Loading...
BM 2006-05-04 BOA MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2006 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance:Absent: Mark LeGros, Vice ChairmanDavid Stonecipher, Chairman John Hoppie, CommissionerRob Chomiak, Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, CommissionerLawrence Swicegood, Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Jon Holzheimer, Alternate CommissionerAlso present: Judy Malone, Alternate CommissionerGreg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Mr. Anthony Christian, 935 Laguna Drive Mr. Edward White, 629 Westminster Way Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman LeGros. Commissioners Ketchum and Holzheimer were invited to serve on the board in the absence of Commissioners Stonecipher and Chomiak. Item 2:Approval of minutes of April 6, 2006, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie and seconded by Commissioner Perschbacher to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2006, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved, 5 to 0. The oath was administered by Vice Chairman LeGros for those wishing to speak at the public hearing. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-35-2(A)2.iii of 935 Laguna Drive the City of Coppell’s Zoning Ordinance for the property located at . Mr. Anthony Christian is requesting a 6-ft. variance to the 10-ft. rear yard setback to allow for the construction of a pergola 4 feet from the rear property line, as a way to partially mask the view of the adjoining Kroger store and drive-thru pharmacy, in this SF-7 zoned district. 1 Greg Jones explained that this is a rear yard setback variance request for the construction of an accessory building. He noted that pictures of the backyard are included with the application, and it shows the approximate location of the finished structure. He explained that there isn’t an alley adjacent to the Christians’ property, and their property line just happens to be a zoning district boundary line, dividing single family residential and commercial uses. He added that the Kroger store has a 10-ft. landscape buffer just on the other side of the screening wall, and there’s 30 feet beyond that dedicated to parking. Greg Jones further explained that the Zoning Ordinance is designed to protect the less dense residential use from the commercial use. Therefore, the commercial use is required to be screened from the residential property. He noted that the purpose of the 10-ft. setback is that the accessory structures will not be placed too close to their neighboring properties. He added that the variance request and strict application of the Ordinance are really designed to protect one property from another, but in this particular case, the real need is to protect Mr. Christian from the Kroger store. In addition, Greg Jones also reported that Gary Sieb, of the Planning Dept., informed him that the Kroger Store plans to paint their white Pharmacy canopy red to match their brick. Commissioner Perschbacher asked about the structure under construction to the south of Mr. Christian’s property and Greg Jones responded that it has been permitted, and is located within the setbacks. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Anthony Christian reported that the proposed pergola would be designed to provide an aesthetic buffer between his property and the adjoining Kroger store/pharmacy. Referring to the pictures, he reported that the houses, adjacent to his, have much larger trees along the perimeter and therefore mask the store much better. The original trees planted along his perimeter, however, were slow-growing varieties and didn’t meet the design specifications. Furthermore, of the six trees originally planted along his perimeter, four died within the first year. He indicated that he had to work with Kroger management for five years to get them replaced, and finally the trees were replaced just six months ago. He noted that although they promised to provide replacement trees that were similar in caliper to the existing trees of the neighbors on both sides, they actually planted much smaller trees, as the pictures reveal. As a result, Mr. Christian commented that it would be another five years before they will see any benefit from those new trees. Mr. Christian added that his house is the only one that has an unprotected view of the Kroger store, not to mention that he’s directly behind the speaker for the pharmacy drive-thru window. He commented that his reason for constructing the pergola is to buffer the southeast corner of his yard from the noise and visual distraction of Kroger. He further commented that if he constructed the pergola at the 10-ft. setback, it would encroach into the yard so much that it would practically render the play area useless, considering the location of the pool, and the way the rear property line angles at the back. Mr. Christian further commented that his neighbors to the south just built a large gazebo, so they won’t even be able to see the pergola from their yard. Furthermore, the neighbors to the north won’t be affected at all by the location of the pergola, and certainly, Kroger won’t be affected. Lastly, Mr. Christian indicated that he had lived at this location since 1995, noting that when he was considering purchasing this lot, he went to the Planning Department, three times, and was told, each time, that the adjoining commercial property was no longer owned by Kroger, but had been sub-divided into three parcels, one of which was already permitted for a daycare center. Approximately two years later, when the Kroger store began construction, Mr. Christian inquired again, and was told by the Planning 2 Department that there had been a zoning change, and Kroger had re-purchased the property. Mr. Christian concluded, however, that he later learned from Kroger top management that the property had never been sold or subdivided, as had been claimed, but that Kroger had actually owned it all along, dating back to the late 1980’s. 