Loading...
BM 2006-09-07 BOA MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, September 7, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: David Stonecipher, ChairmanJon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner Mark LeGros, Vice ChairmanLaura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, CommissionerJudy Malone, Alternate Commissioner Robert Chomiak, CommissionerLawrence Swicegood, Alternate Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Commissioner Also present:Applicants present: Greg Jones, Chief Building OfficialMichael Keeley, 417 Carter Drive, Coppell Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Bruce Bernbaum, 4645 N. Central Expressway, Dallas Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Item 2:Approval of minutes of August 3, 2006, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros and seconded by Commissioner Hoppie to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2006, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved, 5 to 0. The oath was administered by Chairman Stonecipher for those wishing to speak at the public hearing. Item 3: PublicHearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-11-3-1(A) of 417 Carter Drive the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the property located at , to allow for the construction of a new home. Michael and Janice Keeley are requesting a 9-ft. variance to the previously approved 44-ft. platted front yard setback, to accommodate the floor plan their architect has designed for this SF-12 zoned lot. Greg Jones explained that this parcel was platted in the mid-70s when a 50-ft. front yard setback was the rule. He added, however, that in more recent years, SF-12 zoned properties maintain 30-ft. front yard setbacks as dictated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, explaining why some lots along Carter and Christi have differing front yard setback requirements, depending on when the construction took place. He reported, also, that the Board heard a variance request for this address in December 2003. At that time, the applicant planned to do modifications and additions to the home and was granted a 6-ft. front yard variance, resulting in a 44-ft. front yard setback. Those modifications were never made, however, due to the fact that the house was found to have extensive foundation and termite damage. The applicant, therefore, has decided to demolish the existing house and completely rebuild. That decision, as Greg Jones further explained, led the applicant to choose a rambling ranch-style design built around the existing pool and with the goal of saving as many of the existing trees as possible. But, to accommodate this particular home design, he noted that the applicant needs an additional 9-ft. variance to the previously approved 44-ft. platted front yard setback. He reported, also, that the lot slopes, considerably, to the west. Greg Jones reported that he had available the file from the December 2003 Board of Adjustment hearing, as well as the 1998 swimming pool permit, for any board members wishing to view those documents. He also made available to the board members an enlarged copy of the proposed architectural sketch of the lot. Commissioner Chomiak asked if the existing garage is located beyond the setbacks in the back, and Greg Jones responded that it appears that it might be located beyond the setback. He added that this house is old enough that it could have had a reduction in setback, during a period of time in the early 90’s and late 80’s, when certain structures were allowed to have more of a reduced setback than the main structure. Commissioner LeGros asked about the 50-ft. setback versus the Zoning Ordinance, now that the house is being demolished, and Greg Jones responded that the Zoning Ordinance has been modified over the years, but this particular lot was platted with a 50-ft. setback, and that supercedes the Zoning Ordinance. He noted, however, that there are some homes in that neighborhood that have been built with a 30-ft. setback. Commissioner Hoppie asked if it would be possible for this lot to be replatted, and Greg Jones responded that it would be possible, but he had not discussed it with the Planning Department. Commissioner Perschbacher asked for clarification on whether the homes in the general vicinity of Christi Lane and Carter Circle were subject to the same 50-ft. front yard setbacks. Referring to the location map, Greg Jones responded that the lots have the same 50-ft. setback line, until you go south and east on Carter Drive and you begin to see the 30-ft. setback. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mike Keeley, 417 Carter Drive, explained that his house was built in the late 70’s as a country lane style of home, so there are no sidewalks, and all of the lots are a minimum of one acre in size. He noted that there were two phases in the development of this neighborhood. In the first phase, developed prior to the establishment of the Zoning Ordinance, lots were platted with 50-ft. setbacks, whereas the second phase was developed only within the past 5 or 6 years, using the Zoning Ordinance SF-12 guideline, which calls for 30-ft. front yard setbacks. Mr. Keeley explained that when he and his wife first moved into their house on Carter Drive eight or nine years ago, they knew they wanted to expand and remodel, and that was still their plan when they first came to Board of Adjustment in 2003. Since then, however, he reported that they’ve spent a lot of time and money on architectural plans, and finally came to the realization that it was not feasible to pursue an expansion and remodel, considering the foundation and termite damage. The decision was made to rebuild. Mr. Keeley noted that their primary goal was to select a house design that would conform to the style of the neighborhood, while also allowing them to keep their existing swimming pool. He commented that they struggled with various house plans, but each one was rejected because it was either a massive two-story design or it was located within just a few feet of the pool. He noted that finally he found Mr. Bernbaum’s architectural firm, which designed the current plan, mindful of the following property hardships: irregular pie-shaped lot; position of existing swimming pool; huge slope of the property to the west; high water table; one adjoining neighbor who requested that the two-story portion of the home not be built in the area where it would overlook their pool; and, the need to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Keeley noted that all of his neighbors have now signed a petition indicating their agreement with this current house plan, and they understand the variance request. He reported that many of them felt that the 50-ft. setback is now outdated. Mr. Keeley also reported that, with this new design, the garage will actually be brought within the required 20-ft. rear yard setback. In conclusion, Mr. Keeley explained that this design maintains the estate, country-style look, which is very important to him and his wife. He noted that they made every attempt to keep the variance request to a minimum. Regarding re-platting, he explained that he was advised by a title company attorney to pursue the Board of Adjustment route, rather than re-platting. Mr. Keeley distributed the petition containing signatures of his neighbors. Chairman Stonecipher asked about topography and the amount of slope on the west side, and Mr. Keeley indicated that it’s an approximate 25-ft. drop-off. Commissioner Perschbacher asked about the square footage of the new home design, and Mr. Keeley replied that it is 5,000 square feet, whereas their current home is 3,200 square feet. He added that his new home would be at the low end of those in this neighborhood, with regard to size. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the distance to the property line, and Mr. Keeley replied that it is 8 feet. Chairman Stonecipher asked if any of the additions had been done utilizing the previously approved variance, and Mr. Keeley indicated that they had not been done. Referring to the previous variance request, Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on the location of the existing house. Mr. Keeley explained that when he bought the house, part of it was over the 50-ft. building line, and for that reason, he had to obtain special title insurance. Chairman Stonecipher asked to review previous architectural options. Mr. Keeley provided those drawings, commenting that the problem with most of those plans was that they placed the house much too close to the pool. Commissioner Perschbacher commented that a 25-ft. slope is extraordinary, asking if a portion of the house was being built into that slope. Mr. Keeley explained that they would definitely have to build a portion of the house within that sloping area, because there’s no way to totally avoid it. He added, however, that they’re attempting to avoid the section with the greatest slope, and that’s one of the challenges. Bruce Bernbaum, of Bernbaum-Magadini Architects, reported that the slope is actually a 14-ft. change in elevation, based on the survey they received. Commissioner Peschbacher commented that although Mr. Keeley spoke of the slope as being an impediment, he is also choosing to build a portion of his home within the sloped area, so it must not be considered that much of a hardship. Mr. Keeley responded that he is building only within a portion of the gradual sloped area, but not in the area of greatest slope. Mr. Bernbaum reported that they concentrated on designing a one-story residence, but, in doing so, the footprint moved further and further into the slope, so they backed off and put two bedrooms up over the northern portion of the design on the east side of the house. By making a small portion of the house two-story, they were able to mostly stay out of the sloped area, and it becomes more economical, with less cut and fill. Commissioner Perschbacher asked about centering the house on the lot, and Mr. Keeley explained that the existing house is angled differently but they’re still planning to use the same part of the property for the new home, as for the existing home. Commissioner Perschbacher further asked how many of the design problems might be attributable to the house being a 5,000 square feet, and Mr. Keeley answered that it’s true that he would not have these problems with a smaller home. He explained, however, that the existing house is very old and worn out with serious foundation problems, and as long as they’re rebuilding, they want to build a home with a square footage comparable to at least that of the low-end homes of their neighborhood. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. Commissioner Chomiak asked when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and Greg Jones replied that it was adopted in 1983, but underwent revisions over the years. Chairman Stonecipher asked what would be considered, today, as the front yard setback if there was nothing on this parcel. Greg responded that if the house was torn down, the 44-ft. front yard setback line would remain, and it would not revert back to the 50-ft. platted front yard setback line. The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner LeGros commented that the Board is here to enforce the Zoning Ordinance, being mindful of its duties and limitations. He felt that other alternatives might be available to this applicant, adding that, in his opinion, replatting might make the most sense. Commissioner Hoppie commented that perhaps this applicant is trying to do too much with too little. He added, however, that the slope of the land is significant, and the encroachment is minor, but the location of the swimming pool is a self-imposed hardship. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he felt, overall, that the applicant is encumbered by slopes and trees, and is further hindered by an antiquated ordinance. Commissioner Perschbacher indicated that although he felt the hardships outlined by the applicant are self-imposed, he places a lot of weight on the positive response from the neighbors. He emphasized that his major concern is that this is not a final drawing, adding that if you look at where those neighboring houses are located, relative to the setback, the 9-ft. setback could actually be anywhere along that front setback line. Chairman Stonecipher commented that he did not believe the variance request is contrary to public interest. He concurred that the applicant did a good job of contacting his neighbors, adding that he, also, places a lot of weight on the response from neighbors. Commissioner Chomiak commented that he could not see any hardship issue other than possibly the topography. Overall, he indicated that he did not believe that granting this request would be a negative issue for Coppell. Motion was made by Vice Chairman LeGros to grant the variance request. Motion was amended by Chairman Stonecipher to read that “the variance be granted, as drawn on the architect’s sketch included in the packet”. Commissioner Hoppie seconded the motion, as amended, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Other Business. None. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned. ____________________________________ David Stonecipher, Chairman ____________________________________ Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary