BM 2007-12-6 BOA
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2007
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, December 6, 2007, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance: Absent:
Donald Perschbacher, Chairman Mark LeGros, Commissioner
Robert Chomiak, Vice Chairman Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner
David Stonecipher, Commissioner Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner
John Hoppie, Commissioner
Harold Copher, Alternate Commissioner Also present:
Virginia Harn, Alternate Commissioner Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary
Applicants present:
Joel Lason, 501 Rolling Hills Road
Bob Anderson, Plan Solutions Architects
Item 1:
Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Perschbacher. Commissioner
Copher was invited to serve on the board in the absence of Commissioner LeGros.
Item 2:
Approval of minutes of November 1, 2007, meeting.
Commissioner Copher reported an error in the minutes, as follows: Under “Call to Order”, it
should read, “Commissioner Copher was invited to serve on the board in the absence of
Commissioner Stonecipher”.
Motion was made by Commissioner Copher to approve the minutes of the November 1,
2007, meeting, with the correction made, as noted above. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes
approved.
The oath was administered by Chairman Perschbacher for those wishing to speak at this
evening’s meeting.
Item 3:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-11-
501 Rolling
3-1(A) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at
Hills Road
. Mr. Joel Lason is requesting a variance of 1-ft., 4-in. to the north
sideyard setback to allow for the construction of a garage addition, in this SF-
12 zoned district.
Greg Jones reported that the applicant spoke with him on several occasions about
constructing a three-car garage addition. He noted that this intersection of Rolling Hills and
Bethel School Road does not come together at a 90-degree angle, and this concerns the
applicant. He noted that Mr. Lason has about 28 feet from the back edge of his house,
where he would construct the front of the garage, out to where his side building line of 30
feet is located on the Bethel School Road. He wants to construct the garage out to that
point, which would be on the building line, but because of the orientation to his house, he
would need to go back at a 90-degree angle from that corner, and it would put him about 1-
ft., 4-in. at the rear of the garage and into that building line on the Bethel School Road side.
Greg Jones further explained that between the Zoning Ordinance and the platted setbacks,
the platted setbacks take precedence, and the City was unable to issue a permit because
the construction went over a platted building line. He noted that Staff feels Mr. Lason could
look at other options, such as moving the garage addition back a little and then angling it
over to where it would be behind the setback line and running parallel to it, in which case, a
variance would not be needed.
Greg Jones reported, also, that Mr. Lason has a couple of neighbors who have recently
applied for similar variances and were denied. However, Mr. Lason felt his variance
request was quite small, and he wanted the Board to consider it.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Joel Lason explained the three documents he was providing, including: a survey with an
additional floor plan; an enlargement of the section needing the variance; and a map of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Lason noted that one of the primary issues was the safety factor. His proposed
driveway configuration would eliminate the need to access Bethel School Road directly. In
doing so, he noted that he would also be adding more green space. He reported that his
garage area would be reduced from a four-stall to a three-stall garage, and although these
are not hardship issues, they will improve the lot, aesthetically.
Mr. Lason commented that he felt the variance request meets the spirit of the Ordinance.
He compared his neighbors’ variance requests with his own, and he felt his request was
very minor. Referring to the survey, he pointed out the remodeling plans. He noted that
the driveway would be oriented off Rolling Hills Road, which would be safer for his children,
as well as for him, considering the traffic along Bethel School Road.
Mr. Lason distributed a map showing the adjacent neighbors with whom he discussed his
variance request, adding that all of those neighbors were in favor of this request.
Referring to the plans, Mr. Lason pointed out the existing and proposed sections of the
house.
Commissioner Stonecipher reiterated the requirements for a variance request, such as a
property hardship, adding that those requirements limit the powers of this Board. The
applicant was asked to point out the differences in his property, compared to the properties
around him, with regard to property hardship.
Mr. Lason reported that he views Bethel School Road as a safety hazard for two reasons:
it’s unsafe for his children to play near that street, and it’s hazardous to have his driveway
on Bethel School Road, due to the progressively heavy traffic. He noted, also, that the
angle of the property poses a problem. He emphasized that he believes the variance
request is minimal, and within the spirit of the Ordinance.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked if there were other houses along Bethel School that have
driveways that open up on Bethel School, and Mr. Lason reported that there are, but their
variance requests would be greater.
Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the new and existing sections of the
driveway, and Mr. Lason referred to the plan and provided clarification. He added that as a
result of the proposed changes, the lot will look greener and more aesthetically pleasing
than the current situation.
Commissioner Chomiak asked the applicant if he had considered the options that did not
involve a variance, and why they did not seem acceptable. Mr. Lason recalled that there
was only one option discussed with Mr. Jones and it involved curving or slanting a wall,
adding that this was not determined to be aesthetically pleasing. Greg Jones added that
other options, such as tilting and stair-stepping, were also discussed.
Referring to the option of running the wall right along the 30-ft. building line, Commissioner
Copher asked how that might impact the feasibility of a three-car garage, when you
consider the dimensions of the vehicles. Mr. Lason responded that he did not know,
without actually taking measurements.
Commissioner Hoppie asked if there are certain standards to be followed when curbs are
replaced, and Greg Jones replied that the property owner would be expected to hire a
contractor to follow the City’s standard detail for curb and gutter construction.
