Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2005-08-25 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HillS, TEXAS AUGUST 25, 2005 1. CAll TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 7:07 p.m. ROll CAll Alternate Tom Duer Leslie Jauregui Fonda Kunkel Jerry Henry Beth Davis Jim Kemp Present Chairman Absent Alternate Roy Sculley City Staff Chief Planner Building Official Planning Assistant Recording Secretary Dave Green Dave Pendley Carolyn Huggins Holly Blake 2. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2005. APPROVED Jerry Henry, seconded by leslie Jauregui motioned to approve the minutes of June 23, 2005. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). CHAIRMAN DUER EXPLAINED THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ANY REQUEST THAT GOES BEFORE THIS BOARD MUST RECEIVE A SUPER MAJORITY (75%). THIS BOARD IS A 5 MEMBER VOTING BOARD. FOR ANY VARIANCE TO PASS IT MUST RECEIVE 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. Page 1 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes 3. BA 2005-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JERRY DOUGHTY, 5033 LAKEVIEW CIRCLE, FORA VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A CARPORT APPROVED Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Mr. Doughty, to come forward. Jerry Doughty, 5033 Lakeview Circle, stated that he built a carport that was 660 sq.ft. and after speaking with City Staff and the builder, he is willing to reduce the overall square footage of the carport in order to be in compliance with the 10-ft. side yard setback. Mr. Doughty stated that the posts will be moved in 2-ft. on the west side to come into compliance and that he will also move the posts on the east side which will bring the total square footage to 468 sq. ft. He is requesting a variance of 108 sq. ft. The builder has agreed to move the posts and strengthen the posts if necessary in order to comply. The brick work around the posts are according to City ordinance. It was made into a 2 pole entrance in order to get the car into the garage. Chairman Duer asked the applicant how far away from the side building line the posts would be moved. Mr. Doughty responded that they would be moved roughly 2-ft. Mr. Henry asked the applicant how far the first post is from the house. Mr. Doughty responded that it is 12- or 13-ft. Mr. Henry stated that in the original package it was indicated that the turning ratios were a problem. He asked if the applicant thought that moving that post over 2-ft. would be adequate to make that turn. Mr. Doughty stated that it will tighten the turn, but the alternative is to tear the structure down. That is not affordable. Mr. Henry stated that the applicant came in further from the side than the City Ordinance requires. Mr. Doughty responded that he thought the smaller amount of variance would be easier to pass. Is it possible to change the variance amount from 108 sq. ft. to 130 sq. ft.? Mr. Henry stated that the size doesn't need to change, just move the structure over 1 % -ft. to the right. Mr. Doughty said that he thought that he needed 6-ft. on the right hand side. If it was moved further to the right, it would encroach. Chairman Duer asked if the overhang was going to be moved. Mr. Doughty confirmed that only the posts are going to be moved; not the overhang. He further stated that according to regulations, the square footage is measured from post to post and not overhang to overhang. Page 2 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui asked if the right post is the only one that will be moved. Mr. Doughty responded that the post on the south side will be moved in 2-ft., the one on the east side will be moved 2-ft. and the one on the west side will be moved 6- in. Dave Pendley, Building Official, confirmed that a 24-in. overhang is allowed. Chairman Duer opened the public meeting. As no one wished to speak for or against this case, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Duer commented that out of the four items that were requested in June, three of the items can be done without moving the roof, the fourth one is the size and that can be changed by moving the posts. Ms. Jauregui stated that in order to approve 108 sq. ft. the applicant has to move that post past what is required. The post facing the structure would have to be moved in 7 % -ft. it couldn't be left at 6-ft. because that would be 130 sq. ft. from pole to pole. Mr. Henry asked if the applicant can amend the 108 sq. ft. variance and ask for the 130-sq. ft. variance. Dave Pendley responded "no" because the public notice was for 108 sq. ft. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Pendley if the City can verify that the structure is sound. Mr. Pendley responded that during the building permit process the applicant will have to provide an engineered letter on the steel. Mr. Henry asked for clarification on the drawings. The second drawing shows the side setbacks to be 6 % -ft. not 7 % -ft. to the post. Which one is accurate? Dave Pendley responded that there are two different measurements. The one that is accurate is the one that produces the correct square footage. Ms. Jauregui asked how far from the side setback is the pole. Mr. Pendley responded that the pole is at the 4-ft. 6-in. mark. He stated that the inspectors will verify the dimensions as well as the measurement of the roof. The applicant will have to meet all the parameters. Beth Davis, seconded by Fonda Kunkel, motioned to approve BA 2005-02 as requested for the 108 sq. ft. over the maximum of 360 sq. ft. size allowed by Ordinance for a total carport size of 468 sq. ft. The motion carried (4-1) with Jerry Henry voting against BA 2005-02. 4. BA 2005-04 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BH&L JOINT VENTURE FOR A VARIANCE FROM 20-FT. TO 15-FT. FOR THE Page 3 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG NORTH TARRANT PARKWAY FOR LOTS 1, 11, 12 AND 21, BLOCK 1, FOREST GLENN NORTH ADDITION. APPROVED LOT 1, BLOCK 1 DENIED LOT 11, BLOCK 1 DENIED LOT 12, BLOCK 1 DENIED LOT 21, BLOCK 1 Mark Long, Engineer for the subdivision, came forward. The screening wall creates a hardship on some of the lots in order to get the drive on the side with a 24-ft. setback. Mr. Henry asked if the corner lots are wider. Mr. Long replied that the corner lots are wider than the interior lots. Ms. Jauregui asked for the square footage of the houses being built on 'these lots. Mr. Long replied, "2,750 sq. ft., which is larger than most of the R-2 minimums" . Ms. Davis asked if this was a particular choice by a buyer. Chairman Duer asked if the builder owned all four lots in question. Andy Wallace, JAW Homes, stated that Lot 1 is a build job and that he owns two of the four lots being considered this evening. Chairman Duer asked what the distance would be between the house and the brick wall if the variance is granted. Mr. Wallace stated that it would be approximately 7-ft. from the corner of the lot. He explained that the wall is straight to a point and then it makes an angle at the very front corner of the house. Mr. Wallace is asking for a 5-ft. variance, but only 3-ft. is needed. Chairman Duer asked how far away on the driveway side will the house sit from the property line. Mr. Wallace responded that the house will be 12-ft. away from the property line and the house has been turned in order to get a 22-ft turning radius with a rear entry garage. Page 4 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry stated that on the plans that were disapproved the house is 15 %-ft. off of the wall. Where is the 7 -ft. that was discussed earlier? Mr. Wallace responded that the wall is not indicated on this plot plan and the wall is located inside the property line. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Wallace what size house could be built if the variance isn't granted. Mr. Wallace responded it is subjective to how deep the house will be, whether it is a one- or two-story; that this particular house is a build job. Ms. Davis commented that this house might fit on another lot in the subdivision, just not on this one. Mr. Wallace stated it won't fit on any lot in this subdivision because the interior lots are narrower. Ms. Davis commented that the future homeowner has chosen a plan that is larger than what was designed to go in this subdivision. Mr. Wallace responded, "no". They wanted this particular lot on the corner and they asked for a plan that JAW Homes had built before with some changes to the game room. The architect said that the plan can't be done with the 20-ft. building line. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Wallace what the average value of homes is for this subdivision. Mr. Wallace responded $350,000 to $450,000. Chairman Duer opened the public hearing. Russ Wood, 8400 Shady Oaks Drive, stated that Lot 1 abuts his property tbthe east. Mr. Wood stated that he moved into his home in 2001 and that it is a David Weekley Home. Mr. Wood bought his home on the belief that the guidelines would remain constant and in conformity with the Shady Oaks Subdivision. He stated that this variance is not in conformity with what his beliefs were when he bought his property. He anticipated uniform setback lines. In regard to Lot 11, he stated that it was framed out on August 17 without a building permit. The building permit was dated August 23. Mr. Henry stated that "framed out" means that the walls are up. Do you mean the forms are set? Mr. Wood responded that he meant "forms". Richard Martinez, 8309 Shady Oaks Drive, is the President of his Homeowners Association. Mr. Martinez stated that he likes the City of North Richland Hills, likes the way it is managed, the way it is governed and the enforcement of the rules. That is what makes North Richland Hills what it is today. These homes are not built yet. I believe the answer is to pick a house that will fit on the lot. Otherwise, what are the ordinances for? There are 20 or 21 lots in this subdivision. Four of the lots are looking for a variance. It is important to enforce the results as consistently as possible. This house doesn't fit, it hasn't been built yet and the ordinances need to be enforced. Page 5 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Chairman Duer read for the record that a letter from Jeff and Angela Childs was received and they are opposed to the variance. As there were no others wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Henry stated that this exact type of case came before this Board in October 2004 in Forest Glenn West. Through the finding of fact, the Board approved the variance. The City approved these plats by the developer and approved plans with the driveways not on the far side. Directly across the street in Forest Glenn East there are homes on five lots that the driveway is not on the opposite side of the lot. These homes were approved and inspected. Mr. Henry stated that he is the president of the Homeowner Association in Forest Glenn East. The developer developed in good faith, the City agreed to the plats, the streets were put in, and there is a certain size home that is assumed will be built to create the economic value of all the lots. You don't want four smaller homes on the lots that will only keep the values down including those of Shady Oaks. This is not any different than the finding the Board gave in October 2004 when the variance was granted. At that time, this Board recommended this go back to Planning & Zoning. The reason for the 20-ft. side setback is a safety issue for viewing the traffic coming on. The City has since changed and required all developers to put up a 6-ft. screening wall on C4 feeder streets. Only on these lots, not on the corner lots internal to the subdivision. Those shouldn't be changed. Mr. Henry stated that he had a discussion with a Planning & Zoning member this week. Basically some of these houses would be 36-ft. wide. A $350,000 home can't be sold 36,..ft~. wide. The City has created this hardship. It is an economic hardship on not .only these four lots, but everybody that is adjacent to these lots including Shady Oaks. Jerry Henry, motioned to approve BA 2005-04, Lot 1, based on this Board's previous motion in October 2004. He asked that this issue go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a resolution. Chairman Duer asked Staff to refresh the Board on the side setbacks for an internal lot. Also, is it the City's and the City's engineers responsibility to advise or assure that these corner lots are not larger instead of smaller than the internal lots. Why does the City not require corner lots to be larger than the internal lots? Dave Green responded that the interior setbacks are 6-ft. and 10-ft. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance deals with minimums. When the corner lots are looked at, judgments have to be made based on the ordinance in the Subdivision Regulations. What needs to happen? Does the Board need to grant variances to allow bigger houses that sit closer to the street or does Staff need to ask the developer to plat a bigger lot. Staff has made that comment but Staff hasn't got a response. Mr. Henry stated that it is a bigger lot, but it is not a bigger building area. Page 6 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Green explained that staff's purpose is to describe minimums. As long as minimums are met, you can go as large as you like. The maximum is the invisible cube that surrounds a lot called setbacks. The question is, are developers going to continue to build much larger houses on lots that are not designed for houses that big. R-2 has been the standard zoning category in this community for a l.ong time. Should it be R-1 in this area? Mr. Henry asked if the Board could amend the request. Chairman Duer stated that the request could go smaller, but not bigger. Chairman Duer asked Mr. Wallace if 17-ft. would be enough. Mr. Wallace responded yes. He also stated that he does not need a variance for Lot 11. He stated that Lots 12 and 21 are owned by Cameron Classic Homes. Ms. Davis clarified that Lots 12 and 21 are no longer in the hands of the developer and that the builder is not present. Can we consider the request for those lots without the owner here? Mr. Wallace responded that Mr. Barfield is the one requesting the variance. Mr. Long is here to represent Mr. Barfield. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Long if he was representing the owner. Mr. Long responded yes. Russ Wood, 8400 Shady Oaks Drive, requested permission to ask a question. The Chairman granted his request. Mr. Wood stated that he is confused about how the forms can be set without a building permit. The building permit was issued 2 days before this meeting. Mr. Pendley stated that it is not desirable but it is also not unheard of to have a builder set their forms. Concrete hasn't been poured yet and nothing permanent has been put into place. The builders can't pour their concrete until the building permit has been issued. Mr. Pendley stated that in this case the forms were set before the application was approved. In those areas where new homes are going up, Staff doesn't worry too much because an inspector is in the subdivision everyday, multiple times a day, doing inspections. Ms. Jauregui asked if the forms were in compliance. Mr. Pendley responded that Staff would not know because an inspection has not been done yet. It will be in compliance when an inspection is made. The builder can't pour concrete unless the forms are inspected and approved. Chairman Duer clarified that forms are not permanent. Forms are boards that are laid on the ground. Ms. Jauregui asked if the builder has a building permit, does that mean the builder can start building or does that mean an inspector will go out and check the forms and decide if the builder can start building. Mr. Pendley explained that the builder is not authorized to start building until a building permit is issued. Page 7 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry added that it is not unheard of for forms to be torn out because they don't comply. It is the builders risk to lay forms down and even more so if the plumbing is dug. Mr. Pendley agreed. He stated that before staff does an inspection on the forms prior to concrete being poured, staff obtains a Form Board Survey. A survey is done on the property by a registered surveyor. The drawing has to conform to the plat and the plans that are submitted for approval. This is a certified document with the surveyor's seal and signature. This document is placed in the file. Mr. Wallace, JAW Homes, stated that for Lot 1, a building permit has not been applied for yet. He is requesting this variance before applying for a building permit. There are no forms on Lot 1. Chairman Duer stated that the forms are on Lot 11. If the builder is wrong, the forms will have to be pulled up. Mr. Wallace stated that JAW Homes applied for the building permit on Lot 11 last Friday (August 19, 2005). The form boards were placed that same day because a surveyor has to come out and make sure the house will fit. That takes about four days. Once the packet was approved, it was paid for and posted on the job site, which was on the 23rd. Today is the 25th. The forms have been sitting there for five days. There is nothing iIIegatabout putting forms up first. If they need to be moved, I know ahead of time. ; Mr. Woods saw the forms up there. I am assuming, Mr. Woods thought JAW Homes was building illegally. Also, that lot is 22-ft. from the building line; a variance is not needed for Lot 11. Mr. Woods stepped it off from the concrete wall, but the property pin is on the outside of that concrete wall on the other side of the sidewalk. That is where the 20-ft. starts from. Chairman Duer verified that the forms are on Lot 11 and a variance is not needed. He then explained that a motion has been made to approve BA 2005- 04, with a 17 -ft. side setback for Lot 1. He asked for a second. Fonda Kunkel seconded BA 2005-04 Lot 1. Ms. Jauregui stated that she sympathized with the size of the lots and all the problems that this causes. At some point the City needs to draw some lines and say that these houses are too big for the areas and too big for what is being asked and how they are platted out. There needs to be some resolution. She stated that it sounds like this house is going to be bigger than any other house that can be built in that subdivision. Why can't this house be built some place else where it fits better without needing a variance? It is unfair of the Board to grant a variance that creates abnormality from the norm of the whole area's development. Those guidelines were set in place. That was the precedent. It is Page 8 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes unfortunate that this has happened. This Board can't arbitrarily say it is okay to do this when it affects so many other people. Mr. Henry stated that is exactly the opposite of what was decided on October 28, 2004. The hardship was created by the City. The City had an ordinance that the driveway had to be on the far side of the lot on these lots, but they were never enforced. The City was approving plans for these developers and these builders when the plats were approved; the City was approving houses that way. Then the City changed the rules and started making the developers and builders put the driveways on the far side which in essence gives you a 22 % -ft. setback on one side and a 20-ft. setback on the other. There will be houses in this subdivision that are 4,000 sq. ft. This home will be one of the smallest in this subdivision. That economically affects everybody else negatively. That is the reason the variance is being asked for and the reason this Board granted the variances in Forest Glenn West. Ms. Jauregui believes the variance was for the driveways. Mr. Henry stated no, this Board agreed that was a safety issue and this Board chose not to move the driveway. This Board concurred with the City that is a great idea not to have the driveways up against the concrete wall. The five lots that are in my subdivision that have thedrivewayüpagainst the concrete wall are a problem. It is dangerous. Ms. Jauregui clarified that the driveways~are..on the closest side of the street. Chairman Duer stated thatl1e doesn't recall moving the driveway due to safety issues. Mr. Henry continued that the City is requiring these screening walls, but it negates the reason for the 20-ft. setback. The 20-ft. setback was there for a vision safety setback on a corner lot. This Board voted for the variance. This Board also voted to send this to the Planning & Zoning Commission for correction because they have two competing ordinances. Ms. Jauregui clarified that Mr. Henry is stating that the Planning & Zoning Commission has not addressed this issue. Mr. Henry stated that they haven't. This plat was approved while the City was approving plans that you could use the 20-ft. setback as your driveway and now they can't. Ms. Jauregui repeated that the builder could use the 20-ft. setback as a driveway. Mr. Henry stated that they could, there are five lots in my subdivision that they did and the plans were approved by the City. They can't anymore. The builder Page 9 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes has to put them on the side which would normally be their 6-ft. setback. That is the issue. Ms. Davis asked Staff when that changed. This Board has had the issue of the comer lot not having a driveway right out onto the entrance off of a major street. Mr. Green stated that driveway locations aren't typically something that Planning doesn't get involved in. Mr. Green stated that he has been with the City for five years. The 20-ft. requirements and screening wall requirements have been in place since I have been here. Mr. Henry stated that is not the point. The point is where the driveway had to go on the other side of the lot. Mr. Green stated that he is unable to answer that. Mr. Green asked if there was a statement about this Board making a recommendation about taking something to the Planning & Zoning Commission. That is not in the minutes that this Board has approved. That recommendation never occurred. The minutes from the October 2004 minutes show discussion but never a formal request. If this Board chooses to move in that direction, Staff needs this Board to make a formal recommendation. Ms. Jauregui asked Staff how this Board can make a formal request. Mr. Green suggested that as a group,. that firsfofall this.Board needs to decide if this Board has consensus. There needs to be;a moti.on and a vote that this Board sends this in whatever direction it needs to' go in .order for it to be studied. Mr. Green continued that a letter should be written perhaps by the Chairman or by the whole Board with signatures indicating that there is an issue that has occurred and the issue continues to occur and that perhaps due to certain circumstances this Board would like this to be reconsidered. Staff would take that recommendation and find out if it needs to be addressed to the Mayor and members of the Council. Staff would take that and place it on work session of the Council. Let them decide if they have consensus that there is a problem and let the Mayor and Council decide whether or not they wish to send it to the Planning & Zoning Commission for discussion. Ms. Jauregui confirmed that this Boards recommendation would be to consider this and address it to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Green stated that there is always the possibility it could be handled differently than that. Things that have been seen in the past, that have come forward, this seems to be the proper way to do it. Chairman Duer added that in the past this Board would assign ordinances and City Council took it over, an example was carport changes. Chairman Duer Page 10 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes doesn't recall asking to have a clarification. However, this all started with the problem on Rufe Snow Drive with driveways emptying onto a major thoroughfare. The wall requirement is relatively new. That adds one more feature into what we are doing to these lots. Mr. Green stated that in the last four or five years there have been several hundred lots platted and built on in those last four or five years. Ms, Jauregui added that if this has been in place for that amount of time, the builders and developers know these things are there. The builders and developers need to work around that...