BM 2009-07-09
MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2009
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance: Absent:
Donald Perschbacher, Chairman John Hoppie, Commissioner
Mark LeGros, Commissioner
Laura Ketchum, Commissioner
Harold Copher, Alternate Commissioner Also present:
Virginia Harn, Alternate Commissioner Tim Oates, Deputy Chief - Prevention
Douglas Robinson, Alternate Commissioner Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary
Applicants present:
Bryan and Kate Forsythe, 125 Branchwood Trail, Coppell
Rodney and Melissa Helm, 920 Warren Crossing, Coppell
Kevin Francis, contractor
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, filling the position of Commissioner Chomiak,
who recently resigned. Commissioner Harn was asked to serve in the absence of
Commissioner Hoppie, and Commissioner Robinson was invited to serve in the absence of
Commissioner LeGros, who arrived slightly after 7:30 p.m.
Item 2:
Approval of minutes of April 2, 2009, meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Copher and seconded by Commissioner Ketchum to
approve the minutes of the April 2, 2009, 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:
Election of Vice Chairman.
Chairman Perschbacher asked that this item be tabled until the end of the meeting.
Item 4:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 9-2-
117
6(D) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at
Whispering Hills Drive
. Bryan and Kate Forsythe are requesting a 12-ft.
variance to allow for the construction of a fence and driveway gate in the front
yard of their property in this SF-12 zoned district, in order to provide a
somewhat confined area for their children to play.
To date, two gateposts have been constructed, without a permit, 18 feet off
the street. The City’s Zoning Ordinance states that it shall be unlawful to
erect or maintain a fence within the front yard of any lot, from the front
building line to the front lot line. The “front building line”, as that term is used,
means: the building line established by the building constructed on the lot if
such established building line is a greater distance from the front lot line than
that established by law.
Tim Oates explained that the property owners are requesting the variance for the
construction of the front yard driveway gate and fence. He added that, to date, the
gateposts have been constructed, without a permit, 18 feet off the street, so they’re
encroaching 12 feet over the front building line. He explained that the house is currently
vacant, due to the fact that it is still under construction. Staff’s viewpoint is that although it
is unfortunate that these homeowners/contractors did not check with the City before
beginning with the construction, the fact remains that front yard fences are strictly
prohibited by Ordinance in the City.
Commissioner Harn asked if there are other situations of front yard fences in the City, and
Chief Oates responded that there were possibly two situations, but they were required to go
through the SUP process for approval.
Chairman Perschbacher asked if contractors are required to be registered with the City,
and Chief Oates indicated that they are required to register, and that includes fence
contractors.
The applicants were invited to step forward to present their case.
Kate Forsythe apologized for the fact that she and her husband were unaware of the City’s
code banning front yard fences. She explained that their intent in constructing the fence
was simply to create a barrier between the busy street and their driveway, where their
children would be playing, adding that this entire issue is ultimately about the safety of their
children.
She explained that the stone driveway columns were under construction when the City
inspector stopped by and advised them of code requirements. The inspector then
explained the variance process, telling them that a variance would most likely be their next
step. Ms. Forsythe explained that she spoke to nearly all of their Whispering Hills
neighbors, requesting signatures in support of their case. She then presented the petition
for the board to review.
Ms. Forsythe also explained that Whispering Hills Drive has no sidewalks and no curbs, so
the front yard leads directly onto the street, unlike their current address on Branchwood
Trail. She added that where curbs and/or sidewalks exist, there is, at least, a barrier for
children to use as their play area limit.
Two letters in support of the variance request were distributed to board members.
Referring to a zoning map, Chairman Perschbacher asked Ms. Forsythe to point out the
neighbors who were contacted concerning the variance, and Ms. Forsythe did so.
Chairman Perschbacher asked the applicant to point out the location of the fence. Ms.
Forsythe outlined the location, noting that it would be a metal swing-in gate, and wrought
iron fencing.
Commissioner Copher asked if the same goal could be accomplished on the property line,
and Ms. Forsythe responded that there wouldn’t be enough turning radius available, and
they would have to lose one of the valuable trees.
The applicant was asked if she had a Plan B, should the variance be denied, and Ms.
Forsythe responded that the fence would simply not be built, adding that the thought of that
concerns her greatly because it impacts the safety of her children.
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 Ketchum asked if there was, technically, a difference between a fence and a
gate, and it was agreed that there is no difference.
Commissioner Copher commented that this is a tough case because basically everyone is
concerned about child safety. But, it is the responsibility of the board to uphold the
ordinance, and in this situation, there is no clear-cut hardship.
Furthermore, Commissioner Copher asked Staff if plans were in the works for curb-and-
gutter in this area. Chief Oates responded that this is the last house to be constructed in
this subdivision, and, because it is an older, now fully developed subdivision, there are no
plans to add curb-and-gutter on Whispering Hills Drive, according to the City’s Engineering
Department.
Motion was made by Commissioner Copher that the variance be granted, to allow no more
than a 12-ft. variance to the 30-ft. front yard setback. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ketchum and a vote was taken. Motion did not pass, 5 to 0. Variance
denied.
Commissioner LeGros stepped in as board member, replacing Commissioner Robinson.
Item 5:
Public hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 35-
920
2(B)2(b) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at
Warren Crossing
. Rodney and Melissa Helm are requesting a variance to
allow for the completion of a 560 sq. ft. arbor and patio, including outdoor
kitchen, located in the east sideyard of their lot, in this SF-9 zoned district.
The contractor demolished the previous arbor and patio in that same location,
but failed to obtain a permit for the construction of the new, now partially-
constructed structure.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that an accessory structure exceeding
150 sq. ft. in area maintain the same minimum side setback as is required for
the main structure. The minimum side setback for SF-9 zoning is 8 feet.
Tim Oates explained that this is a situation in which the contractor failed to apply for a
permit and, as a result, the sideyard setback requirements for this structure do not comply
with zoning requirements. City inspectors stopped the work, pending a decision by this
board. Both the homeowners and the contractor state that they were not aware that a
permit was needed. Chief Oates added that although a permit has since been submitted,
the detailed engineered drawings are lacking for a structure of this size.
Chief Oates reported that two letters in favor of the variance request have been submitted,
and are included in the packets. He explained that the structure must be set back a
minimum of 8 feet, adding that it is clearly encroaching on the sideyard setback line. He
noted, however, that the affected property owner to the east submitted a letter in favor of
the variance request. However, following the intent of the Ordinance and thinking ahead to
future homeowners, Staff, in good conscience, must recommend denial.
Commissioner Ketchum asked if the previous arbor met code requirements, and Chief
Oates indicated that he did not believe that a permit had been obtained for the previous
arbor, and he was not certain of its size.
Commissioner LeGros asked about the setback requirements of accessory structures, as
stated in Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance versus sideyard setback requirements from
the main structure on an adjacent property, as outlined in Section 12-12-3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Chief Oates and Chairman Perschbacher provided clarification.
The applicants were invited to step forward to present their case.
Mr. Kevin Francis, contractor for the job, placed pictures of the old structure on the
projection camera, explaining that he was not involved in the demolition of the old structure,
but estimated it to be about 200 sq. ft. in size. He explained that he came to the job after
the original contractor left, and in an attempt to help the Helms save money. He added that
the new structure is built where the old one was constructed, and the sideyard from the
fence to the property line is only 25 feet. Mr. Francis said that his understanding was that
the fireplace needed to be 8 feet from the property line.
Mr. Francis further explained that the structure is 3 to 4 feet from the fenceline. He noted
that this was the only location on the property to place this structure. Mr. Francis continued
to show photos from different angles.
He heard the Helms were getting bids for this process --- as high as $100,000. He stated
that he wanted to help them out at a lower price. He assumed that the permit was already
pulled and approved, since there had been another contractor on the job, and he had the
paperwork with the codes on it.
Commissioner LeGros asked the applicant if he built the structure from ground up, and Mr.
Francis replied that he built the complete structure, cover, and added the landscaping.
Commissioner LeGros then asked if it is the responsibility of the general contractor to apply
for the permit, and Chief Oates responded that it is true, and even if a contractor pulls out
of the job, the second contractor is required to apply for a permit for the job.
Mr. Francis commented that from the corner across the street, this structure cannot be
seen, adding that every effort was made to maintain a low roof pitch. Using an aerial
picture on the overhead camera, Commissioner LeGros asked the applicant to draw in the
location of the structure. Specifications of the structure were discussed further.
Commissioner LeGros also asked if any engineered drawings had yet been submitted to
the permit office, and the response was no.
Commissioner Ketchum asked how far the structure is located from the fenceline, and Mr.
Francis replied 3 to 4 feet.
Commissioner Ketchum asked if the structure can be amended in any way, and the
applicant replied that it cannot, due to the fact that it’s constructed of mortar and concrete
and the irrigation system has already been re-routed to allow for it.
Chairman Perschbacher asked Mr. and Mrs. Helm if they would like to add any comments
to what has already been said on their behalf by Mr. Francis. Melissa Helm explained that
they were looking for competitive bids for this project, adding that previously this section of
the property was an overgrown mess and an eyesore in the neighborhood. She indicated
that she, herself, read through pages of building code prior to settling on an acceptable
plan. Her interpretation of the codes showed them to be doing nothing wrong, but, she
added, it was totally different from the information presented this evening. She commented
that when the City inspector came by and asked them to stop work, they were completely
shocked, and had no idea they were in violation of any code.
Mr. Francis added that he closely communicated with the adjacent neighbors during the
construction process, to be certain they were comfortable with the way the project was
progressing.
The meeting was opened to the public. Those wishing to speak in favor of the variance
request were invited to step forward.
Joni Nicol, of 924 Warren Crossing, commented that she and her husband, David, are next
door neighbors to the Helms’. She explained that the Helm family and their contractor have
kept them very well informed at each step of the construction process by respecting their
wishes. She reported that the project has been very tastefully done, adding a lot of value to
the property and community. She also explained that the proximity of the Helms’ patio and
outdoor kitchen to the property line is not an issue with them, due to the fact that their own
patio is actually on the other (east) side of their lot.
Coleman England, of 913 Warren Crossing, explained that the structure complies perfectly
with the spirit and purpose of the regulation. In addition, it would create an extreme and
unnecessary hardship if the Board chose to deny the variance, emphasizing that we should
be encouraging improved property values in Coppell, because it benefits us all.
Jim White, of 917 Warren Crossing, commented that he has seen a lot of neighbors come
and go along their street, but the changes he sees that the Helms are making is nothing
but positive. They have used architectural integrity to design an outdoor arbor and
fireplace that is an asset to the neighborhood.
No one spoke in opposition to the variance request.
The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion.
Commissioner LeGros commented that there is clearly no property hardship, only a
financial one, adding that he is disturbed that this project went this far before being
discovered.
Commissioner Copher commented that the board has guidelines and rules that must be
followed, and in this case, only a financial hardship exists. The intent of the request is
good, but the board must consider the impact on future neighbors.
Commissioner LeGros further reported that it’s important to remember that a hardship can
be self-imposed, and this hardship was created by the contractor, who neglected to apply
for the permit. He added that considering the size of this structure, it has the potential of
becoming an apartment in the future, with slight remodeling, since it has plumbing, electric
and HVAC available to it.
Chairman Perschbacher explained that although he doesn’t feel that this structure is
contrary to the public interest, future homeowners would be allowed to demolish this
structure and rebuild the same or something similar, if this variance is granted. He further
commented that homeowners rely on contractors to pull permits and take care of legalities,
and when this isn’t done properly, it could be viewed as an unjust hardship.
Commissioner Harn asked how the inspections process would be conducted since this
structure is nearing completion and no inspections have yet been done. Chief Oates
reported that as many inspections as possible would need to be done, including the ones of
high safety concern --- a pressure test on the gasline and an electrical inspection.
Chairman Perschbacher asked Chief Oates if the contractor/applicant can be required to
submit a permit and plans at this late stage. Chief Oates indicated that, if the Board wishes
to grant the variance, it can carry a conditional requirement of no further construction until
the submittal of detailed plans and/or possible third party inspections, as the City deems
necessary. In addition, he reminded the board to stay focused on the variance request,
which is the sideyard setback, and not on the adequacy of the structure.
Discussion centered on whether it might be to the benefit of the applicant to withdraw the
case and return at a later date. Mrs. Helm asked for clarification on this issue. The public
hearing portion of the meeting was re-opened, and Chairman Perschbacher explained the
City’s normal approval process.
Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant the variance, with the condition that
detailed drawings be submitted and other requirements be met, as set forth by the City.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Copher, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5
to 0. Variance granted.
Other Business.
Election of Vice Chairman:
Motion was made by Commissioner Ketchum to nominate Commissioner LeGros as Vice
Chairman, replacing Commissioner Chomiak who recently resigned. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner Copher. A vote was taken, and motion carried, 5 to 0. Commissioner
LeGros was elected Vice Chairman.
Application deadline for boards/commissions:
th
Chief Oates reminded the board of the approaching deadlineof July24 forapplications for
appointment to boards/commissions.
Discussion of substandard housing:
Chief Oates stated that in the coming weeks the Board may receive a case involving a
mobile home off Coppell Road. If the mobile home park does not act within the allotted
time period, the City will take action, and that’s where this board becomes involved.
New Chief Building Official:
Chief Oates announced that Michael Arellano, of New Mexico, has been hired as the new
Chief Building Official and will most likely be available to attend the next Board of
Adjustment meeting. He added that Mr. Arellano is very knowledgeable and has a good
understanding of building issues, having served as president of the New Mexico Building
Officials Association, and having gone before the New Mexico State legislature to discuss
code issues.
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
____________________________________
Donald Perschbacher, Chairman
____________________________________
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary