BM 2005-07-07 BOA
MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2005
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City ofCoppell met on Thursday, July 7,2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance:
David Stonecipher, Chairman
Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman
Rob Chomiak, Commissioner
Don Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner
John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner
Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner
Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner
Ab sent:
David Terry, Commissioner
Steve Wright, Commissioner
Also present:
Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary
Applicant present:
Gary Sieb, 229 Meadowcreek Road
Item 1:
Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Commissioners Perschbacher and
Holzheimer were invited to serve on the Board, in the absence of Commissioners Terry and Wright.
Item 2:
Approval of minutes of May 5, 2005 meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros and seconded by Commissioner Holzheimer to approve the
minutes of the May 5,2005, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved by a vote of 5 to
O.
The oath was administered by Chairman Stonecipher for those wishing to speak at the public hearing.
Item 3:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Sections 12-11-3.1 (A) and
12-11-3.1 (B) of the City of Coppell's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 229
Meadowcreek Road, in Coppel!. Mr. Gary Sieb is requesting a two-part variance, as
follows:
1) a 2- ft. variance to the required 10- ft. sideyard setback on the east property line
to allow for the construction of a carport; and
2) a 20-ft., 2-in. ::!: variance to the 30-ft. required front yard setback on the north
property line to allow for the construction of a porte-cochere.
Referring to the plot plan, Greg Jones explained the set-up for this property, noting that there is a circular
driveway in the front, as well as a driveway on the east side of the property that dead-ends into the
backyard fence and makes a 90-degree turn into a garage. He noted that the applicant has drawings,
1
elevations, and pictures that will help explain his request, but, he is requesting open carports at both
locations, built to match the masonry of his existing house. He noted that this is a fairly large lot with
mature trees, and, by Ordinance, requires a 10-1/2 ft. sideyard setback and a 30-ft. front yard setback.
Greg Jones reported that he talked with the applicant about the feasibility of constructing a similar 20-ft.
by 22-ft. carport at the front of the garage behind the front building line and within the sideyard setback,
but the applicant indicated that this open area is currently used as a basketball court. Greg Jones reported
that this oversize lot slopes somewhat to the rear, has mature trees in the front yard, and is one of the
larger lots in the City, all of which add to its appeal and rural-feel. He noted that any variance granted
should complement and not disturb the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He noted that Staff is concerned
that there is a location on this lot where a carport could be constructed without the need for a variance.
Greg Jones distributed copies of one letter received in opposition to the variance request, as well as a
rebuttal submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Perschbacher asked if there would be room in that sideyard for a one-stall parking space in
the sideyard, and Greg Jones responded that the Zoning Ordinance defines the size of a parking space as
9-ft. wide, and that particular sideyard is 21-ft. wide, which means they could construct a smaller carport
in that location and still meet the sideyard requirement.
Commissioner Perschbacher asked if the front yard trees would be affected by the tree ordinance, and
Greg Jones responded that on residential lots, homeowners can remove trees at will.
The applicant was invited to come forward to present his case.
Gary Sieb, of 229 Meadowcreek Road, distributed updated brochures containing a petition signed by
neighbors in the immediate vicinity of his home indicating their support of the variance request. He also
distributed large-scale drawings of the property.
Mr. Sieb indicated that the letter received in opposition was written by a homeowner who lives
approximately 1/4 mile away, and, those issues were all discussed in the rebuttal letter.
Mr. Sieb indicated that the large drawings show the elevations, dimensions, and building materials of the
carport and porte-cochere.
Regarding the carport on the east side, Mr. Sieb reported that he requesting a 2-ft. variance that still
exceeds SF -12 minimum sideyard setbacks of 8 feet, commenting that his neighbor's house on that side is
over 25 feet from the location of his proposed carport. He noted that there is also a 6-ft. solid screening
fence on the property line adjacent to that property. Also, referring to the pictures in the brochure, Mr.
Sieb pointed out that there is an 8- to 10-ft. evergreen plant that will screen this carport from the neighbor
and those traveling down Meadowcreek Road.
Regarding the porte-cochere, Mr. Sieb commented that although a 21-ft. variance may seem like an
excessive variance, the Board, by Ordinance, has the liberty to grant any setback variance, not contrary to
the public interest, if anyone of the following three conditions is met: 1) irregular lot shape; 2) an
unusual topographic condition; and 3) condition(s) are present which would help minimize the variance.
Mr. Sieb named all three conditions as being present in his situation: 1) an irregular shape at the rear of
his lot; 2) a drop in elevation of28 feet from the street level to the rear of the property; and 3) heavy
landscaping to help screen the proposed porte-cochere from the street. He indicated that the rural feel of
2
the neighborhood would be protected, noting that the porte-cochere would be set back 25 feet from the
street, and to further lessen its impact, would be approximately 4 ft. lower than the street, due to the
natural slope of the lot. Mr. Sieb indicated that the adjoining property owners would not be affected by
granting the variance, adding that he was able to contact all but one of his immediate neighbors. Of those
contacted, all signed his petition in support of the variance requests. The updated petition is enclosed in
the packets.
Mr. Sieb further reported that he is not planning to remove any trees from his property. He reported, also,
that he is not purchasing pre-packaged carport structures, but rather, will be constructing architecturally
designed structures to complement his existing home.
Chairman Stonecipher asked that the two variance requests be discussed separately, beginning with the
sideyard carport.
Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on why the sideyard variance is even needed if it meets the
8-ft. sideyard requirement. Mr. Sieb responded that in a SF-12 district, sideyard setbacks are 10 percent
of the lot width, but no less than 8 feet, adding that because his lot width is 105 feet, a 10-1/2 ft. sideyard
would technically be required.
Commissioner Holzheimer asked that because the clear width to the carport entry is 12 feet, 1-1/2 inches,
which is not enough space for parking two cars, why can't it be reduced by 2 feet? Mr. Sieb responded
that the additional space is needed to safely open car doors, according to the design information given him
by his architect.
Referring to topographical conditions, Commissioner Perschbacher asked if there was any other location
where the carport could be placed. Mr. Sieb replied that the only other location for the carport would be
in front of the garage, as mentioned earlier, and although that location is used as a basketball court, it's
primarily needed as a space for moving multiple cars in and out of the garage, since all cars are required
to be parked on an improved surface, such as a concrete driveway. Commissioner Perschbacher
commented, however, that this situation was created out of a desire for amenities, and not due to
topographic conditions.
Commissioner Chomiak asked if the existing concrete driveway on the east side, where the carport will
go, would change in width. Mr. Sieb responded that the driveway width will stay the same and the
concrete columns for the carport will be placed just outside that existing driveway.
Chairman Stonecipher turned the discussion to the porte-cochere, and the special conditions that the
Board can consider relating to granting variances, as emphasized by Mr. Sieb.
Chairman Stonecipher indicated that normally when these cases are heard, the irregular shape of the lot
has a direct impact on the structure being built. In this case, however, the only irregularity in the lot shape
is in the back of the lot and does not directly impact the proposed structure. Mr. Sieb indicated that he
generally agrees with that statement, but noted that the Board has discretion in their interpretations.
Regarding topographic conditions, Chairman Stonecipher asked if the 4-ft. change in elevation from the
street level to the porte-cochere location would be significant enough to make a difference. Mr. Sieb
responded that if the 21-ft. variance were granted, the image of the scale of the porte-cochere would be
reduced, since the house is 23 feet high and the porte-cochere would be 16 feet high.
3
Commissioner LeGros commented that it's always been customary for this Board to grant variances based
on property hardships that are unique to the property, not self-imposed, and not financial in nature. He
asked Mr. Sieb to explain the actual property hardship in this situation. Mr. Sieb explained that he felt the
hardship was the condition of being deprived of doing what he'd like to do on his property, adding that
it's a personal hardship, because he's not able increase the value of his property.
Commissioner Holzheimer asked for clarification of the applicant's rationale that the narrow streets with
no sidewalks neutralize the impact of the porte-cochere. Mr. Sieb explained that the typical street is 27
feet wide, with curb/gutter, and 5-ft. sidewalk, all of which represent a horizontal plane. However, on a
street with no curb/gutter or sidewalk, cars are much further from the property line than the typical
neighborhood. Therefore, the appearance from the street is that the porte-cochere is further away.
Commissioner LeGros asked for clarification of the front property line, and Mr. Sieb clarified the
location.
The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance
requests.
The meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant a 2-ft. variance to required 10-ft. sideyard setback on
the east property line to allow for the construction of a carport. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Chomiak and a vote was taken. Motion did not pass, 3 to 2, with Commissioners Perschbacher and
Holzheimer voting in opposition. Variance was not granted.
Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant a 20-ft., 2-in.::!: variance to the 30-ft. required front
yard setback on the north property line to allow for the construction of a porte-cochere. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Chomiak and a vote was taken. Motion did not pass, 0 to 5 . Variance was
not granted.
Other Business.
None.
Adjournment.
David Stonecipher, Chairman
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary
4