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 LeGros commented that he felt the visual impact from Kroger has been significant, adding that he feels a hardship is legitimate in this situation. Commissioner Perschbacher agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Holzheimer to grant the variance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 4: Public Hearingto consider approval of a variance request from Section 9-2-6(B) of the 629 Westminster Way City of Coppell’s Code of Ordinances for the property located . Mr. Edward White is requesting a 2-ft. variance to the 5-ft. alley setback to allow his fence to be placed on the inside edge of the retaining wall along the alley in this SF-7 zoned district. Greg Jones explained that this applicant requested a permit to rebuild his fence, and in doing so, wishes to place the fence right on the inside edge of the retaining wall along the alleyway. Referring to the picture included in the packet, Greg Jones provided history on how the fence requirements developed. He explained that subdivisions were originally designed with 20-ft. wide alley rights-of-way to allow for fences on rear property lines, as well ample space for trash trucks to maneuver. Then, as property became more expensive, alley rights-of-way were reduced to 15 feet, and fence requirements were rewritten to read that fences could not be constructed closer than 5 feet of the alley pavement. Greg Jones explained that in this situation, Mr. White’s retaining wall was most likely constructed right on his property line at the alley, or very close to it. He noted that he spoke to the Streets Department and the retaining wall is not illegal, adding that if someone’s car scraped against the wall, for example, it would be a civil matter. In addition, he reported that his office is unable to approve a fence permit that violates the required 5-ft. alley pavement setback. In addition, Greg Jones distributed a copy of a letter received in opposition to the variance request, in which the issue of visibility was the primary concern. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his variance request. Ed White explained that the retaining wall is approximately 2-1/2 feet high, and the fence is 5 feet off the edge of the alley, and it does diverge somewhat as it approaches the curve to the east. He reported that because his fence is in disrepair, it was decided that this would be the perfect time to pursue the variance to accomplish two goals: 1) to eliminate the strip of property between the fence and retaining wall that doesn’t get watered and just grows up into weeds and looks unsightly; and 2) to position the bottom of the fence on the rock wall so the fence won’t decay as quickly. Mr. White commented that as he looked around the neighborhood, he noticed other property owners who had done the same thing with their fences. He explained that he’s not asking to move it inside the alley relative to the retaining wall, but just 3 wants to move it 18 inches or so, at the widest part, to be up on the retaining wall, making it part of the yard for maintenance purposes. In addition, Mr. White commented that it also becomes a safety concern when he’s using a power tool on top of the retaining wall. Mr. White presented a letter from John Pouwels, President of the Asbury Manor Homeowners Association, expressing support of the variance request. Vice Chairman LeGros asked if the yard had a slope to it, and Mr. White replied that it sloped toward the alley for drainage purposes, as well as back to the east. In regard to the neighbors down the alleyway, Commissioner Ketchum asked if any of their fences abut the retaining wall, and Mr. White responded that most of the fences that he has seen are set back. He added that most of the homes were built in 1997 and 1998, so most of the fences are still the original ones. He added that, for that reason, he wouldn’t be surprised if there would be others who are interested in pursuing the same type of variance. Commissioner Hoppie asked for clarification on the location of Mr. White’s garage, and Mr. White replied that his backyard is split, east and west, with a pool on the east side. Referring to the picture of the retaining wall, Commissioner Perschbacher asked the applicant to point out the approximate location of 637 Westminster Drive, when looking down the alleyway. Mr. White pointed out the approximate area, adding that the fence at that location is 4-ft., 8-in. from the edge of the alley. Commissioner Hoppie asked the applicant how he maintains the strip of green grass, and Mr. White responded that he uses the lawn mower at the widest part so that it looks evenly cut, and the weedeater is used for the remaining trimming. The hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of the variance request. Speaking in opposition to the variance request was Brad Anderson of 634 Graywood Lane. Mr. Anderson commented that a portion of his property backs up to the west side of the White’s property. He commented that his primary concern is visibility, particularly for neighbors backing out of their driveways. He commented that visibility is already an issue, and if this fence is allowed to further encroach on the alley, the visibility will be reduced even more. He commented, also, that because this neighborhood is now comprised of fences that are ten-plus years old, there will be a line-up of people wanting the same variance. Right now, the fences are within 4 inches of being uniform down the alley. Regarding the issue of backing out of driveways, Mr. Anderson commented that on the Westminster side, the residents have extremely steep driveways. He added that as people are backing down, they have zero visibility, they’re already angled to roll into the alley, and being on the curve makes it even more risky. The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Vice Chairman LeGros expressed his safety concerns, particularly for Mr. White, as he has to stand on the rock ledge and trim the grass. He noted that the retaining wall should originally have been set back to the fence line. He commented that he did not see that visibility would be a major issue, but it’s difficult to assess when you’re not actually there. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he generally agreed, with the exception of visibility. He noted that he felt that when a person is backing up, they have to back up an additional 18 inches before they can 4 clearly see, and moving this fence would further hinder that visibility. He noted, however, that the ledge is a safety issue. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that in trying to visualize the sight lines, the fence would impair vision for a person trying to back out into the alley. He noted, however, that no matter what is done with the fence, the ledge would probably always remain an attractive climbing place for children. In addition, he commented that he could not find a property hardship in this situation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holzheimer and a vote was taken. Motion did not pass, 5 to 0. Variance request denied. Other Business . None. Adjournment. Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Perschbacher. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. _________________________________ David Stonecipher, Chairman _________________________________ Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary 5 6