Loading...
BM 2002-10-03 BOAMINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, October 3, 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 Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner Applicants present: Mr. Hans Deitrich, 140 Maywood Circle, Coppell Mr. James Cobb, 302 Willow Springs Court, Coppell Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Item 1: Call to Order. Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Item 2: Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Nominations were accepted for the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Commissioner LeGros nominated Norman Kressmann for the position of Vice Chairman, and Commissioner Wright nominated Mark LeGros for the position of Chairman. Chairman Stonecipher asked for a vote of acclamation. Nominations were approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairman LeGros conducted the meeting. Item 3: Swearing-in Ceremony. Chairman LeGros administered the swearing-in ceremony for two board members: Robert Chomiak and David Terry. Item 4: Approval of minutes of September 5, 2002, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to approve the minutes of the September 5, 2002, meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. The oath was administered by Chairman LeGros for those wishing to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the requests being heard tonight. Item 5: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 13-3-1 (C) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 302 Willow Springs Court. Mr. James D. Cobb is requesting a 5-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback, in this SF-7 zoned district, to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Greg Jones explained that the Cobb family bought their home in 1998, and approximately half of the garage had been converted to living area. He added that the Cobb family is attempting to sell their house, but comments from potential buyers indicate that the lack of garage space is a major drawback. He reported that this homeowner wants to do a 10-ft. addition in order to restore the garage to full size, and, in doing so, a 5-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback would be needed. He noted, however, that if the variance was granted, only 15 feet would remain for vehicle parking in the driveway, and considering that some vehicles are as much as 20 feet long, it's possible a vehicle could extend out over the alley right-of-way, creating a safety concern. Greg Jones added that although there are no permit or inspection records, on file, for the garage conversion at this address, the City probably could grant a partial inspection release for the visible sections of the work. Chairman LeGros asked for further clarification regarding the clearance needed at the rear of the garage, as well as an explanation of the typical permitting process for a garage conversion. Greg Jones replied that single family dwellings are required to have a two-car garage. In the case of a garage conversion, the applicant is first asked to furnish plans for the required garage spaces, as well as to meet all setback requirements. He explained that a permit for a garage conversion, as it now exists at 302 Willow Springs Court, would have been denied by his office, due to lack of two enclosed parking spaces. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the section of the garage that had been converted. Greg Jones replied that the back half of the garage was converted to living area, leaving the front half at its original width, but reducing its length to half the original size (about 10 feet); he added that this garage space would only accommodate one car, parked sideways. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. James Cobb explained that he's requesting a 5-ft. variance that will allow for an 11-ft. extension of the garage. He reported that when he purchased the house in 1998, the lack of garage space was not a problem for his family; the unused section of the garage was utilized as workshop area. He added that if the converted area had been a simple recreation or playroom conversion, it would be fairly easy to revert back to garage space, but, because the converted area includes plumbing facilities, the conversion would be more extensive and costly. Mr. Cobb reported that his house was put on the market in April, after he received a job transfer to Florida. He explained that although they've had excellent reviews from potential buyers, the major drawback is the lack of a two-car garage. He added that the price of the house has been lowered, significantly, and special allowances have also been included. Chairman LeGros reviewed the checklist with the applicant, to determine the existence of a property hardship. 2 The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. The meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Kressmann commented that the Board is limited, by law, to look for a property hardship, while keeping in mind the spirit of the Ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to grant the request for a 5-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 5 to 0. Variance denied. Item 6: 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-ff sideyard setback on the west side of the property, and a 10-ff variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback, in this $F-12 zoned district, to allow for the construction of a garage, with second floor, addition. Greg Jones explained that this case was also heard at the September meeting, after which, he met with the applicant, who indicated that all acceptable options had been explored, and he wished to have his request reconsidered at the October meeting. Greg Jones reported that although the request is basically the same as last month's request, the plans included in this month's packet are now updated to show the second floor addition, which, until the evening of the September meeting, was unknown to City staff. He noted that although a second floor addition doesn't directly impact this variance request, it does change the scope of the request. Greg Jones briefly explained that although the applicant's preference is Option A, he has also included two other options (B and C) in the packet, for consideration, one of which doesn't require a variance. He further explained that Option A is based on the applicant's self-imposed conditions and wishes, and appears to be an excessive modification, possibly resulting in over-building on this lot. He reported that because other options exist for the applicant to build his addition without the variance or with a lesser variance, Staff cannot support this request. Furthermore, he explained that Option B, while not requiring a variance, would involve removal of trees, which is discouraged. Option C, similar to Option B, shows the addition at the rear of the property to accommodate a stairway to the second floor addition, but requires a lesser variance than Option A. Also, Greg Jones reported on another option that had been suggested to him that wouldn't require a variance: the new garage addition would be used as a porte-cochere, with a garage door at each end, enabling cars to be moved in and out, thereby retaining the landscaping. Commissioner Kressmann emphasized that the Board considers variance requests, but does not choose from among options. Commissioner Stonecipher added, however, that the Board could consider another option, as long as it was a lesser variance than the one advertised. Commissioner Wright pointed out that because Option B doesn't require a variance, there's no need to even consider it, expressing his agreement that the Board only rules on variances, and not on solutions to a problem. Chairman LeGros invited the applicant to step forward to present his case. Referring to the drawings, Hans Deitrich summarized his variance request (Option A), noting that it was basically the same request as presented at last month's hearing. He emphasized that the front third of the garage is wasted space, simply to meet code compliance requirements, as well as to match other homes in the neighborhood. He further explained that Option A would not involve the removal of any landscaping. He explained that although Option B does not include a variance request, it does involve removal of two trees. Option C is basically a re-positioning of the entire addition at the rear of the property, still requiring a 1 O-ft. rear yard variance, and possibly the removal of one tree. Mr. Deitrich commented that it is puzzling to him that he could have such a large lot, but such limited use of it. He noted that when his house was built in 1979, the City code for building a garage required 5-ft. rear and sideyard setbacks, and a 60-ft. front yard setback. Mr. Deitrich noted that because the code was totally different in 1979, it presents a hardship for him, now. In addition, he reported that his lot is classified as odd-shaped, and is located on the curve of a cul-de-sac, presenting further hardship. He added that he feels the purpose of granting a variance is to equal out differences among versions of the Zoning Ordinance, over the years, and he asked board members to consider his true situation. Mr. Deitrich stated that Option A is the design best suited to his neighborhood, from an appearance standpoint, but B and C are workable from a practical point of view. He noted that when his subdivision was developed, the trend was to build relatively small homes on large lots. He added that, even within his neighborhood, there are several lots in which garages were built right up to the lot line. Chairman LeGros reported that variances are permissible when strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary property hardship. He added that the Board is not authorized merely to accommodate the best use of the property, but rather, to consider variances in cases where the Zoning Ordinance does not permit any reasonable use of the lot. Commissioner Chomiak asked the applicant to explain why a narrower garage would not be workable, and Mr. Deitrich responded that 25 feet is needed as a turning radius, rather than the current 23 feet. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that the purpose of granting variances is not to equalize differences in the Zoning Ordinance, as mentioned earlier by the applicant, but, rather, to address property hardships. He added that any new construction, such as this type of addition, must comply with the current Zoning Ordinance, and not the one in existence when the original house was built. The meeting was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was James Mayo, of 150 Maywood Circle. He indicated that he is in favor of the Option A variance, because it makes best use of the property, and allows the garage to be less visible. He explained, also, that although Option B would not require a variance, it would bring the garage addition outward toward the street, approximately 20 feet, somewhat blocking his view. Curt Crawford, of 142 Maywood Circle, explained that he lives directly west of Mr. Deitrich's lot. He indicated that he approves of Mr. Deitrich's Option A request, because it appears to be the least intrusive of the options, and because Mr. Deitrich is willing to spend extra money to help preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He added that because he and Mr. Deitrich share a common area consisting of crape myrtles and trees, he would like this landscaped area to remain intact, as shown in Mr. Deitrich's Option A plan. 4 John Duffy, of 148 Maywood Circle, explained that he lives directly across the street from Mr. Deitrich. commented that he felt the garage addition should be placed as far to the rear of the lot, as possible, to insure a nice appearance from the street. He Russell Martin, of 130 Meadowcreek Road, reported that he lives directly to the south of Mr. Deitrich, adding that they share about 90 feet of rear property line, and his property drops down 12 to 18 inches lower than Mr. Deitrich' s. Mr. Martin reported that, during a heavy rain, he gets the run-off from the Deitrich lot and beyond, and that he installed a 4-inch drain to help control water flow. He commented that the new addition, as proposed in Option A, would help create a natural barrier for water flow, whereas Option B would simply add another 900 sq. ft. of concrete to "box in" the water. Doug Klump, of 144 Maywood, reported that he lives two houses away, and approximately 40 percent of his view from the front door/dining room area, is the side of Mr. Deitrich's house and trees, as referred to earlier. He reported that he is totally in favor of Option A, for aesthetic reasons, and if a different option is chosen, his view from the front door will be only a brick wall. It was noted that there is no homeowners' association in this subdivision to help govern aesthetics. Curt Crawford returned to the podium, commenting that if the garage addition were built according to Option B, it would be positioned further forward than his own house, thereby obstructing his view. No one spoke in opposition to the variance request. The meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Stonecipher requested a five-minute recess. Meeting reconvened. Commissioner Chomiak commented that although Option A appears to be the most aesthetically pleasing of the options, his biggest concern is that the 7-ft. sideyard variance is excessive, just to gain the convenience of having a 27-ft. wide garage, versus a normal 22-ft. width. Commissioner Wright commented that the applicant appears to be telling the Board that, if Option A is not chosen, his neighbors will be left with something less attractive in the neighborhood. He added that he's concerned that none of the neighbors in the audience seem interested in the fact that Mr. Deitrich is able to build his addition without a variance, and within the constraints of the Ordinance, but is still seeking a variance. He further commented that this house was built when two-car garages were considered the standard, and it's not within this Board's powers to change such a standard. Chairman LeGros commented that it is important that setbacks are preserved as much as possible, and, in this case, there does not appear to be a property hardship. He further explained that although the backyard neighbor doesn't mind that a building will be placed only 10 feet from his bedroom, it could become an issue with subsequent owners. He added that although Option A is a nice design, it appears to be oversized for this lot. Commissioner Kressmann commented that although he empathizes with the applicant's desire for more garage space, he explained that the Board's powers are limited by State law. He read a section of a recent statement, issued by the City Attorney's Office, concerning property hardships and the Board's powers. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that although it is not this Board's responsibility to choose from among options presented by an applicant, perhaps a lesser sideyard variance, than the one requested, could be considered in this situation, if the applicant was willing to accept more of an "open" design, such as that resembling a porte-cochere. Commissioner Wright responded, however, that because the applicant has options that fall within the requirements of the Ordinance, there is no need for the Board to suggest or consider other options. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to grant the request to allow a 7-ft. variance to the 10-ft. sideyard setback and a 1 O-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback, to allow for the construction of a garage, with second floor, addition. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 5 to 0. Variance request denied. Item 7: Other Business. Greg Jones reminded the board that the annual training session is scheduled for the evening of October 17th, at 6:30 p.m. David Dodd, from the City Attorney's Office, will conduct the training. Greg Jones introduced the newest member of the board, Ronald Smith. Adjournment. Motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Stonecipher and seconded by Commissioner Kressmann. A vote was taken, and motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. Mark LeGros, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary 6