Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1987-07-16 Minutes . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS JULY 16, 1987 - 7:00 P. M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Jack Roseberry, at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Secretary Member Alt. Members Jack Roseberry Billy Cypert Ron Hubbard Forrest Grubb David Barfield Richard Davis Stan Gertz Danny Taylor Richard Royston Wanda Calvert Councilman Fire Chief Division Chief Dir. Planning/Dev. P & Z COordinator ABSENT: Harold Schubert CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 1987 Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Hubbard and the motion carried 4-0 with Mr. Grubb abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. . 1. BA 87-7 Request of Bill J. Fenimore to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #1080 on Lot 7, Block 1, and Lots 41 thru 45, Block 4, Western Oaks Addition, to vary from the front building line requirement. This property is located south of Bursey Road, west of Douglas Lane. Chairman Roseberry opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. . Richard Davis, Vice President of Brookes Baker Surveyors, came forward. He stated he would like to give some past history of this property. Mr. Davis stated that there is a high pressure Lone Star Gas line south of Bursey Road. He stated that they relocated it and the recorded plat shows a 35 foot easement. Page 2 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . Mr. Davis stated that the City had a letter from Lone Star Gas stating approval of the 35 feet prior to the filing of the plat, but when the builder was ready to pour the foundation on the first house, Lone Star Gas came out and stated their easement was 35 feet south and 15 feet north of the existing line. He stated this easement was recorded in 1972. The Lone Star Gas man also stated the developer could not dedicate right of way for Bursey Road. Mr. Davis said Lone Star Gas has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Mr. Davis said the builder was so far along on the house on Lot 1, Block 1 that Lone Star Gas released the easement for $3,300.00 on the one lot. . Mr. Davis said they do not want to have to pay $3,300.00 on each lot and they do not want to fight anymore. Mr. Davis said if they could reduce the front building lines on these lot by five feet, the houses would not be too close to the Lone Star Gas easement. He said he felt all the adjoining lots should be changed to look good. Chairman Roseberry asked if Mr. Royston had talked to the City Attorney about this. Mr. Royston stated he had not. He said it was a territorial dispute at Lone Star Gas. He said we had a letter from the main office saying the 35 feet was sufficient. Mr. Davis said the utilities were in, the streets are in, and the line has been moved, but they just waited until the builder was ready to pour his foundation, then made him stop. . Mr. Grubb asked if this was a transmission line. Page 3 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . Mr. Davis said it was. Mr. Grubb asked how far forward did he want to go. Mr. Davis said they wish to reduce the front building line five feet on the six lots. Mr. Barfield said they would not have room for the required two off-street parking spaces. Mr. Royston said that was correct. Mr. Davis said they would have 15 feet plus the 10 foot parkway. Mr. Barfield said you need 18 feet not counting the parkway. . Mr. Davis said some of the lots were cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Barfield said you would have a 40 to 45 foot building area. Mr. Davis said the houses must be 1,400 square feet, but some were 1,550 and 1,600 square feet. Mr. Davis said Lone Star Gas Company has even said the builder on Lot 1, Block 1, can not build a fence on the easement, but that is not true, you are allowed to fence your property. He said this just shows you can not believe what you have in writing from Lone Star Gas. Chairman Roseberry called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. . Mr. Grubb made the motion to approve BA 87-7 with the stipulation that the off-street parking be waived. Page 4 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . This motion was seconded by Mr. Cypert. Mr. Royston said he understands what the intent is, but the motion should be re-worded. BA 87-7 APPROVED Mr. Grubb made the motion to approve BA 87-7 as requested. This motion was seconded by Mr. Cypert and the motion carried 5-0. 2. BA 87-8 Request of Cindy Schallawitz to vary from the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance #1442 on Lot 1R, Block 41, Richland Terrace Addition, to build a residence in the designated Flood Plain. This property is located at the northeast corner of Janetta Drive and Cummings Drive. . Chairman Roseberry opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Chris Schallawitz came forward. He said he and his wife wish to build on this lot. He said the other homes in the area have been there for 12 to 15 years. He said they were flooded one time, but the creek has since been improved and they are in the process of improving the creek south of Northeast Loop 820. Mr. Schallawitz said there was a bond program passed to improve the creek and he wishes to go ahead and build a house on the property. He said he will carry flood insurance. Mr. Schallawitz said they would not hold the city responsible. Chairman Roseberry asked how far in the Flood Plain was it. . Mr. Royston said approximately 1~ feet below. He said the Ordinance stated it must be 18 inches above the Flood Plain. Page 5 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . Mr. Schallawitz said when they fix the channel, the lot will be out of the flood plain. Mr. Grubb asked if the slab would be above the Flood Plain. Mr. Royston said it would not; that is why Mr. Schallawitz needs a variance. Nelson Stoppiello, 7400 Jade Circle, came forward. He said he wanted to ask two questions: He said he lives across the street and wants to know if this is to be a one story residence and if this changed the zoning of the property. Chairman Roseberry said this does not change the zoning of the property. . Mr. Stoppiello asked if they plan to pile dirt up and build on it. Mr. Royston said no, they could not do that. Mr. Stoppiello said he had no problems with it. Chairman Roseberry called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. BA 87-8 APPROVED Mr. Cypert made the motion to approve BA 87-8 as requested. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the motion carried 5-0. Chairman Roseberry said he felt they need to sign a hold harmless covenant. 3. BA 87-10 Request of the City Staff for interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance #1080, Section 6.5.3 (c) regarding minimum rear yard area. . . . . Page 6 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 Mr. Royston stated Mr. Gertz and Mr. Taylor are here regarding this request. He said we want an interpretation and an official statement regarding this statement: "There shall be a rear building line established by using the formula of: twenty percent of the lot area must be behind the rear wall of the structure". Mr. Royston said they need an interpretation of how the calculation should be taken since there are usually off-sets and porches. He said we need a concurrence of interpretation. Chairman Roseberry stated the Board has the authority to rule and whatever is decided tonight will be used from now on. Mr. Royston said the Staff had been figuring it from the outside corner of the rear wall 90 degrees to the property line and if the patio has a roof line, it would not be included, but if it was not roofed, it would be considered yard area. Mr. Grubb said he did not feel this would be right since the patio could be covered later. He said he did not feel the patio should be included. Mr. Royston said the Staff feels if it is a part of the building construction, then they don't include it. Mr. Barfield said he felt they should use the rear wall of the house. Danny Taylor came forward. He said he had been instructed by the City Manager to get an interpretation from this Board regarding this matter. Mr. Taylor said people putting swimming pools in also have a problem, not enough room. He said 20% is not always enough. Page 7 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . Mr. Taylor said he has one house that you step off the porch and it is only 5 feet to a drainage ditch. He said they are getting too small lots and trying to get as large a house as possible. Mr. Royston said the same is stated in the Ordinance in R-1, R-2, R-4, and R-5. He said 20% is to give some open space. Mr. Taylor showed the Board how the homeowner figured the 20% on this particular lot. BA 87-10 Mr. Barfield made the motion to interpret the Ordinance to read to calculate the area that falls behind the rear walls including porches and patios if not enclosed will be calculated as lot area. . This motion was seconded by Mr. Grubb and the motion carried 5-0. 4. BA 87-11 Request of the City Staff for interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance #1080, Section 24.13.3 regarding Screening Fences. Mr. Royston said they need to know the intent of the Ordinance regarding a screening fence between residential and commercial. He said the Ordinance reads: "Such screening fence shall be erected along the entire length of the common line between such properties or within the property required to erect the screening." Mr. Royston said the Staff needs to know if the height should be measured on the commercial side or the residential side. He said the homeowner's property who is questioning this is elevated and it makes the fence much less than the required 6 foot height. . Chairman Roseberry said we need to know what constitutes the ground level of the commercial property. Page 8 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . Mr. Royston said the wall is not in compliance now. He said it is not 6 feet high. Chairman Roseberry asked what about a retaining wall. He said Skaggs on Precinct Line Road in Hurst has a tall retainer wall; do they still have to put up a fence? Mr. Barfield said he built the houses next to Skaggs and he had to put up the fences. Chairman Roseberry said he felt the fence is to bar the commercial site from the residential and where excavation has been done, they should still have to put up a fence. . Mr. Barfield said in Bedford, they had to put up a fence above our level. He said he thinks it should be up to the homeowner to decide what he wants. Mr. Royston asked if they have a retaining wall are they still supposed to put up a 6 foot fence. Mr. Grubb said he felt they should. Mr. Barfield said the homeowner might not want it sight-barring. Stan Gertz came forward. He said they are getting away from the request. He said the Ordinance states they must have a sight-barring fence; where do you want us to measure from. Mr. Gertz asked if the Ordinance is designed to protect the homeowner. Mr. Barfield said he felt the residence should be protected. BA 87-11 Mr. Barfield made the motion to interpret the Ordinance to measure at the highest point. If the higher point is on the commercial side, measure from there or if higher on the residential side, measure from there. . Page 9 Z B A Minutes July 16, 1987 . This motion was seconded by Mr. Grubb and the motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P. M. of Adjustment . .