Loading...
BM 2001-06-07 BOAMINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2001 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: David Stonecipher, Chairman Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman Steven Wright, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner David Terry, Alternate Commissioner Robert Turk, Alternate Commissioner Absent: Norman Kressmann, Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Applicant present: Brian Kennedy, 149 Cottonwood Drive, Coppell Robert and Elizabeth Houston, 423 Sea Hawk Court, Coppell Item 1: Call to Order. Commissioner Terry was invited to serve on the Board, in the absence of Commissioner mressmann. Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Stonecipher 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: Approval of Minutes of May 3, 2001 Meeting Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2001 meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Sections 29-3-3(I) and 29-4-2(B) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 200 North Texas Court. Mr. Brian Kennedy is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of an off-premise monument sign, or, as an alternate, a reduction in the sideyard setback, due to the fact that the required landscaping would reduce the visibility of the approved sign location. Greg Jones explained that this request is simply for approval of the location of a monument sign. He explained that the parcel forms a "T" at the end of North Texas Court, and is, therefore, wider at the rear of the property than at the right-of-way. He added that this configuration presented a lot of discussion in DRC since the front face of the building is actually wider than the street frontage, thereby affecting the calculation of the attached signage. Furthermore, he noted that the landscape island at the end of the cul-de-sac is not actually part of the parcel, but Mr. Kennedy is requesting approval to place the monument sign within that island, or, if it be the Board's preference, at an alternate location that would not meet the setback requirements. He indicated that although Mr. Kennedy had not yet provided an actual drawing showing his request, a written explanation of his two options is included in his application. Greg Jones further explained that when the Sign Ordinance was written in the late '80s, it was assumed that commercial parcels would have street frontage on a main thoroughfare, and visibility problems, such as this, normally would not occur. He added that Staff would support some type of relief for this parcel, due to the visibility concerns from Denton Tap Road, and other unusual property conditions. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Brian Kennedy displayed a drawing of the parcel, explaining that it was site-planned as one lot, but is actually two lots separated by a right-of-way. He pointed out that the location of the monument sign, as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, is in front of the flagpoles, within the landscape island. He explained, however, that in order to meet the City' s landscaping requirements, the bulk of the landscaping will need to be placed in that same landscape island, which, although it creates poor visibility of the sign, is his preferred location. He further explained that the alternate location would be to place the sign, at an angle, at the entryway to the parking area, adding that the sign was originally disallowed in this alternate location because it did not meet the 75-ft. minimum setback requirement. Mr. Kennedy explained the pros and cons of each of the two locations, as they relate to visibility, parking, and safety issues. He concluded that he is completely in favor of an ordinance disallowing off-premise signs, but feels that this particular parcel presents a special hardship. He commented that his first preference for sign location falls within what he believes to be the spirit of the Ordinance, and would not block any sight lines. He added that if the Board chooses the alternate location, the sign may not be beneficial in helping people find the facility, but would provide the advantage of clearly marking the "Everybody Fits" parking area. When asked to explain the attached signage, Mr. Kennedy responded that the sign on the building will read "Everybody Fits", followed by individual panels to identify each of the tenants within the building. Mr. Kennedy further reported that the maintenance of the landscape island will be his responsibility. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Concern was expressed by board members that when the adjacent vacant property is developed, the "Everybody Fits" monument sign, if located within the landscape island, may overshadow signage for the adjacent parcel. Discussion continued, and it was determined that the adjacent property probably would not be affected by signage in the landscape island. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant the variance to allow an off-premise monument sign, in the applicant's preferred location, within the landscape island and in front of the flagpoles. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. 2 Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 32-2-1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-2 of the City's Code of Ordinances, for the property located at 423 Sea Hawk Court. Ms. Elizabeth Houston is requesting a sideyard variance, angling along the south side of the lot, from the existing fenceline outward to the sight distance easement, to allow for the construction of a pool, in this SF-9 zoned district. Greg Jones explained that when this home was built in 1998, the fence was constructed, nearly at the street, along Bethel School Road. The builder was asked to move the fence back to the required 25-ft. building line. He further explained that the front building line, along Sea Hawk, is also maintained at 25 feet, and there is a visibility triangle along Bethel School Road for the street curvature. He reported that the Houston family is requesting this variance to allow the fence to be moved outward, at varying distances, to allow for the construction of a pool in the backyard. Greg Jones further reported that surrounding neighbors were contacted, but no letters were received in favor of the variance request or in opposition to it. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Elizabeth Houston explained that the existing fence bisects their yard. The fence was left in its present condition by the builder, but was supposed to have a trellis on top to bring it up to eight feet, adding that all of this will be achieved when the fence location question is resolved. Robert Houston indicated that they want to move the fence outward to the sight easement line, explaining that the fence would be moved outward about 10 feet at the rear of the lot, but be gradually reduced to six or seven feet toward the front of the lot. Elizabeth Houston explained that the fence was moved to its present location by the builder, just one week before they closed on the property. But, when they were prospective buyers looking at the property, the fence was still located in its original location, about six feet from the street. The hearing was opened to the 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. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to grant the variance to allow the fence to be moved outward to the sight distance line, and tie into the corner of the neighbor's fence at a 45-degree angle from the rear property line, as shown on the enclosed sketch. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Item 5: Other Business. Greg Jones announced that applications had been distributed to board members whose terms are due to expire in September. He announced that Commissioner Kressmann had been appointed to fill the position vacated by Commissioner Jamadar. Adjournment. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary