Loading...
BM 2005-04-07 BOAMINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2005 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the Second Floor Conference Room of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: David Stonecipher, Chairman Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman David Terry, Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Absent: Steve Wright, Commissioner Rob Chomiak, Commissioner Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Also present: David Dodd, City Attorney Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Ms. Lynn Seidemann, 720 Falcon Lane, Coppell Mr. Rodney Louviere, on behalf of Street Financial, Ltd. Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Commissioners Hoppie and Ketchum were invited to serve on the Board, in the absence of Commissioners Wright and Chomiak. Item 2: Approval of minutes of October 7, 2004 meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros and seconded by Commissioner Ketchum to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2004, meeting. Chairman Stonecipher explained the meeting format and procedures. The oath was administered for those wishing to speak at the public hearing. The Board convened into Executive Session with City Attorney, David Dodd. The Board reconvened for Regular Session. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-12-3 (1)B of the City of Coppell' s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 720 Falcon Lane, in Coppell. Sam and Lynn Seidemann are requesting a triangular variance to the required 8- ft. sideyard setback on the north side of the property to allow for a garage expansion with wheelchair accessibility. Greg Jones reported that Mr. and Mrs. Seidemann are both confined to wheelchairs, and have requested this sideyard variance to allow for a garage expansion, to help make wheelchair maneuvering a little easier. In determining the exact request, Greg Jones noted that he modified the survey by drawing a line to indicate the applicants' triangular-shaped variance request on this pie-shaped lot. He also reported that he asked the applicant for floor plans or additional information to show the details of this request. Greg Jones explained that although there does not appear to be a property hardship, the issue of accommodating the applicants' need for accessibility is important in this case. He explained that the applicants could probably put a minor jog in the back of their garage and be able to make the necessary modifications without the need for a variance, but doing so would result in an unusual room condition and roofline. Greg Jones reported that Staff supports this request, but felt that the Board would need more specific information from the applicant as a basis for making a decision. Commissioner LeGros asked about the specific size of the triangular variance, and how much would actually encroach into the setback. Greg Jones reported that the encroachment appeared to be closer than 8 feet for a distance of about 2 feet, by 4-1/2 feet. Commissioner Terry asked if the 20-ft. rear yard setback would be maintained, and Greg Jones reported that it would. Commissioner Ketchum asked for clarification on the locations of the property and setback lines, and Greg Jones explained where the 8-ft. setback line would be. Commissioner Hoppie asked if there was an existing fence, and Greg Jones explained that there is no fence on the side of the property where the variance is requested, adding that it is simply an open area with a changing terrain. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that if the garage could be moved further back, it wouldn't encroach in that one corner. He added, however, that it may be difficult to maintain the 20-ft. setback, due to the way the lot curves around. Greg Jones reported that when he scaled the lot, the corner of the garage was at the 20-ft. rear yard setback, concluding that moving the garage further back would not be allowed or practical. The applicant was invited to present her case. Lynn Seidemann explained that they are requesting the additional 4 feet in width so that she and her husband can each get into the car at the same time on a level, non-sloping surface. At the present time, they're able to get into their cars only if the two cars are parked in opposite directions. She commented that the additional 4 feet would allow them a comfortable space along each side of the garage, as well as allow the rear door of their minivan to be opened. Ms. Seidemann presented an additional drawing from the architect, showing more detail. Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on the overall size of the garage, and Ms. Seidemann stated that it would be the same length as a normal garage, only 4 feet wider. The hearing was opened to the public. Carl Shacht, of 724 Falcon Lane, commented that he is in favor of a solution that would help the Seidemanns', but he was concerned that the exact size and location of this triangular variance had not been clearly defined. Commissioner LeGros recommended that if a variance is granted, it be tied directly to a drawing showing specific dimensions of the triangular variance. Specifically, Commissioner LeGros asked how far beyond the setback line, the variance would extend. Ms. Seidemann indicated that she didn't have a final architect's drawing, as yet, but wanted to wait and see if the variance was granted, before investing in detailed architectural drawings. City Attorney, David Dodd, concurred that if the variance is granted, the motion should be tied directly to a site plan or drawing showing the specific size and location of the variance. Mr. Shacht commented that he would favor the variance request, as long as he is aware of its limitations. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant the triangular variance, extending no more than 2 feet and tapering back to the setback line not to exceed 4-1/2 feet, as indicated by the drawing submitted to the Board on this date. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-12-3.1 (A) of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-2.6(D) of the City's Code of Ordinances, for the property located at 437 Hidden Valley Drive, in Coppell. Ms. Melinda Street, of Street Financial Ltd., is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a wrought iron replacement fence, in the same location as the existing wood fence. Greg Jones distributed a letter that had been submitted in support of the variance request. Referring to the Hidden Valley Estates plat, Greg Jones explained that this variance request is actually for the lot adjacent to the new Hidden Valley Estates subdivision. He noted that the new subdivision was designed as a Planned Development district (PD), and was approved by City Council in November 2004. A portion of the access to this new subdivision is currently fronted by a wooden fence at 437 Hidden Valley Drive, adding that this wooden fence is in disrepair and has been impacted by the ongoing construction in that area. Greg Jones explained that this fence was never part of the PD approval process. Greg Jones reported that the developer is interested in replacing the current split rail fence with a wrought iron, decorative fence, several styles of which are pictured in the packet. He noted that the problem, in this situation, is that the existing wood fence is located in the front yard, with a 25-ft. setback that runs along the curve. He noted that when Staff was approached about issuing a permit for a fence replacement, it could not be approved, as submitted, pending consideration by this Board. He noted, however, that the developer could replace the existing wood fence with another wood fence, and it would continue to be classified as a legal, non-conforming fence. Viewing it from a safety standpoint, Greg Jones commented that there doesn't appear to be a right-of-way visibility problem. He further reported that this "front yard" actually functions as a sideyard. He noted that there are several mature trees located along this curved line that would prohibit the developer from holding the fence back to the 25-ft. setback line. He noted that, under the circumstances, Staff would support this request. Chairman Stonecipher asked whether this request was only relevant because it involves wrought iron, and if it had been a wood replacement, it wouldn't even require a permit. Greg Jones responded that a permit is needed if more than 50 percent of the total fenceline is being replaced, when like-for-like fencing material is used. He further explained that if wood is replaced for wood, the applicant would not be required to comply with the 25-ft. setback. The fact that the developer wants to switch to wrought iron is the reason that the 25-ft. setback also comes into play. Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on how the house is positioned on this lot, and Greg Jones clarified the location. He explained that because this is an older property, he was unable to find drawings that would actually show the position of the house of the lot. Commissioner Terry asked how far the fence extends, since it doesn't appear to extend the full length of the lot. Greg responded that he felt it extended approximately 70 to 80 feet. Commissioner Terry further commented that the way the request was written, if granted, the developer would be allowed to extend the fence the full distance of the lot. Greg Jones clarified, however, that the replacement fence would only extend the same distance as the existing fence, noting that it could be stipulated as such in the motion. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the lot across the street, and Greg Jones commented that the homeowner of that lot is the one who submitted the letter in favor of the variance request. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Rodney Louviere, representing Street Financial, explained that they wish to replace the existing split rail fence with a decorative wrought iron fence, in the same location. Commissioner Stonecipher asked the applicant to explain why he couldn't put the fence in the required 25-ft. setback. Mr. Louviere replied that if the fence was pushed back to the setback line, it would result in tree mitigation at a cost of $100 an inch. Commissioner Hoppie asked for clarification on the type of decorative metal that the applicant is planning to use. Mr. Louviere commented that although a specific type of wrought iron hadn't yet been chosen, the pictures in the packet provide some possible styles. He noted that a new fence might actually be a 6-ft. fence rather than a 4-ft. fence, as it is now. Commissioner Terry asked about the width of the property, and Mr. Louviere replied that it is approximately 35 feet. The meeting was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the request was Brian Tompkins, of 437 Hidden Valley. Mr. Tompkins noted that he has an unusally shaped lot, and to move the fence back to the 25-ft. setback line would cause a problem not only for the trees, but would reduce the eastern section of the property to almost nothing. He commented that with the construction in the area, the existing fence has been severely damaged, and putting up a nicer looking fence would add visual appeal in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ketchum asked the applicant why he would object to a wood replacement fence, and Mr. Tompkins replied that he wouldn't object to a wood fence, adding that if the Board denied the variance, the existing fence would be replaced with a wood fence, rather than moving it to the 25-ft. setback line. Tim Bennett, of 138 Sandy Oak Lane, commented that he is one of the adjacent property owners on the northern side of the development. He reported that he had no objection to either wood or metal fence, but he commented that he had a concern about the notification process, adding that he received the letter, as did three of his neighbors, while three others did not receive the letter. Commissioner Terry asked if fence height is measured from the street grade. Greg Jones responded that it' s measured from either the street grade or the yard grade, whichever is higher. Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Hoppie commented that it's an unusually shaped lot and strict enforcement of the setbacks would damage the utility of the lot. Commissioner Terry asked if anyone had any concerns about the height of the fence. Chairman Stonecipher replied that he did not have any concerns about fence height, because the ordinances establish the limitations and the Board does not have any jurisdiction over materials and height, only location. Commissioner LeGros pointed out that once a variance is granted, a fence of any type will always be allowed in that location. Chairman Stonecipher further commented that the odd-shaped lot, in combination with the position of the house on the lot, not to mention the placement of the fence on the outside of the curve, present an unusual situation in which the bulk of the side or back yards are actually treated as a front yard. Commissioner Terry reiterated, however, that granting the variance would pave the way for any type of fence to be placed in this location for the life of the property. Commissioner LeGros noted that although a variance is needed to change the materials, it would also grant "fencing rights" for the future, which may be contrary to public interest. Commissioner LeGros also commented that he did not see a property hardship in this situation. David Dodd suggested that the motion be tied to one of the wrought iron pictures submitted by the applicant. Chairman Stonecipher summarized that since it was posted as a "wrought iron fence", it can be limited to such. Motion was made by Commissioner Terry that the variance be granted to allow the construction of a wrought iron fence in the same location as the existing wood fence. Commissioner LeGros amended the motion to include that the wrought iron fence must be consistent with the photos submitted to this Board on this date. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Other Business. None. Adiournment. Meeting adjourned. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary