Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2004-10-28 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 28, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Leslie Jauregui at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present Acting Chairman Alternate Alternate Leslie Jauregui Jerry Henry Roy Sculley Jim Kemp Absent Chairman Dr. Tom Duer Fonda Kunkel Beth Davis City Staff Director of Planning City Planner Building Official Recording Secretary Dave Green Donna Jackson Dave Pendley Holly Blake 2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2004. APPROVED Jerry Henry, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to approve the minutes of August 26, 2004 with three spelling corrections on page 3. The motion was approved unanimously (4-0). ACTING CHAIRMAN LESLIE JAUREGUI 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 5 1 0/28/04 ZBA Minutes 3. BA 2004-06 A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQ~ST BY DAVID & SHIRLEY MILLSAP FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO 1874: ARTICLE 6, SECTIONS 630.D.3 AND D.13a & b. THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CARPORT WITHOUT A PERMIT. ACCORDING TO SECTION D.3, CARPORT REGULATIONS, THE CARPORT SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT BUILDING LINE. ACCORDING TO SECTION D.13.a DESIGN CRITERIA OF A CARPORT REQUIRES THAT THE PITCH OF THE ROOF SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST FOUR VERTICAL TO TWELVE HORIZONTAL ON EACH SIDE OF THE RIDGE. SECTION D.13.b REQUIRES THAT THE SUPPORT COLUMNS CONFORM TO THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT BUILDING LINE FROM 25' TO 12'; A VARIANCE FROM THE PITCH OF THE ROOF; A VARIANCE FROM THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUPPORT COLUMNS OF THE EXISTING CARPORT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 5921 CIRCULAR DR. APPROVED FRONT BUILDING LINE DENIED PITCH OF ROOF AND MASONRY REQUIREMENTS Acting Chairman Leslie Jauregui opened the public hearing and asked the applicant Mr. Millsap to come forward and explain his request. Mr. Millsap explained that his wife Shirley suffers from severe arthritis in both knees and lymph edema which makes it very difficult for her to get in and out of the car. She is currently using a walker and will eventually need a wheelchair. Mr. Millsap also explained that their 2 car garage has been reduced to a 1 car garage due to a remodel by the previous owner who built a workbench that extends 4-ft. from the wall and covers the length of the garage. Mr. Millsap stated that in the garage his wife is unable to get in and out of her car with the walker and, according to Mrs. Millsap's doctor, she will eventually be confined to a wheelchair. He stated that the carport gives her the room she needs and the cover she needs to get in and out of her car. Mr. Millsap explained that he did not obtain a permit for his carport because he had to go out of town for an emergency. His contractor assumed that Mr. Millsap got the permit and Mr. Millsap assumed that the contractor got the permit. The carport was constructed by the time Mr. Millsap got back from out of town. Mr. Millsap assumed all was well. Ms. Jauregui closed the public hearing. Page 2 of 5 10/28/04 ZBA Minutes Jim Kemp, seconded by Jerry Henry, motioned to approve the front building line for BA 2004-06. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Jerry Henry, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to deny the pitch of roof and masonry requirements on support columns for BA 2004-06. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). The Board stipulated that Mr. Millsap must secure the appropriate permits for the carport. In doing so, Mr. Millsap must correct the pitch of roof and meet the masonry requirements on the support columns according to City regulations. 4. BA 2004-07 A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM J & J NRH 100 FAMILY PARTNERSHIP FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICH LAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO 1874: ARTICLE 4, SECTION 410.C.6 THIS SECTION REQUIRES ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LOCATED ON CORNER LOTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE 20' BUILDING LINE TO 10' BUILDING LINE ON CORNER LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF HOME AND LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY FOR THE REQUIRED REAR ENTRY GARAGES. THE SITES ARE LOCATED AT 7913 & 7912 FOREST RIDGE CT., 7913 & 7912 FOREST LAKES CT., 7913 & 7912 FOREST POINT CT. AND 7913 & 7912 FOREST HILLS CT. APPROVED Acting Chairman Jauregui opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mark Long, engineer for J & J NRH, came forward and stated that he was here to answer any questions that the Board may have and that the house could be moved around in order to fit the lot. Dave Pendley, Building Official, stated that on Lot 16, Block 1 on Forest Lakes Ct., if the requested variance is approved the house would be encroaching 6-in. On Lot 17, Block 1 on Forest Point Ct., with the variance the builder is still looking at a possible encroachment. Ms. Jauregui asked Staff if these were standard size homes for R-2 Zoning. Dave Green, Director of Planning, stated that for R-2 Zoning, the minimum square footage is 2,000 sq. ft. Jim Kemp asked if the builder wants this plan and is not considering other plans that would fit on this lot. Mark Long replied that the builder at first wanted to put the drive next to the screening wall. Page 3 of 5 1 0/28/04 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui asked if a 2,000 SF home could be built on this lot. Mark Long stated that theoretically yes, but it wouldn't match the houses in the neighborhood. Jerry Henry asked if this plat has been approved. Dave Green responded that this has been platted and filed with the County. Ms. Jauregui read from the Public Works Manual (approved 2/13/95), Section 1- 04 Street Systems, page 4-3 of Driveway Standards, Section E, Residential Driveway Approaches at street intersections: "The drive approach on corner lots must be located to approximately line up with the side of the house or garage that is farthest from the intersection. The drive approach edge farthest from the street intersection must be within 3-ft. of the far side of the house or the garage. Only drive approaches in accordance with the above criteria will be allowed onto residential streets or the minor street at a street intersection. If both streets are residentially classified, a circular drive will be allowed on a corner lot if one of these two approaches meets the above location criteria. The other drive approach can have its near side no closer than 15-ft to the property corner closest to the intersection. If both streets have the same classification other then residential per the currently adopted City Thoroughfare Plan, the Public Works Director shall make the determination as to which street access will be allowed." Jerry Henry asked if that meant if the drive approach is 15-ft from the intersection it complies. Ms. Jauregui stated that the other drive approach can have its near side no closer, this is for circular drives. Jerry Henry asked if the issue was for safety, trying to stay a certain distance off of the intersection. When the City changed from 20.5-ft. approach to the garage to 22-ft. the City in essence made these so that no one has to back out into the street. Mr. Henry asked Mark Long if he was representing the developer or the builder. Mark Long stated that this is for the builder. Jerry Henry asked for the minimum square footage allowed in this subdivision as noted by the Homeowner's Association. Mark Long responded that he is not aware of the deed restrictions; however they are normally higher than the City minimum. Jerry Henry stated that he believes it is a 2,500 SF minimum. Mr. Henry believes that the builders are now strapped. What was allowed in one subdivision with the same builders is not allowed in this subdivision. The subdivision was platted in good faith based on actions previously done. Page 4 of 5 10/28/04 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui stated that this property could still be developed to the City's minimum. Where is the hardship? Jerry Henry commented that the builder purchased this lot with the belief that he could build a certain size square footage in expectation of making a profit based on the history of being able to do the same thing in another subdivision less than a year ago. Ms. Jauregui and Jerry Henry asked Dave Green why there must be 20-ft from the screening wall to the house. Dave Green replied that safety is a factor, but for aesthetic reasons as well. Jerry Henry stated that the screening wall is 8-ft. tall, so the line of sight is already restricted. Also, there is 80-ft. of common area between the screening wall and the main thoroughfare. Jerry Henry, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to approved BA 2004-07 as requested for the specific lots. It is stipulated that the only reason that the Board is granting this variance is because these corner lots with a line of sight requirement for the 20-ft. is made mute by the fact that there is a screening wall on that side of the property and placing the driveways on the other side of the house is a better safety issue. The Board would rather have the driveways on that side away from the screening walls and allow this 10-ft variance. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Ms. Jauregui asked the Board if a recommendation needs to be made to staff to look at the current ordinance regarding the 20-ft. setback. Jerry Henry stated that he believes the current ordinance does need to be reviewed in regards to the 20-ft. setback on exterior corner lots only. Dave Green stated that an ordinance review would require a meeting with other department's staff members, the rest of the Zoning Board and possibly the City Attorney. Another possible meeting requirement would be at a Planning & Zoning worksession in order for the Zoning Board to discuss and review this ordinance with the Planning & Zoning Commission. If this is something the Board would like to pursue, it will start with staff, move to the Planning & Zoning Board, followed by City Council. Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. .... Page 5 of 5 10/28/04 ZBA Minutes