Loading...
BM 2009-04-02 MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2009 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, April 2, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Absent: Donald Perschbacher, Chairman Robert Chomiak, Vice Chairman Mark LeGros, Commissioner John Hoppie, Commissioner Also present: Laura Ketchum, Commissioner Tim Oates, Deputy Chief - Prevention Harold Copher, Alternate Commissioner Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Virginia Harn, Alternate Commissioner Robert Mahalik, Alternate Commissioner Douglas Robinson, Alternate Commissioner Applicants present: Gary and Victoria Hayes, 946 Hummingbird Drive, Coppell James and Catherine Miller, 122 Meadowcreek Road, Coppell Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Perschbacher. Commissioner Harn was invited to serve on the board in the absence of Commissioner Chomiak, and Commissioner Copher was invited to serve, temporarily, for Commissioner LeGros who had a conflict of interest with Items 3 and 4 on the agenda. Item 2: Approval of minutes of July 10, 2008, meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie and seconded by Commissioner Ketchum to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2008 meeting. 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 9-2- 946 6(D) of the City’s Code of Ordinances, for the property located at Hummingbird Drive . Mr. Gary F. Hayes is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a 36-inch high wrought iron safety rail fence along the upper level of the existing retaining wall which varies in height from 5 to 6 feet. The retaining wall runs the full width of his lot and extends around the corner into the backyard pool area along Bethel School Road. Mr. Hayes contends that the height of the retaining wall creates a safety hazard for those using the walkway on his property that runs adjacent to the retaining wall. The City’s Code of Ordinances prohibits fences in front yards. Tim Oates explained that the fence ordinance was specifically written to prevent the construction of fences in front yards, with the intent of maintaining openness and visibility along street rights-of-way. He explained that openness promotes safe traffic movement. Although the applicant refers to the proposed fence as a “safety” fence, Chief Oates commented that this situation could be viewed as a self-imposed hardship, and not a true property hardship, due to the fact that a pavestone walkway was constructed through his front yard running parallel with the retaining wall, encouraging use of the front yard. He further commented that granting this variance request would be generally unfair to other property owners, and, for these reasons, Staff recommends denial. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. Mr. Gary Hayes explained that his main concern is with the height of the retaining wall and the safety of children and/or elderly people who come to visit. He noted that he is not trying to partition off the front yard, but rather to place a safety wrought iron fence where the highest drop-off is located. Commissioner Hoppie asked about the depth of the front yard, from the wall to the house at the closest point, and Mr. Hayes answered, it is 6 to 7 feet. Commissioner Ketchum asked for clarification on the location of the stone walkway, and Mr. Hayes referred to a drawing to point out the location. Chairman Perschbacher asked Mr. Hayes if he had talked with his neighbors about the proposed fence, and Mr. Hayes reported that he had not. Chairman Perschbacher reported that six letters had been received from surrounding neighbors, all of which were in opposition to this variance request. The public hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner Hoppie commented that because there’s at least seven feet of lawn space between the walkway and the retaining wall, the safety issue is somewhat self-imposed. In addition, he reported that the spirit of the letters received from neighbors suggests that they are very much opposed to this variance. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum, and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-12- 946 3(B) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at Hummingbird Drive . Mr. Gary F. Hayes is requesting a 14-ft. variance to the 15-ft. sideyard setback on the west side, in this SF-9 zoned district. Mr. Hayes is requesting this variance to allow for the construction of a gazebo in the pool area. Tim Oates commented that the applicant presented very precise design specifications for the proposed gazebo, adding that it certainly appears that it would be an asset to the property. But, as sometimes happens, Chief Oates explained, properties easily become over-built, and this property borders on that possibility. Although Mr. Hayes indicated in his application that the gazebo could not be built without the variance, Chief Oates commented that this property hardship is self-imposed. He suggested that the applicant consider other gazebo designs that could be constructed within the allowable space, adding that Staff recommends denial. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. Mr. Gary Hayes commented that he wasn’t aware of any other gazebo designs that his space would accommodate, but mentioned that he had tried portable umbrellas in the past, adding that they could not withstand the high winds that swept along Bethel School Road. He felt his only option was a heavy timbered structure, explaining that the structure would be elevated above ground view, and mostly hidden behind a 7-ft. privacy fence with the exception of the roof. Commissioner Harn asked the applicant if he had considered a gazebo design with flat slats for the roof, and Mr. Hayes replied that he is attempting to match the roofline of the gazebo with the roofline of his house, if possible. Commissioner Ketchum asked Mr. Hayes if he felt there were any other gazebo designs that might meet his needs, but wouldn’t require a variance. Mr. Hayes replied that he wasn’t aware of any such designs, adding that he carefully studied the area in the backyard, and the side and rear yard setbacks render the majority of the area unuseable. The public hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner Hoppie reported