Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2005-03-24 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 24, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Alternate Tom Duer Leslie Jauregui Fonda Kunkel Beth Davis Jerry Henry Jim Kemp Present. Chairman Absent Alternate Roy Sculley City Staff Planner Building Official Recording Secretary Donna Jackson Dave Pendley Carolyn Huggins 2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2004. APPROVED Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Jauregui motioned to approve the minutes of October 28, 2004. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). CHAIRMAN DUER EXPLAINED THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ANY REQUEST THAT GOES BEFORE THIS BOARD MUST RECEIVE A SUPER MAJORITY (75%). THIS BOARD IS A 5 MEMBER VOTING BOARD. FOR ANY VARIANCE TO PASS IT MUST RECEIVE 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. Page 1 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes 3. BA 2005-01 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DAVID COX FOR A VARIANCE FROM NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874; ARTICLE 6, SECTION 630. D.7. & D.13.a & b. THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 600 SQUARE FOOT, FLAT -ROOFED CARPORT WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. SECTION 630 D.7 LIMITS THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A CARPORT TO 360 SQUARE FEET. SECTION 630 D.13a. REQUIRES THE PITCH OF A CARPORT ROOF TO BE A MINIMUM FOUR VERTICAL TO TWELVE HORIZONTAL (4:12) SLOPE ON EACH SIDE OF THE RIDGE LINE. SECTION 630 d.13.b REQUIRES ROOF SUPPORT COLUMNS TO CONFORM TO THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE, PITCH OF ROOF AND SUPPORT COLUMNS REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO KEEP THE CARPORT AS CONSTRUCTED. APPROVED SUPPORT COLUMNS DENIED SIZE PITCH OF ROOF Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Mr. Cox, to come forward. Mr. Cox, 3760 Charles St., stated that the carport was built as a measure to control flooding. The backyard and the driveway slopes downward into the garage. There is about an 800 sq. ft. parking area. That, plus the slope above it, had a lot of water shedding off. He stated that the previous owner installed a drain on the side of the driveway to try to control flooding but the problem is that there isn't much of a drop from there to the street. The only way he could find to catch the water and shut it off was to build this carport. Mr. Cox gave the ZBA members a blue folder of pictures [which have been placed in the case folder]. He stated that if he followed the maximum allowed by the regulations which is 18x20, the columns would be precisely in the middle of the drive. That's why the carport ended up being oversized. Mr. Cox stated that the parking area is quite large, but the driveway goes into the middle of it. Page 2 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes The wood columns are not the main support of the carport. The carport has 4- inch steel beams anchored into the ground. The wood columns are simply decorative. In response to questions, Mr. Cox explained that the steel beams are I-beams and that they connect. He stated it is very structurally sound. He was happy with the construction but unhappy that the contractor didn't obtain a permit. He stated that the flat roof enables all of the water that is shedding off from the roof of the house and that collects on top of the carport to angle down into a gutter that goes to a drain and straight down to the street. Since installation, he has not had any problems. He stated that it was constructed in September 2004 and that he was contacted within two days about the permit not being acquired. Mr. Cox came into the Permit Office the next day to get a permit and that's when he found out there was a problem. He contacted the contractor many times and Mr. Cox stated that the contractor told him that this was his (Mr. Cox's) problem. He believes the contractor has a warehouse in Ft. Worth and sends out crews from that location. Mr. Cox designed the carport, gave the design to the contractor, asking him if it was allowable and asked him if he would check for all pertinent city codes and the contractor told Mr. Cox that he had. Mr. Cox stated that the posts are anchored into the cement and the columns were painted to match the trim of the house. In response to a question from a Board member, Mr. Cox stated that the garage is used as a garage. They didn't need the carport for parking space but built it to control runoff. He bought the house in February 2001 and the concrete was already there. The house was built in 1955. He believed there was flooding in the past because the previous owner installed a drain. The problem didn't manifest itself until the past couple of years with the over-abundance of rain. He stated that it was pretty normal to step out into the garage and find an inch of standing water. It would all drain eventually but there is no drop from the driveway drain to the street so the water wouldn't go out very fast. Mr. Cox stated that the driveway has a 90-degree turn and that it has always been a rear entry garage. He stated that there are gutters on one side of the carport facing the street. It is built in and looks like trim. All of the water slopes towards the street side of the carport. Page 3 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes He stated that the roof material is metal with ridges. The beams are steel 1- beams. Mr. Cox concluded by presenting the ZBA with letters of support from his neighbors. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing and asked the Board for discussion or a motion. The Chairman stated that in looking at how the driveway was originally poured he sees a hardship. Regarding the masonry requirements, he doesn't see an issue with the wood posts because the neighborhood is more wood than brick and so in the Chairman's mind the issue becomes the pitch of the roof. Mr. Henry stated that pitch is definitely a concern, but an unengineered 30x20 structure is a concern because it won't withstand an ice storm. What size are the I-beams? A pitched roof would help the structure withstand storms. The Chairman asked if City Staff could investigate the structural soundness of the carport over the next 30 days. Mr. Pendley, the Building Official, stated that City staff normally does not get involved in certifying buildings - there are certified licensed professionals that do that. He explained that for permit purposes, the applicant will have to provide engineering. Ms. Davis asked if the applicant's drawings provided to the Board this evening would have been enough information for a permit. Mr. Pendley responded "no" that engineering would have also been required. Ms. Jauregui asked if the applicant would be able to match the brick (since his house was built in 1955). Mr. Pendley responded that from the pictures he has seen he doesn't believe it would be hard to closely match the brick. It's not an unusual color. Ms. Jauregui added that she feels the roof pitch should be corrected and perhaps re-grading has to occur or French drains need to be installed to get the water away from the house. The Chairman asked how the roof pitch could be corrected without rebuilding the whole thing. Ms. Jauregui and other Board members commented that might be the only way. Ms. Jauregui stated that she doesn't see a specific hardship. The Chairman responded that the hardship that he sees relates to the position of the poles and how long the carport is - the position of the driveway creates a hardship. He sees a hardship in restricting the carport to 18 to 20-ft. as opposed to 30-ft. However, he is not comfortable not knowing whether it is a structurally sound structure. Mr. Pendley commented that if the variance is granted, the applicant will then be required to obtain a permit and before that permit could be granted an engineer would have to be obtained to certify the steel. Page 4 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui asked why the carport is needed if the garage is usable. Mr. Henry responded that in the explanation submitted by the applicant they indicated that the carport was erected to help solve the drainage problem. Mr. Henry stated that if the carport were 15x20, which is only 300 sq. ft. and falls within the regulations, the corner post would be just inside the driveway so that turning in would be possible. It wouldn't solve the total drainage problem, but even what the applicant erected doesn't solve the total drainage problem. He doesn't believe this is a structurally sound design for the weather elements in North Texas. Mr. Henry asked for clarification since he is new to the Board - if the Board passes the variance will the applicant need to obtain a permit; or, does the permit process begin only if the Board turns him down? Mr. Pendley explained that the applicant has already applied for a permit but it is in limbo pending the decision of this Board. If the Board passes the variance, the permit application will then be placed into plan review toward the goal of issuing a permit and one of the requirements will be for the applicant to provide engineering for that structure. And if the applicant doesn't comply with the permitting process? (asked by the Chairman) Mr. Pendley responded that the "usual process" then begins - not that he anticipates that happening in this case, but in the worst case scenario, code enforcement gets involved and the homeowner is asked to remove the carport structure, citations eventually come, and it escalates from there. Typically, cases do not go that far. Mr. Henry summarized for his own clarification that the applicant needs three variances - the brick columns, the flat roof, and the size. The Board can grant any or all three of those variances. He asked for the difference between granting none and turning down the application. Mr. Pendley explained that if the Board turns down the variance, the applicant would have to remove the building. He can then start over and request a permit for plans that meet all of the current regulation requirements. Mr. Henry then stated: "But granting the variances still doesn't mean we endorse the structure as is." Mr. Pendley responded, "correct. Granting the variance clears the way for us to proceed with the permit." Ms. Davis asked the applicant if he considered putting the posts on the garage side of the driveway as it comes from the street. They are currently on the far side of the driveway that comes in from the street. Mr. Cox responded that if he had it wouldn't have helped the flooding problem. The Chairman restated that this is the applicant's remedy to control flooding; that the applicant could build a structure with the masonry and pitch of roof, but the additional size is for drainage control. Page 5 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes April Virnig, City Attorney's office, stated that she wanted to make sure that everyone is very clear that in order to approve this, the Board is looking at three separate variances. For each variance, the Board needs to go through and make the four findings of fact listed in the packet. Each should be addressed separately. Ms. Jauregui stated that she is not convinced that this is the only solution to the drainage situation. She feels that the ordinance is in place for a specific reason and that is to improve the community and in looking at the four facts she can't see any specific hardship to this property that may not be able to be remedied other than a flat roof carport which is what City Council and the citizens are saying they don't want to see. She stated that she feels badly that this didn't turn out right and the permits weren't gotten by the builder. Even though the size seems awfully big, she could go along with a variance for that, but not for the pitch of roof or masonry columns. The Chairman asked if each item should be voted on individually. Ms. Virnig recommended that each be voted on individually. The Chairman recommended voting on the size, then the masonry and finally the pitch. After discussion, the Board temporarily tabled the size consideration. Ms. Davis motioned to table the consideration of the variance of the maximum size requirement until the other two variance requests are considered. Ms. Jauregui seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The Chairman then asked for a motion on the masonry requirement. The Chairman asked Ms. Virnig if he (the Chairman) can make motions. She stated that he cannot. Ms. Jauregui motioned to approve the variance on the masonry columns due to the fact that it might be difficult to match the masonry on the house. Ms. Jauregui stated that she finds there is a hardship which was not self- imposed because the applicant bought the house as is and he can't control that he can't find matching brick. The motion was seconded by Ms. Kunkel. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). The Chairman called for discussion or a motion on the pitch of the roof. Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Jauregui, motioned to deny the variance for the pitch of the roof. Ms. Davis asked if the motion to deny fails [i.e., 2 vote for denial, 3 vote against] is a motion needed for approval. Ms. Virnig responded "yes". The Chairman called for the vote and Mr. Henry, Ms. Jauregui and Ms. Davis voted for the denial. Chairman Duer and Ms. Kunkel voted against Page 6 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes the denial. The motion to deny fails due to a lack of supermajority. As the Board is split 3-2 and there is not a supermajority vote available either way (to pass or fail the variance), the variance is denied. Ms. Davis then motioned to bring back the consideration of the size requirement. Ms. Jauregui seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Ms. Davis motioned to approve that the variance for the maximum size requirement be granted as requested. Ms. Jauregui asked for a friendly amendment to make 600 sq. ft. the "could not exceed size". Ms. Davis agreed. Ms. Kunkel seconded the motion. Three members voted for approval (Ms. Kunkel, Chairman Duer, Ms. Davis) and two members voted against (Mr. Henry and Ms. Jauregui). The motion failed due to lack of supermajority. The Chairman summarized that the masonry is approved, but the size and pitch are denied. The Chairman stated to the applicant that he has recourse with the State District Court to override the decisions made by this Board. The applicant has ten days to make application to the State District Court. Ms. Jauregui asked if the Board should give a deadline for correction or removal of the structure since the structure was not approved in its present form. Ms. Virnig explained that since that issue is not included on the agenda the Board cannot discuss or take action on it. Ms. Jauregui, seconded by Mr. Henry, motioned to adjourn. 4. Adjournment Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Chairman ~~ Ó~~ ~ Tom Duer Page 7 of 7 3/24/05 ZBA Minutes