[Mr. Henry interrupted] Mr. Henry stated that it is not the wall, it is the ordinance of putting the driveway on the other side. It wasn't known by the builder or the City. The City wasn't enforcing it. Ms. Jauregui stated that whether it's enforced is immaterial. If it's there it's an ordinance. To be fair to everybody, everybody needs to follow the rules. Whether it's enforced that's not.. .[Mr. Henry interrupted] Mr. Henry stated that he doesn't disagree with Ms. Jauregui, but if the City makes that the rule then the City needs to require the: plat to be big enough for that ordinance to be enforced. Ms. Jauregui stated that as a developerj{Jknow that the City is going to make me put a parameter wall around my subdivision,. then, maybe there should be one less lot to make this comer on that street ,Instead of 23 houses, there will only 22 houses because there needs to be allowance for that. Why isn't that taken into consideration. That just becomes a monetary value. Mr. Henry stated as the engineer has told us, those lots are already 10-ft. bigger than every other lot to make allowance for this. Ms. Jauregui stated that isn't enough in this situation. Mr. Henry stated that it would have been, had the driveways been allowed to be placed where they were previously approved by the City. There would be plenty of room. Ms. Jauregui continued that it was put to the other side for safety. That has to be our primary concern. Mr. Henry stated that nobody knew it had been and these plats were approved. Ms. Jauregui responded that the City would have had to have known that. Page 11 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry responded that the City was signing the plans. Those five lots that have been marked right across the street all have driveways on the opposite side. It was only in Forest Glenn West is where the first time somebody in the City noticed. Ms. Jauregui asked when that was. Mr. Henry answered that it was probably 2003 and 2004. Mr. Wallace asked if it was in Forest Glenn West. JAW Homes had four of those eight lots. Mr. Henry stated that these lots are in Forest Glenn East. They didn't have variances, but their driveways are on the street sides. Ms. Jauregui asked where. Mr. Henry answered that they are right across the street from these. Rich Martinez, 8309 Shady Oaks Drive, came forward. Much of what Mr. Henry has been explaining in fact makes the point that was made earlier. The City has rules yet more variances have been handed out which, in effect, is re-Iegislating. He does not believe that is the function of this body. If the City doesn't like the ordinance it still has to be enforced and change the ordinance. Not override it. Chairman Duer reminded everyone that they need to be on their microphones. Mr. Henry explained his conversation with Ms. Jauregui off the microphone. What was being discussed is on this plat. Mr. Henry has personal knowledge of this plat because he is the president of that Homeowner's Association and the architectural person who signed these plansJorthe developer before they could go to the City. Lot 38, Lot 1, Lot 30, and Lot 1 of Block 19 in Forest Glenn East on the other side of North Tarrant Parkway aiL have driveways closer to North Tarrant than the far side. Signed and approved by the City. Ms. Jauregui asked when that was done. Mr. Henry responded that it was in 2004. Ms. Jauregui asked when the driveway switch occurred approximately. Mr. Henry responded it was sometime in 2004 when the first plan in Forest Glenn West was rejected. Mr. Pendley stated that the City engineer at the time no longer works here. The City engineer came to the Inspection Department and made us aware of either a Public Works design standard or something that was handed down to them from the state. The standard was about how close a driveway can be to an intersection. That was after several had gone through our door. Once our department was made aware of that standard it was enforced. That is where the 22-ft. setback came from. Is it the fault of the City? Is it the fault of having houses of a certain size? A two-story house can built and get the same square footage. Page 12 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pendley when that happened. Mr. Pendley responded a year to 18 months. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Pendley about having property and getting that property platted. When that plat is brought before the City, is it looked at and signed by Staff if the plat meets certain standards? Mr. Pendley explained that on the plats Staff doesn't know what the house will look at. Staff only sees area that can be built on. Ms. Jauregui stated that Staff looked at this plat and it passed. Mr. Pendley explained that DRC goes through that, but once again Staff doesn't have control over how big of a house someone wants to squeeze on there. Outside of what Dave Green was saying, the City has minimum setbacks and minimum areas. Ms. Jauregui stated her idea of a minimum is different. Numbers are like 3,500 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. and this house is 2,750 sq. ft. Is 2,500 sq. ft. the maximum that can be built on this lot if the variance isn't granted? Is the house going to end up being 1,800 sq. ft. which would be under the neighborhood? What is the middle ground here that this Board can do? Mr. Pendley stated that it is difficult to regulate. There could be a 3,200 sq. ft. house if it was made a two-story. . Chairman Duer commented that the market establishes what the maximum is going to be. The minimums are set by R-2. What is the square footage for R-2? Mr. Pendley answered 2,000 sq. ft. For example on ianinterior lot there are 6-ft. and 10-ft. side setbacks. 16-ft. is immediately taken out. All lots have to have a side driveway or the rear entry driveway. The builder has to automatically place the house 22-ft. off the side property line. On the comers, that little bear is what sometimes shows this house over more than the standard. All of these together on that comer lot and 10-ft. extra aren't enough. However, that is what our ordinance says and that is what Staff has to go by. Mr. Henry stated it was sufficient when the driveways were allowed to be on the other side. The builder was already using 20-ft. and only needing a 2 % -ft. setback. Mr. Pendley added that the driveway could be part of that setback. Mr. Henry stated that is the point. That is what this Board found as fact in October 2004. Ms. Jauregui stated that the builder erected this wall over the property line. Page 13 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Henry added that the wall is on the property line but the thickness places it over the property line. Ms. Jauregui still believes even with all of these things that it is this Boards job to hold people to the task of keeping the standards that this City has set now. It may be unfortunate that somehow this was approved, but there are no houses on this property and at this point it can be redone. Mr. Henry explained that these builders based on good faith purchased these lots assuming they could build on them the exact same way they had built before on lots exactly like the ones they had purchased. Now the City is saying no due to discovering this ordinance and enforcing it. Ms. Jauregui asked if the builder comply to the set ordinances when this was submitted. Were they in complete compliance with everything? Mr. Henry responded as was being enforced, yes. These builders went on good faith on what they were allowed to do. Mr. Pendley just stated that it was a City engineer that discovered it. Ms. Jauregui asked if that meant she could drive down Bursey Road at 60 mph because no one ever gets a ticket. Just because it isn't being enforced doesn't mean that it goes away. It is still the ordinance, it is still the rule and it is still the standard that City Council has chosen. Mr. Henry asked Ms. Jauregui if she was familiar with the term "grandfathered". The point ¡is what the City could have done in good faith is looked at these and state that the City approves these plats as they were with the developer assuming they could put the driveway on the other side. From now on the City needs to make sure that these developers know that they can't put that driveway on the other side. Chairman Duer stated if the City Staff discovered that then how are the developers going to discover it? The developers aren't going to know that is a criterion unless they are told by Staff. Ms. Jauregui asked if the developers were asking to put the driveways on the other side. Chairman Duer believes that when they buy the property they want to do with it whatever they want to as long as it is within the City's recommendation. The City was looking at it as a building requisite. If City Staff came upon that discovery, the developers are not going to discover that until City Staff has discovered it. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Wallace how long he has been developing this. Page 14 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Wallace explained that he is not a developer. He is a builder. It was a year and a half ago that Jaw Homes was told that all driveways on corner lots have to be at the farthest point from the corner. It was Lance Barton, Assist. Director of Public Works that found the ordinance. I asked to have one of the corner lots in Forest Glenn West and I wanted to do that. Ms. Jauregui asked about this current subdivision. Mr. Wallace stated that this subdivision was already done. Mr. Long stated that platting and development takes a couple of years. This plat was started two years ago. Mr. Wallace explained his conversation with Mr. Barfield. He had asked Mr. Barfield about the corner lot because Mr. Wallace was told of an ordinance by the City that has been on the books for about 30 years. That is why five houses in Mr. Henry's subdivision are wrong. Lance Barton was going through City ordinance when I came to him about this about a year and half ago. The driveways do not need to be next to the street. It is a safety hazard, but nobody knew about it and it wasn't being enforced. Mr. Barfield had already been through these subdivisions and got them approved by the City for 80-ft. lots assuming that the builders would be allowed to build the driveway on the 20-ft. side. If a driveway is built on the 20-ft. side then only 2-ft. more is needed leaving 68-ft. to build on. Then when the City says there is a 20-ft. building line for site visibility and now on the other side there is 22-ft. for driveway. . That takes 42-ft. out of an 80-ft. lot. I can build a home 40-ft. wide if that is what the homeowner wants for 2,200 sq. ft. However the property value will plummet. The house that I. would like to build is a medium size home for this subdivision. What is being asked of this Board is a 3-ft. variance to build a 3,200 sq. ft. home. The limitation is because the driveway has to go on one side with a 20-ft. site visibility. That ordinance was written 30 years ago and doesn't need to be there anymore. It needs to be changed. That 20-ft. doesn't need to be there. That was for places that didn't have masonry walls at the entrances for site visibility. In the mean time, I am down to 20-ft. on the site visibility and 22-ft. on the driveway. I can't build a very big house on that lot. Chairman Duer asked Mr. Wallace what the average size home was in this subdivision. Mr. Wallace stated that the minimum is 2,450 sq. ft. for single story homes. Mr. Cameron and I bought the last 13 lots from Mr. Barfield. We are building houses in there with the existing houses now that going to be anywhere from 2,900 sq. ft. up to 4,500 sq. ft. homes. It will keep everybody's property value going up. Does that answer your question Ms. Jauregui? Chairmàn Duer asked if there was anymore discussion. He reminded the Board that there is a motion to approve a 17-ft. side building line and a second. Page 15 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes The motion was granted (4-1) with Ms. Jauregui voting against BA 2005-04 Lot 1. Chairman Duer asked Mr. Wallace about Lot 11. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Wallace to formally withdraw the variance if it is not needed. Mr. Wallace stated that Mr. Barfield is the one requesting the variance. Mr. Long stated that Mr. Barfield would like to keep the request for the variance. If the builder has an extra 5-ft. whether it is used or not, it at least gives the builder an option. Chairman Duer asked for a motion on Lot 11. Mr. Henry motioned to approve BA 2005-04 Lot 11, as requested for the reason that the rules changed after the plat was approved and the City has created a hardship on those lots and keeping with the economic hardship on everybody around there. Ms. Jauregui reminded that Jaw Homes on Lot 11 has no problem with not having the variance. Chairman Duer added that the request is not coming from the builder, but from the developer who is the applicant on file. Mr. Henry suggested to Ms. Jauregui that she look at the plats long and hard. Look at the size of the lots and the depths. Notice on Lot 11 and Lot 12, the dotted line shows the drainage ditch that the City requires. A house can't go past the first dotted line. A $350,000 home can't go in that little square. The plat was approved; the developer drew the size lots based on the City allowing the driveways to be placed on the 20-ft. side. That is the hardship that was created. The City changed the rules and now there has to be a 40-ft. setback out of that same lot. That is a hardship on every one of those lots. It creates an economic hardship on everybody around there. Chairman Duer asked for clarification. On Lot 12, the 20-ft. drainage easement is the back easement or is that side easement. Is says on the plat 20-ft. drainage easement. Is the back property line or is it the side property line. Mr. Henry responded that it is in the center. Mr. Long stated that the drainage easement goes across the back of the lot. Page 16 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Chairman Duer asked if you can build off of that property line. Mr. Henry stated that 22 %-ft. off the right side and 20-ft. off the left side equals 42-ft. out of 80-ft. to build on. Chairman Duer stated that on Lot 12, you can't go as far back as you would want to go for the house. Mr. Henry added that it can't be done on Lot 11 either. The only way for the builder can do it is by allowing that driveway to either be on the other side or granting the variance to allow the builder to push it over. It was being allowed when this plat was approved. Chairman Duer reminded the Board that there is a motion to grant BA 2005-04 Lot 11. Is there a second? Chairman Duer stated that the variance for BA 2005-04 Lot 11 is denied due to a lack of a second. Chairman Duer asked for a motion on Lot 12. Mr. Henry motioned to approve BA 2005-04 Lot 12 as requested, based on this Boards action on October 2004. Mr. Henry doesn't understand why this Board is not sticking with the original precedent. Mr. Henry believes that this Board is. doing what the City is doing and that is changing the rules in the middle· of the game. Chairman Duer stated that the variance for BA 2005-04 Lot 12 is denied due to a lack of a second. Ms. Jauregui stated that she knew the Board should have denied by asking for the affirmative. What happens when the Board doesn't get that? Chairman Duer stated that he didn't understand that requirement. It takes four affirmative votes to grant a variance. When this Board voted three, four and two against, that variance was denied for not having four affirmative votes. If there isn't a second on a five voting member Board that means that there are at most three against. If there is no second the variance is denied. Chairman Duer asked for a motion on Lot 21. Ms. Jauregui asked if the applicant would like to tell the Board anything in regards to Lot 21. Page 17 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Long stated that Lot 21 is the least affected by the variance as compared to Lot 11 and Lot 12. Those are the lots that will be more damaged by not having the variance. Mr. Henry asked if this Board turns down the developer, can the builder come back in and ask for a variance. Mr. Green answered that yes the builder could come back asking for the same variance. For future applications, Staff will clarify who exactly Staff will be dealing with and what is being dealt with. Anyone can walk through the door and state that they have the deed and state what they want. Mr. Henry motioned to approve BA 2005-04 Lot 21. This Board should stay consistent with their previous rulings. Chairman Duer stated that the variance for BA 2005-04 Lot 21 is denied due to a lack of a second. Chairman Duer reminded the applicant that when a variance is denied the applicant has the right to go through the State District Court for appeal. Ms. Davis asked Staff that in order to have this documented do individual members of this Board need to ask to have something placed on the next agenda that can be addressed voting collectively to ask to have items that are listed reviewed for clarification. Chairman Duer stated that in the past there was an item between adjournment and the last case called discussion of citizens or citizen's comments. Ms. Davis stated that she would like the minutes to reflect in order to take action and for a vote. Can we do that now or does it need to be on the next agenda. Chairman Duer stated that it could be done now. Any items that this Board feels that needs to be sent to Planning & Zoning or City Council for clarification can be done now. Ms. Davis questioned even if it is not listed as an item on the agenda. Mr. Green stated that this is a discussion that has been a main topic for an hour and 30 minutes. This is coming out of the Boards review and discussion. Based on that Mr. Green believes that the Board stands on better ground to make that point for discussion. Chairman Duer added that it is not a variance or a public hearing. Page 18 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Ms. Davis stated that there have been other issues that have come up over the past several months that this Board has determined need reviewed. This Board may want to put together a list for review. Ms. Jauregui stated that documentation is needed. Ms. Jauregui would like discussion added to the agenda before adjournment and it should be documented in the minutes. Ms. Jauregui was under the impression that this Board had asked for consideration of certain things. Sometimes this Board hasn't been as structured as it should be. This Board needs an official way of doing that. Mr. Green stated that Staff would check with those who actually know. Ms. Jauregui stated that this Board should have the freedom to recommend items of discussion to Planning & Zoning and City Council. These are concerns that keep coming up. This needs to be addressed as quickly as possible with appropriate changes. Mr. Green clarified that the Board is asking that on every agenda that Staff includes discussion. At one time the Planning & Zoning Commission had this and Staff was told that couldn't be done. The agenda has to specify what is being discussed. It can not be put on the agenda unless the Board knows what will be discussed ahead oftime. Ms. Jauregui asked Staff if she can request an item for discussion to be placed on the agenda. Mr. Green stated that this came up last fall. This Board can meet without actually having a public meeting. Staff will double check on that. The Planning & Zoning Commission meet twice monthly. The first meeting is a work session or discussion meeting and the second is an action meeting. Ms. Jauregui asked if this Board could have a work session in order to discuss all the problems and concerns that have come up. Mr. Green stated that maybe this Board should have a work session. Ms. Jauregui believes that this Board has some real issues. Ms. Davis agreed. Everyone on this Board needs to make a list of the items that are of concern in the appropriate form. Mr. Green stated that if this is something that can be done a work session can be set up and have discussion and detail some of those discussions and give a brief description of what it is this Board will be talking about. Would this Board like to meet on the next scheduled meeting? Staff will contact you about the next Page 19 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes upcoming scheduled meeting for a work session if no cases come in. Something that the City Secretary mentioned in regards to the Planning & Zoning Commission is that Staff can't simply put discussion on an agenda. It has to be specific. Ms. Jauregui asked if discussion comes up in a regular meeting like now due to the results of the meeting can this Board recommend that the Mayor and Council take a look at "X". Doesn't this Board have the freedom to do that, we use to. Chairman Duer stated that there must be a reason for the change. The agenda use to have citizens comments and discussion without being specific. For some reason that was removed. Mr. Green stated that the first work session needs to be a discussion of what this Board is capable of and not capable of doing. Then the actual issues can be discussed. There must be some reason that things were changed, opinions were changed or laws were changed. Also, Staff would like to add the Pledge of Allegiance to the agenda. Ms. Jauregui commented that when there is a change to the agenda, this Board should be made aware of the change and why. Mr. Green agreed. Ms. Davis stated that this Board should provide Staff with information on what we would like to see on the agenda. This way Staff can research the problem. Mr. Green agreed. There is other Staff here as welt as other departments that may have information that this Board may feel is critical in making a decision. If Staff knows ahead of time that this Board may be thinking of certain items or have certain questions, Staff can provide you with either the information or the person with the answers. What Staff and this Board have to be careful of is not discussing the case before the public hearing. Let Staff take the lead and try to find a couple of answers for you. Staff will also schedule a work session in the pre-council chamber. This doesn't have to be a one time meeting. It can happen as much as this Board feels they need it. Mr. Henry stated that a third item needs to be added for clarification. Find out if out of the work session can the Board make a recommendation there or does this Board need to put it on a public agenda that this Board is going to consider it. Chairman Duer stated no, this Board has sent plenty of suggestions to City Council. This Board is not supposed to get recommendations from City Council. This Board stands alone without any influence from any other Board. Is that in reverse as far as influence from this Board to City Council? If Council decides not to discuss it, it's done. Page 20 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes Mr. Green stated that it is absolutely incumbent that when this Board sees and recognize problems within the ordinance that something needs to be done. That is just as important. Ms. Davis suggested that if this Board can agree on some things collectively then something needs to be done within public meeting guidelines to make that recommendation. The next meeting Staff needs to be given a list of items that this Board would like considered. Ms. Jauregui doesn't understand why this Boards concerns should be public. They are just questions and concerns. They are not changes and they don't affect anyone. Ms. Davis stated that this is an appointed Board and we are City Officials, if this Board makes any attempt to agree or disagree on something it should be recorded. Mr. Green agreed with the Board. No matter how things move forward, it needs to be done appropriately and within guidelines. Ms. Jauregui motioned to adjourn. 5. Adjournment Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Chairman 7~ t;~.. ~ Tom Duer Page 21 of 21 8/25/05 ZBA Minutes