Loading...
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