Loading...
02-14-2000BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING February 14, 2000 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened in regular session on Monday, February 14, 2000, at 6:30 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 Joyce Briscoe, P & Z, Representative MEMBERS ABSENT #1 CALL TO ORDER CITY STAFF Steve Simonson, Asst. City Manager Mary Ybarra, Planning & Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT Larry Douglass, 1683 Fir Circle Keith L. Miller, Kaufinan & Broad Chairman Hartzog called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chairman Hartzog explained to everyone present that the public hearing on this issue has been heard. The board asked that city staff provide additional information in respect to notifying potential property owners of the Douglass proposed site in a form of a letter. Chairman Hartzog asked that if anyone present had their letters please bring it forward, these letters will be part of city files and in part of how the board makes its decision on the this issue. 1 #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular session of January 31, 2000. Chairman Hartzog asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of January 31, 2000? Chairman Hartzog asked that the minutes of January 31, 2000 be postponed until such time that several corrections are made. Ted Duigon suggested that the minutes could be reviewed and could be approved contingent upon the changes discussed. At this time, Ted Duigon mentioned several corrections through out the document. However, Kathy Hill stated that she had made several comments and these were not published in said minutes. In view of this it was decided the minutes would be postponed until such time that the tape would be reviewed. #3 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: 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. Earl Hartzog stated that a public hearing was held on this issue on January 31, 2000 and received input from the public on this matter. However, the board tabled this issue because the board felt more information was necessary. The board wanted to hear from the potential or proposed homebuyer surrounding the proposed property in question. City staff notif ed these homebuyers by letter and Mr. Simonson will report on the responses from these buyers. Steve Simonson stated that Kaufinan & Board provided a list of 15 names of proposed homebuyers. Of the 15 letters sent, six (6) letters were returned; four (4) letters in favor and (2) two letters were opposed. Mr. Simonson stated that three letters were received this evening: One opposed at 1688 Fir Circle, lot #105, and the other two in favor at 1696 Jasmin Dr. and 1683 Fir Circle. 2 In discussion, it was determined that six (6) letters in total were received, counting the one (1} received at the public heazing, bringing the total to two (2} letters opposed and four (4) letters in favor, one of the letters in favor being the property owner 1vlr. Douglass. Joyce Briscoe stated that she apologized for her absence at the public heazing and reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission under some discussion voted to forward to the Boazd recommending approval on this issue. However, she would like to add that in the discussion the Commission had reservations, and it was a general feeling among the group that this type of mistake should not be made. Ted Duigon stated that notification to the prospective homebuyer, which was sent in February 1 ~`, was the first notification sent to these homeowners. These homebuyers were not included in the first list of names sent for the public hearing and the first list was not notified a second time. Ted added that the prospective homebuyer, who the list was provided by Kaufman & Broad was notified for the first time of a public heazing on or about the 1 ~` of February, which brought concern when Chairman Hartzog mentioned that the public hearing on this issue had been held. Steve Simonson stated that the public hearing met the legal requirement when letters were sent out to the property owners within a 200' radius of this property. The tax office provided the list of the property owners thus specifying these as landowners. Steve Simonson commented that the Board of Adjustment requested city staff to notify the prospective homeowner and that has been done with the additional mailing. Ted Duigon asked that if someone from the second mailing brought a letter this evening the public hearing would not be appropriate, but certainly his or her response in writing in a form of a letter would be acceptable. Steve Simonson stated that is correct. Ted Duigon stated for the record that the numerous calls he placed to these prospective buyers were to insure that in fact letters were received. The potential homeowner of lot 100, address of 1687 Fir Circle, as of Saturday evening had not received a letter. We are 3 to assume that the City has no control once these letters are dropped at the post office whether they get delivered or not. Ted stated that for the record for any future purpose, that in fact the homeowner at 1687 Fir Circle did not receive a letter. Jim Harris stated that for clarification purposes the request before the board this evening is for construction of a patio however it's my understanding that