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