Loading...
BM 2006-01-05 BOA MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2006 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City ofCoppell met on Thursday, January 5,2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: David Stonecipher, Chairman Rob Chomiak, Commissioner John Hoppie, Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner Lawrence Swicegood, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Greg Yancey, 722 S. Denton Tap Rd., Coppell Mark Wainscott, 3030 LBJ Freeway, Dallas Ab sent: Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman Judy Malone, Alternate Commissioner Item 1: Call to Order. Commissioner Ketchum was invited to serve on the board in the absence of Vice Chairman LeGros. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Item 2: Approval of minutes of November 3, 2005, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Perschbacher and seconded by Commissioner Hoppie to approve the minutes of the November 3,2005, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved,S 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 variance requests to the City's Zoning Ordinance, as follows, for the property located at 215 S. Denton Tap Road (Wynnpage Plaza North): 1) Section I2-34-8(C): Deleting the perimeter landscaping requirement for Lots 1 and 2, Block B; 2) Section I2-23-3(B): Allowing a minimum II-ft. sideyard setback for Lot 2, Block B; and 3) Section I2-23-3(A)(B): Allowing a minimum II-ft. front / sideyard setback for Lot 1, Block B. The request is made by Mr. John Gesek and Mr. Greg Yancey, representing SCI-Wynnpage, Phase I and II, L.P. 1 Greg Jones explained that this request resulted from the title company placing a restriction on the property, after the development had already been fully planned, that each building must be platted as a separate lot. As a result of dividing the parcel into two lots, each lot did not meet the Ordinance requirements for perimeter landscaping and setbacks. Greg Jones reported that he reviewed the plans for compliance and determined which variances were needed to bring the property into compliance. Greg Jones noted that this case was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council, adding that the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department was included in tonight's packet. He referred to page 3 of the staff report, in which the case was referred to the Board of Adjustment for consideration of the three variance requests. He noted that although it is a fairly complicated case, it has been recommended for approval, as two separate platted lots, by City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. He added that the applicant would need all three of these variances in order to develop this property the way it was originally planned. Greg Jones added he hadn't been furnished with drawings of the property, but perhaps the applicant would have drawings available to better explain the requests. Commissioner Ketchum asked if there's a width requirement, in addition to the height requirement, with regard to the perimeter landscaping. Greg Jones replied that there is a buffer width requirement. At the perimeter of any property, there's a IS-ft. front yard buffer and a IO-ft. side and rear yard buffer, as well as a requirement for plantings in parking areas. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Greg Yancey, representing SCI-Wynnpage, displayed a drawing of the property. He pointed out the 50-ft. wide gas easement that crosses the property. He noted that when they first met with Gary Sieb in the Planning Dept., their plan was to build the 3,500 sq. ft. building at the rear of the lot for John Gesek, and the partnership would own the front building for office/retail purposes. He noted that the City agreed to a meets and bounds description for the property, as did the property owner, Chicago Title. Mr. Yancey reported that they went through the entire development process on that premise, only to learn, in the final stage of closing on the property, that the attorneys in the downtown office of Chicago Title, would not close the deal without access to a public street for the back building. Therefore, the property had to be subdivided into two separate lots. Mr. Yancey indicated that he then came back to Gary Sieb and asked how he should proceed. Gary Sieb recommended that the process begin all over again, using the very same development plan as was originally approved by City Council and Planning and Zoning. It now has a property line drawn through the middle to subdivide it and allow the rear lot to have access to a public street. In doing so, however, the setbacks and perimeter landscaping on both lots are no longer in compliance with the Ordinance. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on which lot is #1 and #2. Chairman Stonecipher asked if the two buildings will be built at the same time, and whether the property line will ever be apparent to anyone. The applicant responded that the construction of the buildings will be simultaneous, and it will not be readily apparent that the two are separate lots; aesthetically, it will look like one development. Chairman Stonecipher asked about the section of property to the north, and Mr. Yancey responded that it's a mutual access road, as requested by Engineering, for use by the neighboring property owner, Mr. Ardinger, should he need to access his undeveloped property in the future. Commissioner Perschbacher asked for clarification on the perimeter landscaping that would be deleted. Mr. Yancey reported that he isn't actually deleting any landscaping, as shown on any plan, but needs a variance to reduce perimeter landscaping that would have been required by the Ordinance, due to the 2 addition of the property line. He noted that because these lots become irregular when the property line is drawn, it puts both lots out of compliance as far as the landscaping requirement is concerned. It was clarified that, through this request, the perimeter landscaping requirement would be maintained in all locations except where the two lots abut each other. Commissioner Perschbacher asked how the property was different before the property line was drawn, and Mr. Yancey replied that it was no different; it was completely identical except for the addition of the property line, which was needed to satisfy the title company's attorney. Commissioner Perschbacher expressed his concern that the phrasing of the first variance request could be interpreted to mean the deletion of all perimeter landscaping for the two lots. Other board members agreed, and it was decided that careful wording of the motion could help prevent such a misinterpretation. Commissioner Hoppie suggested that it could be clarified with the use of the phrase "perimeter landscaping between Lots 1 and 2", not only for the perimeter landscaping, but for the setbacks as well. Chairman Stonecipher emphasized that it's important to phrase the motions in such a way that there is no room for misinterpretation, as it applies to this property line. In regard to the setback requirements, Mr. Yancey commented that it would be nearly impossible to meet these newly revised sideyard setback requirements, without excessive redevelopment of the plans and major shrinkage of the proposed buildings. Commissioner Hoppie asked if the parking requirements were met for each building, and Mr. Yancey indicated that the development, as a whole, did meet the parking requirements. He further explained that at the end of the office/retail building, an 1,800 sq. ft. restaurant has been approved with an extended 1,000 sq. ft. patio area, adding that this restaurant even entered into a legal shared parking agreement with another property owner to insure adequate parking. Referring to the applicant's checklist, Commissioner Perschbacher asked the applicant about his answer to the question regarding usefulness of the property without the variance. Mr. Yancey responded that ifMr. Gesek hadn't purchased the property in the back, it would be incredibly difficult to sell off or use it any other way, adding that the gas easement also renders it very odd-shaped. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. The meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he felt comfortable with these variances if the motions were carefully worded. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that he, also, wanted to be certain that the language would be clear, as well as to be certain that the variances run with the property, and not with the ownership. Regarding the application and checklist, he commented that he felt this was simply a financial hardship, and not a property hardship. He noted that if the language is correct, he could support the request. Chairman Stonecipher asked if the board members felt a hardship exists, and Commissioner Perschbacher indicated that he did not feel that a property hardship exists, adding that he felt the applicant made this development choice. 3 Commissioner Ketchum commented that she felt the platting requirement, which was not self-imposed, created a hardship for the property owner. Chairman Stonecipher commented that combining the small piece of property in the back with the lot in front makes much more sense. Otherwise, he noted that this board would be dealing with many more variances, in the future, trying to make that smaller lot in the back development-worthy. Commissioner Perschbacher commented, however, that it was purely the applicant's choice to develop it the way they did, and, it was because of their choice on the use of the property that the platting issue surfaced, adding that it had nothing to do with the configuration of the parcel. The hearing was re-opened, and Greg Yancey was asked to return to the podium for clarification. Chairman Stonecipher asked if these were two separate legal pieces of property when they were purchased, or if they became such by virtue of the development process. Mr. Yancey indicated that this property was purchased as one parcel and it was never platted. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that he viewed it as one parcel, and as a result of the applicant's development plans, it is being re-platted into these two separate legal lots. It was decided that all three variance requests would be combined into one motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie that the three variance requests be granted, as follows for Block B: 1) deleting the perimeter landscape requirement for Lots 1 and 2, for the shared property line between the two lots, 2) allowing a minimum II-ft. sideyard setback line on the north side for Lot 2; and 3) allowing a minimum II-ft. front / sideyard setback on the east side for Lot 1. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 0, with Commissioner Perschbacher abstaining. Variances granted. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-23-5(4) of the City of Coppell's Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 136 Fitness Court, to permit glass to exceed the required 50 percent of the total area of anyone fa<;ade of a building. Mr. Mark Wainscott, the architect, is requesting the variance on behalf of Coppell Montessori Academy, to allow for the construction of a greenhouse. Greg Jones explained that this request has also gone through the Planning and Zoning and City Council approval process. He noted that this involves a small 240 sq. ft. greenhouse located at the back of the Montessori Academy. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that exterior construction be 80 percent masonry, exclusive of doors and windows, and in addition, restricts the amount of glazing to not more than 50 percent of the total area of anyone fa<;ade of a building. He further reported that in the case of a greenhouse, the glazing would exceed 50 percent. Referring to the site plan, Greg Jones pointed out the location of the proposed greenhouse. Like the previous case, he noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, followed by the City Council on December 13th, with the stipulation that it receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow glass to exceed 50 percent of the total area of anyone fa<;ade of the building. Greg Jones announced that, like the previous case, the Staff Report from the Planning Department is enclosed in the packet. 4 Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on where the greenhouse would be located. Greg Jones responded that it would be located at the rear of the building. Commissioner Perschbacher asked for further information on the orientation of the greenhouse, asking whether it would be visible from Denton Tap Road. It was clarified that it would not be clearly visible from Denton Tap, due to the location ofWachovia Bank and the Market at Town Center retail strip center. Commissioner Hoppie asked if there is a provision for greenhouses in the Ordinance, and Greg Jones responded that, in this particular zoning, there is not, adding that it was probably done to keep the glass boxes of the '80s from developing in the City. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mark Wainscott explained that the greenhouse will be located in the northeast corner of the lot, adding that Wachovia Bank is to the east, Childrens' Courtyard is on the north, Market at Town Center is on the northeast, and Ballet Academy is on the south. He noted that the owner's intent is to add the greenhouse to their curriculum, and to do so, they need the variance. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. The meeting was opened to the board for discussion. Chairman Stonecipher asked if there would be a problem had this greenhouse been built on residential property, and Greg Jones indicated that there would have been no problem, due to the fact that it's a ZOnIng Issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to permit glass coverage to exceed 50 percent of the total area of any fa<;ade of a building. Upon recommendation by Chairman Stonecipher, motion was amended to include the stipulation that the variance apply only to the greenhouse at this address. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion carried,S to O. Variance granted. Other Business. None. Adjournment. Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Perschbacher. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried,S to O. Meeting adjourned. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary 5