HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1983-03-10 Minutes
.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
MARCH 10, 1983 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
Jack Roseberry
Jesse Range
Harold Schubert
Hans Kossler
ABSENT:
Martin Erck
Bill Fenimore
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF JANUARY 13, 1983
Mr. Range made the motion to
approve the minutes as written.
This motion was seconded by Mr.
Kossler and the motion carried
3-0 with Mr. Schubert abstaining
since he was not at the meeting.
.
1. BA 83-2
Request of North Texas Dining,
Inc. to vary from the Zoning
Ordinance #179 on Lot 4, Block 1,
Carder Addition, to be allowed to
vary from the masonry requirement
in Local Retail zoning. This
property is located at the
southeast corner of Blackfoot
Trail and Airport Freeway.
Tommy Masterson, Vice President
of North Texas Dining, Inc. came
forward. He said they are
requesting this variance from the
masonry ordinance in order to be
able to build their standard
cedar veneer building as opposed
to a brick building as called in
the ordinance.
.
Mr. Masterson said the building
they plan to build meets all the
fire, safety and flame retardant
codes in the city, and they also
plan to p~ace a sprinkler system
in this building to increase the
safety.
~
~
Page 2
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Masterson said they had
submitted a complete set
of plans to Mr. Rice and Mr.
Howard and after they reviewed
the plans, they found they
complied with all the city codes
except the masonry code.
Mr. Schubert asked if any other
businesses have had variances
granted like this. He said he
had noticed that several
restaurants are different from
the code.
Mr. Rice said some have been
granted variances.
Chairman Roseberry said he did
not remember the Board granting
any.
.
Mr. Rice said Ricky's Bar-B-Q on
Grapevine Highway was granted a
variance by the City Council and
also Chili's restaurant.
Chairman Roseberry said Captain
D's has exterior wood, but it
has a brick wall and also Steak
and Ale has wood but is of
ha-dite block.
Chairman Roseberry said being a
builder in this city, he has
found the City of North Richland
Hills to be unyielding on the
90% masonry requirement; they
expect it to be a steel
structure and 90% masonry. He
said the' same wording is in
Local Re tail which requires '75%
masonry, but they determine it
to mean brick veneer with wood
studs.
Mr. Masterson said his property
is Local Retail.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked Mr.
Rice what was the reason for
requiring this.
~
Page 3
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Rice said he felt it was for
fire resistance and also
appearance.
Chairman Roseberry asked if they
could use wood studs in Local
Retail.
Mr. Rice said they could, but a
one-hour fire wall is required
in the building code.
Mr. Masterson said the building
meets all the flame retardant
code. He said they plan to
spray the outside with a flame
retardant treatment and the
inside will also be sprayed.
Mr. Masterson said they are
adding a sprinkler system. He
said all walls are one-hour
without the treatment and
sprinkler system.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked if this
would be pre-treated wood.
Mr. Masterson said no, it would
not be, the pre-treated wood is
not as flame retardant as the
wood you spray yourself.
Mr. Range asked Mr. Rice how
much fire resistant is a brick
wall.
Mr. Rice said it would be
one-hour with the wood studs.
He said you also have to be 5
feet from any building with a
one-hour-wall, but if you are
closer, the code requires a
two-hour wall.
Mr. Masterson said the insurance
rates are the same for both
one-hour and two-hour walls.
.
Mr. Range said it seems to him
it hinges on appearance, and
based on Mr. Rice's comments, it
meets the building code and he
sees no problem with it.
~
Page 4
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Kossler said he felt the
ones who wrote the Zoning
Ordinance could not have
foreseen the theme restaurants
we would have today, and he
feels it is the Board's
responsibility to decide. He
said he felt this would be a .
judgement call and he sees no
problem with it.
.
Mr. Range said the Board has
five questions they must ask
themselves:
(1) What is unique about this
property such that strict
compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance would result in
unusual hardship or render the
property unusable for its
permitted use? He said there is
nothing unique about this
property.
(2) Has the applicant created
his own hardship situation and
would a prudent person have
foreseen the hardship? Mr.
Range said they have created
their their hardship, but they
don't care to remove it, they
want to be in compliance with
their standard building design,
and the Board understands that.
(3) Could the applicant
reasonably achieve his purpose
by applying for rezoning rather
than the variance? He said they
could not.
(4) Is the spirit of the
ordinance being complied with
and is justice being
substantially served? Mr. Range
said the Board has discussed the
spirit of the ordinance and has
the right to interpret the
ordinance.
(5) Will the requested
variance, if granted, cause
problems for adjoining property?
He said they have the required
distance between buildings so it
would not cause problems.
.
Page 5
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Range said he felt the Board
has satisfied all these
questions.
The Chairman opened the Public
Hearing and called for those
wishing to speak in favor of
this request to please come
forward.
There being no one wishing to
speak, the Chairman 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.
Chairman Roseberry said he felt
if they meet the building code
and fire code, they should not
have to come before this Board.
.
BA 83-2
APPROVED
Mr. Range made the motion to
approve BA 83-2 as requested.
This motion was seconded by Mr.
Kossler and the motion carried
4-0 with the following vote
recorded: Range, yea, Kossler,
yea, Schubert, yea, and
Roseberry, yea.
2. BA 83-3
Request of Richard O. Drummond
to vary from the Zoning
Ordinance #179 on Tract 1, R. P.
Barton Survey, Abstract 175,
Tract IF, J. M. Vandusen Survey,
Abstract 1588, a portion of
Tract IB2, Edmund M. D. King
Survey, Abstract 892, and a
portion of Tract 2, T. Akers
Survey, Abstract 19, to allow
750 sq. ft. average living area
per project instead of the
required 750 sq. ft. average per
building. This property is
located directly behind the
Factory Outlet Mall and extends
westward approximately 1637
feet.
.
Page 6
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Drummond came forward. He
said he was requesting this
variance primarily for market
reasons. He said the market
dictates the size and the
similar units .being located in
the same building. Mr. Drummond
said if you have both one
bedroom and two bedroom apart-
ments, the market dictates the
two bedrooms be in one area and
the one bedroom be in another
area. He said the young married
and singles are separated from
the family type units. Mr.
Drummond said the secondary
reason for this variance request
has to do with the development
cost of the project. He said it
is less feasible if you mix one
and two bedroom units in one
building.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked if the
Zoning Ordinance stated 750
square foot minimum per unit or
750 square foot average per
building.
Mr. Kossler said it stated not
less than 750 square feet per
unit.
Mr. Rice said if you read it, it
says: "In multiple family
development, the average of all
living units within each
building shall not be less than
750 square feet per unit."
Mr. Drummond said they plan to
have some units 900 square feet
and some 560 square feet,
depending on the number of
bedrooms and the number of
baths. He said their site plan
averages out to be more than 751
square feet.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked Mr.
Drummond if he would tell the
Board approximately how many of
each size they plan to build.
~
Page 7
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Drummond said their site
plan calls for:
A. 22-0ne bdrm., 1 bath
(564 square feet)
B. 96-0ne bdrm., 1 bath
(upstairs-70D square feet
downstairs-689 square feet)
c. 16-Two bdrm., 1 bath
(850 square feet)
D. 60-Two bdrm., 2 bath
(884 square feet).
.
Mr. Drummond said the project
they are proposing will be above
average for apartment complexes.
He said they are offering such
amenities as washer-dryer
connections, pitched roofs, a
very nice recreational facility,
and the site is one of the
highest points in this area and
the visibility will be
unobstructed where you will have
a view of the entire county.
Mr. Drummond said they plan a
very beautiful project. He said
the propose all the upper floor
units to have wood-burning
fireplaces and they may also
offer them in the lower floor.
Mr. Drummond said the outside
would be brick veneer on both
the upper and lower floors and
the trim would be wood cedar.
Mr. Drummond showed the Board
plans of the proposed complex.
Chairman Roseberry asked if all
the one bedroom apartments
would be' grouped at one end of
the complex.
Mr. Drummond showed the site
plan to the Board and explained
how the layout would be.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked if they
plan to own and lease these
apartments.
Page 8
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Drummond said they have
financial arrangements for 24
months, but after then, it might
change hands.
Mr. Kossler asked what they plan
to rent the apartments for.
Mr. Drummond said according to
the market study they did for
this area, the rental rate works
out to be an average of 45 cents
per square foot per month. He
said, for example, the small
unit would rent somewhere around
$295.00 per month plus
utilities. Mr. Drummond said
all the units will be
individually metered.
Mr. Schubert asked if they plan
to have a laundry room.
.
Mr. Drummond said they do. He
said they first considered
providing stacked washer/dryer
units, but they now plan to
provide connections in the units
plus the laundry room. He said
if they provided individual
stacked units, the cost per unit
and the upkeep would be so much,
they would have to add
approximately $15.00 more to the
monthly rent.
Chairman Roseberry asked if they
had any problem with the 2~
parking space requirement.
Mr. Drummond said they feel it
is rather high, but they made
their plans to conform.
Mr. Schubert said on this site
plan, the parking does not seem
adequate in area "e".
.
Mr. Drummond said he was also
concerned about that area since
they would have to walk
approximately 50 feet, but their
architect said lots of complexes
are situated that way.
Page 9
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Kossler asked if segregating
the family and singles would
make it more marketable.
Mr. Drummond said according to a
market study, the last two years
they have had more requests from
the young marrieds and singles
to be segregated from the
families. He said some
complexes allow only singles.
Mr. Drummond said by
segregating, there are no tenant
complaints.
The Chairman opened the Public
Hearing and called for those
wishing to speak in favor of
this request to please come
forward.
.
There being no one wishing to
speak, the Chairman 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. Schubert asked Mr. Rice if
he was satisfied with the plans.
Mr. Rice said they have not
submitted their plans, only the
site plan.
Mr. Range asked if he felt the
traffic would flow properly.
Mr. Drummond said they have a 40
foot private drive which will
run along the north side of the
Outlet Mall, but their main
entrance would be from
Industrial Park Blvd. which they
plan to extend to their complex.
.
Chairman Roseberry asked if
there was any development on
either side of their property.
Page ·10
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
Mr. Drummond said there was not,
but some 40 acres to the south
has recently been purchased.
BA 83-3
APPROVED
Mr·. Kossler made the motion to
approve BA 83-3. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Schubert and
the motion carried with the
following vote recorded:
Kossler, yea, Schubert, yea,
Range, yea, and Roseberry, yea.
OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Roseberry said he had
some concern with the new
Proposed Zoning Ordinance,
Section 27, pertaining to the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. He
asked if anyone knew where the
changes came from. Chairman
Roseberry said the State
Enabling Act gives the Zoning
Board of Adjustment three
functions: I-interpretation
2-Grant exceptiòns
3-Grant variances
He read Section 27.62 of the new
Propos'ed- Z01Ting-· Ð-r-à-±narree-:-
"To authorize upon appeal in
specific cases such variance
from the terms of this ordinance
as will not be contrary to the
public interest. However, the
board shall not have the power
to grant variances from the
terms of this ordinance deàling
with permitted uses, density,
minimum parking, loading space
requirements, or building line
requirements in R-5-D, R-6-T,
R-7-MF, 0-1, LR, C-1, C-2, OC,
1-1, and 1-2 zone districts."
,.
.
Chairman Roseberry said it
sounds to him they have taken
away the powers the State Law
gives the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. He said in both
Watauga and Richland Hills,
there have been law suits over
such as this, and the suits have
been won.
Page 11
ZBA Minutes
March 10, 1983
.
.
OLD BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
.
Chairman Roseberry said he was
concerned about recent newspaper
articles regarding actions by
this Board. He said he did not
feel these statements were true,
and wondered if it might be good
to request a joint meeting with
the City Council to discuss
these matters.
All the Board members were in
favor of requesting a joint
meeting with the City Council.
Chairman Roseberry instructed
Mrs. Calvert to send a memo to
the Mayor and all City Council
members requesting a joint
meeting as soon as possible to
discuss the new Proposed Zoning
Ordinance and the functions of
the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
and to request communication and
direction from the City Council.
Mr. Kossler asked about Mr.
Neisler's request that the Board
denied.
Mrs. Calvert said the City
Attorney stated the Board could
on its own motion rehear a case,
but some member who voted in
opposition to it would need to
request a rehearing.
Mr. Schubert said he was the one
who voted in opposition and he
would still be opposed to the
request.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15
P. M.
BOARD OF
OF ADJUSTMENT
.
.
.
City of ~orth ~ichland 1Iills
..
Star of the ~etroplex
TO:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
DATE: April 6, 1983
FROM: Wanda Calvert
Planning & Zoning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Zoning Board·of Adjustment meeting for April
There will be no Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting this month.
There were no request submitted.
I have not heard from the City Council regarding a joint meeting
with you. I will notify you when I hear.
See you next month.
WC
(817) 281..0041 /7301 N. E. LOOP 820/ P. O. BOX 18609 / NORTH RICHLAND HillS, TEXAS 76118