Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-07 41, k101 100 Zoning Board of Adjustment July 7, 1977 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Jim Banks, Acting Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Lucian Holmes, Carrol Davis, Bob Eden, and Billy Owens. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Rick Barnes and Recording Secretary Becky Gunter. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Messrs. Charles A. Garland, Wayne Saunders, Lynn Orbison, Ron Austin, David Loyd, Bill Macy, Alton R. Ray, W. T. Geer, and Mesdms. Charles A. Garland and Jane Macy. The members introduced themselves to the audience. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF ALLIED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTING CO. FOR A VARIANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. 347 FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AT 108 MIDWAY DRIVE. (PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MIDWAY DRIVE, WEST OF NORTH MAIN STREET.) Mr. Barnes stated this is a request from Lynn Orbison of Allied Electrical Distributing Company for a variance to Section 7-500 of the City of Euless Zoning Ordinance for outside storage at 108 Midway Drive. The property is located North of Midway Drive and West of Main Street also being just South of the City Park at that location. Mr. Orbison conducts a retail and wholesale electrical supply currently housed totally within the building. It is Mr. Orbison's wish to store electrical goods and delivery trucks outside within a fenced area. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow any outside storage of wholesale goods in the "C-2" Community Business District. (Page Two,Zoninq Biliod of Adjustment, July 7, 1977) Mr. Eden asked what the City' s opinion is of the variance. Mr. Barnes stated that, by the ordinance, none of the other uses in the "C-2" Community Business District allow outside storage. Mr. Eden asked if there was any opposition to the variance. There were none in the audience in opposition to the variance. Mr. Eden asked Mr. Barnes if he knew of any problems the variance may cause if granted. Mr. Barnes stated the property is surrounded on the East by "C-1" and on the North and West by the park. The use may not be compatible with the area. Mr. Eden asked how far out the fence comes towards Midway Drive. Mr. Orbison stated it will be running East and West in line with the front of the building. The fence will be a temporary measure until he can afford to build. Mr. Owen asked what type of fence would be constructed. Mr. Orbison stated it would be a six to eight foot privacy fence. It will be solid, probably white, of either metal or wood. He pointed out on the map the intended location of the fence, which will also be for security purposes. Mr. Owen stated the only objection the City has to the fence is that the Ordinance states it is not allowed in the "C-2" classification; there is no problem with obstruction or hazards. Mr. Barnes stated the ordinance states that wholesale is not allowed in the "C-2" District. Therefore, the amount of traffic created by this non-conforming wholesale distribution use should be considered. Mr. Owen asked why this use is at this location if it is not allowed. Mr. Barnes stated it was an over- sight when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. (Page ThreL� Zoninqiimogird of Adjustment, July 7, 197%00 IWO Mr. Banks asked how long the building has been occupied by this use. Mr. Orbison stated he has been there thirty-five months. Mr. Owen asked what type of trucks are there. Mr. Orbison stated that occasionally, once or twice a week, they get a large truck in but, normally, it is just pickups or light weight trucks. Mr. Owen asked what the width is across the front of the building. Mr. Orbison stated it is about eighty feet. Mr. Banks stated the entire area South of the building and the proposed fenced area is off-street parking. Mr. Orbison stated this is correct; it is paved, off-street parking. Mr. Holmes stated if the fence is granted, he thinks there should be a height limitation. Mr. Banks asked if there will be a security dog within the fence. Mr. Orbison stated he had not considered this, but there probably will not be since the security is mostly from small vandalism caused by children. Mr. Davis stated the basic zoning violation occurred when this use went in this zoning. Mr. Owen stated the type of fence required could be determined by the fence permit. Mr. Barnes stated there is a screen- ing fence requirement, but there are no specifications. Mr. Owen stated he would like to have a requirement of a certain type of fence. He asked Mr. Orbison what type of fence he would be willing to install . Mr. Orbison stated he would be in favor of either metal or wood. It will not be up over three years. (Page Foui' l0Zoninq kopred of Adjustment, July 7, 1977 Mr. Owen asked if six feet would provide the necessary security. Mr. Orbison stated six feet would be sufficient. Mr. Banks asked what the City will require when Mr. Orbison wants to expand his building in this location since he will be expanding a non-conforming use. Mr. Barnes stated that, according to the ordinance, to expand a non-conforming use, you have to comply with the ordinance. Therefore, he may be required to request a zoning change. Mr. Owen stated he feels the type of fence should be clarified so Mr. Orbison will know what the intention was of the Board on the construction of the fence. Mr. Eden made a motion to grant the variance of Ordinance No. 347 for outside storage at 108 Midway Drive as requested by Allied Electrical Distributing Co. Mr. Owen seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Owen, Davis, Holmes, and Banks Nays: None Mr. Banks declared the motion carried. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Orbison what type of metal fence he was referring to if it is not chain link. Mr. Orbison stated it will be a pre- painted solid metal fence as is used on the metal buildings. He has not checked the prices of the metal or wood fences but feels the metal will be less expensive. Mr. Eden stated he feels the require- ment that the fence be of either wood or metal would be sufficient; either would look good. Mr. Banks stated the requirement is that the fence be a solid type fence, a minimum of six feet in height. (Pa.e Fiv- Zonin. d of Ad'ustment Jul 1 • II . PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF MR. CHARLES GARLAND FOR A VARIANCE IN THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FENCE ON HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1806 GREENBRIAR DRIVE. (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF GREENBRIAR DRIVE AND DEBRA DRIVE) Mr. Barnes stated this is the request of Mr. Charles Garland for a variance to City of Euless Ordinance No. 505 concerning set back requirements for a fence on his property located at 1806 Greenbriar Drive. The fence at this location was erected about March 30th of this year. Acting on a complaint received by the Building Inspection Department, it was found that three violations had occurred. First, there was not a building permit issued for the construction of a fence at this location; second, the fence was constructed approximately five (5) feet into the City right-of-way for Debra Drive; and third, the fence is in violation of the ordinance concerning the obstruction of view on corner lots (Ordinance No. 505) . The appeal is for a variance to the required set back require- ment. Mr. Owen asked what date the fence was erected. Mr. Barnes stated he and the Building Official were at the location on March 30th and it was in the process of being constructed at that time. Mr. Owen asked if it was actually replacing a fence that was there. Mr. Barnes stated that this is Mr. Garland's contention. However, when they arrived, all that was found was the new fence. Mr. Garland stated the fence has been there for fifteen years. It was a six foot wood fence. The only difference in the two fences is the way the top is cut. He purchased the house five years ago from his father-in-law who purchased it from his father who was the original owner of the house. The wood on the street side of Debra was replaced because it was weathered so bad. There is still about 300 feet of the original fence but it is not in view. Mr. Owen asked if the ordinance restricts the replacement of fences. Mr. Barnes stated the ordinance considers an existing fence a non-conforming use, but if more than 50% is replaced, it is no longer a non-conforming fence. (Page Sixoninq B of Adjustment, July 7, 1977 Mr. Barnes stated he has some pictures of the fence that were taken about March 31st. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Barnes if he understood correctly that the reason the City got into the case was due to a complaint. Mr. Barnes stated this is correct; they were acting on an anonymous complaint. Mr. Holmes asked how many feet the fence is onto the City easement. Mr. Barnes stated it is five feet into the public right-of-way. There is 91 feet behind the curb which is public right-of-way. Mr. Davis stated he drove by there and was aware of no obstruction of visibility since it is not near the corner. Mr. Garland stated he is in the middle of the block; it is about 150 to 180 feet to each curb on either end of the block. Mr. Davis stated there was over half of the fence that was not replaced. Mr. Garland stated this is correct. Mr. Davis asked why the remainder of the fence was not replaced. Mr. Garland stated the fence goes completely around his house except in front and would, therefore be extremely expensive to completely replace. Mrs. Garland stated this portion was weathered the worst and there were poles that were leaning. Therefore, this was the portion that was replaced. Mr. Davis asked " if these are the facts, why in the world is that inspector for the City so pig headed where we have to come up here anyway. .. . If the man is in fact telling us the truth and he was replacing less than half of the fence, then he didn't have to have the permit to begin with so why did we wind up here." Mr. Barnes stated it appeared to them that it was a new fence all the way around. The section in the picture shows a new fence located in the public right-of-way, which is the portion they are primarily concerned with. • (Page Sevi001 ZoninAwArd of Adjustment, July 7, 9741100 IMP Mr. Davis stated that he replaced 100% of that which was in the right-of-way so that part that was not re- placed which is not in the right-of-way was disregarded. Mr. Barnes stated there is definitely a portion of the fence that was not replaced. Mr. Holmes asked Mr. Garland why he objected to the fence being on the line where it was required to be. Mr. Garland stated the only objection he has Is that the fence was on that line when he bought the property. He bought it with the fact in mind that his four children could play in the yard without getting run over by a car. He is told by the City Inspector that he can have a thirty inch high fence 91 feet from the curb. This will not even keep his dogs in the yard. One of the poles of the original fence was left even with the ground for the purpose of not having to realign the new fence, which was aligned on this same line. This was the reason he did not come in for a permit; he did not feel a permit was required since he was not replacing the entire fence and the fence had been there for fifteen years. He does not know why the fence was originally placed there. Mr. Davis stated the ordinance was not in effect at that time. Mr. Banks stated the ordinance has been in effect since 1955. Mr. Barnes stated this ordinance was adopted in March of 1976. Mr. Davis stated that at the time the fence was erected, there were no sidewalk or right-of-way requirements. Mrs. Garland stated that in essence what they were told was that if they had taken down one section of the fence at a time and replaced it, they would not be here now. If they had waited one or two weeks between sections, everything would have been all right and she does not feel this is fair. To determine 50%, it would be necessary to count the slats. Before they were told that they had to come before the Board of Adjustment, her husband had agreed to move the fence back to the 92 foot line. The City would not let them do this, but insisted that they go before the Board of Adjustment, which required a $150.00 fee. Therefore, she does not feel they should now be required to move the fence at all . Mr. Wayne Saunders of 807 Debra stated his property is south by southeast of Mr. Garland's property and the fence has been there for at least nine years, which is how long he has lived there. However, he does not know how much of the fence was replaced. (Page Eiq Zoning rd of Adjustment, July 7, 197 Mr. Bill Macy stated he has lived at 1808 Greenbriar for fourteen years, which is next door to Mr. Garland's property. He talked to the original owner who told him that the purpose of the fence was to keep a public sidewalk from being installed across the property as well as neighborhood dogs and cats. Mr. Garland stated he discussed the fence with the Assistant City Manager and agreed to move the fence back the 92 feet. However, if he was going to give five feet of his yard to the City, he at least wanted to keep the six feet height. He was told by the Assistant City Manager that, according to the City Ordinance, it would be necessary for him to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Holmes asked if the purpose of cutting the height down to thirty inches is for visibility and safety. Mr. Barnes stated it is. The ordinance requires a fence to be no higher than thirty inches at the property line and can slope up to fifty-two inches at the building line. Mr. Owen made a motion to grant the variance as requested by Mr. Garland, however with the stipulation that the fence lines set forth in the ordinance be observed at any future recon- struction of more than 50% of the fence. Mr. Eden seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Owen, Eden, Davis, and Banks Nays: Mr. Holmes Mr. Banks declared the motion carried. III . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Approved: