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