Loading...
BM 2003-05-01 BOAMINUTES OF MAY 1, 2003 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman David Stonecipher, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner David Terry, Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Absent: Steve Wright, Commissioner Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Ted Riney, Attorney Russell Alexander, 740 Greenway Dr. Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros. Item 2: Election of Vice Chairman. Chairman LeGros asked for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman, due to the resignation of Norman Kressmann. Commissioner Chomiak made a motion to nominate David Stonecipher to the position of Vice Chairman. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Terry, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Commissioner Stonecipher was appointed Vice Chairman. Chairman LeGros administered the oath for those wishing to speak for or against the request being heard this evening. Item 3: Approval of minutes of February 6, 2003, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2003, meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Perschbacher, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-32 of the City of Coppell Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 740 Greenway Drive. Ms. Tasha Alexander is requesting a variance to allow the wrought iron fence to be moved outward to within 5-ft. of the sidewalk, in alignment with the fences at the other three corners of this intersection. The Zoning Ordinance requires that 25-ft. front yard setbacks be observed along the frontage of both intersecting streets on corner lots, in this PD-SF-9 zoned district. Greg Jones reported that the property concerned is located at the northeast corner of Westlake and Greenway, establishing two front yards with 25-ft. setbacks. He provided background information, explaining that in 1995, Standard Pacific Homes requested a variance to construct a 4-ft. high wrought iron fence with a 15-ft. setback. He noted, however, that the variance was denied at that time, due to the fact that a house had not yet been constructed and a property hardship could not be identified. He further reported that later, when a house was built, the accompanying fence encroached on the 25-ft. building line, and the builder was asked to move it to the approved location. He also reported that the site plan, attached to the permit, contains a notation from CMA (the property management company) referring to a 15-ft. off-the- sidewalk setback. He added, however, that this was simply a notation on the site plan, and he was not aware of an actual agreement between CMA and the property owners. Greg Jones reported that this current request consists of locating the fence 4 feet off the sidewalk, translating to a 21-ft. variance to the 25-ft. front yard setback. He distributed photos, provided by the applicant, of neighboring properties, adding that there were several lots, in this general area, for which 10- to 15-ft. setback variances were granted several years ago. Greg Jones expressed concern that this current request seems excessive, and a variance to the 25-ft. building line would impact visibility for the adjacent property owners on Westlake. He reported, also, that a pool, utilizing most of the backyard, is currently under construction at this address. He distributed copies of six letters received from neighbors, some in favor of and some opposed to the variance request. Commissioner Chomiak asked where the original fence had been constructed, before the builder was asked to move it. Greg Jones replied that he did not recall, but perhaps the property owner would remember. Commissioner Terry asked for Staff s comments on the application, in which the applicant states, 'the other three corner lots at our intersection have all been approved to move their fences 5-ft. off the sidewalk'. Greg Jones responded that he did not actually do a survey, in that neighborhood, showing which lots were approved for variances and which were not. He provided additional information on setback requirements, commenting that the type of fencing (in this case, wrought iron) is a decision made by developers and is based on deed restrictions. Commissioner Terry asked for Staff s comments on the application, in which the applicant states, 'the other three corner lots at our intersection have all been approved to move their fences 5-ft. off the sidewalk'. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Ted Riney, attorney for the applicant, explained that in addition to the information just presented, he wishes to clarify that the applicant's backyard is completely utilized by the pool and deck, adding that the Alexanders want to extend the fence outward to provide a safe play area for their children. Mr. Riney emphasized that there would be no basketball court or sport court, in the sideyard area, as was rumored around the neighborhood, and that the Alexanders would willingly sign an agreement to that effect, if the Board so requested. He explained, also, that the proposed fencing would be wrought iron to meet the requirements of the homeowner's association. Mr. Riney reported that as he was driving through Waterside Estates subdivision, he identified several lots on which the fences had been moved outward, and, in general, he counted 17 lots on which "some character of extended fence" had occurred. He noted that the Alexander's lot is the only one of the four lots at this intersection that doesn't have some type of extended fence. 2 Commissioner Chomiak asked where the original fence had been constructed, and Mr. Riney responded that the Alexanders do not recall the exact location of the original fence, but feel it was constructed within just a few feet of the sidewalk. Referring to the six letters received from nearby property owners, Commissioner Stonecipher pointed out the location of each of those properties in relation to the applicant's lot. He noted that his biggest concern is the property owners at 404 Westlake, who are opposed to the request, and would be most affected by it with regard to visibility. Russell Alexander, property owner of 740 Greenway, commented that when they first considered extending the fence, several years ago, other adjacent property owners commented that they would like to do the same in the future. Chairman LeGros asked the applicant if a property hardship existed, and Mr. Alexander commented that throughout the construction phase of the house, the plans always showed the fence extended, outward, within a few feet of the sidewalk. He indicated that they were only notified of the fence problem one week prior to closing on the house. He noted that the fence location really hasn't been a major issue, until now, when the children are a little older and need a safe, fenced-in play area. He reported, also, that the existing fence would be left in place as a pool barrier, and another fence would be added, per this request, to create a play area. Commissioner Stonecipher emphasized that the Board legally needs a property hardship, adding that because the situation has been acceptable for the past five years, it's difficult to suddenly find a property hardship. Mr. Riney commented that this family is losing some of the use of their property in comparison with the other three corner lots, due to these restrictions. He commented, further, that the property owners at 404 Westlake are already shielded by the view, due to the tall shrubbery between the properties. Commissioner Stonecipher asked Mr. Alexander if he had discussed this issue, recently, with the owner of 404 Westlake, and Mr. Alexander indicated that he had not talked to his neighbor about the variance since the application was first filed. Chairman LeGros commented, also, that if the shrubbery were removed between these two lots, sometime in the future, the extended fence would create an aesthetic problem. The hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was Paul Lacaze, of 354 Greentree. He commented that several other houses in that area adjusted their fence locations several years ago. He further commented that he felt this is a reasonable request, and the type of fencing chosen by the applicant is a good choice. He added that this lot, in particular, has a very small backyard, which, in his opinion, constitutes a property hardship. No one spoke in opposition to the request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Referring to Mr. Alexander's application, Commissioner Perschbacher asked the applicant if he still felt there was no property hardship associated with this request, as he had indicated on the original application form. Mr. Alexander responded that his wife had completed the application and he hadn't yet seen it. He noted, however, that he feels a property hardship has existed all along, considering the size, shape, and location of this lot. Chairman LeGros asked if the applicant had been given the option to cancel his agreement with the builder, when the fence issue arose, and Mr. Alexander responded that he had not been offered that option. Commissioner Perschbacher asked if other fence relocations, in this area, have impacted the neighbors, from a site-line point of view. Mr. Alexander noted that one similar situation is located at 748 Greenway, and Mr. Riney added that he observed two or three similar fence situations when driving around the neighborhood. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that a property hardship does not appear to exist in this situation, and communication and support among neighbors seems to be lacking, compared to similar cases of several years ago. Commissioner Chomiak asked about the possibility of constructing a landscape barrier in lieu of the proposed fence. Greg Jones explained that other than the visibility clip at this corner, this property owner would be allowed to construct a landscape screen within their planting zone to provide privacy. Referring to one of the other corner lots at this intersection, Commissioner Stonecipher explained that the property owners planted a hedge, blocking the openness of the wrought iron fence. For this reason, he added that he felt the Board should not specify or limit fence materials, adding that the homeowner's association would enforce this issue. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that the property owners chose to utilize their existing backyard for a pool and deck, resulting in a self-imposed hardship. He commented, also, that he does not feel he's been provided with evidence, or specific addresses, showing similar setback situations in this neighborhood. Commissioner Chomiak commented that, without knowing what was discussed when the Alexanders closed on this house with the builder, it's difficult to determine whether a hardship was partially created by the builder. In addition, he asked the applicant if a lesser variance would be acceptable, and the applicant indicated it would be acceptable. Commissioner Terry asked about fence requirements for a pool, and Greg Jones responded that there are general safety requirements for fence height and slat spacing, but not for fence type. He added that fencing is inspected during the pool final inspection. Commissioner Stonecipher expressed his concern that the neighbor most affected by this fence extension is opposed to it, as indicated in a letter to the board. He pointed out that although the board has the authority to approve a lesser variance than the one posted, he is still not comfortable in doing so, since the neighbor most affected is not present at this meeting. Commissioner Chomiak asked if other board members had suggestions regarding a compromise or alternative solution, and Chairman LeGros responded that the applicant would be free to apply for a lesser variance, at a later date, if desired. Greg Jones explained that the applicant should be encouraged to seek approval of the homeowners association (HOA), before they choose to return to this board in the future. Mr. Alexander explained, however, that the HOA is unable to grant approval until they have approval of the City's Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Terry added that he felt the applicant should discuss this issue with the neighbors. 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stonecipher, and a vote was taken. Motion did not pass, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Adjournment. Motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Chomiak. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stonecipher, and a vote was taken. Motion carried 5 to O. Meeting adjourned. Mark LeGros, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary