Loading...
BM 2005-05-05 BOAMINUTES OF MAY 5, 2005 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, May 5, 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 Steve Wright, Commissioner Rob Chomiak, Commissioner Don Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Absent: David Terry, Commissioner Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: David and Wendy Rich, 109 Meadowcreek Road Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Commissioner Perschbacher was invited to serve on the Board, in the absence of Commissioner Terry. Item 2: Approval of minutes of April 7, 2005 meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros and seconded by Commissioner Wright to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2005, meeting. The oath was administered for those wishing to speak at the public hearing. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Sections 12-11-5 and 12- 11-3(B) of the City of Coppell's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 109 Meadowcreek Road, in Coppell. Ms. Wendy Rich is requesting a two-part variance, as follows: 1) to allow stucco on the exterior of the proposed 700 sq. ft. garage and room addition; and 2) to allow an 8-ft. variance to the required 10-ft. sideyard setback on the west side of the property. Referring to the set of drawings, Greg Jones explained that this is a two-part variance, the first of which refers to the stucco exterior. He reported that the house was built in May of 1983, but the official adoption of the City's Zoning Ordinance didn't occur until December of that year. Therefore, at the time the house was built, stucco was not yet prohibited as an exterior surface, and the current 80 percent masonry requirement was not yet in effect. He noted that the applicant is requesting that the proposed room and garage addition be allowed to be stucco to match the existing house. Referring to the second part of the request, Greg Jones explained that the applicant wishes to construct a 700 sq. ft. room and garage addition on the west side of the property, and is requesting an 8-ft. variance. He explained that a professional office building is located on the lot directly to the west of the applicant's lot. He further reported that the applicant has about 14 feet to the edge of their property line on that side, and, by Ordinance, they would be required to maintain an 10-ft. sideyard setback, which is 10 percent of their lot width. He explained that on that side of the lot, the parking lot and driveway for the professional building are 3 to 4 feet lower than the applicant's lot, and there's a wood fence and concrete retaining wall separating the two. Because the difference in elevation between the two lots provides a physical separation between the two lots, he noted that the applicant felt it was a reasonable request. He further explained that because the Ordinance requires the 1 O-ft. setback, Staff cannot, in good conscience, support the request, although it appears that the only ones harmed by the proposed setback reduction would be the applicants, themselves. Commissioner Wright asked if the adjoining commercial property has a setback requirement, and Greg Jones responded that it is a required 30-ft. sideyard setback. Commissioner LeGros asked if a screening wall existed between the two properties, and Greg Jones responded that there was a partial concrete retaining wall and a 6- to 8-ft. wood screening wall in that location. Commissioner Perschbacher asked about the properties located to the south and southwest of the property, and Greg Jones replied that there is a creek and wooded area in those locations. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Wendy Rich, of 109 Meadowcreek Road, distributed photos showing her property, the adjoining commercial property, and the screening wall separating the two lots. She pointed out the location of the proposed garage addition, reporting that the commercial building is actually located 60 feet from her property line. Ms. Rich explained that 20 years ago, when her house was built, traffic on Denton Tap Road was lighter, commenting that the addition of the single car garage will help serve as a buffer for traffic noise reduction. She also noted that because it's difficult to maneuver within the turning radius of their driveway, the garage addition would help alleviate that problem. Referring to the drawing, Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on the "existing" versus "proposed" plans. Chairman Stonecipher administered the oath for David Rich. David Rich, 109 Meadowcreek Road, explained that his property is three-tiered, dropping off approximately 4-1/2 feet to the second tier where it levels off for about 25 feet, before dropping off a second time into the floodplain. Mr. Rich explained that the sanitary sewer easement is actually located on the second level. Ms. Rich distributed photos of other homes in the neighborhood that have garages located near the property line, several of which are located on Meadowcreek Road. She also reported that she spoke with Mr. VanNess, the owner of the professional building, and he indicated that he did not have a problem with the sideyard setback variance request. Mr. Rich reiterated that traffic noise is a major problem at all hours of the day and night, adding that, as for the stucco portion of the request, they are simply wanting to maintain the existing architectural look of their home. Chairman Stonecipher asked the applicants for specific conditions that would qualify as a hardship, and whether or not alternative plans had been considered that would not require a sideyard variance. Mr. and Mrs. Rich indicated that they considered other possibilities, but were limited, due to the three-tiered backyard slope and the sanitary sewer easement. The hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was George Dixon, of 153 Meadowcreek Road. Mr. Dixon indicated that he plans to help the Rich family with their proposed remodeling project, noting that they looked at a lot of different ways to add a garage, but consideration also had to be given to saving a 24- inch Pecan tree in front of the garage, and another nearby Oak tree. He noted that it would be virtually impossible to place the garage addition at the rear of the garage, due to the slope of the lot, and the existing tight turning radius to access the garage. No one spoke in opposition to the variance request. Chairman Stonecipher asked if any safety issues would result if a variance were granted to allow the 2-ft. sideyard setback. Greg Jones responded that he couldn't foresee any safety issues, especially considering the large expanse of flat parking space between the commercial building and 109 Meadowcreek Road. Chairman Stonecipher asked if this would limit Fire Department access along the west side of the house, and Greg Jones indicated that they would prefer to have 3 feet, but 2 feet is workable. Greg Jones further commented that the Fire Marshal reviewed this proposal and didn't foresee a problem. Commissioner Perschbacher asked if there would be living space above the garage, and Mrs. Rich indicated that there would not be. Commissioner Wright asked the applicants how they would feel about limiting the variance to the first floor, to avoid future possibilities, and they indicated that would be acceptable. The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Chomiak asked that the variance requests be divided into two separate motions. Commissioner Wright made a motion to grant the variance to allow stucco on the exterior of the proposed 700 sq. ft. room and garage addition. Commissioner Perschbacher asked if the motion should be clarified with "if approved", since the sideyard variance had not yet been voted on. It was decided that the motion should be amended to read, "proposed addition", replacing "proposed 700 sq. ft. room and garage addition". Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Discussion continued on the sideyard variance issue. Relating to the hardship and intent, Commissioner Wright commented that the challenges presented with the elevation changes and location of the sanitary sewer easement, this cannot be considered a typical lot. He added that the professional office building also provides an unusual condition. Commissioner LeGros commented that no real property hardship exists, since a reasonable use of the property is still allowed. He noted, however, that the spirit of the Ordinance would not be harmed by granting this variance, primarily because of its logistics to the commercial property. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that he also could not see a property hardship associated with this request. The lot does have a reasonable use, and the homeowners purchased the property only five years ago, fully aware of the driveway turning radius and other limiting conditions of the property. He noted that he felt the adjoining commercial property puts this request in a slightly different view, and perhaps that's enough to offset the lack of a property hardship. Chairman Stonecipher commented that although this is a very large lot, the extra space cannot be fully utilized due to the easement and elevations, so the applicant's proposed plan is probably the most practical way to make the highest and best use of this property. He noted, also, that the visual impact, from the front, will remain the same and will not be inconsistent with the neighboring properties. Commissioner Chomiak commented that although this hardship is self-imposed by the desire of the homeowners to increase the square footage of their house, this is probably the best solution, and it does not appear that it will have a negative impact on anyone else. He added that because there are no residential neighbors on the south and west of this lot, he did not feel that granting this variance would violate the intent of the Ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to grant the request for an 8-ft. variance to the 10-ft. sideyard setback on the west side of the lot, with the stipulation that the proposed addition be limited to a single story. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Other Business. None. Adiournment. Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Perschbacher. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary