Loading...
BM 2007-03-1 BOA MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2007 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance:Absent: Mark LeGros, ChairmanDon Perschbacher, Commissioner David Stonecipher, Vice ChairmanJon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, CommissionerJudy Malone, Alternate Commissioner Robert Chomiak, CommissionerHarold Copher, Alternate Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Also present:Applicants present: Greg Jones, Chief Building OfficialDon and Sharon Babcock, 407 Cambria Dr. Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Harvey Cunov, 413 E. Bethel School Rd. Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros. Commissioner Ketchum was appointed to serve on the board in the absence of Commissioner Perschbacher. Item 2:Approval of minutes of September 7, 2006, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher and seconded by Commissioner Ketchum to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2006, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved, 5 to 0. Item 3:Approval of minutes of October 5, 2006, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Commissioner Hoppie and seconded by Commissioner Stonecipher to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2006, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved, 5 to 0. The oath was administered by Chairman LeGros for those wishing to speak at the public hearing. Item 4: PublicHearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-35, of 407 Cambria the City of Coppell’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at Drive in Coppell. Ms. Sharon Babcock is requesting variances, as follows, to allow for the construction of a carport: a) 12+ ft. variance to the rear yard setback overhang requirements; b) a variance for the type of material used for the carport roof; and c) a variance from the requirements for masonry construction. Greg Jones explained that the applicant wishes to construct a carport at the rear of the property to protect vehicles from damage. He noted that the minimum setback of a carport accessed from an alley would be 20 feet. He noted that the existing garage, in this situation, is located about 28 feet from the rear property line, leaving only about 8 feet available for a carport. He further explained that the applicant wishes to use a cantilevered overhang. He noted that although some overhang is allowed, this extensive amount is not permitted. He noted, also, that roofing materials are normally restricted to those that match the materials of the main structure, and the use of tent material, canvas, or vinyl is not allowed. In addition, Greg Jones reported that structures exceeding 150 s.f. in area must be constructed of masonry that also closely matches the main structure. He reported that although open structures, such as gazebos, are exempt from this rule if they’re under 300 s.f., this particular open structure appears to be 400 s.f., according to the drawing which shows its size at approximately 16 x 27 feet. Greg Jones reported that the intent of the Ordinance is to require larger accessory structures, such as carports, to match the construction of the main structure. He noted that the applicant came prepared to describe their carport structure, adding that their type of roofing material has a projected life expectancy of about eight years, but emphasizing that there is no provision in the Ordinance for a canvas-type of material. In summary, Greg Jones noted that he could not find a true property hardship associated with this request, and therefore, Staff recommends denial. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Sharon Babcock, of 407 Cambria Drive, explained that when their home was built, it was set further back than any other home on their street, the reasons for which she is not aware. She explained that if their home had been built in line with the same setback as other homes on the block, they would have no problems building and supporting the type of carport that the City requires. However, due to the setback and easement issues, Ms. Babcock noted that they met with Mr. Jones and he suggested other options, but even those would not work due to the location of the easement and the position of the last pole. She noted that they’ve been searching for months for a solution to the easement problems, and this current proposal seemed to be the only one. Ms. Babcock reported that she has talked to their neighbors, and all have been in support of the proposed carport. Ms. Babcock presented her list of signatures from neighbors next door, across the street, and behind her property. In addition, Ms. Babcock reported that their house is brick-sided, and they have a backyard storage building with matching composition roofing. She further explained that with a composition roof on the carport, they have struggled to figure out a way to support the roof. She emphasized that they want to comply, and are willing to do what the City is requiring; they simply need some direction as to where to place the supports. Commissioner Stonecipher referred to the checklist that the applicant filed with her request, and asked about the location of the street versus the setback line. Ms. Babcock noted that the neighbor on one side of them is further forward. She noted that the rest of the houses in the neighborhood are at least a full-car length further forward. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that he wanted to determine how the Babcocks’ lot was different from those around it. He noted that Ms. Babcock’s house appears to be located on the lot the way it should be when you consider the shape of the cul-de-sac. He noted that everyone surrounding them had to apply the same 25-ft. building line. He commented that the house is probably further back simply because of the way the street curves. Ms. Babcock replied that she assumed the original property owners probably decided where the house should be built. Chairman LeGros asked who is responsible for determining where a house is placed on a lot, and Greg Jones responded that the Zoning Ordinance dictates the setbacks and the general contractor makes decisions based on that. Commissioner Hoppie commented that, from the enclosed copies of the zoning maps in the packet, it would appear that because of the cul-de-sac, this lot is shorter, having a 97-ft. depth compared to 131-ft. depth for the neighbor to the east. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if the structure would be visible on the other side of the greenbelt, and Ms. Babcock replied that it would not. She noted that the view of their proposed carport would be completely blocked not just by their 10-ft. high storage shed, but by trees and by the neighbor’s pool house. She added that, currently, they are not able to see the people on the other side of the greenbelt, from their house. Chairman LeGros administered the oath for Donald Babcock, enabling him to provide testimony during the hearing. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the issue of roof supports, and Donald Babcock explained that if utility vehicles, for example, had to back up and get into the easement, one of the corner support posts would be an obstruction. He added that he attempted to design a plan that would allow him to stay within the guidelines as much as possible, and request only a minimal variance. To further answer Commissioner Chomiak’s question, Greg Jones reported that the variance is driven by where the supports are located. He further added that the determination of the variances was simply an estimate of how he viewed the situation. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that it would be best if the applicant could build the carport in such a way to make it look more like an extension of the house, adding that he felt that the applicant’s first intention was to do that. He further commented that this proposed solution seems to have resulted from the way the roof is cantilevered, which, in effect, drew more variances. Ms. Babcock agreed, but emphasized that the determination of what type of roof can be built hinges on where the last pole can be placed; it’s from that point that the amount of support can be determined. She added that supporting 4 to 6 feet is very different from supporting 8 feet, including the weight of shingles. Discussion continued on the amount of the variance, if one is granted for less than 12 feet. It was also stipulated that the support poles must be of masonry construction. Commissioner Hoppie asked for clarification on the regulations of parking cars in a driveway, and Greg Jones provided an explanation. Commissioner Chomiak asked that if a variance is granted, should it be done specifically for a carport only, so that in the future, it cannot be converted into a garage. Greg Jones indicated that it probably should be phrased specifically for a carport, to be accurate. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public. Chairman LeGros indicated that each variance would be considered separately. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to grant an 8-ft. variance to the rear yard setback overhang requirements, to allow for the construction of an open carport. Motion was seconded by John Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Chairman LeGros voting in opposition. Variance granted. Commissioner Stonecipher indicated that parts (B) and (C) would be combined into one motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to grant the variance to allow for the use of carport roof material other than composition shingles, and to allow the use of materials other than masonry construction. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry by a vote of 5 to 0. Variances to the roofing material and masonry requirements were denied. Item 5: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 11-3- 413 1(A)(B) of the City of Coppell’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at E. Bethel School Road in Coppell. Ms. Lisa Cunov is requesting an approximate 14-ft. variance to the required 24-ft., 0-in. sideyard setback on the east side of the property in this SF-12 zoned district, to allow for the construction of a proposed carport. Greg Jones indicated that measurements were taken on this property, and the rule of 10 percent of the lot width is the controlling factor to determine the minimum sideyard setback. In this case, it was decided that 24 feet must be maintained as the sideyard setback. He explained that the applicant is requesting that the sideyard setback be reduced by 14 feet, to allow for the construction of a carport, leaving a sideyard setback of approximately 10 feet, 4 inches. He reported that the applicant really does not have room for this proposed carport, and there doesn’t appear to be a property hardship associated with the request. He explained that when the property owners first constructed their house, they were fully aware of the topographical conditions of the property, and were granted a variance allowing them to construct a three-story house conducive with the sloping topography. Furthermore, he noted that this family already has four enclosed parking spaces, which exceeds the two required parking spaces for Coppell. Greg Jones commented that although the property has some unusual topographical constraints, this particular request is self-imposed and a matter of convenience. Therefore, staff recommends denial. Referring to the topographical map in the packet, Commissioner Stonecipher asked for clarification. Commissioner Chomiak further asked why the building line on the west was larger than the one on the east, and Greg Jones clarified the locations of the building lines, adding that the one on the west side was probably designed to be a drainage area. Chairman LeGros asked for clarification on which of the lines, shown on the map, would be the setback lines, and Greg Jones indicated that the map was not large enough or clear enough for him to accurately determine where the setback lines would actually be. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the SF-12 zoning guideline, in which 8 feet or 10 percent of lot width, whichever is greater, is used to determine sideyard setback, and Greg reiterated those terms of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Harvey Cunov, of 413 E. Bethel School Road, explained that the drainage from the Duck Pond is designed in such a way that it’s meant to spread out. Therefore, when the house was originally built, they were not allowed to bring in any more fill dirt because it would affect the drainage. Therefore, the house was built on the lot as far to the east as possible so as not to interfere with the Duck Pond drainage issue. He noted that the property hardship is definitely the slope of the land, and there’s no other location on the property to locate a carport. Chairman LeGros asked if a carport could be built along the back, and Mr. Cunov indicated that it was considered as a first choice, but the architect warned that the drop-off was too severe and would require an upward stair-step. Commissioner Chomiak asked about the distance from the Cunov house to the neighbor’s house on the east side, and Mr. Cunov responded that he only knew it was 25 feet from the edge of his house to their fence, adding that they have a huge backyard. Commissioner Stonecipher asked when the first variance request was granted, and if this carport was considered at that time. Mr. Cunov responded that it was approximately three and a half years ago when the first variance was granted, and the carport was not under consideration at that time. Commissioner Hoppie asked if the neighbor located immediately to the east had signed the statement that had been circulated indicating approval of the carport, and Mr. Cunov indicated that they did sign, and their address is 501 Rolling Hills Road. Commissioner Chomiak commented that although he does not see a true hardship in this situation and would find it difficult to justify approval of the carport, there are issues with the lot that make it difficult to fully use the property. Commissioner Hoppie commented that this appears to be one of those situations in which people try to do too much on a lot. Commissioner Ketchum commented that although the lot is unique and unlike any other lots around it, she struggles with the absence of a property hardship. Chairman LeGros commented that he felt the property can still be reasonably used without granting the variance. He added that the hardship is actually self-imposed, due to the fact that the size of the house is large and is taking up all of the useable space that the lot has to offer, not to mention that the applicant already has four enclosed parking spaces. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that since the frontage is based on the width of the lot, it is an unusually wide lot, partially due to the fact that a section of it is drainage area for the Duck Pond, and is, therefore, unbuildable area. He noted that when he does the math, based on the useable frontage, he doesn’t really see a problem with granting this variance. He added, also, that all of the adjacent neighbors appear to have been contacted and are in agreement with this request. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to grant the variance request. Motion was amended by Commissioner Hoppie to remove the word “approximate”. Commissioner Chomiak seconded the motion to read “a 14-ft. variance to the required 24-ft., 0-in. sideyard setback”. A vote was taken, and motion did not carry, 3 to 2, with Commissioners LeGros and Ketchum voting in opposition. Variance was not granted. Other Business. None. Adjournment. Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Stonecipher, and seconded by Commissioner Ketchum. A vote was taken and motion carried. Meeting adjourned. ____________________________________ Mark LeGros, Chairman ____________________________________ Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary