subdivision. The homeowners would probably take care of them as they would their fence since it would be on their lots. He hoped that the owner would. Chairman Roseberry stated that what the Board had done in the past, even though they did not have jurisdiction over the foundations, was to ask for some sort of support or foundation within the walls. Mr. Royston would probably handle that part through the Inspection Department. Mr. Boatman stated that everything was being piered. Chairman Roseberry asked Mr. Royston if the walls would be inspected. . Mr. Royston stated that the walls would be inspected. Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Boatman if there would be spread footing with steel going into the fence for support. Mr. Boatman stated that was correct. Mr. Barfield stated that if the Board has that assurance the fence will last five to ten years and thats what the Board wants to see. Chairman Roseberry asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being no one else wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve. Mr. Barfield seconded the motion. . BA 87-4 APPROVED Chairman Roseberry stated that the motion was approved with the understanding that the wall would be piered and inspected. The motion passed 4-0. Page 4 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . 2. BA 87-5 Request of Darcy Boatman to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #1080 on Lot 1, Block 13, Briarwood Estates Addition, to allow to build an entrance wall beyond the building line. The property is located on the northeast corner of Holiday Lane and Hightower Drive at Meadow Road. Chairman Roseberry recognized Mr. Darcy Boatman as representative for this request. Chairman Roseberry asked for the situation on this particular request. Mr. Boatman stated that Colonial National Bank owned the property and wanted the wall and he was there to represent their request. The Bank wanted the wall as a way of separating and identifying this particular property from the other homes being built in that subdivision. This wall would be build the same way as the two walls on Bursey Road at Western Oaks Drive. Chairman Roseberry asked if this site was on the other end of Briarwood Addition. . Mr. Royston stated this one was on the corner of Holiday Lane in Briarwood 5th Filing. The property was previously being developed by DARSCO. This situation is unique in that this would be the back yard of this particular lot. That is the reason for the variance request requirement. It is a different situation from the walls in the other project. The wall will not be a screening fence, or lot demarcation, but exist strictly for a sign. Chairman Roseberry stated that the lot had streets on both sides. Mr. Royston stated that was correct. This corner lot faces into the subdivision and backs up to the extension of Hightower Drive. Chairman Roseberry stated that he assumed it would be within the radius and piers as discussed for the other wall. . Mr. Boatman answered that it would be the same. Page 5 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Chairman Roseberry asked for other comments or questions. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Roseberry closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Cypert moved to approve with the same stipulations that the wall would be piered and inspected . Mr. Hubbard seconded and the motion passed 4-0. Chairman Roseberry stated he hoped Mr. Boatman made something nice out there. Mr. Boatman asked Mr. Royston if he could post the sign on the wall. BA 87-5 APPROVED Mr. Royston stated that the Sign Ordinance allowed for that. 3. BA 87-6 Request of Charles K. Jendel to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #1080 on Tracts 1 & 1C4, S. Richardson Survey, Abstract 1266 (Lot 6, Block A, Green Valley Estates) to not be required to install a fence around pool since there is a fence around the entire property. This property is located at 8017 Valley Drive. . Mr. Charles Jendel came forward to state that he had lived at 8017 Valley Drive since 1974. He wanted the variance for several reasons. The area was agriculture and not heavily populated, neighbors not close and his property was already fenced all the way around. Mr. Jendel asked if Mr. Royston had been out to see the fence. Mr. Royston stated that he had seen the fence. . Mr. Jendel stated he had wrought iron fencing across the front with four inch spacing. The side fences consist of three boards of 1 x 16's and a top board, making the fence four feet high. The back property fence was five high because he did not want anybody hurt. There were ponds in the area and he felt that his pool was not any more of a threat than the ponds. Page 6 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Chairman Roseberry asked if the pool was already in. Mr. Jendel stated that the pool had been in about six weeks. Mr. Royston stated the City was in process of making the final inspections when the Ordinance requirement for a six foot fence around the pool arose. Chairman Roseberry asked if the Ordinance had been interpreted in the past on a residential lot where there was already a six foot fence around the yard. He asked if the additional fence around the pool was required. Mr. Royston stated the Ordinance specifically states that a fence can be surrounding the pool or entire lot area. The City's concern with Mr. Jendel is the rail fence not being six foot high. The wrought iron fence in front would meet the Ordinance requirement. . Mr. Jendel stated that he had a big investment in the project but did not want it to appear junky. Chairman Roseberry asked for the width of the front property. Mr. Jendel stated it was 220 feet. Mr. Barfield asked if the rail fence was a I closed rail, hog wire, bob wire. He stated that when he lived there he had a three inch hog wire and bob wire with boards type of fence. Mr. Jendel said he had a rail fence and on the back there was a four inch spacing of hog wire fence to keep out small children and animals. Mr. Barfield asked if a small child could crawl through or over the fence. . Mr. Jendel stated the fence was five feet tall and he did not think children could get over it. Page 7 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Royston about the liability situation. He asked that if the Board granted the variance would the Board be held liable if someone fell in the pool and drowned, also where does the City stand on this point. Mr. Royston stated he could not give a legal answer. Unless there is a gross violation by the City regarding their own Ordinances the City does not assume liability. The owner has responsibility for safety conditions and requirements. The reason for the fence requirement is a safety reason. Chairman Roseberry asked if there were neighbors on both sides. Mr. Jendel stated there were neighbors on both sides. Mr. Barfield stated that he believed all of them had fences. . Mr. Jendel stated there were three fences between Bursey Road on the south and their pool. Chairman Roseberry asked Mr. Jendel what type of fence was between his property and his neighbors. Mr. Jendel stated the fences were of three boards, four foot high. Chairman Roseberry asked how far apart were the rails. Mr. Jendel stated the spacing was 17 inches. Chairman Roseberry stated that a small child could crawl through that spacing. . Mr. Jendel stated yes, but that there was not any fence built that someone could not get over or crawl through if they wanted to. He would not have asked for the variance if he felt that the fence was unsafe. . . . Page 8 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Jendel if he would have a problem if the Board were to ask him to string hog wire fencing on rails to keep out small children. The Board was concerned about small children crawling through the fence. Mr. Barfield asked if there was hog wire all around the property or only on the back. Mr. Jendel stated that the hog wire went along the back side and the Bursey Road side is five foot high. Mr. Barfield asked how much fencing did not have hog wire fencing. Mr. Jendel thought it would be about 1100 to 1200 feet. Mr. Barfield asked if there were any small children in the area. Mr. Jendel said he did not think so. Mr. Barfield asked how Mr. Jendel felt about adding hog wire to the fence if the variance was granted. Mr. Jendel said if the Board set the condition he would meet that condition. Mr. Barfield stated he had not realized there was that much fence to be considered and it might cost less to fence in the pool. Mr. Jendel stated it would be less expensive to fence the pool but that would be a detraction from the whole setting that he was trying to achieve. He would rather add the hog wire fencing. Chairman Roseberry stated that he lived on 2 1/2 acres and his neighbor had a six foot pool fence which he was glad to see because of his grandchildren. Because small children do not live in the area now does not mean that families with small children will not be there in the future. The new people moving in would have the burden to meet Mr. Jendel's requirements for their safety. Page 9 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . Chairman Roseberry said there is only about 100 feet from neighbors house to the pool which is not a great distance to an open pool. Mr. Barfield stated the Board did not want to be a burden cost wise to Mr. Jendel but the Board would not want a child to drown. Mr. Jendel stated he did not want that either. He would rather install hog wire than have a fence around his pool. Mr. Barfield stated that the Board would feel better if hog wire were added to the fence. Chairman Roseberry called for those wishing to speak in opposition to please come forward. There being no one wishg to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. . Chairman Roseberry asked David Barfield to make the motion with the stipulation on the hog wire. Mr. Barfield moved to approve the request with the stipulation that the fence around the property that does not already have mesh wire be added before the final inspections are made. Chairman Roseberry stated that there should be a height indicated. Mr. Barfield stated that the stipulation should include a fence spacing that a small child could not crawl through. Chairman Roseberry asked Mr. Barfield to do it in feet and inches. Mr. Barfield asked for Mr. Royston's opinion. Mr. Royston stated he thought the Board was trying not to fence to top of the rail. . Page 10 June 18, 1987 ZBA Minutes . BA 87-6 APPROVED ADJOURNMENT . . Mr. Barfield stated that was correct. A Three foot height would be adequate for a two year old child. Chairman Roseberry suggested nothing less than four feet in height with netting leaving the rest open for the City to determine the type of netting. Mr. Royston stated that it could be worked out. He understood what the Board wanted. Mr. Cypert seconded the motion and the motion passed 4-0. Mr. Jende1 asked if there was an immediate time frame. Mr. Royston stated that the pool was not finaled because of the fence conditions and therefore the City would work with Mr. Jendel. The meeting ed at 7:35 P.M.