Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2003-04-24 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APRIL 24, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Leslie Jauregui at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present Acting Chairman Alternate Leslie Jauregui Fonda Kunkel Ken Sapp Beth Davis Jim Kemp Absent Chairman Alternate Dr. Tom Duer Perry Christensen City Staff Director of Development Recording Secretary John Pitstick Holly Blake 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27,2003 APPROVED Ken Sapp, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to approve the minutes of February 27, 2003. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). 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 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes 4. BA 2003-02 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY JON-PAUL ROBINSON FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874; ARTICLE 8, SECTION 820.1.A. THE APPLICANT HAS ENCLOSED A GARAGE AND CONVERTED THE SPACE INTO A RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT SO THAT THE CONVERTED GARAGE MAY REMAIN AS A LIVING AREA. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 8204 EDGEMONT COURT. DENIED John Pitstick, Director of Development, summarized the case. This is a request from Jon-Paul Robinson at 8204 Edgemont Court. The applicant has enclosed a garage at that residence on the rear of the house and converted the space into a living area. Article 8, Section 820.1.A of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of four parking spaces, two of which are required to be covered and enclosed behind the front building line in a garage structure. The applicant is requesting a variance from the residential parking requirement so that the converted garage may remain as a living area. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Robinson to come forward. Mr. Robinson, 8204 Edgemont Court, North Richland Hills, came forward. Mr. Robinson began with an apology to the board for not applying for the permit prior to the completion of the room. Mr. Robinson explained that he was not aware that a permit was required. The reason for the conversion was due to the driveway. Mr. Robinson believes that this causes a handicap in the property. The applicant stated that he does realize that regulation states that there must be two covered parking and two uncovered parking behind the front line. The applicant believes that the driveway and garage were not built properly in order to use it as required. The applicant stated that he has never been able to park in his garage and at the time the house was being completed, the builder had to purchase more property to make the driveway accessible. The applicant brought pictures for the Board to look at and keep for the file. The applicant further stated that the driveway is very narrow and impossible to get to the garage. The applicant stated that since he was unable to use the space for a garage, he converted it into a game room for his kids and their friends. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Robinson if he was able to make the turn in the driveway with a car? Mr. Robinson stated that at one time he had a '75' corvette and was still unable to use the garage due to the turn required to make it into the garage. Page 2 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes -..-.,----'" -~'~.'''._...~.,...._.._.......,_._-,.~.._~-- Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Robinson when he converted the garage. Mr. Robinson stated it was September of last year. He continued that he did not have the house built that way, he bought the house already completed. Mr. Robinson stated that he never tried out the driveway, he just assumed it was fine. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Robinson if he was able to construct a garage in what is now the play yard, could he pull directly into it? Mr. Robinson answered yes. He also stated that it would still be a sharp turn, but that it could be done. Ms. Kunkel asked Mr. Pitstick if the house conformed to all the regulations and codes? Mr. Pitstick answered yes, the minimum requirement for a driveway is 1 O-ft. wide and a requirement for a back out area is 22-ft. Mr. Pitstick also stated that according to the codes, there is enough depth to back out of this particular garage and then make a turn around that corner. Ms. Jauregui asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak for or against this variance. There were none. Ms. Jauregui closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the board members. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Robinson if he planned to construct a garage, knowing what the requirements are now? Mr. Robinson answered that he didn't want to, but if he had to he would. He also stated that if the garage were converted back, it would become useless space again, due to his vehicles not being able to make the turn into the garage. Mr. Sapp asked Mr. Robinson where they parked their cars now? Mr. Robinson stated that they are parked in the driveway, but sometimes they are parked in front of the house. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pitstick about Section 820, on page 8-4 of the ordinance. Ms. Jauregui read "schedule of minimum number of parking spaces...single- family dwelling... number of spaces are four... at least two shall be covered and enclosed behind the front building line". Ms. Jauregui asked, "if two are not enclosed, then Mr. Robinson would not be in compliance?" Mr. Pitstick answered, "that is correct." The driveway is counted as two parking spaces, not covered. However, due to the conversion, there is not two covered enclosed parking. Page 3 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes Mr. Kemp asked if there was ample room to build another garage without violating the backyard space. Mr. Pitstick believed that there could be enough space to build a covered parking area. A typical parking space is 9-ft x 18-ft, however, there is a 5-ft utility easement on the rear. Ms. Davis asked if the driveway was built over the utility easement? Mr. Pitstick answered yes, which is very typical on the side yard with a 7 %-ft. utility easement. However, constructing a carport or an enclosed garage, would have to be outside those easements, which would be difficult. Ms. Davis stated that she is not in favor of requiring that someone use their minimal backyard to put a garage in, but that seems to be an alternative. Mr. Kemp stated that Mr. Robinson might not have enough space without violating other ordinances. Ms. Davis believes that Mr. Robinson would. Ms. Jauregui stated that Mr. Robinson might be over his easement in the backyard. Ms. Jauregui stated that the end of house to the utility easement is 22.8-ft. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pitstick, "how much room would Mr. Robinson need for a garage?" Mr. Pitstick answered that Mr. Robinson would need a minimum of 20-ft. width. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Pitstick if the building inspection department had inspected the room, that was enclosed, and if so, does it meet the requirements? Mr. Pitstick answered that he does not believe the room has been inspected, which is why staff has asked Mr. Robinson to come forward and request this variance so that staff can formally inspect the room. Ms. Jauregui asked the applicant that if this Board granted the variance and if the applicant would acquire the appropriate permits, would the applicant be willing to have this room inspected and if the room is not in compliance, bring it up to regulation? Mr. Robinson respondèd yes. Ms. Davis stated that there was testimony given that there are other homes that have this same problem. Ms. Davis questioned if this was really an unusual situation or would the Board be opening the doorway for more variances. Ms. Jauregui stated that Mr. Pitstick stated that 22 %-ft is the minimum, which this home does meet. Ms. Jauregui believes this should be referred to Council to look at and have staff review the minimum requirements considering now that the size of cars have grown and other things have changed. Page 4 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes Mr. Kemp stated that there might be 22 %- ft, but that every entrance will be a little different which is sufficient, but this is unique, since a U-turn is required to get to the garage. Ms. Kunkel noted that the garage doors are not on the side like most homes pictured, but all the way in the back. Mr. Robinson stated that, yes all the driveways are narrow, but in those driveways, when a turn is made, the cars turn straight into the garage, but with his home, the turn is made into the house. There isn't enough space to turn. Beth Davis, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to deny BA 2003-02. Ms. Davis stated that the hardship presented has options or solutions that would not require a variance. The motion did not pass with a super majority (3-2) with Ms. Davis, Mr. Kemp, and Mr. Sapp voting for the denial and was Ms. Jauregui and Ms. Kunkel against the denial. Ms. Davis commented that her vote is determined upon the applicant having the opportunity to return to this Board, with all fees waived, for another application of variance. Fonda Kunkel, seconded by Beth Davis, motioned to approve BA 2003-02. Ms. Kunkel stated that the hardship presented gives ample cause for the variance, is not self-imposed, and does not affect the properties in the same zoning district. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of these regulations. The motion did not pass (2-3) with Ms. Davis, Mr. Sapp, and Mr. Kemp voting against the variance. Ms. Kunkel, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned that this Board moves that staff waive all fees required to reapply for variance. The motion was passed unanimously (5-0). 5. BA 2003-03 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MINDY COATES FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874; ARTICLE 4, SECTION 420.C. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A PERMIT FOR AN IN-GROUND POOL. AFTER CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR AND THAT PORTIONS OF THE POOL ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THIS ENCROACHMENT SO THAT THE PERMIT MISTAKE MAY BE RESOLVED. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 8433 RUTHETTE DRIVE. Page 5 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes APPROVED John Pitstick, Director of Development, summarized the case. This a request by Mindy Coates at 8433 Ruthete Drive. Ms. Coates received a permit from the City for an in-ground pool. After the construction was completed, the mortgage company survey found that portions of the pool encroached approximately 5-ft into the required side yard setback, but does not encroach into the R-Q-W. This is a corner lot on a cul-de-sac and the Inspections Department acknowledges that an error was made and staff supports the applicant's request. The applicant is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirement of 10-ft under Article 4, Section 420.C, so that the existing pool encroachment may be resolved. Ms. Jauregui opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak for or against this case. There were none, and Ms. Jauregui closed the public hearing. Ken Sapp, seconded by Jim Kemp, motioned to approve BA 2003-03. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 6. BA 2003-04 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY FARUKH ASLAM FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874; ARTICLE 6, SECTION 630.D.7. & 13.B. THE APPLICANT HAS ERECTED A CARPORT OF APPROXIMATELY 700 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE WITH METAL SUPPORT COLUMNS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE SIZE AND MASONRY REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THE EXISTING CARPORT MAY REMAIN. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 6352 SKYLARK CIRCLE. DENIED John Pitstick, Director of Development, summarized the case. This is a request by Farukh Aslam at 6352 Skylark Circle. Mr. Aslam has erected a detached carport behind the residence and did not receive a permit for the construction. The carport is approximately 700-sq. ft. in size, has metal support posts and the roof is made of a fiber material. The zoning ordinance limits the accessory buildings to a maximum of 360-sq. ft. in size. In addition, carports are required to have masonry columns and the roof pitch has to be 4: 12. There is no specific requirement that it has to be of certain material. The applicant contends that the roof meets this requirement and wants to maintain the existing carport. It is not visible from the street, but is visible from the rear and from the golf course. Mr. Pitstick mentioned that there is a letter from Chris Trent at 6348 Skylark Circle, which states that they are opposed to the carport. Page 6 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes Ms. Jauregui opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Farukh Aslam, 6352 Skylark Circle, North Richland Hills, came forward. Mr. Aslam apologized for not acquiring a permit. Mr. Aslam stated that he owns two oversized SUVs and they do not fit side-by-side in the garage. This structure is very similar to what is seen at car dealerships. It is erected on aluminum posts with a canvas material. Mr. Aslam suggested that he could plant large full-grown trees to hide it from the back in order to keep the carport. Ms. Jauregui asked if anyone would like to speak for or against this case. There were none. Ms. Jauregui closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the board members. Mr. Sapp asked the applicant how many spaces are in his current enclosed garage and if it is side or rear entry. Also, Mr. Sapp asked if there is enough room to build an additional enclosed garage on the lot. Mr. Aslam answered that his enclosed garage is a two-car garage with a rear entry and yes there is plenty of room to build an additional detached garage. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Aslam if he had any additional accessory buildings on the property. Mr. Aslam responded that he has one accessory building that is 100 sq. ft. In the future Mr. Aslam does plan to build a pool, but without a cabana. Mr. Kemp noticed that there is a pitch on top of the canvas top roof of the carport. Mr. Kemp feels that if the carport had the masonry requirements, that the only thing left to deal with is the size. Ms. Jauregui stated that she would like to see a permanent roof, but of course the ordinance doesn't specify materials. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Pitstick if the building code requires a specific material for the construction of a carport, and would the top of this carport be approved? Mr. Pitstick replied that the code only specifies the 4:12 pitch on the roof. In terms of square footage, Mr. Aslam could build an accessory building up to 500-sq. ft for the storage of his cars. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pitstick about the masonry requirements. Mr. Pitstick responded that in order for Mr. Aslam to conform under his current structure, the carport could not be any larger than 360-sq. ft and would have to have masonry columns. The current structure is twice that size and has aluminum columns. Page 7 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes Mr. Aslam explained that the square footage of his carport is 560-sq. ft and not 700-sq. ft as stated before. Ms. Kunkel asked Mr. Aslam if it was for financial reasons that he chose to build the carport in this manor? Mr. Aslam stated no. Mr. Aslam explained that if it helps, he would place masonry bricks around the existing columns and the color of the carport roof is the same color of the roof of his home. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pitstick how many accessory buildings would be allowed in Mr. Aslam's zoning district? Mr. Pitstick explained that two temporary accessory buildings under 200-sq. ft are allowed or one permanent structure not exceeding 500-sq. ft in size. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pitstick what the size of a regulation, two-car, detached garage could be. Mr. Pitstick explained that it would be 500-sq. ft in size. Mr. Aslam explained that the canvas roof of the carport could be rolled up. During the rainy season Mr. Aslam would like to keep the canvas over his cars, but during the rest of the year he would be willing to keep the canvas rolled up. Mr. Aslam also explained that he would abide by whatever the Board decides this evening. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Pitstick if a time period could be attached to the ruling? Mr. Pitstick answered yes. Ken Sapp, seconded by Beth Davis motioned to deny BA 2003-04 based on Item B, that it would affect all or most properties within the same zoning district and that granting of the variance is not in harmony with the purpose of these regulations. Beth Davis suggested that a stipulation of time should be considered to take down the carport. Ken Sapp amended his motion to add the time period of 90 days to remove the carport. The motion carried unanimously (4-0-1) with Fonda Kunkel abstaining. Mr. Aslam came forward asking for 30 more days. Mr. Aslam stated that he has to go out of town for business for three months. In the process, he will have his architect draw up plans for a permanent structure. Ken Sapp added another 30 days to the motion, stating that Mr. Aslam has until September 1, 2003 to take down the existing structure. Page 8 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes - -- -----'' ··-~····___________····"···_··__···_'~·___·___~___'m.."__..,,_.__,..~_~____.~_,,_~_~,,_._.,__",.".._~,,___",________ 7. BA 2003-05 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NORRIS RUNGE FOR A VARIANCE TO NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874; ARTICLE 8, SECTION 820.1.A. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS SO THAT A GARAGE MAY BE ENCLOSED FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 7621 CIRCLE DRIVE. DENIED John Pitstick, Director of Development, summarized the case. This is a request from Norris Runge at 7621 Circle Drive. Mr. Runge is requesting to enclose an existing two-car garage and convert it into a master bedroom with bathroom and a utility storage area. Article 8, Section 820.1.A of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of four parking spaces with at least two spaces be covered and enclose behind the front building line. Ms. Jauregui opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Runge to come forward. Mr. Runge at 7621 Circle Drive, North Richland Hills, came forward. Mr. Runge stated that the reason he is asking for this variance is because he is unable to build an enclosed garage on either side of the residence or in the rear of the house. Mr. Runge stated that he has looked around the neighborhood, in Holiday North only, and has seen at leasUifty different homes with enclosed garages. Mr. Runge explained that his reasons for the conversion are for his mother-in-law. Ms. Jauregui asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this request. Don Bowen, 7617 Circle Drive, North Richland Hills, came forward. Mr. Bowen stated that he has been a neighbor to Mr. Runge for 20 years. Mr. Bowen stated that he would like to give Mr. Runge his support for the variance and the enclosure would have no affect on the neighborhood. Ms. Jauregui asked if anyone would like to speak against this request. There were none. Ms. Jauregui closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the board members. Mr. Kemp asked Mr. Pitstick what the front building line was on this particular property. Mr. Pitstick answered that the front building line is 25-ft. Ms. Jauregui stated to Mr. Runge that she did see the property and agreed that there is no way he could add onto either side of the house. She also stated that Page 9 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes the Board did receive the list of the homes with enclosed garages. The board is not sure when most of these were converted, but the current ordinance regarding enclosed garages was adopted in 1999. Mr. Kemp asked Mr. Runge about his mother-in-law and wondered if maybe there was a health issue. Mr. Runge stated yes, his mother-n-Iaw is 81 years of age and she will be moving into the home in order to keep her close due to her age. Mr. Runge's mother-in-law currently lives in Clifton. However, Mr. Runge would like to keep the other bedrooms available for his children and grandchildren when they come to visit. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Runge how many bedrooms does he have currently? Mr. Runge stated that he has three bedrooms. This enclosure would be exclusively his mother-in-Iaws. The room would be located next to the kitchen and would enable his mother-in-law a place for her. Mr. Runge also stated that for health reasons, he and his wife are unable to continue making the trips to Clifton. Ms. Kunkel asked Mr. Runge how many vehicles he has, not including the boat? Mr. Runge answered that he has two vehicles and his mother-in-law will not be bringing a vehicle when she moves. The boat will also be going as well. It is currently not being used and Mr. Runge doesn't believe it will be used by him in the future. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Runge if he currently parks his vehicles in the garage? Mr. Runge stated no. Ms. Davis asked Mr. Runge if he had considered alternate actions to give his mother-in-law enough space and compared some of the cost to expanding out into the back where the patio is rather than enclosing the garage. Mr. Runge stated that he did consider that, but he wants to keep his mother-in- law close to the kitchen. This would keep his mother-in-law from interfering with the day to day functions of the house as well as interrupting when Mr. Runge is entertaining guests, yet his mother-in-law would have easy access to the kitchen if she needed anything. Ms. Davis pointed out that the patio door is adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Runge explained that adding onto the patio door would be a bigger expense than he could afford. Page 10 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes Ms. Davis stated that if the Board granted this variance and gave Mr. Runge permission for a carport, he would still have a greater expense. Mr. Runge stated that he did not want a carport. Ms. Jauregui stated to Mr. Runge that he was also asking for a variance on the parking regulations as well. Mr. Runge stated yes. Jim Kemp, seconded by Fonda Kunkel, motioned to approve BA 2003-05 based on the medical hardship, the elderly person, and that it would not be out of harmony with the neighborhood. The motion did not carry (2-3) with Leslie Jauregui, Beth Davis, and Ken Sapp voting against the motion to approve. 8. ADJOURNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 7~ó~ .../ Chairman Duer Page 11 4/24/03 ZSA Minutes