01-31-2000BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
January 31, 2000
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened in regular session on Monday, January 31,
2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway,
Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Earl Hartzog, Chairman
Ted Duigon, Vice-Chairman
Kathy Hill
Jim Harris
Peggy Brown
MEMBERS ABSENT
Joyce Briscoe (work related)
#1 CALL TO ORDER
CITY STAFF
Steve Simonson,
Asst. City Manager
Mary Ybarra,
Planning & Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT
James Harden,
912 Abercorn
George Boggess,
309 Maske Rd.
Larry Douglass,
1683 Fir Circle
Keith L. Miller,
Kaufinan & Broad
Chairman Hartzog called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chairman Hartzog stated that he would like to welcome everyone and at this time
introduced the Board members, and mentioned that Joyce Briscoe, representing the
Planning and Zoning Commission was not present, she sits on the board as an advisor and
1
a non-voting member. Also introduced was Steve Simonson, city staff member /assistant
city manager, planning coordinator, and coordinator far the Board of Adjustment.
#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular session of January 10, 2000.
Chairman Hartzog asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of
January 10, 2000?
Ted Duigon stated that on page four, last paragraph, second sentence to delete the ward
"He" and add "This" to the sentence.
At this time, Peggy Brawn made a motion that was seconded by Kathy Hill to approve
the minutes of January 10, 2000 as corrected. With a vote being called, the motion was
approved.
#3 PUBLIC HEARING: To receive citizen input on a request from Kaufman
& Broad, 1683 Fir Circle, Greenshire Subdivision Unit 5, for a Special Exception to the
Zoning Ordinance far a rear yard setback variance from 20' to 10' for construction of a
Patio. (BOA #135-00)
Chairman Hartzog stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments
from interested citizens. The Board of Adjustment will take all comments into
consideration in making their decision. After the public hearing is closed there will be no
other comments taken from the citizens on this matter.
Chairman Hartzog asked for staff input.
Steve Simonson stated that in accordance with the city ordinance 6 letters were sent out
to property owners within 200' radius of said property. Of the letters sent (1) one letter
was received opposed, none were received in favor.
2
Ted Duigon asked that of the letters sent, were any of the letters sent to owners of
structures under construction, such as lots 42 and 93, which are the backyards to the lot in
question. Mr. Simonson stated that Kaufman & Broad are still the owners of the lots
under construction.
Keith Miller representing Kaufinan & Broad stated that they still are the owners of these
lots and if "sold" signs are present it means; there is intent to purchase. Thus, the lots are
not individually owned at the present time.
Chairman Hartzog mentioned that a letter from the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommending approval is part of the review packet. At this time, Chairman Hartzog
asked if anyone present would like to speak on this matter?
Larry Douglass, proposed homebuyer stated that the purpose of the patio as discussed at
Planning & Zoning meeting; was that it is not the intent to place a structure on the patio,
it is strictly to be used as a patio. It is flat work that would allow access from the back
door, where abar-b-que would be placed for entertainment purposes.
Mr. Douglass explained that the lot is angled to the side, and not much of a backyard is
available. With the design of the patio, Mr. Douglass said he was not aware of the 25'
setback requirement. Mr. Douglass added that due to administrative complications with
subcontractors and Kaufinan & Broad, the patio was not approved through proper
channels. Mr. Douglass stated that he has worked long and hard to design this patio and
he hopes the Board will allow him the patio. It is not ugly or overbearing, once complete
it will be quite appealing, the patio will be fenced with white rod iron railing placed
around the patio for safety. The steps will have a railing going up onto the patio. Mr.
Douglass mentioned that he did not think he was intruding with the neighbors, the
potential neighbors at the back have only positive things to say of course this is only here
say.
3
Keith Miller regional sales manager for Kaufman & Broad stated that normally flat work
doesn't cause a problem with encroachment into easements, however this patio became
such a project and through an administrative error the patio was never permitted. prom
this error, one good thing has been accomplished; it has allowed us to meet with the
inspection department and become aware of several issues that will help us work
smoothly with the development of more homes in the City of Schertz.
With no further comments or questions, Chairman Hartzog closed the public hearing.
#4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: On the above Special
Exception request from Kaufman & Broad, 1683 Fir Circle. (BOA #135-00).
Chairman Hartzog opened the meeting for discussion from the board at this time.
Ted Duigon stated that he had a number of questions directed to City Staff:
1. Is it assumed that the pouring of the patio was not on the original plan?
2. What are the dimensions of the patio?
3. Who built the patio?
4. In relation to foundation poured for house, when was the patio poured?
Steve Simonson stated that the pouring of the patio was not on the original plan and as
for the dimensions of the patio, it extends the whole length of the back of the property.
Steve commented that Kaufman &. Broad built the patio as part of their contract. In
addition, City Official Truitt stated that the pouring of the patio was months apart from
the foundation pouring of the house.
At this time, Ted Duigon asked Mr. Douglass to comment on what the dimensions of the
patio were. Mr. Douglass stated that the patio is 55' X 14'.
Ted Duigon stated that from previous discussions, are we to assume that letters were not
4
sent to potential homebuyers? So the question is; do we know the status on Mr. Douglass
as a homeowner far the property, compared to the status of who the backyard neighbors
will be? Steve Simonson stated he did not have that information.
Mr. Keith Miller stated that the property as this time belongs to Kaufinan & Broad and
the property doesn't change title until it goes to escrow and closing takes place. Ted
Duigon stated that in essence the proposed property owners of lots 92 and 93 are in the
same situation as is Mr. Douglass. Mr. Miller replied that is a true statement.
Ted Duigon commented that it would be beneficial if the potential buyers were notified
or made aware of the patio construction allowing them the option to purchase or to
withdraw from the contract. Mr. Duigon concluded that he doesn't understand, with the
platting, permits, and all the procedures that are required that this sort of thing has happen
again.
Mr. Truitt building official for the City of Schertz commented in response to Mr. Duigon
comments, "it was the contractor that failed to get permitted for the patio". The city
inspectors were undergoing other inspections at the site when it was noticed that a patio
foundation was in place. Before city inspectors could find out whether permitting had
been given, research would be necessary. In the findings it was found that permitting had
not been given. A next day trip to the site found that the patio had been poured with no
further inspection. At this time, the contractor was notified that the site had been shut
down, because of failure to pull a permit, and failure of an inspection. The contractor
was also notified immediately that the patio would have to be ripped up or a variance
request would be needed, Mr. Truittt stated that the reason the request is before the board
at this time is mainly because of the homebuilder, he would like to keep his patio. Mr.
Truitt added that if Kaufman & Broad had gone with first policy, the patio would have
been taken out because of the demand from the inspection department.
James Harris stated that he would like very much to see that the homeowner gets his
patio. However, he believes this item should be tabled until the two lots (92 & 93) and
5
other proposed homebuyers in the area are notified, and letters are submitted to the board
stating they have no objections to the patio. Jim stated that he believes these homebuyers
should be aware and have the option whether to go forwazd with their purchase.
Peggy Brown commented that from the drawing she can not tell how faz off the ground
the patio sits. Peggy was advised that the height varies however, at the deepest part after
finished grade the highest point is 32", which is at the southwest corner of the patio. It
was also mentioned that it didn't make any difference in the height of the patio or
placement of a fence at the property line in reference to whether Mr. Douglass could look
into the backyard of his neighbors' yard. It was established that the home is two-story
and regardless whether a patio or a 6' fence was placed, Mr. Douglass and family still has
a view into the neighbors' backyard.
Kathy hIill asked that if there were plans for fencing and had IVIr. Douglass considered a
wood deck or any other type of construction instead of the concrete deck? Mr. Douglass
replied that a 6' fence will be placed and in regard to the deck, he has had wood decks
before and concrete tends to last longer and their plan is to be in the home a very long
time. Kathy Hill stated that she too awns a Kaufinan &. Broad home and inquired whether
the patio request from Kaufinan & Broad was done at the pre-select stage? Mr. Douglass
replied, yes. Kathy Hill commented that she is awaze that no construction of any kind is
started until the pre-selects have been done and all the documents filed. Mr. Douglass
stated that the home has undergone many changes and discussions with engineers in
reference to cost for the patio however the patio has been part of the ongoing process.
When applying for permit in early September, approval of the patio had not been
received. When the permit for house was approved on September 4~', the approval for the
patio was received on September 8~', and to my knowledge the patio was part of the
original foundation. Kathy also voiced concern in regazd to privacy and agrees that
notification of potential owners of lots 92 & 93 is necessary because of personal
experience, her backyazd sits low and she is also able to look into her neighbors back
yard. She believes these potential homebuyers should be awaze of this patio.
6
Mr. Douglass commented that when construction of his home was started there were no
other homes in and around his home. Kathy acknowledged that as a true fact, however we
must think long term. Mr. Douglass agreed, however commented that these potential
homeowners would have seen the existing patio at the time of viewing and selection of
lots. Mr. Jim Harris commented that if this is the case, have these potential homebuyers
submit in writing to the fact.
Ted Duigon commented that if the patio were not approved, who is responsible for the
removal and how much would it cost to remove the patio? Ted was advised that
Kaufman & Broad are the responsible party and the estimated cost of construction is
approximately $10,000.
In further discussion among the members, the boazd members believe the request should
be tabled until such time that potential homebuyers are notified and response in form of
letters. The purpose of the letters would be of course to notify these individuals that
would be affected by this variance and allow them some ixiput.
At this time, Steve Simonson stated that if Kaufman & Broad would provide the names,
letters could be sent out by tomorrow, by law the notification of 10 days is required thus
being the case this issue could not be brought forwazd for another two weeks.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Ted Duigon and seconded by Jim
Harris to table the request from Kaufman & Broad, 1683 Fir Circle, Greenshire
Subdivision Unit 5, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for a rear yard
setback variance from 20' to 10' for construction of a patio until such time that
information is received from those individuals associated with the sold signs within a
200' radius adjacent to 1683 Fir Circle (Douglass lot), estimated time of two weeks.
With a vote being called, the vote was as follows:
Ayes: Eazl Hartzog, 3ames Harris, Kathy Hill and Ted Duigon.
Opposed: Peggy Brown.
7
Motion was approved.
#5 CONSIDER AND TAKE RECOMMENDATION: On Applicants, James
Harden, and George Boggess.
Chairman Hartzog explained that the vacant position is an alternate position an the Board
of Adjustment and the applicants are present.
James Harden and George Boggess are the applicants scheduled far interviews. The
applicants each answered a series of questions asked by each board member. Each
applicant was excused and thanked for their interest after the interview. After a brief
discussion and votes tallied, James Harden was selected.
Ted Duigan rnaved to forward recommending approval the appointment of 3ames Harden
as alternate board member for atwo-year term to the Schertz City Council for their
consideration. Kathy Hill seconded the motion. With ~ vote being a called the motion was
approved.
#6 GENERAL DISCUSSION:
General discussion consisted of several different topics:
1. Kaufman &. Board (fine).
2. FM 78 project underway
3. Performance Products, lnc., request denied by BOA was overturned by the courts.
#7 ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Hartzog adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
8
~~
Board of Adjustment Chairman, City o Schertz, Texas
ATTEST:
Planning Sec tary, City of Schertz