HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-8/14/2013
City of Colleyville
City Hall
Zoning Board of
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Adjustment
817. 503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Minutes
Wednesday, August 14, 2013City Council Chambers
Call to Order
The Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting of theCity of Colleyville was called to
order by Board member McNoskyon August 14, 2013 at 7:06p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Board membersJason Elms, Mark Collier, Judson Orlando, and Dee
McNosky
Absent: Board memberLarry Kainer (Alternate 1), Mike Patino (Alternate 2), and
Mike Leathers
Staff Present:Ron Ruthven and Taci Wrisley
1.SWEARING IN OF NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBER
The swearing in of newly appointed member, Mike Patino (Alternate 2), did
not take place as Mr. Patino was absent from this meeting.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Elms moved to approve the May 15, 2013 meeting
minutes as written. Board member Collier seconded.
The motion to approve the minutes as written carried by the
following vote:
Aye: 4 –Elms, Collier, Orlando, andMcNosky
3.PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS
3aConsiderationof a variance to the rear yard setback requirements of
the Land Development Code regarding swimming pools on Lot 15,
Block B, of the Cambridge Place Addition, located at 717 Creekview
Lane, case VC13-009.
Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Board.
City of Colleyville Page 1
Zoning Board of AdjustmentMinutesAugust 14, 2013
The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m.
The applicant was not present for questions.
Board member Orlando questioned staff regarding whether the
approval of this variance would set precedentfor others. Ron
Ruthven replied no. He further explained the Board takes variances
on a case-by-case basis.
Discussion occurred amongst the Board and staff regardingwhether
or not a hardship existed in this case.
There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at
7:14 p.m.
Board member Elmsmade a motion to approve case VC13-009.
Board member Collier seconded.
The motion to approve case VC13-009carried by the following
vote:
Aye: 4 –Elms, Collier, Orlando, and McNosky
3bConsiderationof a variance to the fence requirements in Section 3.26
in the Land Development Code on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Toth Addition,
located at 5001 Montclair Drive, case VC13-010.
Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Board.
The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m.
Steve Gumm, the applicant, came forward and briefed the Board.
Tony Seris, 5000 Montclair Drive, came forward and spoke in support
of this case.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed at 7:31 p.m.
Board member Elms questioned Mr. Gumm regarding the specifics of
the variance; Was he okay with adjusting the fence for the visibility
triangle?; Beyond the 40 foot front buildingline, was he requesting to
leave the fence solid masonry? Mr. Gumm replied correct.
Board member Orlando questioned staff regarding whether the
request was for one variance or multiple. Ron Ruthven replied the
City of Colleyville Page 2
Zoning Board of AdjustmentMinutesAugust 14, 2013
Board could make that determination.
Board member Collier questioned staff regarding whether there was a
precedent on Montclair Drive or Glade Road for fences such as the
one in question. Ron Ruthven replied yes. He further explained there
is precedent all over the city.
Board member Orlando questioned staff regarding whether the
section of fence along Glade Road from the 40 foot front building line
to the rear of the property was part of the variance. Ron Ruthven
replied no. He further explained this section of the fence is legal.
Discussion occurred between the Board and staff regarding the 15
footof fencebetween the visibility triangle and the 40 foot front
building line.
Ron Ruthven explained while there were no renderings of the future
widening of Glade Road, the roadway would be closer to the fence
and question. He further explained this is why the visibility triangle
would be important in this case.
Board member McNosky questioned staff regarding whether the
required 15 foot visibility triangle would be enough distance. Ron
Ruthven replied yes.
Board member Orlandomade a motiontoapprove the fence
height, in the current condition, of three (3) foot forcase
VC13-010.Board member Elms seconded.
The motion to approvethe fence height, in the current
condition, of three (3) foot carried by the following vote:
Aye: 4 –Elms, Collier, Orlando, and McNosky
Board member Collier made a motion to approvethe variance
tothe solid fence construction, in the current condition, along
Glade Road, subject to the visibility trianglefor case VC13-
010. Board member Elms seconded.
The motion to approve thevariance to thesolid fence
construction, in the current condition, along Glade Road,
subject to the visibility triangle carried by the following vote:
Aye: 4 –Elms, Collier, Orlando, and McNosky
City of Colleyville Page 3
Zoning Board of AdjustmentMinutesAugust 14, 2013
Board member Elms made a motion to deny the varianceto
the current construction of the fence in the visibility triangle
for case VC13-010. Board member Collier seconded.
The motion to deny the variance to the current construction of
the fence in the visibility triangle carried with the following
vote:
Aye: 4 –Elms, Collier, Orlando, and McNosky
4.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes were written and prepared by:
Taci Wrisley
Planning and Zoning Assistant
The meeting minutes were approved on September 10, 2013 by a vote of5-0.
City of Colleyville Page 4