BM 2002-03-07 BOAMINUTES OF MARCH 7, 2002
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance: Absent:
David Stonecipher, Chairman John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner
Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman
Steven Wright, Commissioner Also present:
Norman Kressmann, Commissioner Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Robert Chomiak, Commissioner Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary
David Terry, Alternate Commissioner
Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner
Robert Turk, Alternate Commissioner
Applicants present:
Mr. Frank M. Pope, 117 S. Heartz Road, Coppell
Mr. Craig Strauss, 896 Mariners Court, Coppell
Item 1: Call to Order.
Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Item 2: Approval of minutes of December 6, 2001, meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2001, meeting.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes
approved.
Item 3: Approval of minutes of February 7, 2002, meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2002, meeting,
with three revisions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion
carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved, pending three corrections, as discussed.
The oath was administered by Chairman Stonecipher for all those wishing to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the requests being heard tonight.
Due to a conflict of interest, Vice Chairman LeGros abstained from serving on the board for the case
involving 117 S. Heartz Road, and Commissioner Terry was invited to fill the vacancy.
Item 4:
Public Hearingto consider approval of a variance request from Sections 35-2(B)(2)(b)(i) and
117 S. Heartz Road
35-2(B)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at .
Mr. Frank M. Pope is requesting a variance to the minimum 10-ft. sideyard setback and a
variance to the 80 percent masonry requirement for an accessory building, in this SF-7 zoned
district.
Greg Jones distributed a letter, from a nearby property owner, received in support of the variance request.
He then explained that this project was started without first obtaining a permit, and after looking at the
1
property and the plan for the structure, a City inspector determined that a permit could not be issued, due to
two issues: the accessory structure was too close to the south property line, and it did not meet the 80
percent masonry coverage required for a structure exceeding 150 square feet. Greg Jones added that other
options were discussed, but, based on the intended use of the structure, the applicant preferred not to make
changes to his original plan. Greg Jones explained that removal of the open-roofed area would eliminate
both the masonry and setback problems..
Referring to topography, Greg Jones explained that the lot slopes downward toward the rear of the property,
leaving the flatter areas, located toward the front of the lot, more suited to slab construction, but not in
compliance as far as setback requirements are concerned.
Photos of the lot and the partially constructed accessory building, as well as a larger drawing of the
property, were distributed among the board members for review. Greg Jones pointed out that a tree survey
is also included in the packet, adding that tree preservation was a primary consideration in the development
of this lot.
Commissioner Terry asked for clarification in determining the 80 percent masonry coverage, and Greg
Jones responded that the 80 percent masonry exterior is calculated exclusive of doors and windows. He
added that in the case of an accessory building, the open areas are included in the calculation, but a structure
of this design is lacking the supports onto which the brick can be attached.
Commissioner Chomiak asked about the height of the structure, and Greg Jones responded that the 12-ft.
height is allowed, measured from grade level to halfway between the eaves and peak of the roof.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Frank Pope reported that he moved into his new home last July, and it was one of the last lots remaining
with trees on it. He explained that the rear of the property drops off 8 to 10 feet, and the remainder of the lot
is mostly tree-covered. He explained that the roofline of the back porch of the single story house lines up
with the roofline of the accessory building, adding that the flatwork for the accessory building was poured to
line up with that of the house.
Chairman Stonecipher asked Mr. Pope if he was aware of the setback requirements before the building was
started, and Mr. Pope replied that although he was somewhat familiar with various requirements, he simply
got involved in planning the project and preserving the trees, and forgot to apply for a permit. He added,
however, that he has since consulted with his neighbor on the south side and he approves of the plan.
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.
Referring to the Landscape Ordinance, Greg Jones explained that any trees over three inches in diameter
and one foot off the ground actually fall under the City’s tree preservation regulations, but only trees six
inches or more in diameter are normally shown on a tree survey.
Commissioner Wright commented that he felt the primary issue in this situation is the brick coverage, and
not so much the setback. He further commented that the roof structure would be substantial. Chairman
Stonecipher added, however, that it would not be visible from the street, and would really only impact one
neighbor.
2
When asked for more information on how the building is positioned, Mr. Pope returned to the podium and
explained that the accessory building sets at a 45-degree angle with two sliding doors facing east.
Chairman Stonecipher announced that this request would be separated into two motions.
Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to the sideyard setback. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Commissioner
Kressmann voting in opposition. Variance granted.
Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak to grant the variance to the 80 percent masonry requirement.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion was denied by a vote of 3 to
2, with Commissioners Kressmann and Terry voting in opposition. Variance denied.
Vice Chairman LeGros returned to serve on the Board, and Commissioner Terry was excused.
Chairman Stonecipher administered the oath for those arriving late.
Item 5:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 13-3-1(C) of the
896 Mariners Court
City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at . Mr. Craig C.
Strauss is requesting a 3.75-ft. variance to the required 20-ft. rear building line, to allow for
the construction of a room addition, in this SF-7 zoned district.
Greg Jones explained that the applicant wishes to add a second floor to his home, and in doing so, is
requesting a 3.75-ft. variance to the rear yard setback. He further explained that the applicant had concerns
about allowing adequate space for the stairway, as well as the practicality of constructing a room that would
be less that 15-ft. wide.
Greg Jones reported that although the applicant did not have a floor plan when he applied for the variance
request, he has a drawing to share, tonight, and his contractor is also available to answer questions. Lastly,
he distributed a letter from a neighbor in support of the variance request.
In conclusion, Greg Jones reported that any approvals by this Board would not be superior to any
restrictions by the homeowners association of Waterside Estates subdivision.
The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case.
Mr. Craig Strauss explained that his lot is odd-shaped, deeper on the left side than on the right. He showed
the elevation plans and the floor plans for his proposed addition, explaining that the expansion will include
the construction of a stairway and two second floor bedrooms above the garage. He added that without the
variance, the roofline and aesthetics of the front of the house would be impacted. He further explained that
the adjacent neighbors would be unable to see the addition, and had willingly signed a letter approving the
request.
Michael Josephson, contractor for the project, emphasized that the 3.75-ft. variance is the minimum needed
to maintain the workability of the stairway, and to avoid having to force the addition forward which would
necessitate the addition of a strip of siding to the front of the house, which is currently 100 percent cast
stone and brick. He explained that there must be a landing at the top of the stairs, as well as a 6-ft., 8-in.
clearance at the top of the stairway, adding that for every foot that you move inward, one step is lost,
causing the stairway to become taller. Also, if three of the steps are turned sideways, space is lost in the
family room.
3
Commissioner Wright asked about the homeowner’s association requirements regarding the strip of siding
on the front of the house, and, specifically, whether all-brick or stone is required on the front of houses in
this subdivision. Commissioner LeGros asked if the masonry of the addition would be consistent with that
of the rest of the house, and Mr. Josephson replied that it would be.
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.
Commissioner LeGros commented that there appeared to be no evidence of an unnecessary hardship, but
nothing contrary to public interest, either. Chairman Stonecipher expressed his agreement, but added that
the house is located in a high visibility area. Commissioner Wright commented that almost everything
along MacArthur is two-story, and possibly the irregular shape of the lot creates a slight hardship.
Chairman Stonecipher commented that the shape of lot doesn’t have a direct effect on the structure, and
these issues could be resolved by a design change.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to grant the variance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion was denied by a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioners Stonecipher
and Kressmann voting in opposition. Variance denied.
Item 6: Other Business.
An updated roster was distributed, and several revisions to it were reported.
Greg Jones announced that drafts of the ordinances for adoption of the 2000 International Codes were
th
currently being reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, and were expected to be placed on the March 19
City Council agenda. He added that Chairman Stonecipher’s attendance at that meeting would be
appreciated.
Vice Chairman LeGros reported that he represented the Board at the recent Mayor’s Breakfast, and provided
a status report of the Board’s activity over the past year.
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
__________________________________________
David Stonecipher, Chairman
__________________________________________
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary
4