The meeting was opened to 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 commended the applicant on preparing a thorough packet, as well
as contacting all adjacent neighbors. He commented, also, that he agreed with the
applicant about the safety issues, noting that a driveway along Rolling Hills is a safer
approach than Bethel School Road. He commented that many times applicants are trying
to do too much on a small lot, but this applicant has a larger lot and is simply attempting to
make a minor change within a small space. He added that the request fits the spirit of the
Ordinance, and 1-ft., 4-in. would not be noticeable to anyone driving by and would not
impact Mr. Lason’s neighbors.
Commissioner Chomiak agreed with the safety issues, adding that while it might not be a
true hardship case, it is an improvement to the property. In this case, he noted that the
intent of the Ordinance may weigh a little heavier than the hardship issue, adding that he
did not believe that the additional 1-ft., 4-in. would impact the neighbors.
Chairman Perschbacher reminded the Board of the strict guidelines to which they must
comply.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance to allow 1-ft., 4-in. to the
north sideyard setback. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was
taken. Motion did not carry, 3 to 2, with Commissioners Perschbacher and Copher voting
in opposition to the variance. Variance denied.
Item 4:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-12-
620
3-1(C) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at
Berkshire Lane
. Mr. Bob Anderson, of Plan Solutions Architects, on behalf
of the homeowner, is requesting a 12-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard
setback, to allow for the construction of a two-car garage, in this SF-9 zoned
district.
Referring to the photos in the packet, Greg Jones reported that this property owner has an
existing two-car and single car garage, but wishes to construct another two-car garage
adjacent to the one-car garage at the rear of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires
that a 20-ft. rear yard setback be maintained, but in order to construct the proposed garage,
the applicant would need a 12-ft. variance to the rear yard setback.
Greg Jones reported that this property backs up to a screening wall and to one of the
maintenance buildings for the Riverchase Golf Course. He explained that he talked with
the City’s Planning Department about this case because of the fact that a golf course is still
zoned SF-9, with a commercial use on it. He noted that Staff cannot fully support this
request, even though there is the required screening wall at this location, to protect the
single family dwelling from the commercial use. He noted that there really is no property
hardship in this situation, and it doesn’t meet the intent of the Ordinance, since a reduction
of this size wouldn’t normally be allowed. He noted, however, that there are some unusual
conditions that surround this property and perhaps gives the owner a reason to bring the
request forward.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Bob Anderson, of Plan Solutions Architects, explained that he is representing the property
owner, who has experienced a few personal changes recently that have prompted the need
for additional garage space. He reported that the only neighbor who would be affected by
this variance is the neighbor on the west side. But, in speaking to that neighbor, Mr.
Anderson reported that he indicated he would be in favor of anything that would block the
view of the Riverchase maintenance shed.
Speaking for the property owner, Mr. Anderson explained that they are now permanently
caring for a live-in mother and mother-in-law, as well as frequent long-term visits from
grown kids and a brother. He noted that because this house is situated on a cul-de-sac,
there is no on-the-street parking available to them, so the property owner is using one
corner of the property for parking. However, because he’s had cars vandalized a few
times, he wants to provide more secure parking for his visitors, in the form of garage
spaces.
Referring to the photos and site plan in the packets, Mr. Anderson pointed out the location
of the proposed garage, explaining that the addition will also include two second floor
bedrooms, located above the garage addition.
Concerning hardships, Mr. Anderson explained that this was more of a personal hardship
for the property owner, rather than a property hardship.
Commissioner Hoppie asked about the structure located in the southwest corner of the
property, and Mr. Anderson explained that it is an arbor containing a hot tub.
Referring to the “west elevation” drawing included in the packet, Commissioner Stonecipher
asked for clarification on whether the garage would be a single story or a two-story
structure located within 8 feet of the south property line. Mr. Anderson replied that it would
be a two-story addition, including a two-stall garage with two bedrooms on the second floor.
Applying the dimensions between the south property line, the 20-ft. setback line, and the
existing building line, Commissioner Copher asked if there would be enough room to add a
one-car, rather than two-car garage, but Mr. Anderson responded that there was not.
Chairman Stonecipher asked if it would be possible to expand the existing one-car garage
to a two-car garage, and possibly get an additional parking space. Mr. Anderson reported
that they studied that possibility, but there wasn’t even enough room for a 16-foot door.
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.
Commissioner Hoppie commented that this is a large lot, and the applicant doesn’t appear
to be overdoing it. The purpose of the 20-ft. rear yard setback is to accommodate
driveways and cars, and the owner has ample room on the west side, without any close
neighbors. He added that although there is no property hardship, this plan does not appear
to be contrary to the public interest.
Commissioner Copher commented that due to the shape of the lot, combined with reduced
street frontage and varying angles, perhaps it can be said that the lot does not have typical
rear and side yards, thereby creating a property hardship. Commissioner Stonecipher
replied that he felt the answer would be “no” to that possibility, adding that the lot is large
enough with plenty of frontage on either side. He added that it already has a three-car
garage, which, by most standards, is a very significant amount of parking.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant a 12-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard
setback. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stonecipher, and a vote was taken.
Motion did not carry, 4 to 1, with Commissioners Perschbacher, Stonecipher, Chomiak, and
Copher voting in opposition to the request. Variance denied.
Other Business.
None.
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
____________________________________
Donald Perschbacher, Chairman
____________________________________
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary