Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-06 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JANUARY 6, 1994 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments was called to order by Chairman Marland Ernest at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Euless Municipal Building. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Bill Williams. The invocation was given by Mar land Ernest. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mar land Ernest Jack Hill Martin Case Bill Williams David Massey Randy Byers, Director Public Works & Development Michael Logan, Fire Marshal/Assistant Chief Lee Koontz, Fire Chief Kevin Mercer, Assistant Building Official Rod Tyler, City Planner Paul Wieneskie, City Attorney Barbara Chambers, Staff Secretary Linda Lux, Staff Secretary VISITORS PRESENT Richard A. Calvert Mr. Paul Frost Mrs. Cynthia Frost Ms. Joann Hamby Mr. Stan Horton Ms. Dianne Nibarger Mr. Leon Nibarger Kelly Lyons Laura Avery Terry Kasterson Ms. B.J. Hoffman ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE TWO JANUARY 6, 1994 ITEM 1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The election of officers was postponed to the last item on the agenda. ITEM II. ZBA #93-07 Request of Mr. Richard A. Calvert, for an appeal of a decision made by the Building Officials Office regarding Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Codes with local amendments. Mr. Dick Calvert, Calvert Company Architects, 1301 Elm Street in Irving, represented Mid Cities Community Center, Inc. for their presentation. Mr. Calvert stated that they were appealing the interpretation made by the Building Official of the local amendment of the Uniform Building and Fire Code. He stated that unlike many of the other cases that the Board hears, they are not asking for a variance. Mr. Calvert stated that the original plans incorporated 14,670 square feet of floor area. Since that time, my client has elected to add an additional 3,600 square feet to their lease for a total of 18,360 square feet (the maximum area allowed by zoning). A reduced scale drawing of the Floor Plan was inserted in the packets with the following information: Prayer Hall 4,070 sq. ft.; Lobby 1,927 sq. ft.; Main Lobby 3,007 sq. ft.; Total: 9,004 sq. ft. The proposed 3,600 sq. ft. addition is adjacent to the west of the original lease area and consists of two restrooms, three offices and recreation (a 2,880 sq. ft. assembly area). Mr. Calvert stated that all four of the assembly areas total 11,884 sq. ft. Mr. Calvert stated that the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code would allow construction of this project, but the City of Euless has a local amendment#1088 which prohibits it. He informed the Board that the reduced scaled drawing that was provided shows that 9,004 square feet of the assembly areas are contiguous and with no attempt to compartmentalize the spaces. The 2,880 recreation area is not contiguous, but is separated by some 60 feet and a two hour rated wall. Mr. Calvert further stated that he can find no reference in the code which would allow the City's position on this issue. He raised the issue that if the 3,600 square foot space did not have its own restrooms, entrances, HVAC, etc., it could not be considered as a stand alone lease. However, if the church were to execute a separate lease for this space under a different certificate of occupancy, he stated he could find no prohibition to them doing so. Mr. Calvert told the Board Members that the construction of this project is 70% complete and that the outcome of this request could have a profound impact on the completion of the project. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE THREE JANUARY 6, 1994 Board Member Martin Case stated that in one place it says that the fire separation walls are allowed to be considered a separate building and in another place it says that it must all be considered together regardless of area of separation. Kevin Mercer, Assistant Building Official, stated that Chapter 5 does state that portion of buildings by either a two or four hour area separation walls may be considered a separate building, however, Section 3802 which deals with fire sprinkler requirements negates that section in Chapter 5, stating that a sprinkler system will be required when the total area in assembly area is 10,000 sq. ft. or more, regardless of area separation. Mr. Calvert informed the Board that the church will occupy 49% of the shopping center. The Board Members asked staff members questions regarding the requirements for sprinkler systems within the total shopping center structure. Board Member Williams asked if another separate assembly occupant came into the shopping center causing the total square footage between the two to exceed 10,000 sq. ft. would both occupants be required to sprinkler. Staff answered yes. Board Member Williams asked Mr. Calvert to address the local amendment that stated "regardless of area of separation". Mr. Calvert stated that the code uses the term "area of separation" only in one instance and it refers to area separation walls. His contention is that if the two assembly areas were adjoining then he would agree with the building official. However, because the two assembly areas are separated by another occupancy and the way the code addresses it, the assembly areas are both under 10,000 square feet. Chairman Ernest asked if there has been a precedent set before in the City of Euless regarding an assembly area separated by something other than an assembly area and then another assembly area? Also, he asked if the City has had to enforce or address this code relative to any occupancies in other shopping centers? Mr. Mercer said the City has addressed this issue but this is the first case of this nature. Board Member Jack Hill stated that the Restoration Church had come under compliance even though they were under the grandfather act. Kevin Mercer, Assistant Building Official, stated the only place the Uniform Building Code refers to area separations is in Section 505(f) "Area Separation Walls". The physical separation of the assembly spaces by distance is not recognized by the amended Uniform building Code as a recognized and acceptable substitute for area separation walls when contained in one structure. The only area of the amended Uniform Building Code which pertains to physical separation is contained in Section 504(c). This section applies to multiple, free standing buildings on a single lot or parcel. Section 504 allows the buildings to be considered separately if they have an adequate distance between them to achieve compliance with building setbacks required in Table ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE FOUR JANUARY 6, 1994 5A in conjunction with an assumed property line between the buildings. To utilize this provision of the Code the space between the two buildings must be an outdoor, uncovered and unenclosed area. Chairman Ernest stated that Section 3802 Article C-3 states "regardless of area of separation" and the Fire Code Section 16 10.507 says the same thing "regardless of area separation". He further stated that the fire code and the building code were consistent. Michael Logan, Fire Marshal, spoke for the Fire Department and stated that the intent here is to put sprinkler systems in these buildings, based on the fact that the City does not have a fire department as large as Dallas and Fort Worth. Mr. Logan stated that the City does have 3 stations and limited man power and operates an ambulance service and the City is stretched sometimes to its limit because of man power limitations. Chairman Ernest stated that this Board has been put together to make a decision that the Appeal or the Building Official ruling be upheld. So the motion could be that we uphold the Building Official ruling or the Appeal. Board Member Williams stated that there are certainly some good arguments and it is difficult to interpret the local amendment regarding that last phrase "regardless of area separations". He stated that he understands Mr. Calvert defining it as being fire walls only. And he is saying that he has a substantial buffer that is more than just fire walls. The interpretation by the City is that the 60 feet is an area that may separate the two assembly areas but it is an area separation and the code states "regardless of any separation". Board Member Williams made the motion to uphold the City's ruling on Case #93-07 and the motion was seconded by Board Member Case. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Board Members Williams, Case, Massey, Hill Nays: Board Chairman Ernest. The motion carried. ITEM M. ZBA #93-08 - LOT 14, BLOCK C, CINNAMON RIDGE ADDITION. Request of Mr. Paul W. Frost for a variance to the street side yard setback requirement for an accessory building at 214 Mint Lane. Mr. Paul W. Frost stated that he was applying for the variance through a hardship and has the need for additional storage at the home. At this particular home, the entire fenced back yard is ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE FIVE JANUARY 6, 1994 basically covered with an inground pool and was pre-existing when he purchased the house. In reviewing the covenants for the subdivision he interpreted that he could put this in because the structure should be 5 feet from the property line. Mr. Frost stated he would like for the Board to consider that the structure that is going to be put up will be built on a skid and portable in nature and the flooring is such that a fork lift could go in and lift the structure after it is built. Fencing will be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Frost stated that the building would be 9' ft. tall with a pitched roof. Chairman Ernest asked if anyone was present in the audience that was in favor of the variance. There being none he asked for opposition. Ms. Joann Hamby, 202 Cinnamon Lane, stated that her home is perpendicular from Mr. Frost. She stated that the building is going to be built directly in front of her driveway and doesn't find that very appealing. She also feels that it would encourage crime to some degree Mr. Stan Horton stated that his concern is that there is an 18 foot setback from the street and a 25 foot setback from the corner and he feels the building is not consistent with what is in the neighborhood. Mr. Tyler indicated that the variance being requested is complicated because of the differences in setbacks. He read the ordinance stating that the permitted uses of the accessory buildings, no closer than 80 feet behind the front property line; and no closer than 3 feet from any property line behind the building line. He stated that the building in question does not meet either requirement. The property has a 5 foot easement on either side of the rear property line. The maximum height of the building is not to exceed 8 ft. when 3 ft. from the property line, but this building is 10 ft. so the setback must increase 2 additional ft. for every foot over the 8 ft. height. So two issues of a variance are being requested here, 1.) being behind all applicable building lines and 2.) being the height over 8 feet. So those are the two variances here. Chairman Ernest closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion and discussion. Board Member Hill asked if there were any objections from property owners that were unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Tyler stated that he received 2 phone calls that were in opposition. Chairman Ernest stated that he had a petition of 8 names which included two people that spoke earlier. Board Member Williams asked for clarification of the setback requirement. Mr. Tyler said that if the accessory building was in the line of the house it would be behind the 15 ft. building line setback. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE SIX JANUARY 6, 1994 In response to a query he also stated that the maximum height for a fence in the City of Euless is 8 ft. Mr. Frost stated that he would try and relocate the building to the other side of the yard which does not have a 15' setback. Board Member Williams made the motion to deny the request for variance on ZBA Case #93-08 and the motion was seconded by Board Member Massey. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Board Members Williams, Massey, Case, Hill, Ernest. Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM IV. ZBA #93-09 - LOT 7, BLOCK L, CINNAMON RIDGE ADDITION. Request of Ms. Dianne Nibarger, for a variance to the minimum off-street parking requirements located at 2618 Bayberry Lane. Chairman Marland Ernest stated that there was a correction on ZBA Case #93-09 from Lot 7, Block L Trail Lake Estate to Lot 6, Block 2, Cinnamon Ridge. Mr. Leon Nibarger, 2618 Bayberry Lane, stated that he purchased the house through a family trust and closed in the garage. Partial work had been done prior to him purchasing the home. He stated that after the work was completed a City inspector came by to inform him that he needed to get a permit. He learned then that he needed two off-street parking spaces behind the building line. He stated that the two houses sit 18' ft. apart and the neighbors have expressed some concern if he places a driveway between the two houses. Mr. Nibarger stated that he and his wife are currently building a home and will give the home on Bayberry Lane to an adult child. The child plans on returning the garage enclosure to its original state. Therefore, at that time there would be no need for additional parking. Mr. Nibarger also expressed concern for his neighbors because of drainage. He also informed the Board that his neighbors object to the additional driveway or parking spaces being constructed. Kelly Lyons, 2620 Bayberry, stated that he would be most affected by the additional driveway. He told the Board that the drive would be too close to his nine year old daughters bedroom window. He also did not know that the City allowed garage enclosures in the Cinnamon Ridge area. He feels that the additional driveway will call more attention to the enclosed garage and he would sustain damage from water run-off. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE SEVEN JANUARY 6, 1994 Laura Avery, 2616 Bayberry, had several questions to ask the Board Members. She did not understand how someone could build a structure prior to getting a permit. Ms. Avery stated that there was a parking problem in the area. She stated that she was concerned for the value of her home since the garage enclosure. Rod Tyler, City Planner, read the ordinance requiring 2 off-street parking spaces behind the building line to the Board and to the audience. Mr. Terry Kasterson, 2612 Bayberry, stated that he is against the variance. He stated that the garage enclosure was built against city code and he therefore disagrees with the variance and the garage enclosure. He stated that he wanted the property returned to its original state. Ms. B. J. Hoffman, 2617 Bayberry, stated that she agrees with the other property owners. She plans to try and sell her home in the next year or so and is concerned about the value of her property. Chairman Ernest, closed the Public Hearing for discussion among the Board. The Board discussed the possibility of a motion being made to grant the variance contingent upon the fact that the garage would be returned to its original state at a later date. Paul Wieneskie, City Attorney, stated that there had never been a precedent for such a motion. He further stated that if compliance was not met then enforcement would be a problem. Board Member Hill made the motion to deny ZBA Case #93-09 and Board Member Case seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Board Members Hill, Case, Massey, Ernest. Nays: Board Member Williams. The motion carried. ITEM I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Zoning Board of Adjustments had election of officers by secret ballot. The results were as follows: Marland Ernest was elected as Chairman and Bill Williams was elected as Vice Chairman. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING - PAGE EIGHT JANUARY 6, 1994 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business Chairman Ernest adjourned the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Al&f t f ai an Marland Ernest BACIZBA110694.MIJV1