Loading...
BM 2003-08-07 BOAMINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2003 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman Robert Chomiak, Commissioner David Terry, Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Absent: Steven Wright, Commissioner Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official David Dodd, City Attorney's Office Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicant present: Mr. Alen Hinckley, Univest Properties 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 Commissioner Wright. Item 2: Approval of minutes of June 5, 2003, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2003, meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. Chairman LeGros administered the oath for those wishing to speak either for or against the request being heard this evening. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Sections 12-33-1 (1) and 12 33-1 (8) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, regulating location and materials for screening walls, for the property located at 670 N. MacArthur Blvd. Mr. Alen Hinckley, of Univest Properties, Inc., is requesting a variance to allow a combination landscape/fence barrier separating the MacArthur Vista project and the adjoining residential property, along the east property line. Greg Jones explained that this property is zoned retail, and the developer plans to build a 10,042 sq. ft. office/professional building, which will front on MacArthur Blvd., with the rear yard adjoining the residentially zoned property of Mr. B.J. Brewer. He further reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council, had the option of approving a natural screen along the east property line, in lieu of a 6-ft. high masonry screening wall, but both chose not to do so. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance by the Board to allow a densely planted 1 O-ft. natural landscaped barrier in lieu of a concrete screening wall. He added that the applicant wishes to preserve as much as possible of the existing treeline to accomplish this goal. Greg Jones further reported that although this lot has an unusual triangular shape, the applicant has not shown evidence of a specific property hardship. He noted that elevation variations between the applicant's property and the adjacent residential property are also a consideration in this situation. He reported that the applicant plans to construct a 3-ft. high retaining wall on the property. Commissioners Stonecipher and Terry asked for clarification on the "fencing options" discussed by City Council, as referenced in the staff report submitted by Planning and Zoning. Greg Jones indicated that although he was not present during those discussions, it is clear that City staff based its approval of the overall site plan on the construction of a masonry screening wall. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. Mr. Alen Hinckley, of 762 Armstrong, emphasized that his intention is to have "office/professional" at this location, not retail shops. He noted that since the City Council meeting was held to discuss this topic, it has been reported that Mr. B.J. Brewer, the property owner to the east, was notified of a 1 O-ft. error in his original property survey. Considering that, Mr. Hinckley explained that the construction of a masonry wall would create a hardship for Mr. Brewer, by shrinking his backyard, and creating the need to relocate his deck and fence, according to the new survey. He noted that, on the other hand, should a landscape barrier be allowed, Mr. Brewer would be able to keep his deck and fence in its current location. Mr. Hinckley commented that although he agrees that some type of screening is needed, he would like to capitalize, as much as possible, on the unique features of the Univest property, including the natural setting and the creek-like feel. He added that construction of the masonry wall, as specified by Planning and Zoning, would result in damage to the existing trees. He noted that additional plant material would also be added to this site, particularly plants that will exceed 6 feet in height within two growing seasons. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the location of the encroachment of Mr. Brewer's deck and fence. Mr. Hinckley pointed out the current location of Mr. Brewer's deck and fence, as well as locations where plant material would likely be damaged or removed completely to allow for the masonry wall construction. Mr. Hinckley commented that he observed other completed projects, around Coppell, in which there were no masonry screening walls separating residential areas from retail/commercial areas. Commissioner Hoppie asked how far the proposed building is located, off the property line, and Mr. Hinckley replied that it is 30 feet at the closest point. He also clarified that all parking is located at the front of the building, and the creek runs along the north side. He added that the building would contain only front-loading service entrances; the only doors at the rear of the building would be the required emergency fire doors. Commissioner Chomiak asked the applicant if he had considered moving the wall off the property line, and Mr. Hinckley indicated that the idea was considered, but rejected, due to the fact that there are trees on all sides of the building, and the wall would lose its screening benefit if moved further inward. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if a screening wall is required on the north side, and Mr. Hinckley replied that it is not. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the availability of irrigation for the landscaped area, and Mr. Hinckley responded that it would be maintained according to the City's landscaping requirements. The hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the request was Mr. B.J. Brewer, of 650 N. MacArthur Blvd. He distributed a letter of explanation to board members, and noted two important factors in this request. First, he explained that, due to the fact that the line of sight would be above the wall, a masonry wall actually would not provide much screening value. Secondly, he expressed his concern that substantial tree removal/damage would result from the wall construction process. Commissioner Hoppie asked how far Mr. Brewer's property extends, and Mr. Brewer responded that his house was built in the mid-80's and his property extends approximately 500 feet to the south and is tree- lined on all sides. He added that he didn't realize his survey was wrong until Mr. Hinckley's property was surveyed from the point of entry on MacArthur Blvd. Also speaking in favor of the request was Ann Dragon, of 727 Bent Tree Court. Ms. Dragon indicated that she was, at first, opposed to this request, due to floodplain issues. She added, however, that she would be in favor of granting this variance if a stipulation were placed on it, limiting its use to "medical/professional", rather than the overall "retail" category. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification regarding floodplain locations. Denise Taylor, of 723 Bent Tree Court, indicated that she, also, is in favor of granting this request, with the condition that the approval of the variance is tied to "office/medical" use, and not all retail uses. Those speaking in opposition to the request were asked to step forward. John Fisher, of 705 E. Peninsula, commented that he is opposed to a design that is based solely on survey results, adding that the applicant does not own the property to the middle of the creek, as he is suggesting. The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the zoning of this property, and whether limitations can be made. Greg Jones responded that all uses, within the "retail" zoning category, are acceptable for this property, with the exception of a restaurant, which would require a SUP. Chairman LeGros asked if there was anything that would prevent a different retail establishment from occupying this space in the future, and Greg Jones indicated there was not. Commissioner Hoppie commented that this Board does not have authority to compromise on a request. In addition, Chairman LeGros noted that the Board should focus on the property hardship issue concerning this applicant, as posted on the agenda, and not on the possibility of a neighbor's property hardship. Commissioner Stonecipher added that maintaining the mature trees on this property lend to the presence of a hardship. He also commented that when City Council and Planning and Zoning considered this case, the information concerning the survey error was not yet known. Commissioner Terry indicated his agreement, commenting that in addition to preserving landscaping, differences in elevation between the adjoining properties could be considered a hardship. Commissioner Hoppie added that "fitting into community" could also be considered somewhat of a hardship, in a situation such as this, where the surrounding communities are zoned residential. Commissioner Stonecipher added that maintaining the mature trees on this property lend to the presence of a hardship. He also commented that when City Council and Planning and Zoning considered this case, the information concerning the survey error was not yet known. Commissioner Chomiak asked if enforcement would be done, by the City, should trees and plants die. Greg Jones responded that the City would enforce compliance with an approved landscaping site plan, but added that the City is unable to enforce maintenance of pre-existing trees and plantings. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak that the variance request be granted to allow a combination landscape/fence barrier along the east property line at 670 N. MacArthur, in lieu of the required 6-ft. high masonry screening wall. Commissioner Chomiak amended the motion to stipulate that a landscape barrier be maintained according to the approved site plan for this property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Adjournment. Motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Stonecipher. 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