actually it is a continuation of the foundation of a home. Steve Simonson stated that the City believes that to be a true statement, because of the type of construction and cement that was used, a room could actually be added. Jim Harris stated that he wanted it to be clearly understood that the homeowner if approval was given could construct a room without ever coming back to this board. Steve Simonson stated that if approved the approval would be for the 10' setback for placement of the patio. However, the information has been provided in regard to the size of the foundation. If Kaufman & Broad had built this patio within the setback requirements the request would not be before the board. Steve added that another reason staff was brought into this matter was because of the size and type of patio that was built, the patio did not meet what is normally built, which is a 4' slab. Steve also mentioned that Mr. Truitt building inspector for the City stated that in his opinion, the patio is a continuation of the foundation and that in sense another room could be placed on this patio. Jim Harris stated that he wanted it understood that if approval was given, the owner could at anytime construct a sunroom, recreation room, etc. without coming back to the Board or to the Planning & Zoning. Steve Simonson stated that he wanted it to be very clear that what the board would be voting on would be a building setback. Both Kaufman & Broad and Mr. Douglass have stated that the slab is a patio and would be used as a patio for recreational purpose. However, it was brought to the board because city staff believes it is more then a patio, a patio is considered flat work and this patio is more then that. Peggy Brown questioned that if the use of rebar in the concrete would make the 4 difference whether a slab is considered a patio or not. Steve Simonson stated that a patio normally would have wire mesh and about 4" thick, which would be considered flat work. The patio in question is made more like foundation and far exceeds what is considered flat work. Peggy asked if it could have been built as a patio density with steps leading up to the house as opposed to how its built at this present time with steps leading away from the house and was advised yes. In discussion whether the request could be approved with stipulations it was determined that this type of approval would be hard to track. For the moment it is fresh with everyone, years from now it will not. Ted Duigon stated that in regard to the (letters) mailing especially to the second mailing, which notifies of a request for a rear setback to build a patio, when the fact, it is requesting a variance for a patio that has already been constructed. Ted suggested that something more then a generic letter be sent to these owners and provide them with more information giving them an opportunity to voice concern. Ted commented that in the future this sort of issue could be handled differently. With no further discussion, a motion was made by Jim Harris and seconded by Ted Duigon to disapprove the request from from Kaufinan & 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 based on the fact that the patio does not comply with the city ordinance. With a vote being called, the motion was as follows: Ayes: Peggy Brown, Kathy Hill, Jim Harris and Ted Duigon. Opposed: Earl Hartzog. Motion was approved. 5 #4 GENERAL DISCUSSION: P_gy Brown• Peggy suggested that motions should be made in positive motions and vote them down as opposed to negative motions. Peggy asked if the issue in regard to the Kaufman & Broad request goes to court could the board be informed and could anyone from the board attend. Jim Harris• Jim wished everyone a Happy Valentines Day. Jim commented that he felt Planning & Zoning did not do their job, maybe the Commission wasn't aware of all the facts. Were they? Joyce Briscoe commented that she recalls asking whether or not the patio was part of the foundation and was told no. Ted Dui~on: Ted commented that it is truly unfortunate that Mr. Douglass will not get to keep his patio. Ted stated that he believes there is no one person to be "blamed" in this matter, he understands there are over sights and errors and he hopes that in the future that property owners are provided correct information because it is personally and professionally distressing to have these citizens show up and be told something differently. Earl Hartzog Earl commented that if Mr. Miller from Kaufman & Broad would have had "all his ducks in a row ", such as notifying property owners, had comments or letters and graphs explaining the request he believes the request would have been approved. 6 Earl commented that he believes Kaufman & Broad would go to court in regard to the issue discussed this evening. Jovice Briscoe• Joyce commented that the Planning & Zoning Commission voiced concern in regard to the Kaufman & Broad request and mentioned that the potential homeowner was present and the Commission was very empathetic toward him. Joyce stated that she personally had a problem with the request. Kathv Hill• Kathy had no comments. Steve Simonson Steve had no comments. #7 ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Hartzog adjourned the meeting at7: 25 p.m. Board of Adjustment Chairman, City of Schertz, Texas ATTEST: Planning Secre , City of Schertz