Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1983-09-08 Minutes . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 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 Members Building Official P & Z Coordinator Jack Roseberry Marty Erck Hal Schubert Hans Kossler Bill Fenimore Ron Hubbard Billy Cypert Bill Rice Wanda Calvert Alt. Members OATH OF OFFICE Chairman Roseberry administered the Oath of Office to two Alternate Members, Ron Hubbard and Billy Cypert. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1983 Mr. Fenimore made the motion to approve the minutes as written. This motion was seconded by Mr. Erck and the motion carried 4-0 with the following vote recorded: Fenimore, yea, Erck, yea, Kossler, yea, and Roseberry, yea. Mr. Schubert abstained since he was not present at the meeting. . NEW BUSINESS 1. BA 83-15 Request of Bob Brady with Westchase Garden Homes to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on Lot R20-A, Block 34, Holiday West Addition, to allow the fireplace to be approximately 2~ feet beyond the front building line. This property is located at 5711 West Chase Drive. . Mr. Brady came forward. He stated they are requesting a deviation from the 25 foot building line. Mr. Brady said in a recent survey they found the fireplace was 2~ feet over the building line and the mortgage company will not approve without this variance. ~ ~ Page 2 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Mr. Kossler said since he is not a builder, he would like to ask how a mistake like this is made. Mr. Brady said they were building 21 buildings and with the mounds of dirt, they must have forgotten they were to have a fireplace on the front. Mr. Kossler asked what the city is doing to stop this from happening. Mr. Rice said the Inspection Department is now making a "stake-out" inspection to see that this does not happen. Mr. Erck asked Mr. Rice how they could make sure. . Mr. Rice said they measure from the street, but if the survey stakes are wrong, their measurements would be wrong. He said they would have no way of knowing. Chairman Roseberry said he could see how this could easily happen. Mr. Kossler said he felt they should not make these mistakes. He said this Board was told the first of this year that we would not have anymore of these mistakes. Mr. Fenimore said Mr. Rice is making a new inspection and this will probably not happen anymore. He said he feels the inspectors are trying to catch the mistakes and correct them. Mr. Fenimore said we are not always dealing with professionals, he has seen concrete men put stakes in the ground so they will not have to wait for a surveyor. Mr. Kossler asked Mr. Brady if this would be a hardship for him. e Mr. Brady said it would. He said he would either have to purchase if or try to take the fireplace off and patch it. ~ Page 3 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Mr. Hubbard asked if any of the members looked at this property. Mr. Cypert said he did and he could hardly tell it was over the building line. Mr. Hubbard said he did also, and the buildings going to the north were all flush, but looking to the south, they were a little off. Chairman Roseberry 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 asked if there had been any correspondence. Mrs. Calvert said there had been none. Mr. Kossler said he would like to make a suggestion to the Chairman to request the Public Works department make certain that an inspection is made to catch this. Chairman Roseberry said he had discussed this with Mr. Rice and he said they are now pulling a string to check for errors. BA 83-15 APPROVED Mr. Schubert made the motion to approve BA 83-15 as requested. This motion was seconded by Mr. Fenimore and the motion carried 5-0 with the following vote recorded: Schubert, yea, Fenimore, yea, Erck, yea, Kossler, yea, and Roseberry, yea. . ~ Page 4 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . 2. BA 83-16 Request of J. B. Sandlin to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on Lots 1 thru 21, Block lR, Northridge Addition, to be allowed to have to carports closer to the house than the required 15 feet without having them attached. This property is located on the west side of Northridge Boulevard between Harwood Road and Lynda Lane. Rob Wetli came forward to represent Mr. Sandlin. He said they have very large carport covers that are not attached but they overlap the main building. Mr. Wetli said after getting a building permit and getting several built and ready for final inspection, they were told that if the carport is closer to the house than 15 feet it would have to be attached. Mr. Wetli said they feel it would be unsatisfactory to attach the carports. . Mr. Fenimore asked how much overhang they have. Mr. Wetli said it overhangs the cornice about 6 or 8 inches. Mr. Schubert asked if they were not aware of the city requirement. Mr. Wetli said not until they started the third building. Mr. Rice said he marked on their plans that it had to be 15 feet from the main building. Mr. Wetli said he did not believe his plans were marked. Chairman Roseberry asked if they had a storage area on these carports. Mr. Rice said the storage area is down the middle of the carports. . Mr. Rice read from page 78 of the Zoning Ordinance: "Carports, garages, or other detached accessory buildings located within the rear portion of the ~ Page 5 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . lot as heretofore described shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to the main building nor nearer than three (3) feet to any side lot line." Mr. Fenimore asked if they had an estimate of what it would cost to attach the carports. Mr. Wetli said it would be about $150 to $200 each. Mr. Fenimore asked how many mistakes they have. Mr. Wetli said they have four buildings, eight sides, finished with temporary finals. Mr. Wetli asked if they consider it being attached by using the foundation butting up to one another. . Mr. Fenimore said they could not. Mr. Rice said they could not. Mr. Schubert asked if they approve or disapprove this request, would it be for the whole project. Mr. Wetli said it would be for 21 lots. Mr. Erck asked how much money had they invested. Mr. Wetli said about $70,000 per building. Mr. Wetli asked what was the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Rice said it was for fire protection and also, if they were attached, they would get a cheaper rate if insurance. . Mr. Fenimore said they could attach them with only one board and comply. ~ Page 6 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Mr. Rice said this requirement was typed on the permit and written on the plans, and they have to sign the permit when they pick it up. Chairman Roseberry 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 asked if there had been any correspondence. Mrs. Calvert said there had been none. . Mr. Schubert said he felt they should follow the Zoning Ordinance. BA 83-16 DISAPPROVED Mr. Schubert made the motion to disapprove BA 83-16. This motion was seconded by Mr. Kossler. The vote was 2-3 with the following vote recorded: Schubert, yea, Kossler, yea, Erck, nay, Fenimore, nay, and Roseberry, nay. Chairman Roseberry stated this request was denied because you have to have 4 affirmative votes to approve any request. 3. BA 83-17 Request of Alan W. Hamm to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on Lot 8R, Lonsdale Addition, to allow the building line to be 10 feet from the front property line instead of the required 25 foot setback. This property is located at the northeast corner of Davis Boulevard and Harwood Road. . ~ Page 7 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Tom Wilder came forward to represent Mr. Hamm. He stated they had purchased this property earlier this year and had made numerous visits to Mr. Riddle's office discussing the driveways with he and Mr. Line. Mr. Wilder said the driveways along Davis Boulevard must comply with the city with no deviation; they need to correspond with the signalization on Davis Boulevard. Mr. Wilder said they drew up their building plans for Lot 8R for the driveway to line up with the signal light at Lola Drive. He said he took a site plan he drew up in accordance with the Commercial zoning requirements as listed in the Zoning Ordinance which showed no building setbacks to Mr. Riddle. Mr. Wilder said he felt they were in compliance and Mr. Riddle thought so, too. . Mr. Wilder said after obtaining a replat of the property, they had their architect continue his plans to get the most use of the property. He said he took the architect's plans to the city for approval, but Mr. Rice said they were not in compliance, that the plans for Lot 8R would require a variance. Mr. Wilder said the rear setback is very restrictive and they would lose 15 feet of the most desirable part of the building. Mr. Wilder said the property next to this property has a large sign and the property owner uses the property for storage. Mr. Fenimore asked when they found they were in error. . Mr. Wilder said they did not have a Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Riddle said there were none available and they had to check one out of the library for reference. ~ Page 8 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Mrs. Calvert said she would have run one off on the xerox machine has she known they wanted one. Mr. Wilder said besides losing 15 feet of rental space, they would have the expense of having the architect redraw the plans. Mr. Erck asked what kind of tenants they would have. Mr. Wilder said they would have some offices and some retail space. Mr. Erck asked about the parking requirements. Mr. Rice said they would meet the parking requirements. Mr. Fenimore asked how far should they set back to meet the city requirement. . Mr. Rice read from page 82 of the Zoning Ordinance under "Exceptions and Variances": The front yard heretofore required shall be adjusted in the following cases: A. Where 35 percent or more of the frontage on one side of a street between two intersecting streets is developed with buildings that have observed, with variation of 5 feet or less, a front yard greater or lesser in depth than herein required, new buildings shall not be erected closer to the street than the building line so established by the existing buildings. However, this regulation shall not be interpreted as requiring a building line of more than 50 feet." . Mr. Wilder said they read the requirement in Commercial zoning, page 70, Section I which states no front yard shall be required. He said if this is not correct, he could not understand how Mr. Riddle made the mistake. Mr. Wilder asked they not be penalized. ~ Page 9 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Chairman Roseberry read from page 82, #B of the Zoning Ordinance: Where the frontage between two intersectin~ streets is developed with buildings that have not observed a front yard as described in (A) above, then: 1. Where a building is to be erected on a parcel of land and will not be more than 200 feet from existing buildings on either side, the building line shall be a line drawn between the two closest front corner of the adjacent buildings on the two sides." Chairman Roseberry said he believed there has been a misinterpretation, Commercial zoning does not require a front yard and he does not feel the "Exceptions and Variances" should apply to Commercial zoning. . Chairman Roseberry 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. Lewis D. Waldrup, 5309 Tiffin Drive, came forward. He said his property abuts the back of this property. Mr. Waldrup asked what the request was for, the front or the back setback. Chairman Roseberry said the city says they need to move the building back further on the lot. Mr. Waldrup said he would object to that; he had rather have it the way the plan shows. He said there are single family homes to the rear of this property. Mr. Rice said they have to have 20% of the depth of the lot for rear yard. . Chairman Roseberry closed the Public Hearing. ~ Page 10 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . RECESS Chairman Roseberry called a recess at 8:00 P. M. BACK TO ORDER Chairman Roseberry called the meeting back to order at 8:10 P. M. with the same members present. Chairman Roseberry said the Board questions whether the Exceptions and Variances portion of the Zoning Ordinance would apply to this request or should it only apply if it is 35% developed. Chairman Roseberry said it is the responsibility of this Board to interpet the intent of the ordinance. He said he did not feel it is applicable to Commercial zoning. . Mr. Schubert made a motion to dismiss BA 83-17, that no variance is required because no front yard is required in Commercial zoning when it is on a street over 60 feet wide. Mr. Kossler asked how close was it to an existing building. Mr. Rice said about 120 feet. Mr. Schubert said he would like to withdraw his motion at this time. Mr. Fenimore said if the Board goes with the City Staff's desire to back the building up on the lot, the property owners will object. Mr. Rice said to the north, Dr. Pankey observed the 25 foot building line which was shown on the plat of this property before Mr. HamID replatted it to show no building line; then the fire station and the hardware store chose to set back further. . . . . ~ Page 11 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 BA 83-17 APPROVED Mr. Fenimore made the motion to approve BA 83-17 as requested. This motion was seconded by Mr. Erck and the motion carried 5-0 with the following vote recorded: Fenimore, yea, Erck, yea, Kossler, yea, Schubert, yea, and Roseberry, yea. 4. BA 83-18 Request of Stanley Houseman to vary from the Zoning Ordinance #179 on a portion of Lot 2 and Lot 12, Block 2, J.M. Estes Subdivision, to be allowed to have a caretaker live on the property of AA Mini Warehouses in Commercial zoning and also be allowed to install a fence on the property line along Flory Street. This property is located on the east side of Rufe Snow Drive, bounded on the east by Flory Street, and is approximately 200 feet south of Harmonson Road. Mr. Houseman came forward. He stated he is requesting this variance for safety and security. Mr. Houseman said on August 6th or 7th ten warehouses were broken into and thousands of dollars were stolen. Mr. Houseman said they have a problem with people using their property to drive through from Rufe Snow Drive to Flory Street. He said they have tenants who work out of these warehouses and also have children who walk or ride bikes through the area. Mr. Houseman said they have two dumpsters that are readily available to everyone which causes a mess and is a health hazard. Chairman Roseberry asked which street did the warehouses front on. Mr. Rice said they front on Rufe Snow and have a Rufe Snow address. Chairman Roseberry said they do not have the required rear yard. ~ Page 12 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Mr. Rice said they were built prior to our ordinance. Mr. Houseman said he would like to put up a fence along Flory Street to cut off all the drive thru traffic, and by providing an apartment for the manager and his wife to live in, there could be 24 hour care and protection. Chairman Roseberry asked what kind of fence he plans to install. Mr. Houseman said it would be chain link with bob wire across the top. Mr. Rice said bob wire is not allowed. Mr. Fenimore said Walker Construction which is next to this property has bob wire across the top of their fence. Mr. Fenimore asked how this fencing would affect fire protection. . Mr. Rice said they have agreed to put in a crash gate. Mr. Kossler asked how they thought having a caretaker would give greater protection. Mr. Fenimore said he has a friend who has mini warehouses and his number one concern is they have a caretaker. He said they are the most immaculate places and they have less problems. Mr. Fenimore said he felt it was a good situation with a caretaker. Mr. Kossler said if we allow this, they will be wanting to have one in other places. Mr. Hubbard said he has dealings with storage places and all have caretakers and fences, and he feels this man has a problem. He asked if there would be access to the retail space and the dumpsters. . Mr. Houseman said there would be a gate. ~ Page 13 Z B A Minutes September 8, 1983 . Chairman Roseberry said there are other storage buildings in this city with caretakers quarters. Chairman Roseberry said he knew the men who drew up this Zoning Ordinance; they took several ordinances and put them together, and sometimes it is in error. He said they should have made provision for such as this. Chairman Roseberry said he hopes the new Zoning Ordinance will be written better. Mr. Schubert asked where the fence would be on Flory Street. Mr. Rice said it would be in line with the telephone pole. Mr. Houseman said he was not sure where the property line was on Flory Street because you cannot tell where the road ends and the property begins. . Mr. Erck said Flory Street is a disaster. Chairman Roseberry 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. BA 83-18 APPROVED Mr. Erck made the motion to approve BA 83-18 as requested. This motion was seconded by Mr. Schubert and the motion carried 5-0 with the following vote recorded: Erck, yea, Schubert, yea, Fenimore, yea, Kossler, yea, and Roseberry, yea. ADJOURNMENT a at 8:55 P. M. . NT