1990-08-16
E; City of Southlake
667 N. Carroll Avenue
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING
August 16, 1990 7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernest Johnson, Vice
Chairman; Members: Stephen Apple, Joe Bentley, Robert Downard,
Dennis Minder, Alternate #1; Fred Joyce, Alternate #2. (Art
Sorenson stepped down for the meeting due to his interest in Cases
103 and 104.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Michael Barnes, Public Works Director, Karen
Gandy, Zoning Administrator and Jean Bryson, Building Secretary.
Agenda Item #2: Approval of the Previous Minutes
With no comments or amendments to the July 23, 1990 Board of
Adjustments' meeting, a motion was made to approve the minutes.
Motion: Minder
Second: Apple
Ayes: Minder, Apple, Johnson
(Alt. #2 Joyce voted aye)
Nays: None
Abstained: Bentley, Downard (were not present July 23, 1990)
Vote: 3-0-2 To approve
Agenda Item #3: Administrative Comments
Proposal was made to entertain Case #106, which was a new case,
before considering Cases #103 and #104, which were related and
which had been continued.
Motion: Bentley
Second: Minder
Ayes: Bentley, Minder, Downard, Apple, Johnson
(Alt. #2 Joyce voted aye)
Nays: None
Vote: 5-0
Motion was passed and the Agenda amended to consider Case
#106 out of order.
Agenda Item #6: Case #106, Request for a variance.
it
Case #106 Request for a variance to the setback requirements for
the SF 20B Zoning District. The applicant requests the original
1ti1 setbacks be placed on his lot that were originally placed on the
lot when it was platted in 1970. That would be under Ordinance No.
in 161, "A-2" Zoning District. The owner of the property is Juan
Carlos Trimino. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block
#Mk- 1 of Dove Estates, more commonly known as 3000 Lake Drive.
I
I'm Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 2
~1rr
Agenda Item # 6 Continued.
There were fourteen (14) letters sent to property owners within 200
feet. To date, one response in favor has been received from
Francis Chupz, who prefers the larger home that the lot could
accommodate if this request was granted.
A presentation was made by Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator. She
presented a plot plan showing the home basically had sufficient
it side yards; 19 1/2 feet on the right and 20 feet on the left. He
needed the variance in the front and the rear yards. That would
allow him to accommodate a home of 1,963 square feet.
Juan Carlos Trimino, owner/applicant had no remarks to add to Mrs.
Gandy's presentation. He asked for the zoning to the east and to
the north of his property. Mrs. Gandy replied single family 1 Acre
tp the east and agricultural to the north.
A Public Hearing.
No support or opposition expressed.
Public Hearing Closed.
OR The Board asked staff clarification on the old vs new setbacks.
Mrs. Gandy replied the front yard setback requirement at the time
it was originally platted was 25 feet and the current requirement
is 35 feet. The rear requirement which was 25 feet, is now 40
feet. Questions and comments were discussed regarding the
surrounding property owners; previous zoning requirements; and
other related variances that were granted recently.
Motion was made to approve Case #106 with the original setbacks as
attached.
Mr. Minder stated the findings. The reasons set forth in his
application justify the granting of the variance and that the
variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land. The granting of this variance will be
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance
and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
Motion: Downard
W Second: Apple
Ayes: Bentley, Minder, Downard, Apple, Johnson,
(Joyce Alt. #2 voted aye)
Nays: None
Vote: 5-0 to Grant
Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 3
Agenda Item #4: Case #103, Request for variance
Case #103, a continuation of a request for a variance to the
W fifteen (15') foot side yard requirement for the SF-20B Zoning
District, due to the contemplated replatting of two lots.
Location: 1201 Oakhurst Court, being legally described as Block 3,
Lot 8, Continental Park Estates. The owner/applicant is Arthur J.
Sorenson.
A presentation was made by Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, who
stated that the existing side yard appears to be seven and one-half
(7 1/21) feet. After further work by a surveyor crew, it was found
to be less than that. The granting of this variance is conditional
upon the City Council's review and approval of a replat of Lot 7
and 8.
There were eleven (11) letters sent to property owners within 200
feet. To date, several responses have been received, Kelly
Stouffers and Williams were opposed and the Lietz were in favor.
There was a petition of those who were additionally opposed to the
action.
Because the Board is required to grant variances by a minimum 80%
vote (4 of 5 or 4 of 4 members if one seat is not voting), Mrs.
Gandy stated she did not believe that the petition will bind the
Board to a three-quarter (3/4) vote for approval because the Board
is already down by a three-quarter vote. At this time the petition
is not an issue, but, possibly later, should this Board grant these
variances, and this same petition surface at a replat, it could
very much be an issue.
Mr. Johnson asked a question regarding the legal requirements for
side boundaries being straight with no dog legs? In the
subdivision ordinance it states that the lot line should be
perpendicular to the right-of-way. To conform, it'would have to be
parallel to the existing boundary.
40 Arthur Sorenson, Property owner and applicant stated that previous
discussion of the ZBA adjustment sought by the variance request was
40 clarified by noting that the original plat did not provide for an
enlarged corner lot in this instance. As a result the 30 foot.
building line on both front and side yards yields reduced ABA for
lot 8.
The survey error was confirmed by the original surveyor, who
surveyed the property just this past week. He has yet to furnish a
corrected drawing, but has verbally provided the corrected
,y information as well as confirming the original markers and other
lot dimensions.
Pe
Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 4
Agenda Item # 4 continued.
OR Applicant has visited with several persons who signed the petition
as well as those who declined or were not asked noting that many
were outside the 200' radius of his properties to which the city
sent notices. He also furnished a letter to each petitioner
earlier this week in which he explained the reasons for his
variance request, notified them of the meeting tonight, and
provided a brief overview of the requirements for requesting a
variance and the process by which it is considered.
Applicant presented additional written statements of non-opposition
from two households (Chambers and Murawski), both within 200 feet
of the applicant's properties (confirmed by Mrs. Gandy).
Additional verbal commitments of non-opposition from two other
owners within 200' (Green and Headley) were mentioned for the record
by the applicant.
Applicant also presented a copy of the petition on which two of the
original signers requested their names be removed from the petition
(Ryan and Johnson), one of which is within 200 feet of the
applicant's properties. He also noted the presence at the meeting
of two petitioners; Dr.Greg Gist and Mr. Christopher Kelly, both of
whom reside within the 200 feet.
The board examined the petition, the withdrawn signatures, and the
additional statements of non-opposition furnished by the applicant.
Applicant stated that he visited several petitioners, including
those who lived outside the 200 feet distance. He discovered that
his position on the Board of Adjustments was a factor in the
opposition of at least three of the petitioners with whom he had
spoken. They were concerned that a conflict of interest would
influence the Board's decision, and therefor they were opposed the
the variance. While he feels that those whom he was able to speak
were reassured in this regard, he concludes that the merits of the
request were not necessarily factors in the minds of some
petitioners.
Applicant also met with the two opposing respondents to the city
notice. One (Miller) was based on supposition that the variance
would permit the unbuilt lot (lot 7) to remain unsewered and
thereby escape the proposed sewer improvements fees for the
subdivision; and the other (Stauffer) that the variance would
permit building on Lot 7 regardless of the state of neighboring
septic fields or status of the sewer project. In the first matter,
Lot 7 is to have sewer and paid for and in the second, the
applicant's intent to sewer the lot prior to building has been put
in writing.
Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 5
err
Agenda Item #4 continued.
Applicant feels his discussions with the two parties addressed
these concerns to their satisfaction, and that these particular
concerns are not factors in the request for variance.
Applicant furnished his copy of the survey of Lots 7 & 8 for the
Board's examination, pointing out the proximity of the dwelling on
Lot 8 to the property line and utility easement, and noting that
the scale was imprecise but apparently the line is about 7.5 feet
to, maybe 10 feet with the benefit of the doubt to builder.
An additional error on the 1986 survey was in scale of the drawing
for lot 7. While the listed dimensions were confirmed to be
correct, and the property pins in place, the drawing caused a
computation error of 650 square feet. The initial variance
request reflected this computation error in the placement of the
proposed lot line, which recalculate correct survey data so as to
insure an 18,000 square foot minimum on lot 7 is the reason for the
two postponements.
Applicant emphasized the need for requesting variance phrased in
"not less" than terms is due to the approximate nature of the
Wool"* proposed property line relocation. His intent is to keep the line
as close to its present location as possible but not less than the
variance will permit, and thereby conserve as much area to the
unbuilt lot as possible, but not less than the variance will
permit. The precise relocation of the proposed lot line is to be
m determined by a registered surveyor in accordance with the terms of
the variance.
M
Mr. Apple ask, Would the applicant point out the septic field area
and the degree of encroachment into Lot 7? The applicant complied.
Mr. Johson asked What would be the result of putting concrete over
a septic field? Applicant replied this would not be done unless the
sewer was hooked up. Mr. Bentley asked, Why 7.5 feet, would 10
feet be satisfactory? The applicant replied yes.
Public Hearing
OR Eldon P. Lietz, 1316 Oakhurst Drive, stated that he lives across
the street from the Mr. Sorenson and he believes the variance will
enhance the area. He is infavor of the request.
Carl Grabell, 1310 Oakhurst, stated that he lives across the
street also from Mr. Sorenson. Mr. Grabell viewed the lots from
the cul-de-sac checking the property lines and upon doing so was
made aware of how narrow in the front lot 7 really was. Mr.
Grabell is in favor of the request.
x
w
Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 6
` aw
it Agenda Item # 4 continued.
Christopher Kelly 1205 Oakhurst, state that he lives on lot # 6
left of lot 7 that is in question. Mr. Kelly ask if consideration
of ZA 103 & 104 would be acted on as one or separated. Mr. Johnson
answered that technically ZA 103 would be considered and then ZA
104 but both do share the common information.
Mr. Kelly asked, What is the current zoning of Continental
OR Estates? Mrs. Gandy responded the zoning is SF 20B, minimum 20,000
square foot lots, 15 foot side yards and 1,500 square foot homes.
Mr. Kelly asked if there had been in Continental Estates any lots
reduced in size? Mr. Bentley responded that he did not know of any
request to reduce the lot size in Continental Estates. Mr. Kelly
ask, has there been in other locations in the City? Mr. Minder
replied, no not to realign a lot.
Mr. Kelly stated he is opposed to the lot size being less than
20,000 square feet and he would not be opposed, if there was excess
9t on either lot and making the adjustments as long as it was not less
than 20,000 square feet.
Mr. Kelly stated it was his belief that the original owners of the
:ter property did not plan to build on lot #7 as they would not have
extended their septic field onto lot #7; however as soon as Mr.
Sorenson bought the property he was aware that Mr. Sorenson
intentions were to build on the lot. I have no objections for the
Y building on lot #7 as it is a buildable lot I do not feel there is
any hardship as it is a 20,000 square foot lot and large enough to
build a very nice home. I do see that if building on lot #7 it
could lessen the value of the existing resident at lot #8.
Dr. Greg Gist, 1319 Oakhurst Drive, described himself as a third
party, was not necessarily in opposition because he'd earlier been
told Lot 7 was not buildable as it now sits, and now hears that it
is buildable. But could it be built without the new sewer? Mr.
Bentley responded it is a buildable lot, with the qualification of
the septic system for the existing house to be contained within its
own lot.
Mr. Joyce stated the septic fields on lots 7 and 8 must be
separate. The lot sizes are well below the square footage required
by current city codes for septic fields.
Public Hearing Closed.
At 9:25 P.M. Mr. Johnson entertained a 5 minute recess. Meeting
continued at 9:30 P.M.
W
Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 7
r1r..
Agenda Item # 4 continued.
1o The board questioned the applicant and staff on points of
r.
clarification, duscussed the basis of their findings.
Motion was made to approve Case # 103 for a variance as requested
to the side yard on lot #8 and the side yard not to b less than 7.5
feet.
Mr. Bentley stated the findings as the reasons set forth in the
application justify the granting of the variance and that the
variance will make possible the reasonable use of the land. The
granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general
W purpose and intent otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Note: There was an error in procedure no findings were stated.
Correction was a new motion, findings, and vote. Vote was the
same.
Motion: Bentley
Second: Downard
OR Ayes: Bentley, Minder, Downard
61 Nays: Apple, Johnson
Vote: 3-2 to approve
woo" Motion Failed
Agenda Item #5 Case 104, Request for a variance.
Case # 104 is a request for a variance to the 20,000 square foot
minimum lot size for the SF 20B Zoning District. The location is
1203 Oakhurst Court being legally described as Block 3 Lot 7 in
Continental Park Estates. The owner/applicant is Arthur J.
Sorenson.
Mrs. Gandy stated that Case #104 is a continuation of a request for
variance, to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement of
SF 20B zoning districts, submitted as a precondition to
VIII contemplated replatting of two adjacent lots.
Arthur J. Sorenson, property owner and applicant, stated that the
outcome of the previous request is irrelevant to the validity of
this case. The denial of a 7.5 or 10 foot sideyard to Lot 8 does
not make the variance to an 18,000 square foot area for Lot 7
physically impossible; it is still feasible and desirable, and the
same hardships can still be remedied by approval of this request.
Public Hearing
t
t. ,
s
Board of Adjustments Meeting
6 August 16, 1990 Page 8
'rr.r
on
i;,11
4 Agenda Item # 5 continued.
Mr. Sorenson 1201 Oakhurst Ct. owner/applicant stated that Case #
104 should be irrelevant to Case #103. This second request seeks
variance to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirements at
1203 Oakhurst Court an unbuilt lot. The need for variance is
occasioned by contemplated replat of the common property line. The
variance requested is for lot size of not less than 18,000 square
feet pending a surveyor's replat proposal, to be done if variance
is granted.
If this request for a variance is granted, the ensuing replat
would, if approved, increase apparent lot width to a point where a
home with neighborhood-commensurate floor space could be
attractively situated. This would in turn tend to preserve or
increase surrounding property values.
Christopher Kelly 1205 Oakhurst Court expressed the same opposition
as expressed in Case #103.
W Public Hearing Closed.
The board quested the applicant and staff on points of
clarification.
A motion was made to approve Case #104 for a variance to the 20,000
square foot minimum lot size for the SF 20 B zoning district.
Mr. Bentley stated the finding as the reasons set forth in the
► application justify the granting of the variance and that the
(W variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land. The granting of the variance will be in
harmony 'with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and
will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare.
Motion: Bentley
40 Second: Downard
9d Ayes: Bentley, Minder, Downard, Johnson
Nays: Apple
W Vote: 4-1 to approve
Agenda Item # 7 Meeting Adjourned.
A motion was made to adjourned the meeting.
Motion: Bentley
Second: Apple
Ayes: Bentley, Minder,Downard, Apple, Johnson
Nays: None
Vote: 5-0 to adjourn
Meeting adjourned 10:15 P. M.
4"
ir1
IF Board of Adjustments Meeting
August 16, 1990 Page 9
NWW
Ernest Johnson, Vic Chairman
an Bryson
tten,jJ„xqQ,eting and prepared minutes
L q,
ZbTtST ' y
s
~ ~+NUUU+~
woo.,
Sandra L. LeGrarfd
0" City Secretary
I~r
4"
dw
W
t- w
U =D
~y
W
H
~I ~
77
pit
Q'I
W1.1~
O I
Y Cn ~
m
N
O 4
lie ,
~ v a
W
N \ C
Dear Neighbor-,
As some of you know, trey wife 3nd I have asked the city to let us redraw the property line between our house lot and nur
unbuilt lot next door. We ask your understanding in this, and if possible,
your support:
dir t, we want you to know that we are not trying to make one lot out of two, nor trying to avoid a sewer hill for the
empty one. We just need to make orie lot r..-e liveable, and the other one better for building a new home on.
in
Second, it's important to know that the empty lot is buildable as it is now drawn. 8'.It we don't thin!.-- it would carry
much house the way it is. For openers, the 'curb appeal' and the septic field work against it. The other reasons are
more important though, and are the basis for replat (see below).
Third, you can be sure that we want tO do the right thing by the neighborhood. We like it here and plan to stay, and we
sure dent want to draw down property values ;gust the opposite - most of you know w:e!•ve work-d pretty hard for new
streets and sewer service.?
We'd like to change the line for two reasons.
on
1. The 'survey we got when we bought in 1996 doesn't show it, but our home practically sits on the property line.
if a fet=e were Juiit on the property line, it would almost be under our roof overhang,
The property line is not just :lose to the house. It cuts catty-Curner across our back porch. Again, if a
rrl fence were built our back yard view would be almost all fence, and a real c!_ose, Cait; v-corner fence a' that.
: .
!iw T+!_ e } --see Ub a not t r
14 = as to the by IC {age. Wh t s gigot so easy is the hi0w.
rr
first, we have to decide where to move the line and still keep a decent site and appearance to both lots. This was
" tough, because we found there was no combination of moving and swinging that would avoid reducing the unbuilt lot area:
iw If we just s'w'ing it a'w'ay from our hci'se, we cut too much into the size of the unbuilt int. If we swing it any nearer, we
get 3 fetiCe in our spare bedroom.
So we compromised and moved it to about ten feet away from the house, and swung it so it doesn't cut across our hack:
yard as much. And to keep the most area we could to the unbuilt lot, we gave up come. front yard on the house lot. And
we ask: ir.:__!r application for permission to do this, but in such a way as to reduce as little as reasonably possible
210,0 00! on the unbuilt lot, because a nice property next door will help our home's value as well as our neighbor's.
Orr
It turns out that the line's new location would more nearly balance the officially defined !available building area' on
as both iota- (=_.omething that many developers do to begin with, but ours didn't). And, in our estimation, the result (if
that fence were built? would look real good for- !Ott It °=tter hetfi for us and our neighbors than the way it is now.
- -
And, because it would increase the frontage on the unbuilt lot, I think it could support a nice-sized home with a rear or
side entry garage that would be a credit to the neighborhood. And that's what we want for our new next-Idnnir neighh?r.
We hope that's what you would like to see too, and ask for your support of our appeal for variance when it comes up for
hearing on Thursday, Aug 16 at 7:310 pm at City Hall. There will be overhead slides of the plat, public question, and
esussiori of the nrl_: and cons. I rr-': s for those who object as well K t
d' _ Tli• _ roc. who wed ac as thos_ who just want to keep the process
holiest. And no hard feelings, We (tope y_~u":l b= able to be there.
:i : - !i}._ for your . ir: stae
rst and, upr e'_:crt
we t : Vp?i y.-r - c:.
Sincerely,
Art and Gayle Sorenson i^nl Oakhurst Ct 488-4633 Aug,=st 14, Igar
kr
B~
•w
as A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS IN A REP'.ATTING REQUEF
The process of establishing a property litre (platting) or redrawing one (replatting) normally involves a review of the
request for conformance with zoning requirements by the Planning and Zoning Commission, their recommendation in this
regard to the City Council, and the Coun'-?l'_ approval`disapproval of the request.
However, when a known nonconformity exists, it is prudent to first submit an. appeal for 'variance t the Board of
00 Ad-justments. Variance, if granted in these cases, is usually conditional on the subsequent approval of the replal
+rr request by the Council. If not done in this order, the P&Z has no choice but to either refer the case to the Board Or to
recommend disapproval of the request to th u nci1
1ft
This approach can save the city's staff and governing agencies both time and money. If appeal for variance is denied,
60 the request for replat may not even he eligible for consideration by the PU or Council.
Appeals for varianrr- to previsions of the coning ordinance are based _n law contained in the Texas Local Government rrid=
(chi 211,009), which provides that the board cf adj,sfTe''t may auth~ri_1 a variance if
rN 1: the variance is not contrary to the public interest
liter+l p
a. enforcement of the ordinance weird result in unnecessary hardship
1- the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial Justice is done
1W
rife of S-1thla1,:e Ordinance 490 (the zoning ordin3n-e) it, ch. 44.3.6 further requires the applicant to show that
i =
ilk 1. special, unique conditions and circumstances exist (44.3.b.(1)(.a)
literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other- properties (44.'1.6.+.1)(b)
+rr
..a 3. the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant (44.3.6.(1)(_)
+rr
4. approval of the variance will not give the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by the ordinance to others in the same district (44.3.b.(1)(d)
Each of the above demonstrations must be made a 'finding' by the board (44.3.6.(5). Additional findings are required to
demonstrate that
the reasons stated in the application justify the granting of the variance,
and that it is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
w the land, building or structure (44.3.6.(6)
to
2. the granting of the vari=tice will be in harmony wit!: the general purpose and
oo intent of the law, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
so detrimental to the public welfare (444.3.6.(1)
If the variance request is approved - and the board may place any conditions on their approval it sees fit - it may then
00 be submitted to the P.-11 for their recommendation to the Council, which then must vote to approve or deny the request:
All re,quectc _re given public notice before dis ussi=+n by each Of these agencies in public session. Additionally,
property owners within 200 feet f the noticed property are individually notified of the request by the City, given a
form on which to register their s:lpport or opposition, informed of the meeting time and place, and urged t--ake their
views known by attending, by representative, or in writing.
do
4ft
to