Loading...
BM 2007-06-7 BOA MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2007 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. Commissioners in attendance: Alternate Commissioners in attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman Harold Copher, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Commissioner Absent: Robert Chomiak, Commissioner Also present: Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Robert Stanton, Attorney Glenn Tracy, Consulting Engineer Christy and Paul Schmidt, 515 Loxley Drive 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 place of Commissioner Chomiak who was absent. The oath was administered for those wishing to speak at this evening’s meeting. Item 2: Approval of minutes of April 5, 2007, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher and seconded by Commissioner Perschbacher to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2007, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved, 5 to 0. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-11-3- 581 Rocky Branch 1(C) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at Lane . Ms. Mary Frie is requesting a 30-ft. variance to the rear yard setback on the west property line to allow for the construction of a new garage and the conversion of the existing garage to living area, in this SF-12 zoned district. Referring to the information in the packet, Greg Jones explained that when this lot was originally platted in the late ‘70s, it was most likely platted with building lines, rather than drainage easements, since drainage was not a major consideration at that time. In writing his comments, he noted that he gave consideration to how this variance might hinder the movement of flood waters. He reported, however, that approval was received from the Engineering Department regarding the homeowner’s plans to build a 5-ft. retaining wall at the rear of the property, as well construct the proposed garage within the rear setback area. Referring to the subdivision map, Commissioner Hoppie pointed out the dramatic increase in the width of the drainage easement as it approaches Meadowcreek Road, and Greg Jones confirmed that to be true, adding that 581 Rocky Branch Lane has the widest rear yard setback of 76 feet. Commissioner Ketchum asked when the retaining wall was approved, and Greg st responded that the letter from the City Engineer’s Office was dated May 31, and the permit was issued based on that approval. Commenting about the drainage path, Chairman LeGros asked whether there are culverts under the road where Rocky Branch deadends into Meadowcreek Road, and Greg Jones responded that water drains under the road at that point. Commissioner Perschbacher asked for clarification on how far from the house the existing retaining wall would be located, considering the fact that the newly issued permit specifies that it replaces the existing retaining wall, but in a location 10 feet further from the house. Greg Jones responded that he was not sure, due to the fact that the retaining wall was reviewed and approved through the Engineering Department. Chairman LeGros explained the Board’s powers and duties, adding that determining a property hardship is of primary importance in the Board’s consideration of variance requests. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Robert Stanton, attorney, and Glenn Tracy, consulting engineer, represented Mary Frie and Alex Baker, who were out of town. Referring to pictures of the property, Mr. Stanton showed an overlay of the proposed garage, new retaining wall, and changes to grading. Chairman LeGros asked how often washout occurs through that area, and Mr. Stanton responded that he could not personally answer that question, and the homeowners are unavailable. He did comment, however, that this family’s proposed area of development is a good distance from the very lowest drainage point. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the height of the new retaining wall, and Mr. Tracy indicated that it is shown on page 3B of his plans, with a maximum wall height of 5 feet, 8 inches, but the visual height will be approximately 5 feet. Commissioner Hoppie asked if the additional height of the wall would add to its capacity, and Mr. Tracy clarified that the top of the new wall would actually be the same height as the existing one, noting that where the increase in height develops is in moving the fence outward slightly. He noted that they also want to be certain that they’re below any scour zone that could undermine the wall. Commissioner Perschbacher asked Mr. Stanton if he assisted the applicant in completing the application form and checklist, and Mr. Stanton replied that he did not. Referring to the applicant’s checklist, Commissioner Stonecipher asked the applicants to indicate what they felt the specific property hardship is in this situation. Mr. Tracy commented that this lot is a very nice sized lot, and probably even deeper than most of the neighboring lots. However, because of the way the building line was drawn, he indicated that the lot cannot be fully utilized due to the excessive drainage easement, as well as the fact that, historically, it’s not known if there’s been any significant drainage in that area. Chairman LeGros asked if a map was available showing the 100-year flood zones, and Greg Jones indicated that he did not have such a map available this evening. He reported that he also did not believe that any finished floor elevation reports were available for the lots in this area, and normally, they would be available for properties located so close to a flood zone. The hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the public hearing. The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Chairman LeGros commented that he did not view this request as a property hardship, due to the fact that the property can still be used. He noted, however, that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that he felt this is an unusual situation, and because of the way the building line was drawn, it does place quite a restriction on this property. He noted that as long as the City Engineer approved this type of construction, granting the variance should be acceptable. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he felt the building setback is unusual and different from the others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ketchum asked if the applicant definitely has to state that there is a hardship, in order for there to be one. Commissioner Stonecipher replied that asking the applicant to specify the hardship was simply his way of getting it placed into evidence. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher to grant the variance request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Commissioner Perschbacher voting in opposition. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-13-3- 515 Loxley Drive 1(B) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at . Ms. Christy Schmidt is requesting a 15-ft. variance to the 15-ft. sideyard setback on the east property line to allow for the construction of a fence, in this SF-7 zoned district. Greg Jones explained that this subdivision was originally PD zoned, requiring 15-ft. sideyard setbacks on designated corner lots, one of which is this lot. He noted that one of his inspectors observed this fence when it was under construction, without a permit, and in the wrong location. Just after that, he met with the homeowner, who had tried, unsuccessfully, to contact her fence builder, Best Fence, and ask them to move the fence. Because there was a swimming pool on the lot, the homeowners were anxious to maintain a barrier around it for safety reasons, so they finally contracted with another fence company to move the fence to a complying location. Greg Jones further explained that the applicant is now trying to gain approval to move this fence to the sideyard setback on the east side, which PD conditions do not currently allow. Greg Jones provided a brief history of the confusion among homebuilders that occurred in 1996- 97 concerning the setbacks during the development process of this subdivision. He noted that there are still some lots in this subdivision that do not have fences that are correctly placed, as a result of that confusion. He reported, however, that he does not view this particular situation as being a property hardship, due to the fact that the homeowners had knowledge of the fence issue prior to purchasing the house. Referring to the checklist and application, Commissioner Stonecipher asked for clarification of the applicant’s answer to question #5, in which she states, ‘She was also instructed that had our fence been completed prior to Monday, April 23, 2007, as contracted, we, too, would not have been instructed to tear down our fence.’ Greg Jones commented that he believes that statement is referring to the fact that if the fence had been constructed on a weekend, when City inspectors were not working, the project may have been completed without being caught by City inspectors. He added, however, that he did not feel the applicant meant to imply that she was wishing she had chosen an unlawful method. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the letter in the packet, and Greg Jones explained that a letter was submitted by the property owner of 504 Compton Court in opposition to the variance request. Noting the applicant’s comment that ‘other properties in the area have fences closer to the street than what is required here’, Commissioner Stonecipher asked if that was due to the confusion that arose during the development of this subdivision, and Greg Jones responded that it most likely did, adding that there were approximately 27 lots that had this restriction on them. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Christy Schmidt distributed a packet of information to board members. She noted that she and her husband did not know they needed a permit to replace their fence, but they did receive HOA approval. She added that they arranged for the weekend fence replacement mainly so her husband could be there to supervise the installation. She noted that the fence contractor removed the old fence, and then disappeared without putting up a temporary fence around the pool. She added that when she attempted to contact the fence builder, they didn’t return her phone calls, until finally, much later that day, when she and her husband were able to fire them and hire another contractor. Furthermore, Ms. Schmidt reported that she and her husband were not aware of the fence setback issue when they purchased their home. She commented that when they considered the fence relocation, they noticed that there were 31 other houses in the neighborhood that had the same type of fence placement, and that’s what led them to believe it was acceptable. Ms. Schmidt reported that when the City told them to move their fence, they moved it. She noted that, as their fenceline exists now, the sideyard is good for nothing but mowing. She added that their goal is to create a safe play area for children, with room enough for a swing set and sandbox. If the variance is granted, it would add 13 by 70-ft. of useable space to their yard. Chairman LeGros asked Ms. Schmidt if the new fence is in the same location as the original fence, and Mr. Schmidt replied that it is. Commissioner Ketchum asked the applicant if she felt that extending the fence would impair visibility for motorists, and Ms. Schmidt replied that she did not, adding that their plan includes angle cuts to allow for better visibility. Commissioner Stonecipher voiced his concern that even with a corner clip, visibility would be affected for cars coming out of the alleyway behind the Schmidt’s house, considering how much Compton Court curves outward. Ms. Schmidt reported that the fence would be set back two feet from the sidewalk. Paul Schmidt explained that the setback from the alley is five feet, and he reported that they planned to do an overly cautious line of safety in accordance with visibility rules, as posted on the City’s website. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if other options had been discussed, one of which might be the addition of a driveway gate and fencing in the area on the other side of the house. Ms. Schmidt reported that they considered that option, but the drawbacks were the expense, as well as the resulting large expanse of concrete, both of which were considered to be undesirable. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that the Schmidts’ proposed new fenceline would move closer to the neighbors who live across the street on Compton Court, and he asked if they had been contacted concerning their opinions. Ms. Schmidt replied that the two neighbors across the street that directly face into the fence were contacted, and had no issues with the proposed fence location. In addition, she commented that they would be willing to plant Crepe Myrtles along the fenceline, if it would help soften the look, yet not interfere with visibility. Regarding the exit onto Compton Court, Mr. Schmidt reported that they would definitely abide by the line of sight. Commissioner Ketchum asked if the fenceline at 520 Compton Court had been extended to the property line, and Ms. Schmidt replied that it was not one of the extended fencelines. 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. The meeting was re-opened to the public, and the applicants were asked to step forward, again. Commissioner Stonecipher asked Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt if they would be satisfied with a variance less than the requested 15 feet, and they indicated they would. Commissioner Stonecipher noted that although it’s up to the Board to agree on a compromising variance amount, he asked them if 10 feet would be acceptable, and Mr. Schmidt indicated that they would be grateful for any concession. Chairman LeGros closed the meeting to the public, and opened it to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he appreciated the homework, effort, and forethought that the applicants devoted to preparing for this hearing. He commented, however, that the existence of a property hardship is doubtful, adding that choosing to have a swimming pool versus backyard play area involves a trade-off, and in this case, the applicants chose a pool. He noted that he’s also concerned with the number of people, namely contractors, who are applying recently for variances and are not familiarizing themselves with the ordinances. Chairman LeGros commented that he, likewise, is struggling to find an actual property hardship that is not self-imposed. He reported that this is not the only subdivision in which incorrectly placed fences have been an issue for Board of Adjustment. He emphasized that the Board’s primary goal is to maintain the integrity of the Ordinance, adding, however, that he realizes that sometimes, residents get misinformation from realtors and such, that could be considered a type of hardship. Whether that is enough of a hardship, in this situation, to warrant granting a variance is questionable. He noted, however, that perhaps a compromise would be a good solution to maintaining a line of sight that would satisfy the neighbors and, at the same time, grant the Schmidt family some relief. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that he views the fact that there was a lot of confusion in this neighborhood when it was first developed as somewhat of a hardship, adding that some fences were grandfathered-in and some weren’t. He commented that there is something of a mitigating factor here that has created a lot of confusion for the homeowners and takes away from the consistency factor which the Ordinance tries to maintain. He reported that 15 feet seems a bit excessive to him, but a compromise may be more acceptable. Referring to the pictures in the applicant’s handout, Commissioner Perschbacher commented about the fence crowding issue, adding that if the variance was granted, it would place the fence to within two feet of the sidewalk. Commissioner Perschbacher further asked for clarification of the proposal for a compromise for a 10-ft. variance, and Commissioner Stonecipher reported that he was suggesting that it not be measured directly from the sidewalk, but rather allow a buffer of possibly five feet from the sidewalk, to avoid a “wall at the edge” appearance. Referring to the pictures on pages 7 through 12 of the applicant’s handout, Commissioner Perschbacher noted that he was attempting to understand the five foot. number, adding that it appears to place this fence at seven feet from the sidewalk. He commented that although he understands the concept of compromise, he feels that the Board needs to consider the fact that the fence would already be two feet from the sidewalk, relative to what is shown in the pictures for other lots. Chairman LeGros commented that the five feet was simply a suggestion. Commissioner Stonecipher referred to the photo on page 9 of 328 Auburn Way, showing a curving lot, similar to that of 515 Loxley Drive. Chairman LeGros asked if the non-conforming fences in this subdivision would have to be moved back if they were torn down in the future, and Greg Jones responded that some would no longer be moveable, due to the fact that swimming pools have since been constructed. He further reported that people who do fence repair or who replace less than 50 percent of their fencelines, do so without the requirement of a permit. Chairman LeGros expressed his concern about perpetuating something that really shouldn’t be. He commented that just by driving through this neighborhood, people can easily get the impression that claiming more of their sideyard is, in fact, possible. Commissioner Ketchum commented that, by not granting the variance or a compromise of it, the Board is actually punishing the applicant for making an honest effort to abide by the law, versus all of the non-conforming properties that took advantage of the situation. Secondly, she noted that she would like to have seen one or more favorable neighbor responses, rather than just the one unfavorable response, but added that she’s certainly willing to consider a compromise. Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher that the variance be granted to allow for a 10- ft. variance to the 15-ft. sideyard setback on the east property line. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Other Business. None. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned. ____________________________________ Mark LeGros, Chairman ____________________________________ Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary