Loading...
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