Loading...
BM 2000-08-03 BOAMINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2000 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, August 3, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Town Center, 255 Parkway Blvd., Coppell, Texas. In attendance: David Stonecipher, Chairman Jamshed Jamadar, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner John Hoppie, Commissioner Norman Kressmann, Commissioner Absent: Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman Steve Wright, Commissioner Robert Turk, Commissioner John DeLong, Commissioner Also present: Jim Witt, City Manager David Dodd, City Attorney Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Applicants present: Karen Famum, 5 15 Westminster Way, Coppell Sanjay Joshi, 516 Cromwell Court, Coppell Grayson Wales, Centex Corp., Lewisville Item 1: Call to Order Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Commissioners Kressmann and Hoppie were invited to serve on the Board, replacing Commissioners LeGros and Wright. Chairman Stonecipher made preliminary procedural remarks and administered the oath for all members of the audience wishing to speak either for or against the requests being presented at this meeting. Item 2: Minutes of July 6, 2000 Minutes of the July 6, 2000 meeting were presented for approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann that the minutes be approved. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 157, as amended for the Planned Development No. 159, for the property located at 515 Westminster Way. Ms. Karen Famum is requesting a 15-ft. variance to the sideyard setback, for this PD- zoned district, to allow for the relocation of the fence to the property line on the south side of the lot. Greg Jones reported that these first two cases are back-to-back lots and have many similarities. He explained comer lot setbacks and visibility issues, adding that developers are asked by the City to place notations on the plats, allowing for setbacks on fences, as well as on houses. He noted that the problem, in this case, was a poor selection of house design to fit the lot, resulting in the fenceline running alongside the patio and house. He distributed two letters received from neighbors, and explained that this case was heard and denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as by City Council. He noted that Staff recommends a lesser variance than the requested 15-ft. variance. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Karen Famum distributed packets to the board members, reporting that the stringent fence setback issue did not arise until three months after she signed the contract with her builder. She noted that smaller lot owners, and particularly corner lot owners, are impacted the most by these setbacks. She also commented that she did not understand how the 15-ft. fenceline setback had been determined from the general definition of "sideyard", as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. She also commented that Villages of Cottonwood Creek, located within 250 feet of her property, does not require the 15-ft. setback, allowing those property owners to fully utilize their yards. In addition, Ms. Famum explained that she has a special needs child, which given the present rear exit situation, would be unable to easily vacate the property in an emergency. 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. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to deny the variance request. Motion was not seconded. The Public Hearing was re-opened, and the applicant was asked if she would be willing to accept a lesser variance. She indicated that although the 15-ft. variance is definitely needed, but a lesser variance would be acceptable. Board members discussed what might be considered an appropriate variance to ease this homeowner's problems with wheelchair access, and yet comply, somewhat, with setback requirements. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant a 5-ft. variance to the sideyard setback. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak. Motion was amended by Commissioner Jamadar that the fence be allowed to extend forward no more than 15 feet, as measured from the enclosed back comer of the patio. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 157, as amended for the Planned Development No. 159, for the property located at 516 Cromwell Court. Mr. Sanjay Joshi is requesting a 15-ft. variance to the sideyard setback, for this PD- zoned district, to allow for the relocation of the fence to the property line on the south side of the lot. Greg Jones explained that this is a mirror image to the request on Westminster Way, and he indicated that the same comments apply. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Sanjay Joshi indicated that he claims similar hardships to that of the Famum family, with the exception of the special needs child. He noted that even a Councilmember commented that these two fences, as they exist now, are not aesthetically pleasing for the subdivision. Mr. Joshi explained that although he was well aware of the 15-ft. sideyard setback requirement when he signed the contract, looking at a drawing of the house design does not present the same visual impact as viewing the completed fence. Chairman Stonecipher asked Mr. Joshi if he would also be willing to accept a lesser variance, and Mr. Joshi indicated that he would. 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. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant a 5-ft. variance to the sideyard setback, with the stipulation that the fence could be extended forward no more than 15 feet, as measured from the enclosed back corner of the patio. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Vistas of Coppell cases: Jim Witt provided an overview of the events leading up to this Public Hearing, as they relate to items 5 through 13. He summarized that during the platting process, the Engineering firm that submitted the plats for Vistas of Coppell, Phases 2-C and 1 -B, omitted the sideyard setback fence lines. This went unnoticed by City staff, and the plat was filed with the County. However, the Ordinance relating to these two subdivisions did state the fence setback lines. Subsequently, permits were issued using the plats as the guideline, but in conflict with the Ordinance. Ultimately, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the Ordinance prevailed over the incorrect plats. As a result, the City's Engineering Dept., in cooperation with Centex Homes, is now attempting to get as much compliance as possible with regard to visibility and sight triangles on these affected lots. Greg Jones reported that a written narrative of the history of this situation is included in the packet. He noted that the cases are grouped, somewhat, according to their similarities. He provided more specifics, adding that the notation on the plat, "FL" refers to fenceline, and this notation was omitted from the plats for Vistas of Coppell, Phases 2-C and 1 -B. He explained that as fence permits were issued for these lots, it was decided that the plats should be the primary reference point, rather than the PD Ordinance. In addition, he noted that some of the fences were constructed without permits, and were simply lined up with the existing fenceline. He noted that Staff stopped any enforcement action in this situation, due to the fact that there was no plat to back up the decisions. He clarified, however, that by Ordinance, all phases of the Vistas of Coppell have the same PD requirements for setbacks; each phase was simply platted at different times. Greg Jones further reported that each property owner, having a non-compliance fence, was notified by mail in November of 1999, that the City was granting a four-year grace period to allow the homeowners to either bring the fences into compliance or pursue some other avenue to rectify the situation. Just recently, the Zoning Ordinance was changed to allow fence variances in PD zoned districts to be considered by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Grayson Wales, representing Centex Corp., and speaking on behalf of the property owners, summarized that there were a total often cases with this fence situation, and nine of them are on tonighCs agenda. The tenth property owner, on 701 Lyndsie Drive, is pursuing other action. He reported that four of the nine lots currently have pools, and others are planning to construct them, and a couple of the existing pools are actually built over the line. He further explained that the hardship to these property owners, if they're asked to comply, will be the financial expense involved in moving sprinkler systems, sod, pools, and pool equipment, all of which is unreasonable. Mr. Wales reported that he has been working with the City's Engineering Dept. to make minor adjustments to some of these fences to include visibility clips for public safety purposes. Those suggested modifications are marked on the site plans. The hearing was opened to the public for general comments regarding these cases, overall. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to these requests. Item 5: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 523 Forest Hill Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. James R. Hair, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones reiterated that this situation was in conformance with the filed plat, but not with the PD Ordinance. Therefore, the variance request is to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed. Mr. Wales reported that a 16-ft. fence relocation is proposed for this lot, as shown on the drawing included in the packet. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 6: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 532 Forest Hill Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Daniel Tutimo, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that this was also a situation where there was no notation on the Vistas 1-B plat for the fenceline setback, adding that this property is right across the street from the previous case. He noted that this is one of the addresses in which the fence was constructed before a permit was issued. Chairman Stonecipher pointed that two letters had been received from nearby property owners, both in favor of the request. Mr. Wales commented that considering the extreme depth of this lot and the way the driveway is situated, the only useable yard is the sideyard, and these property owners do plan to build a pool. He indicated that a visibility clip is proposed for this lot, as well. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 7: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 537 Claremont Court. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Verghese Thomas, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that this lot backs up to 532 Forest Hill Drive. Again, the fence was constructed prior to the issuance of a permit, but it was constructed according to the plat requirements. Mr. Wales pointed out that this lot also requires a slight fence modification, per the Engineering Dept. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 8: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 668 Forest Hill Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Michael Waid, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones distributed a letter, received from a member of the audience, in support of this variance request. He noted that a fence permit was issued, as constructed, but it does not meet the original PD conditions. Mr. Wales explained that, although it's not shown on the drawing, a pool was built on this lot and it extends slightly over the building line. Mr. Wales indicated that there is no fence modification suggested for this lot by the City's Engineering Dept. Public Hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was Mr. Moturi Chandra, of 641 Waterview Drive, who indicated that he was the author of the letter submitted in favor of this request. No one spoke in opposition of the request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 9: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Section 9-2-6(D) of the City's Code of Ordinances, for the property located at 318 Rockcrest Court. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Mark Yeager, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain as constructed. Greg Jones reported that this case is slightly different from the others due to the curved front building line along 318 Rockcrest, the setback for which is 20 feet. The fence permit, in this case, was approved according to the plat and according to the PD conditions. However, the fence builder chose to continue the fence along the 20-ft. building line, and align it with the existing fence at 701 Lyndsie. Greg Jones explained that this is actually a front setback issue, and the fence was not constructed in compliance with the drawings submitted with the permit. Mr. Wales indicated that this house is located on a cul-de-sac, and there's only one house and a common area beyond it. He agreed that the fence was constructed in the wrong place, but the City's Engineering Office has recommended a slight clip to improve visibility at the alley. Public Hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was Mark Yeager, the homeowner. He commented that he purchased this lot as a premium lot and needs the large-sized yard for his children. No one spoke in opposition to the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Commissioner Kressmann voting in opposition. Variance granted. Item 10: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 331 Rockcrest Court. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. James Martin, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that the remaining four cases are also located in Phase 2-C of the Vistas of Coppell. He noted that this fence met the setback requirements, as shown on the plat, and a permit was issued. Mr. Wales indicated that there is a pool on this lot, but there were no visibility modifications suggested for this fence. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 11: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 328 Waterview Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Gary Grimes, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that this lot is very similar to the four surrounding it, with the permit being approved according to the plat conditions. Mr. Wales reported that there is a slight visibility clip for this lot. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the suggested visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 12: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 332 Waterview Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Marc Hoffmeister, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that this a similar condition to the one at 328 Waterview Drive, and permit approval was granted according to the plat. Mr. Wales indicated that the fence would be modified with a slight clip, as shown on the drawing. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Hoppie to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 13: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A- 130, as amended for the Planned Development No. 149, for the property located at 704 Lvndsie Drive. Mr. Grayson Wales, of Centex Homes, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Scott Benson, is requesting that the existing fence be allowed to remain in place. Greg Jones explained that this is a very similar condition to the previous ones. The permit was approved, according to the plat, and the fence was constructed per the approved drawing. Mr. Wales explained that there would be a slight relocation of this fence, for public safety purposes. Public Hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Public Hearing was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it was constructed, but with the completion of the proposed visibility clip. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Other Business Greg Jones thanked Board members for their patience and diligence in hearing these cases. Greg Jones reported that no variances had been received, to date, for the September meeting. He indicated, also, that board members would be notified of any changes in meeting location, due to the proposed renovation of Council Chambers. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoppie, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary