Loading...
BM 2003-06-05 BOAMINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2003 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman Steve Wright, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner David Terry, Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Absent: David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official David Dodd, City Attorney's Office Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Mr. J.W. Bales, First Baptist Church, Coppell Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros. Commissioner Hoppie was invited to serve on the board in the absence of Vice Chairman Stonecipher. Item 2: Approval of minutes of May 1, 2003, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2003, meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Terry, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. Chairman LeGros administered the oath for those wishing to speak for or against the request being heard this evening. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-33-1 (8) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 590 S. Denton Tap Road. Mr. J.W. Bales, on behalf of First Baptist Church, is requesting a variance to waive the construction of a required 10-ft. landscape barrier along the east, north, and south property lines, separating the church's proposed expanded parking lot and the adjacent residentially zoned properties. Greg Jones displayed a large-scale drawing of the proposed expansion for First Baptist Church. He reported that the proposed expansion of First Baptist Church includes a 30,000 sq. ft. expansion at the front of the existing church, as well as the addition of 138 parking spaces. He noted that background information, issued by the Planning Department, is included in the packet. Greg Jones further explained that the Zoning Ordinance would normally require a 6-ft. screening wall to be installed to separate a non-residential use from residentially-zoned property. However, during City Council's review of this project, approval was given to allowing a densely planted evergreen landscape barrier, including a hedge to screen parked cars and headlights, in lieu of the required masonry screening wall. He further explained that now the church is requesting that the Board of Adjustment waive the requirement for the landscape barrier and hedge. He added that although the residential properties in this area are not currently screened from the church, the proposed expansion requires such a barrier. Therefore, the church is requesting a condition that is very similar to the existing condition. He referred to letters, included in the packet, from adjacent property owners, expressing approval of this Variance request, adding that the church has indicated that the proposed landscape barrier, located at the rear of the property, would cost the church an additional $40,000. Greg Jones explained that because there does not appear to be a property hardship, Staff is unable to support this request. Chairman LeGros asked why there was not a screening wall at this property, now, and Greg Jones replied that landscape buffer requirements were added to the Zoning Ordinance around 1998, but were not in place when this church was built. He added that, until now, when changes are proposed in the church's parking lot, there was no need to require that the church comply with newer requirements. Commissioner Hoppie asked if City Council had ever discussed waiving the landscape barrier requirement completely, and Greg Jones responded that he was not aware of the conditions under which City Council approved the living screen. City Attorney, David Dodd, indicated that he did not believe City Council could completely waive the requirement, but they did have the power to modify it. Commissioner Terry asked that since City Council approved this site plan, specifically, does that affect this Board's authority to grant the variance, and Greg Jones indicated that it does not. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification of the location of the property line, as well as clarification of the adjoining properties on the north, south, and east boundaries. Referring to the drawings, Greg Jones pointed out adjacent property locations and the church's existing and proposed parking areas. He further clarified that this request pertains only to the landscape barrier and not to the landscape buffer, and only to the rear section of the parking area, but not extending all the way to Denton Tap Road. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. J.W. Bales reported that he is chairman of First Baptist Church's Building Task Force. He explained that when City Council approved the site plan, the church had only verbal approval of the variance request from adjacent property owners. He noted that the site plan was approved on a 4 to 3 vote by City Council, but was not a unanimous vote, due to the fact that the church had not previously obtained written confirmation from each of the adjacent property owners. He noted that letters from three of the four adjacent property owners have since been received and were included in tonight's packet, adding that each of those three property owners are in favor of waiving the landscape barrier requirement. Mr. Bales indicated that on the south and north sides of the property, where the additional 20-ft. strip of land was purchased to comply with the City's parking regulations, the church agreed to pay for the privacy fence extensions, to match with the church's 20-ft. parking lot expansion, for those property owners affected. Mr. Bales further explained that the property owner to the east, the Phillips family, does not wish to have a landscape barrier separating their property and the church property. He noted that this requirement is not only a financial hardship for the church, but is actually not wanted by the adjacent property owners. He commented that the church continues to make every effort to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Hoppie asked the applicant to clarify the property hardship, and Mr. Bales indicated that the main hardship is that there is not a landscape barrier in place, now, and none of the property owners want one. He explained that the property owners and the church prefer the openness, rather than the limitations of a wall or barrier. Hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was David Phillips, of 453 Hidden Valley. He reported that all of the property behind the church (7 acres) is his backyard, adding that he prefers the openness, as it now exists. Mr. Phillips explained that he sold the 20-ft. strip of property to the church to allow for the construction of two additional rows of parking, as part of the church's expansion project. Speaking in opposition to the variance request was Rich Eckert, of 114 Mason Court, located directly south of the church. He indicated that although he is not opposed to the church's plan to add parking spaces, an increase of 30 percent, in parking, is a substantial increase. He noted that his property is a significant investment for him, considering the number of trees and the way his house and pool are situated for privacy. He explained that through the church' s design stages, the parking lot plan has changed three times. Mr. Eckert explained that he prefers a living screen to a masonry wall, but, now, the church is asking for a third variance to allow no barrier at all, adding that he does not believe that trees and shrubbery detract from a clear view. Commissioner Chomiak asked Mr. Eckert for a description of his current view of the church parking lot. Mr. Eckert explained that a portion of it is open where the section of his backyard fence is wrought iron, and the remainder of the view is the church's shed, a pile of dirt, and a small stack of building debris. He noted that his main concern is with the aesthetics of the property and the increase in traffic noise that may result, due to the parking expansion, adding that he feels the property needs additional buffering. He commented, also, that when the church builds on their new site, elsewhere in the City, the future of this current church property on Denton Tap is unknown. Referring to the Planning Department's staff report, Commissioner Terry commented on the possibility of having 13 lots impacted, in the future, by this lack of screening should this property be redeveloped, as a result of rezoning. Mr. Bales indicated that church representatives spoke with all four of the current adjacent property owners. Commissioner Wright asked about the existing condition of the church property adjoining Mr. Eckert's property, as it relates to the debris, shed and fence, mentioned earlier. Mr. Bales and Mr. Eckert provided additional detail. Commissioner Wright asked Mr. Eckert how he felt the situation could be resolved, and Mr. Eckert responded that he felt the addition of shrubbery would solve the problem by providing a visual and noise buffer between the two properties. Mr. Eckert commented that the entire back of his house is glass, overlooking his pool, so the visual aspect is significant. Mr. Bales announced that, to the extent that Mr. Eckert is affected by this situation, the church would gladly pay for an extension of his wooden fence as a way of blocking out noise and activity from the church's parking lot. Hearing was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Chairman LeGros read a portion of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to this request. Commissioner Wright asked that when the property to the east is developed for single family dwellings, sometime in the future, would the requirement for a screening wall return. Greg Jones explained that the requirement for screening is based on the use, and if a variance was granted in this situation, a screening wall would not be required in the future, even if the "use" changed; he added, however, that a developer would generally choose to build some type of screening between the properties. Commissioner Hoppie commented that the only property hardship discussed by the applicant is the desire not to comply with the Ordinance, and the financial difficulty. Commissioner Wright asked if the Board could consider the hardship to the adjoining property owner, Mr. Phillips, who has no desire to be screened from the church property. Chairman LeGros responded, however, that any variances, granted by this Board, would be tied to the property, adding that this variance will have an impact on future property owners, and not just the Phillips family. He further commented that subsequent property owners should be protected by the benefits of the Ordinance, especially in a situation where a property hardship is lacking. Commissioner Wright reported that he felt each side of the property might need to be dealt with differently. He noted that because the intent of the ordinance is to provide a screen for the benefit of the adjoining residential properties, this situation is slightly different because the owner to the east does not want to be protected by screening. Commissioner Chomiak agreed that it might be wise to consider each side separately, particularly since the biggest change that would be occurring is on the south side. Chairman LeGros asked the applicant if the church would accept a partial variance, granted for the east side of the property only, and Mr. Bales indicated that they would. City Attorney, David Dodd, clarified the Board's powers and responsibilities, adding that a legal description would need to be used if the Board decided to designate certain requirements to one or all sides of the property. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that the variance request be granted to waive the 10-ft. landscape barrier along the east side of the church property. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification, then seconded the motion. A vote was taken; the motion did not pass, by a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioners Terry and Hoppie voting in opposition to the motion. Variance denied. Adjournment. Motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Terry. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. Mark LeGros, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary