Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZBA Minutes 2006-03-21ciryo~ y<AND ~`vv CITY OF R[CHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 817) 299-1870 • 3200 DIANA DRIVE • RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS • 761 18 COMMl1N[TY DEVELOPMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 21, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brantley called the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3200 Diana Drive, at 7:30 p.m. Regular members present: Chairman Malvin Brantley, William Fey, Al Hamilton, Joe Moore, and Eddie Leon Nelson. Alternate members present: Mike Logan and Patricia Jermyn. Staff in attendance: Director of Community Development Howard Gregory and Recording Secretary Linda Cowart. 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Member Moore noted on page 3 at the lower part of the page, the minutes read "Member Logan made a motion to grant the twenty foot landscape buffer", but should read "...to grant the variance for the twenty foot landscape buffer"; it should be added that the variance was also granted for the masonry wall. Alternate Member Logan stated that is correct. Motion: A motion was made by Member Moore, and seconded by Member Fey, to approve the minutes with the corrections as noted. Vote on Motion: The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. 3. ADOPTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING MEETINGS Printed on Recycled Paper Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 2 Director of Community Development Howard Gregory advised that City Attorney Tim Sralla placed "Adoption of Rules of Procedure Governing Meetings" on the agenda; however, due to a death in the family Attorney Sralla was unable to attend the meeting. Each member of the Board received a copy of the document "Richland Hills Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure" in their meeting packet. It was mentioned that this item should be tabled or perhaps a workshop held with the City Attorney to go through and explain some of the terms and rules of procedure to the Board. Motion: A motion was made by Member Fey, and seconded by Member Hamilton, to table this item to a meeting at a later date. Vote on Motion: The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. CASE N0.06-06 RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 90-52(3) OF THE RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW OWNER TO VARY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 90, SECTION 90- 238 (11) (B) GREEN BELT REQUIREMENT AND SECTION 90-293 (A) DECORATIVE MASONRY WALL REQUIREMENT, IN THE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7200 GLENVIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 19, LOT 6, RICHLAND HILLS ADDITION, RICHLAND HILLS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS Chairman Brantley advised that the application for variance by Chris Hindo of Wireless Toyz, 7200 Glenview Drive, was filed and a public hearing held on January 17, 2006. The application was denied by a vote of three affirmative and one in opposition. Chairman Brantley stated that he cast the vote in opposition because the applicant was not present at the meeting to give testimony, nor did he have a representative present to testify and support the application. He later learned that the applicant had to have emergency surgery and was unable to attend the meeting or have someone represent him at the hearing. Chairman Brantley stated that as he cast the vote that determined the outcome of the application, that he had the privilege to call for a rehearing on the matter, and so went in and asked the Recording Secretary to schedule a rehearing on the matter. Timothy Nafso, representating Wireless Toyz, was sworn in, and confirmed the need and necessity for a variance on the property at 7200 Glenview Drive. He stated that the goal of Wireless Toyz would be to make the building look as charming as possible and fill it with tenants that are recognizable to the community. They spent more than $200,000.00 on improvements to the building. They had met with landscapers and believe that the fence behind the building would not be visible from the street. Scott Samuels of Euless had agreed to repair and paint the fence that is currently there. At this point they want to Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 3 focus on landscaping, parking lot, and curb appeal. Alternate Member Logan asked Mr. Nafso if he was the property owner or representative of the property owner. Mr. Nafso replied that he is part owner of the property, one of a group out of Detroit, Michigan, and one of the representatives for Wireless Toyz. Chris Hindo has power of attorney for the property. They have a Wireless Toyz store on Camp Bowie, are opening up other stores, so when they found the property on Glenview, just wanted to lease the building, but the owner wanted to sell, so they purchased the building, signed Wireless Toyz, and are a tenant in the building. Alternate Member Logan asked Mr. Nafso to clarify if he was in partnership with the business and a tenant of the building. Mr. Nafso explained that he was a partner in both the building and the business. They signed an agreement with the Woodmont group to help lease out the remainder of the building, and will become building landlords as well. Mr. Nafso stated that Woodmont would be the management company for the property. Member Hamilton wondered who owned the property between the two fences. Mr. Nafso thought the property was owned by the City because of power lines in what could possibly be an easement. Member Hamilton said that usually an easement is wider than that. Mr. Nafso added that because of the shape of the Wireless Toyz property line, the fence and empty space continued over to the vacant building next door. There was an opening there, which would be closed, and some holes in the fence that would be repaired. Member Hamilton stated that there was a lot of trash back there, most of which looked like construction debris and paint cans and excess concrete. Alternate Member Logan advised Mr. Nafso that being new property owners, the group should have a plat that showed who owned what. Mr. Nafso acknowledged that they probably do have a plat of the property, but was however unsure. Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 4 Alternate Member Logan informed Mr. Nafso that the concern was that the property be , cleaned up if it belonged to them. Mr. Nafso stated that the property would be cleaned up, making the property look more appealing. Member Hamilton inquired if Mr. Nafso knew how far the area would be where a masonry fence would be required by ordinance. Mr. Nafso responded that he did not. Member Nelson wanted to know how many letters were sent to surrounding property owners. Director of Community Development Howard Gregory replied that sixteen letters were sent with only one response. Member Moore stated that part of request deals with the twenty foot buffer and there is no way to put twenty foot buffers in without taking out the parking back there. Chairman Brantley recalled a variance that was granted to a business owner on Glenview with the same situation, noted the business owner did put up a wall, and stated that in the last six months there have been several appeals for variances from the greenbelt requirement and from the masonry wall requirement, most of which were on Glenview. Member Hamilton asked Mr. Gregory if he was aware of any changes the Planning and Zoning Commission is making to these particular ordinances due to the appeals that have been presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gregory replied that the requirements for greenbelt and masonry wall had been discussed, however no changes had been made. Member Hamilton wondered who owned the property between the two fences behind Wireless Toyz, and who would be responsible for cleaning up the three foot gap between residential and commercial. Mr. Gregory stated that building had been there a long time and the house behind Wireless Toyz had recently been remodeled, and therefore difficult to say that the debris was associated with Wireless Toyz. Member Moore agreed that the area between residential and commercial should be cleaned out and the owner determined, but thought it best to proceed with the variance Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 5 and let the City determine who would be responsible for clean up. Alternate Member Logan expressed concern that later on there may be a need to know who that particular fence belonged to and who would be responsible for the maintenance of the fence. Gary and Sabrina Clark, residing at 7133 Hardisty Street, directly behind 7200 Glenview Drive, expressed concern that Wireless Toyz may not be required to erect a masonry wall between the two properties, and stated they prefer a masonry wall rather than wood to insure privacy, safety, and provide a buffer for traffic noise. Alternate Member Logan advised that should Mr. Hindo be required to erect a masonry wall, it could possibly be cinder block, brick, or solid concrete such as tilt wall, just as long as it was masonry. Member Fey felt that no fence was needed behind the building on the east side where commercial abuts commercial. Chairman Brantley stated that separation of two differently zoned properties by a wall provides a more aesthetically pleasing view from the residential side, insures privacy and reduced noise, and serves as a protection of residential property. Member Hamilton asked Mr. Hindo if on his request he planned to do anything other than aesthetically improve the fence. Mr. Nafso replied that they plan for building to have a particular look, admit that the fence needs work, but felt that because the majority of the fence would not be seen from the street, the focus should be on greenery, flowers, and the concrete to make the area more attractive. Member Moore reviewed with Mr. Gregory the response from letters to property owners. Mr. Gregory stated that there was one response from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, in attendance at the meeting, who stated that they would prefer that Wireless Toyz erect a masonry wall because of the traffic in and out of the parking lot and their concern for their children's safety if an out of control car should come through the wooden fence. Alternate Member Logan told Mr, and Mrs. Clark that the intent of the ordinance was for new construction, and 7200 Glenview Drive is an existing non-conforming situation, and to require an existing business to erect a masonry fence could be costly to the tenant above and beyond what would normally be required for existing non-conforming. He added that the reason the Board had been granting variances to the properties along Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 6 Glenview was mainly due to the expense. If that expense and burden were passed onto the tenant or the property owner the city would risk losing some businesses along that roadway, so the Board was trying to reach a consensus. He assured the Clarks that he understood their concern, but thought that the applicant could be required to erect a sufficient wood fence that would comply with proper screening and be sufficient to handle a vehicle that was coming onto their property, and was of the opinion that unless there was concrete footed imbedded masonry wall would not stop a vehicle. Mr. Clark wanted to know if the variance were granted would the fence always be a wood fence. Alternate Member Logan stated not necessarily, that a new tenant would have to ask for a variance just as the current tenant had to ask. Mrs. Clark was curious what type of businesses by become tenants of the property. Mr. Nafso mentioned a donut shop, financial services, pizza, retail, ice cream, and stated that it is important to have the right kind of tenant connected to the building, as they want a small community feeling associated with the property. Chairman Brantley wondered what hours the business would have. Mr. Nafso stated that Wireless Toyz would close at 8:00 p.m., and would imagine any prospective tenant would close no later than eight or nine o'clock. Member Hamilton asked Mr. and Mrs. Clark if they notice any excessive noise from Grapevine Highway of traffic noise. Mr. and Mrs. Clark answered that they hear mostly traffic noise, and remain in favor of a masonry wall. Member Hamilton understood the concern about a car coming through the fence; however, a car would probably have to be traveling at a high rate of speed, and what is there now would stop a vehicle at a slow rate of speed. Member Logan pointed out the masonry fence at the corner of Vance and Grapevine Highway, the brick fence on the back side is not in deep footing, and although it meets the intent of the new ordinance it is falling over, so the City may not be getting what they intend on that type of wall. Member Hamilton mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission is looking at other materials such as Hardie Board and similar products that would be less expensive Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes March 21, 2006, Page 7 for the commercial owner. Alternate Member Logan asked Mr. Nafso if they had a new fence or if it is a patched fence. Mr. Nafso replied that it would be a patched fence. They obtained a quote to have the fence repaired. He believed that open section with al the debris was on the property line of the old Gateway Auto Parts store. Member Logan proposed that the Board proceed with the variance request as Member Moore suggested and let City Staff address the issue of the clean up between the commercial and residential fences. Motion: A motion was made by Member Nelson, and seconded by Member Fey, to grant the variance as stated. Vote on Motion: The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. S. PERSONAL APPEARANCES (CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REGARDING NON-SCHEDULED ITEMS AFFECTING THE ZONING AFFAIRS OF THE CITY) There were none. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Branteey adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. r Linda Cowart, Re rdrffg Secretary Malvin Brantley, Chairman