Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA Minutes August 1, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration to rehear the side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart, lot 8, block 25, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs approached the Board and stated that the packet of information handed out earlier was also information for both 214 & 216 Stuttgart. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that the neighbors do not feel that it is aesthetically a problem. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he explained to the surrounding property owners the situation at both of the homes and everyone he has spoken to do not want to see the variances denied or the homes torn down. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that there is a buyer for this home as well. Mr. Tubbs explained that this home has the exact problems with the lenders & title companies. Mr. Tubbs explained that this home is off on the side setback due to a radius. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that at the last meeting he did not speak to the Board concerning this because he was shocked that the first variance request did not pass. Mr. Tubbs stated that he did not know what to do. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that everyone he talked to from the Building Official to the inspectors was fairly sure that he would not have any problems receiving the variances. Other people told Mr. Tubbs that there were new Board Members and a rumor of the Board passing variances to easily and things needed to be taken more harshly. Chairman Bond stated that he has no supporting information before him showing any additional information to support a rehearing in this case. Mr. Tubbs replied that this home is set to close on the lou' of this month. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that if this case were to be reheard he would have additional supporting material to present. The lenders are in the process of going to underwriting. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. Mr. Joffar stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Joffar told the Board he is the buyer of the home. Mr. Joffar explained that this has put a hardship on his situation as well. Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made a motion to rehear the request for setback variance. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Hill explained his that he felt very strongly at the meeting to deny the request. Mr. Hill told Mr. Tubbs that as a Board they are charged to uphold the ordinances but at the same time as a Board within the City they have a responsibility to the citizens. Mr. Hill ended by telling Mr. Tubbs that he wants to make sure he is given every opportunity to present his case. The Board voted (5-0) in favor of rehearing the case. ZBA MINUTES July 18, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart, lot 8, block 25, Edelweiss 7-13. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board the applicant is requesting the variance for a construction error. A side setback of 7.5 feet is required for R-1 single family homes. A variable side setback on the northeast side from 6.5 feet to 4.0 feet. The encroaching setback is at its least at the rear of the structure and gradually increases to a maximum of 3.6 feet at the front of the home. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a side setback variance of varying length of 1.0 feet to 3.5 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of an error during the construction of the home. He states that a mistake was made when the wrong string line was pulled during the placement of the slab. Due to the property being located on the radii of a cul-de-sac, several pins are placed in the ground during the platting process. The applicant's foundation contractor pulled the side property string line from the wrong pin, causing the entire structure to encroach into the side setback. The mistake was not caught during the building inspection process, due to the contractor and/or surveyor being held responsible for pulling the correct property lines. The construction of the home is complete, thus the northeast wall of the existing structure would have to be removed and replaced. The City currently does not have the policy of mandating such setback violations to be immediately rectified. The only alternative found is to tear down the sidewall and reconstruct the side without encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. If the variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend to enforce the setback at that time. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report with pictures of the property. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Laauwe if the home at 212 Stuttgart is right on the building setback so that there is actually 11.5 feet between the houses. Ms. Laauwe answered that was correct. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Sheffy moved to approved the variance of the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: due to being only 1-3 foot and still being 11.5 feet between the houses and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: due to having to remove a complete wall for 1-3 foot variance; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: supporting reasons are no main objections for or against by neighbors and the site of the property by myself. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Hill stated that this variance is not warranted for similar reasons to that of the previous variance request. Mr. Hill again stated that the mistake was made on the part of the layout of the home and it is not appropriate for this Board necessarily to validate this type of oversight that was made. Mr. Hill ended by saying that he is under whelmed that the applicant did not feel it worth his time to testify in this case. Mr. Richards stated that he agreed with Mr. Hill and explained that he seconded the motion just so that it could be discussed. Mr. Lewis stated that the builder and contractor where aware of the requirement and it seems that they were making an honest effort to comply. Mr. Lewis ended by stating that he does not see any harm to the neighborhood or the city in this particular case. Mr. Hill stated that his concern is the magnitude of this size encroachment. With the discussion on Mr. Sheffy's motion completed, Chairman Bond called for a vote on the motion. The Board vote was 2-2-1 with Mr. Hill and Mr. Richards voting against and Chairman Bond abstaining. The motion to approve the variance failed. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Bond called for a vote, which resulted in the motion to deny passing. The vote was 3-1-1 with Mr. Hill, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sheffy voting for the motion to deny and Chairman Bond abstaining. The request for the variance by the applicant was therefore officially denied.