BM 2002-09-05 BOAMINUTES OF SEPTEMBER $, 2002
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance:
David Stonecipher, Chairman
Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman
Steven Wright, Commissioner
Norman Kressmann, Commissioner
Robert Chomiak, Commissioner
John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner
David Terry, Alternate Commissioner
Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner
Absent:
Robert Turk, Alternate Commissioner
Also present:
Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary
Applicants present:
Mr. Hans Deitrich, 140 Maywood Circle, Coppell
Mr. Mark Taylor, 125 Woodcrest Lane, Coppell
Item 1: Call to Order.
Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Item 2:
Approval of minutes of June 6, 2002, meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2002, meeting.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes
approved.
The oath was administered by Chairman Stonecipher for those wishing to speak in favor of, or in opposition
to, the requests being heard tonight.
Item 3:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 11-3-1 (B) and 11-3-
i(C) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 140 Maywood Circle. Mr.
Hans Deitrich is requesting a 7-ft. variance to the 10-ft. sideyard setback on the west side of
the property, and a 10-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback, in this SF-12 zoned district,
to allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Greg Jones reported that this variance request concerns the side and rear yard setbacks, for the construction
of a garage addition. He noted that the survey, included in the packet, shows the existing house with a side
entrance garage accessed from a front driveway, whereas the proposed plan would involve the construction
of a "super-garage", approximately 30 by 50 feet, with a front entry. He explained that some of the
additional space is needed for turning radius to access the existing section of the garage. He added that the
applicant wishes to match the roofline and construction of the existing house, as shown on the elevation
drawings in the packet.
Greg Jones explained that there does not appear to be a property hardship associated with this request. He
reported that the applicant was advised, prior to the meeting, to get a letter of approval from the neighbor on
the west side, for the Board's consideration.
Commissioner LeGros asked about the presence of other from-entry garages in this neighborhood, and Greg
Jones replied that there is a mixture of front- and side-entry garages in this neighborhood. Chairman
Stonecipher asked about the dimensions of a normal-size garage, and Greg Jones responded that a standard
two-car garage is 20 by 20 feet, but the size in Coppell is probably closer to 22 by 22 feet.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Hans Deitrich displayed photos of his existing garage, and described the proposed new addition. He
explained that because his house and garage were built further back on the lot, the result is extra space in
front of the house, where it's not really usable.
Mr. Deitrich reported that his neighbors are in favor of this variance request, particularly the neighbor on the
west side, who would be most affected by the garage addition.
Mr. Deitrich reported that, in a meeting with his architect, it was determined that this was the most workable
plan for this lot, as opposed to the plan that would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Although a long,
straight roofline was considered, his architect advised against it, explaining that it wouldn't match the
rooflines of other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Deitrich also reported that there would be a second floor
addition above the garage, emphasizing that he is attempting to blend the entire addition, as closely as
possible, with the existing house, to avoid an "add-on" appearance. Mr. Deitrich also reported that he
intends to maintain an all-brick exterior, rather than 80 percent, as required by Ordinance.
Chairman Stonecipher reviewed the checklist submitted as part of Mr. Deitrich's application, and asked for
clarification on several questions. Chairman Stonecipher asked the applicant if it is necessary to have the
addition as large as proposed in the architectural plan, or if a size reduction would allow it to be built within
the setback requirements. Mr. Deitrich responded that, in such a situation, he would only be able to add a
one-car garage, and, in doing so, it would block the other two garage spaces. He pointed out that his
preference would be to have a smaller garage, than the one proposed, due to the fact that the first ten feet of
space is simply drive-through area.
Chairman Stonecipher asked if the applicant had considered creating a two-car garage at the front of the
existing garage, thereby meeting the setback requirements. Mr. Deitrich responded that although this was a
consideration, it was determined that the roof would be relatively steep and an addition onto the front would
block the natural light from the kitchen window. Mr. Deitrich indicated that he and his architect have
reviewed every possible scenario.
2
Meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request.
Commissioner Stonecipher commented that because Mr. Deitrich's request is a significant one, some sort of
property hardship needs to be identified, at which time, the Board may consider a smaller request. Mr.
Deitrich responded, however, that a lesser variance would completely eliminate the usefulness of his
existing garage.
Meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request.
Commissioner Stonecipher commented that because Mr. Deitrich's request is a significant one, some sort of
property hardship needs to be identified, at which time, the Board may consider a smaller request. Mr.
Deitrich responded, however, that a lesser variance would completely eliminate the usefulness of his
existing garage.
The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion.
Commissioner Chomiak asked if this request could be tabled until the next meeting, to allow Mr. Deitrich
additional time to consider his options and/or a lesser variance, and Greg Jones responded that the Board
could grant a continuance, as desired.
Commissioner Kressmann commented that because the Board is severely limited on what they can do, a
property hardship needs to exist for the granting of a variance, and the closest thing to a hardship, in this
situation, was self-imposed at the time the house was built.
Commissioner Wright commented that he is not in favor of granting a lesser variance, without the benefit of
specific plans on which to base the decision. He further commented that this lot is fairly standard, as far as
cul-de-sac lots are concerned, and it appears that the applicant may be trying to "overbuild" on it, which was
not the intent of the original ordinance.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to grant the request to allow a 7-ft. variance to the 10-ft.
sideyard setback on the west side of the property, and a 10-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, by a vote of 0
to 5. Variance request denied.
Item 4:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 13-3-1 (B) of the
City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 125 Woodcrest Lane. Mr. Mark Taylor
is requesting a 6-inch variance to the required 8-ft. sideyard setback on the alley side of the
property, in this SF-7 zoned district, to allow for the construction of a proposed room
addition.
Greg Jones reported that this request is slightly different from the previous one. He explained that this
addition would involve a garage on the first floor and a gameroom/exercise room on the second floor. He
further explained that although the house currently meets the 8-ft. sideyard setback at the rear, it isn't
positioned squarely on the lot, causing the proposed addition to immediately encroach into the sideyard and
creating the need for the 6-inch variance. He added that because an alley wraps around on that side of the
lot, it provides the advantage of an extra separation between the applicant's house and the one across the
alley.
Greg Jones commented that although there may not, technically, be a property hardship associated with this
request, it is a fairly nominal request consisting of a pie-shaped section, tapering from 0 inches to 6 inches at
the widest point. He explained that he and the applicant discussed the possibility of tilting the garage a
degree or two to compensate for this problem, but it simply raised further concerns about the foundation,
ridgelines, rooflines and unusual construction details.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Mark Taylor explained that he chose this lot, originally, for its depth. He explained that he believed the
spirit of the Ordinance, with regard to setbacks, is to maintain proper separation between adjoining
properties, and, in this situation, the addition will be on the side of the house that adjoins the alley, rather
than another lot. He further reported that, in granting the variance, he would still be in excess of 8-ft. off the
alley.
Mr. Taylor explained that because the house sets at an angle, it has created a hardship for him, adding that
he was not aware that his house sets at an angle until he requested a survey for the purpose of building a
room addition. He further reported that angling the proposed garage addition would interfere with the 5-ft.
setback for his power line to the pool, and it would have to be dug up and repositioned.
Mr. Taylor reported that he spoke with all of his adjacent neighbors, except one, and they were in favor of
the request. He reported, also, that he submitted his plans to the Architectural Committee of the Park Place
Homeowners Assn., and they issued a letter of recommendation in support of the variance.
Chairman Stonecipher reviewed the checklist submitted with Mr. Taylor's application, and asked for
clarification on several questions.
The meeting was opened to the public.
Speaking in favor of the request was Jeff Byers, of 292 Park Valley. He added that he serves on the
Architectural Control Committee for his homeowners association, and they reviewed the request, and agreed
that there is a major hardship in this situation. He added that, on the other hand, if the addition were angled
sideways, slightly, the wall and roofline would look odd from the street.
Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the proximity of the houses in the adjoining subdivision
at the rear of the property, and Mr. Taylor indicated that he spoke to those neighbors.
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion.
Commissioner Kressmann commented that another factor contributing to this situation is the extreme curve
of the alley.
Commissioner LeGros commented that the way the house is situated on the lot does create an unnecessary
hardship, adding that he felt the spirit of the Ordinance would not be affected by granting this variance.
4
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to grant the request for a 6-inch variance to the 8-ft. sideyard
setback on the alley side of the property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote
was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance request granted.
Item 5: Other Business.
Greg Jones reported that no variance requests had been received, as yet, for the October meeting.
He reported, also, that new appointments to the Board would be announced, soon, by City Council.
It was decided that if the October 3rd meeting is cancelled, a training session with the City Attorney, would
be scheduled for that evening, probably beginning at 6:30 p.m.
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
David Stonecipher, Chairman
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary