Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2005-06-23 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS JUNE 23, 2005 1. CAll TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 7:06 p.m. ROll CAll Present Chairman Tom Duer Leslie Jauregui Fonda Kunkel Jerry Henry Absent Alternate Alternate Beth Davis Jim Kemp Roy Sculley City Staff Building Official Planning Assistant Recording Secretary Dave Pendley Carolyn Huggins Holly Blake 2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2005. APPROVED Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Jauregui motioned to approve the minutes of March 24, 2005. The motion was approved unanimously (4-6). 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 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes 3. BA 2005-62 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JERRY DOUGHTY FOR VARIANCES FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE, MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND MASONRY REQUIREMENTS FOR A CARPORT ERECTED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AT 5033 LAKEVIEW CIRCLE. DENIED MASONRY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPORT COLUMNS DENIED MAXIMUM SIZE OF CARPORT DENIED SIDE YARD SETBACKS DENIED REAR YARD SETBACKS Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Mr. Doughty, to come forward. Mr. and Mrs. Doughty, 5033 Lakeview Circle, came forward. Mr. Doughty stated that they moved to North Richland Hills in July 2004 and realized that they would need more space. Mr. Doughty wanted a Tuff Shed put in the backyard and was told that a permit was not required. He stated that while he was in the permit office, he also asked about a carport and was told a permit was not required for that or a patio. He put in a Tuff Shed and a patio in addition to the 1,000 sq. ft. of concrete in the backyard that existed when the house was purchased. Regarding the carport, Mr. Doughty stated that if he had put in a single carport the turn ratio from the backyard would be impossible because it would place a post in the middle of the driveway. Regarding the rear setback, Mr. Doughty believed that only a 5-ft. setback was needed since he also has a 5-ft. easement. On the side setback, he stated that he is off by 6-in. He stated that the height of the carport is within tolerance. He stated that he spent $5,100.00 for the carport/patio cover. Mrs. Doughty stated that the hardship is due to the way it is necessary to come through the gate and then turn into the garage. When turning into the garage, it Page 2 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes is necessary to back up to come into the garage. If there was a post where it was suggested, there isn't any way to utilize the driveway or the garage coming in through the gateway. She stated that it will be expensive to tear down and that would leave them without a carport for the cars or a patio cover. The truck does not fit completely into the garage. There isn't anyway to protect the truck from hail damage without a carport. Mrs. Doughty stated that the columns could be bricked according to regulations and that there is only one post that can be seen from the street and there have not been any complaints. Mr. Henry asked the applicant if all the concrete existed when they purchased the home. Mr. Doughty answered yes. The driveway is on the side and there is 1,300 sq. ft. of concrete in the backyard. Chairman Duer asked if the contractor informed the applicant about required permits for a project this size. Mr. Doughty responded that the contractor believed a permit was required, but Mr. Doughty told the contractor that he had checked with the City and did not believe that a permit was required. Ms. Jauregui asked if this was built by a carport company. Mr. Doughty answered yes. Chairman Duer asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in regard to BA 2005-02. Being none, Chairman Duer mentioned that there were two letters from surrounding property owners in favor of the variances. Chairman Duer closed the public hearing and asked for discussion or a motion. Mr. Henry stated that he drove by to look at the property. There was a two car garage existing when the house was purchased and the driveway was poured the size that it is. It looks like it takes two to three turns to make it into the garage. Creating a patio onto the existing driveway doesn't create a hardship. Chairman Duer stated that with rear entry garages, there has to be a multi point. It looks like the concrete was poured just for the fact of getting out of the garage and pulling out to the street from the driveway. Ms. Jauregui stated that if the concrete wasn't so big, the carport wouldn't be so big. Mr. Henry stated that the need for the carport is due to the truck not fitting in the garage. Why won't the vehicle fit in the garage? Mr. Doughty answered that it is due to the turn ratio and that the truck is too long to fit in the garage and shut the garage door. Mrs. Doughty added that they consider this their covered patio and carport. Only 220 sq. ft. is being used for a carport. The remaining area has patio furniture and a grill. Page 3 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry stated that the existing driveway is now the patio. Ms. Jauregui asked the applicant if the truck is backed out of the driveway. Mrs. Doughty answered yes. Chairman Duer stated this is a multi variance request. Each variance will have to be voted on individually. He stated that if the side and rear yard setbacks and the maximum square footage are denied, the masonry columns do not matter. Chairman Duer stated for the record that the applicant is removing the variance request for masonry columns and is willing to build brick masonry columns if the other three provisions are approved. Dave Pendley, Building Official, stated that a motion to deny needs to be made with the agreement being part of the motion. Making a motion to deny something means that when you vote you have to affirm that this is what you want to do. You are voting yes to say no. It is better to avoid making motions to deny. Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Kunkel, motioned to deny the variance requested for the non-masonry support columns and the fact that Mr. Doughty stated that he would place the masonry on the support columns therefore no variance is required. The motion carried unanimously (4-6). Mr. Henry stated that the property was already developed and the driveway was existing and there was a previous owner. The existing drive and garage were sufficient for the neighborhood at the time. However, there is not a practical hardship on the affected property requiring the 'size of this carport. Mrs. Doughty stated that was not the only reason it was built. She stated that if a post is put in the middle of the driveway, they lose the use of the garage. Chairman Duer explained that exceeding 360 sq. ft. is the problem whether it is used for a patio or a carport. It is a single structure. Mrs. Doughty asked if it could be divided with 360 sq. ft. on one side and 360 sq. ft. on the other. Mr. Pendley responded that regulations only allow one carport per residence. He added that with a carport the applicant could have a patio attached to the house. Chairman Duer stated that the problem exists because currently the two are combined. Mr. Henry stated that there isn't a patio. The applicant is taking a part of their driveway and calling it a patio. Chairman Duer stated that a typical patio is attached to the back of the house. Page 4 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry added that this was poured and developed by the builder and this is their driveway. "This is their turn around to get into their garage and the applicant wants to use it as a patio. In the drawing they call it a patio, but it is still their driveway." Mr. Henry stated that if the applicant had applied for a permit, the City would have worked with the applicant to design it. Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Jauregui, motioned to deny the variance request from the maximum 360 sq. ft. based on the facts that the property was already developed and the driveway was existing with a previous owner. The existing drive and garage were sufficient for the neighborhood at the time. There is not a practical hardship on the affected property requiring the size of this carport. The vote was 2-2 with Chairman Duer and Ms. Kunkel voting against the denial. Chairman Duer stated that there are two other items for consideration and asked Mr. Pendley if it is necessary to vote on the remaining items since the size of the carport is denied due to a lack of four affirmative votes. Mr. Pendley stated "yes" because if the applicant decided to shrink the size of their carport, the issues of side and rear setbacks are still out there. Chairman Duer asked if the applicant brings up the side and rear setbacks and gets the square footage under 360 sq. ft., can the applicant keep the rest of the carport. Mr. Pendley responded that if they meet all of those criteria, the applicant would still have to redo part of the roof. For example, if this had worked out and the building was allowed to be built as it is currently constructed, there are some spans that need' some, engineering. There are footings that were poured without inspections. The carport definition is a building that is a roof structure that is open on two or more sides and is designed to provide shelter for an automobile. If the applicant decides to attach the structure and close in three sides of it, it can be called a garage and the size is no longer an issue, although the setbacks would still be an issue. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Doughty if the concrete driveway stops 10-ft from the property line at the back. Mr. Doughty answered yes. Mr. Henry stated that if the applicant put the column on the existing concrete, it would meet the 10-ft. setback. On the right side, it would appear that the applicant would be closer than 6-ft. Mr. Henry, seconded by Ms. Kunkel, motioned to approve the variance for the sideyard setbacks due to the concrete existing prior to ownership. The vote was 3-1 with Ms. Jauregui voting against the variance. The sideyard setback is denied due to a lack of four affirmative votes. Mr. Henry stated that a good carport engineer could put those columns on the concrete. Page 5 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry made a motion to deny the rear yard setback. The motion did not receive a second. Ms. Jauregui stated that there is not a problem with the rear setbacks. Mr. Henry replied that his motion was based on the existing driveway and concrete that is already closer than 6-ft. The Board would be requiring the applicant to place a post in their driveway if the Board doesn't grant that variance and allow the carport. On the side the applicant needs the requirement. There is an existing driveway which is 32-ft. from the garage to the back. The original builder went right to the 10-ft. building line. At 360 sq. ft. the applicant couldn't use that because if the applicant went 32-ft. back, the carport would only be 10-ft. wide. There is no way to go all the way to the back and use it. If the applicant utilizes the existing drive and put a 360 sq. ft. carport to protect the truck because the garage door won't go all the way down it could be built up towards the house instead of the back of the lot and be attached to the house. Chairman Duer stated that the only problem with all of this comes back to the hardship. When you have a rear entry garage situated the way this property is situated, there is no way a carport can be placed attached to the garage. The posts will be in the way. Where the applicant has his truck is the only place that the truck can be parked and still have the ability to pull a car into the garage. Mr. Henry disagreed. He stated that it could be placed sideways and the car could fit around it using the other half of the space with the existing concrete. There would be no post in the middle" and 'there would be no reason for a variance for the side setbacks. Chairman Duer responded that in order to put a carport there it would have to be moved 2-ft. The applicant would have to demolish what is currently there and rebuild 3-ft. more off the property line equaling 6-ft. side setbacks. The Board would need to relieve the applicant from the rear yard setback so the applicant has enough room to park the truck far enough back to allow the car entry into the garage. He commented that this property should be considered a hardship if the applicant wants to build a carport because there is no way to build a carport on this property within the City's ordinance. The problem is that the applicant built a very large carport because he combined the patio with the carport. To build a carport, the applicant would have had to come before this Board anyway because to do what the applicant wanted to do, the rear yard setbacks need to be waived. ' Chairman Duer asked Mr. Pendley after a vote has been taken can the Board revoke that vote and revisit it within the same meeting. Mr. Pendley stated that he couldn't correctly answer that. Page 6 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui asked if the applicant could request this again. Mr. Pendley stated that in order to request the same variance the applicant must make the request using a different set of parameters. Something would have to physically change as the basis of that request. Chairman Duer explained that the applicant can't, but then asked if the Board could? If in a finding of fact which the Board has already done in the same meeting, can the Board revoke the vote and entertain a new motion? However if the Board doesn't have enough votes to approve the variance for the 360 sq. ft. and it is denied, the applicant will have to tear down what he has. Mr. Henry stated that his purpose in trying to grant the variance for the side set backs was so that the new design for the new carport wouldn't have to come back and ask for that. He stated that he believes the side set back is a hardship on the property. A new engineered carport design would in fact comply. Mr. Pendley stated that the variance for the side set backs is only 6 inches. Chairman Duer stated that if the Board can't get past the 360 sq. ft. the rest of the variances are mute. Mr. Pendley asked Mr. Henry if he believed that the applicant should have more than the 6-in. Mr. Henry replied that the applicant should have more on a redesign. Mr. Henry believes that the whole thing is going to have to come down. Mr. Pendley stated that if that was the case, then the applicant will have to come back anyway because the amount has to be specific. Mr. Henry asked if there is a material change if the applicant comes back to ask for that variance again. Mr. Pendley answered yes. Chairman Duer asked for a motion on the rear set backs. Ms. Jauregui, seconded by Ms. Kunkel, motioned to approve the variance for the rear set backs. The vote was (3-1) with Mr. Henry voting against the variance. The motion failed due to a lack of four affirmative votes. Chairman Duer explained to the applicant that they do have an option to appeal this vote to the State District Court. Chairman Duer asked City Staff to explain the process. Mr. Pendley explained to the applicant that there are two options available: appealing to the State District Court or reapplying for the variance with new designs. Otherwise, the applicant must tear down the existing structure. Mr. Pendley suggested that Mr. Doughty come by the Inspections office and that staff would help him with some ideas. Page 7 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes 4. BA 2005-63 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OFA REQUEST FROM GARY AND MARY RAY FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A REAR YARD SWIMMING POOL AT 6101 CLlFFBROOK DRIVE. APPROVED Chairman Duer opened the public hearing. The applicants, Gary and Mary Ray, 6101 Cliffbrook Drive, came forward. Mr. Ray explained that the variance is for the 20-ft. side build line. The house was built 8 years ago and is a corner lot off Smithfield Road. Since then, Hometown Subdivision was built and Smithfield Road became an alleyway for rear entry into the two houses that are located to the left of this house. The applicant is asking for a variance in order to build a swimming pool. On the other side of his backyard there is an existing pond and landscaping. He would like to move the build line to the 5-ft. wall easement or eliminate the build line completely. The hardship is that the existing neighborhood has changed and the 20-ft. side build line is no longer necessary. Chairman Duer asked the applicant how long they have lived there. Mr. Ray answered since 1996. Ms. Jauregui asked what the setbacks were for a standard .Iot. Mr. Pendley answered that by today's standards on houses that have a street running between the middle on both sides of the streets and the houses face each other and not around the comer there is a 10-ft. set back and on the side it varies. Mr. Henry added that it is normally 10-ft. on one side and 6-ft. on the other in a subdivision of this size. Mr. Pendley agreed. Chairman Duer asked if the wall easement was placed there after Hometown was built. Was the applicant's property replatted to satisfy the Hometown development? Mr. Ray answered no; the wall was there for the existing subdivision. The 20-ft. build line was there because there was a large street next to the subdivision. Chairman Duer asked the applicant if he wants to build up to the wall. Mr. Ray answered that the rock edging will be within the 5-ft. easement; the actual pool will be further in. Mrs. Ray added that the pool will come in closer to the pond where the hot tub sits. Ms. Jauregui asked if the applicant was going to keep the existing pond. Mrs. Ray answered yes. Page 8 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes --.q¡,-~ Mr. Henry stated that the applicant is asking for a variance on the 20-ft. building line, which was originally placed there because it was a corner lot. It is no longer a corner lot. Chairman Duer added that the Hometown development changed the dynamics of this property. Ms. Jauregui asked if the utility easement in the back was supposed to be 10-ft. Chairman Duer answered that all utilities are 7-% -ft. In order for the applicant to build in the utility easement, they have to get a waiver from the utility companies. That is not what the applicant is asking. The only variance that the applicant needs is for the 20-ft. side yard setbacks. Ms. Jauregui asked how much of the side yard the applicant is taking. Mr. Ray answered that is was out to the 5-ft. wall easement. Ms. Jauregui clarified that there is no utility easement within this 20-ft. Chairman Duer agreed. The utility easements are located on the back of the property. Mr. Henry added that it is a wall maintenance easement for the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Jauregui asked what the normal side yard setbacks were for a non-corner lot residence. Chairman Duer responded that for a non-comer lot residence it is 6- ft. on one side and 10-ft. on the other. Chairman Duer asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak in regards to BA 2005-03. There were none and the Chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Ms. Jauregui, seconded by Mr. Henry, motioned to approve BA 2005-63 based on the hardship created by the Hometown development when the street was changed to an alleyway. The motion was approved unanimously (4-6). 4. Adjournment Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Chairman 7~ t;~. ~ Tom Duer Page 9 of 9 6/23/05 ZBA Minutes