that of those same six letters received from the surrounding neighbors concerning the fence issue, two were in favor of the gazebo. He commented that one of the issues that the board so often faces is property owners trying to do more with their property than space will allow. In this case, he commented that a 14-ft. variance to a 15-ft. sideyard setback is pretty extreme. Commissioner Ketchum commented that she felt the elevated roof would present an obstruction for the neighbors. In addition, she felt that a property hardship did not exist in this situation. The public hearing was re-opened and the oath was administered for Mrs. Victoria Hayes, co-owner of the property, to present her case. Mrs. Hayes explained that she felt the only view that would be somewhat obstructed by the gazebo would be that of the neighbor behind them, looking out from their second floor over the roofline of the proposed gazebo to Meadowcreek Road. In addition, Mrs. Hayes added that the positioning of the gazebo serves the dual benefit of blocking the view of the Hayes’ bathroom window, which Mrs. Hayes reported has always been an uncomfortable situation for the Hayes’ family. The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Copher to grant the variance request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Commissioner LeGros returned to his seat on the board, replacing Commissioner Copher. Item 5: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-11- 122 3(C) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at Meadowcreek Road . Ms. Catherine Miller is requesting a 10-ft. variance to the 20-ft. rear yard setback to allow for the construction of an attached patio roof, in this SF-12 zoned district. Tim Oates reported that the applicant wishes to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet to accommodate the covered patio design as shown in the packet. He reported that although this request is probably not contrary to public interest, it is a sizable variance and lacks a true property hardship. He noted that, for these reasons, Staff recommends denial. Commissioner LeGros asked for clarification between having a 10-ft. setback versus a 20- ft. setback for a roofline, as it relates to a free-standing accessory structure. Question was tabled until answer could be found in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. James Miller explained that when they originally built the outdoor living area in the backyard, it was determined by the City that a patio structure must be free standing and could not be connected to the house. Mr. Miller reported that the problem in placing a free- standing structure in the rear yard is two-fold; they must: 1) maintain the 10-ft. rear yard setback, which is actually a utility easement, and 2) without the variance, the support posts block the view of the windows from the house, creating a less than desirable view. Chairman Perschbacher asked if the applicant had discussed this issue with his neighbors, and Mr. Miller responded that he had received signatures in support of the variance from his surrounding neighbors, with the exception of his backyard neighbors at 116 Mason Court. The list of signatures was presented to Chairman Perschbacher and the board for review. Mr. Miller further explained that the patio cover will not be visible from any direction. Chairman Perschbacher asked the applicant to point out on the map which houses were contacted, and Mr. Miller did so. Mr. Miller clarified that the homeowners at 116 Mason Court, located directly behind him, were contacted twice, but were not at home. He commented that their two houses are separated by an 8-ft. fence as well as large trees, adding that there is absolutely no view between their two properties. Chairman Perschbacher asked if the gazebo would be in essentially the same location as if it were free-standing, and Mr. Miller indicated that it would be. Commissioner Harn asked for clarification on the location of the gazebo as well as a question concerning the type of roof. Mr. Miller pointed out the location on the sketch, noting the roof will be an open-ended gable-style to match the house roof style. Chairman Perschbacher asked the applicant if he had a rendering of the finished gazebo, and Mr. Miller indicated that he did not. Commissioner LeGros asked Mr. Miller if he had considered cantilever supports, and Mr. Miller replied that the builder considered that possibility, but, in doing so, the posts would be placed in the center of the patio area, and that would be undesirable. The public hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. The hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner LeGros provided clarification of his earlier question concerning accessory structures. He explained that the house has a 20-ft. rear yard setback, but only a 10-ft. setback is required for an accessory structure. Therefore, if the gazebo was constructed as a free-standing accessory structure (not connected to the house), it would be allowed a 10- ft. setback, without the need of a variance. He noted that this is an alternative for the Millers’ to consider, as a way to provide shade for their outdoor kitchen. He further noted that it’s important to remember that a variance stays with the property, transferrable from one owner to the next. Commissioner Hoppie commented that he struggles with the way the ordinance is written, especially in this situation, because it creates a frustrated development scenario. He commented, also, that he places a lot of importance on the feedback from neighbors; in this case, the neighbors who were contacted were in favor of the request. Commissioner Harn expressed her concern that a permanent attachment to the house, like the one the Millers’ are proposing, could be considered a permanent addition to the house, whereas a free-standing accessory structure, which is allowed without a variance, can be easily removed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ketchum and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 4 to 1. Other Business. None. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned. ____________________________________ Donald Perschbacher, Chairman ____________________________________ Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary