Loading...
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