Loading...
PD183-CS 990902 CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS BOARD OF ADJUST1VrF NT Thursday, September 2, 1999 The Board of Adjustment met on Thursday, September 2, 1999, in the City Council Chambers located in Town Center, 255 Parkway. Board members present: Alternate board members present: David Stonecipher, Chairman Robert Chomiak, Alternate Commissioner Mark LeGros, Commissioner Charles Armstrong, Alternate Commissioner Jaw. shed Samadar, Commissioner Steven Wright, Commissioner Alternate board members unable to attend: Eric Wewers, Alternate Commissioner Board member unable to attend: $ohn Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Cletus Glasener, Vice Chairman Staff members present: Applicants present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mr. John Gesek, 465 S. Denton Tap Road I. David Dodd IH, City Attorney's Office Mr./ay S. Turner, 465 S. Denton Tap Road Bob Kruse, Fire Chief Mr. William Dahlstrom, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Mr. Mark Wainscott, 4815 Keller Springs, Addison ITEM 1: Call to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Commissioner Armstrong was invited to step forward and serve on the Board in the absence of Vice Chairman Glasener. ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes from August 5, 1999 Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros that the minutes of the August 5, 1999, meeting be approved as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. 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 3: Public Hearing to consider a request for a variance from Sections 33-1-1 and 34-1-8(C)(2)(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located in Phase II of the Creekview Addition, Block B, Lot 1. Mr. John Gesek and Mr. Jay S. Turner are requesting the following: (1) Waive the 6-fL screening wall on the east side of the property separating this lot from the adjacent residential subdivision; and (2) Waive the 10-ft. landscape requirement on the south side of the property due to lot configuration and the existing shared access easement. Chairman Stonecipher asked that the two variance requests be discussed and considered separately. Greg Jones explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance would require that the 6-ft. masonry screening wall be erected between the proposed non-residential use and the residential district to the east. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow this requirement to be modified by allowing a landscape area consisting of mature trees to substitute for the masonry screening wall. He explained that the second portion of the request is a waiver of the 10-ft. perimeter landscape buffer, as required by Ordinance, to separate vehicular uses from adjacent property owners. He explained that normally that buffer would be required at the property line, but, in cases such as this, where there's a shared access drive, the Ordinance allows the 10-ft. perimeter landscape buffer to be relocated inward. Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 2 Greg Jones indicated that this project was reviewed in DRC, but Staff did not have the opportunity to suggest other configuration options with the applicant regarding the location of the landscape buffer or the orientation of the building. He noted that the existing drive would not need to be removed, but the landscape buffer could simply be relocated in order to meet the landscape provision. Regarding the masonry screening wall, Greg Jones commented that such a wall would be a sight and sound barrier for the residential area to the east. He explained that the trees at the rear of the property are primarily deciduous, including post oaks and cedar elms, and questioned how much actual screening would be provided. He added that the applicant plans to save 26 trees at the rear of the site, and although the City favors saving as many trees as possible, Staff is concerned that there may not be a property hardship with regard to the elimination of the screening wall. Chairman Stonecipher asked if any written responses had been received from surrounding property owners, and Greg Jones indicated that there were none. Chairman Stonecipher asked that the screening wall issue be discussed first. Specifically, he asked if the property to the immediate south contained a rear masonry screening wall, and Greg Jones indicated that it did not. Commissioner Jamadar asked if the masonry wall is always required to be at the property line, and Greg Jones explained that because its purpose is to screen the applicant's use from the residents, locating the wall further in on the property is acceptable. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his ease. Mr. John Gesek commented regarding an earlier reference made to a 30-ff. setback for this property. He explained that they were told throughout the DRC review process that a 60-ft. setback would be required for this lot, and, for that reason, the building is situated as it is on the lot. Greg Jones clarified that the way the building is configured, it does require a 60-ft. setback. However, if the front yard parking was eliminated, the front yard setback could be reduced to 30 feet. Mr. Gesek further explained that this is a pre-lease building, to be used primarily by four tenants. He noted that this situation does present somewhat of a hardship, adding that the building was specifically designed to fit this odd pie-shaped lot, while also considering the setbacks, the parking requirements, and the attempt to save as many mature trees as possible. Mr. Gesek explained that the rear of the lot has been designated a preservation zone, and considering that Dr. Gemoules' lot to the south is approximately the same configuration, it would be preferable to have the two lots look somewhat similar. He noted that it's a professional office building, not a high traffic, retail environment. Chairman Stonecipher asked for distance estimates between this lot, the creek, and the adjacent homes, and Mr. Gesek estimated it to be about 100 feet. Mx. Jay Turner, also an applicant, revised that estimate to be between 100 to 150 feet between the rear driveway and the creek. The applicants responded that the preservation zone would be an all-natural setting with existing trees, similar to Dr. Gemoules' property. Mx. Turner indicated that an elaborate landscape plan has been submitted for the City's approval, and the masonry wall, if it is to be required, would extend from Bethel Road and abruptly end at the south end of their property line, without extending onto Dr. Gemoules' property. Mr. Turner also explained that the shared access on these two properties was platted in 1993 when Dr. Gemoules built his clinic. At that time, the driveway was paved just far enough back for Dr. Gemoules to access his parking lot. With this new office building, the driveway will be extended further to complete that access easement. Regarding the waiver of the 10-ff. landscape buffer, Commissioner Jamadar asked if any attempt has been made to incorporate that landscaping shortfall elsewhere on the property. To make up the shortfall, Mr. Gesek explained that they proposed to add it between the building and sidewalk on the south side, but, in discussions with the City, it was determined that a grassy area would be better suited to that section. Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 3 Chairman SWnecipher commented that a masonry wall serves as a sound barrier, as well as a visual barrier, adding that during the winter months when the trees are bare, there will be very little sound and visual barrier. He asked if the applicants would be willing to add some type of foliage barrier or hedge that would block the view of the cars in the parking lot. Both applicants agreed that some sort of hedge could be easily incorporated into the existing landscape plan. Commissioner Wright asked about the elevation of the access road in comparison to the building. Mr. Gesek indicated that they were required, for floodplain reasons, to adhere to a fixed floor height, resulting in a 3-ft. drop from the back of the building to the driveway and parking lot. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of the screening wall variance request. The following spoke in opposition to the screening wall variance request: Susan Patterson, 159 Shiloh Court, pointed out the location of her home, noting that the lots on Shiloh Court set right up against the creek. She commented that because Creekview is a one-way-in and one-way-out neighborhood, she and her neighbors are concerned about the landscaping plan for this lot, since it will be the focal point upon entering the neighborhood. Debbie Algier, 152 Shiloh Court, explained that her house is located halfway between Dr. Gemoules and this property, adding that there is a lot of openness in the creek area during the winter months. However, she indicated that she did not feel she or her neighbors would be exposed to the noise of traffic, since the parking area is located at the front of the lot. Ms. Algier asked for verification on the expansion of the shared access driveway. Discussion continued on the possible changes in traffic patterns as the area becomes fully developed. In conclusion, Ms. Algier requested that some sort of screening be provided, particularly since the office building will set higher than the homes. Tim Pletta, 150 E. Bethel Road, explained that he owns two lots slightly northeast of the affected property. He voiced his concerns with the slope and drainage of the property, and was asked to contact the Engineering Dept. for further information on that topic, since it did not pertain to this evening's discussion. Mr. Pletta commented that daytime delivery truck traffic would be a noise concern in the neighborhood. He added that the applicants should expect to comply with the Ordinance, as it was enacted, noting that property owners of other vacant properties in the area will be pursuing the same type of exceptions in the furore. Rick Novak, 158 E. Bethel, explained that he is not really opposed to the variance, but should the Board vote to grant the variance, he strongly encourages that some type of provision be placed on a landscape screen. He noted that there's enough brick in this City, and another 6-ft. brick wall is not the answer. He added that the applicant has set aside $15,000 for landscaping, and the City should invest that money in landscaping for that same property, not for landscaping elsewhere in the City. Mr. Turner explained that in his 15 years at his location, he has never received a complaint regarding traffic on his property, including UPS and Federal Express delivery trucks. He added that they would make every attempt to control the noise level, including a screen around the dumpster area. He added that Denton Tap would be the primary ingress and egress. Discussion continued on potential traffic patterns, noise levels, and possibilities for screening. Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Gesek explained that the 10-ft. landscape buffer was not part of the Ordinance when this property was originally platted. Mr. Gesek asked Mr. Pletta how a 6-ft. screening wall would have any benefit for him since his property is located on the other side of the street. Mr. Pletta responded that he simply wants an assurance that some sort of screening device, preferably a masonry wall, would be built to protect the privacy of neighbors. The meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner Armstrong commented about the importance of the entrance and egress issues related to this case. Commissioner Wright commented that having access to a landscape plan would have been beneficial in making tonight's decision, adding that he did not feel the Board should be involved in trying to approve a substitution for the screening, since there is no such detail available this evening for the Board's consideration. Greg Jones explained that for this type of use, the plant palette in the Zoning Ordinance suggests approved shrubbery types in the 3-ft. height range for a living screen. He suggested that rather than propose a modification that sends the applicant back through the entire approval process, the variance be denied with the stipulation that some type of screen be provided for, as specified by Section 34 of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Stonecipher asked David Dodd, of the City Attorney's Office, for his recommendation on the approach to use. David Dodd explained that the Board could legally grant a conditional variance, indicating that approval is subject to the agreement that shrubs and greenery of a suitable height be approved, according to Section 34. Commissioner LeGros made a motion that the hearing be re-opened to the public. Motion was not seconded. Commissioner lamadar commented that the residents have specifically requested some type of screen, and, because the living screen requkements do not meet the 6-ft. height requirement, perhaps stipulation could be made that the plants chosen be those that reach a 6-fL mature height. Chairman Stonecipher questioned whether the Board can do that, procedurally. Mr. Dodd explained that the applicant would need to be able to identify, specifically, the plants of choice, but there don't appear to be any plants in the 6-ft. range listed in the plant palette. Commissioner iIamadar asked if it could be subject to Staff approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that the variance request to waive the 6-ft. screening wall on the east side of the property be denied. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that the variance request to waive the 10-ft. perimeter landscape buffer be granted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner lamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. ITEM 4: Public Hearing to consider a request for a variance from Section 34-1-8(C) and 34-1-9 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, for the Sonic drive-in restaurant located at 201 N. Denton Tap Road. Mr. William Dahlstrom is requesting a variance to reduce the required landscaping and tree count for the proposed new menu-board parking area. Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 5 Greg Jones explained that the existing Sonic drive-in was approved prior to the current Landscape Ordinance, so the landscaping on the site does not comply with the current requirements. He reported that Sonic recently purchased land along tho north side to add nine new menu-board spaces, plus some additional head-in parking, and in this new configuration, there are some shortfalls in the landscape and tree ratios. He reported that the applicant withdrew the variance request for a reduced tree count, and will provide the two additional trees to meet the full 23-tree requirement. Regarding the perimeter landscaping, he reported that the requirement is 6,932 sq. ft., and the applicant is requesting a reduction to 4,902 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant is requesting a reduction in non-vehicular landscape area from 4,340 sq. ft. to 1,819 sq. ft. He added that while the interior landscape area exceeds the Ordinance requirement by 1,116 sq. ii., there is an overall landscape shortfall of 3,435 sq. ft. for this property. Greg Jones added that he would have preferred to see this case go through the PD process for approval. In terms of property hardship, he explained that there are some constraints to the property, in that the applicant is unable to make up any landscape shortfalls elsewhere on the property. He reported that the property to the north of Sonic is an empty parcel, and although Sonic has purchased a portion of it, they could remedy some their shortfall problems by purchasing a little more land, bringing them a little closer to meeting the landscape ratio. Commissioner Armstrong asked about the status of the property located directly to the rear of this parcel, and Greg Jones explained that it was incorporated into the Huntington Ridge subdivision. Chairman Stonecipher asked for a definition of non-vehicular landscaping, and Greg Jones responded that there are three types of landscaping: perimeter, which is the 10-ft. wide buffer (or 15 ft. for street rights-of-way); interior parking landscaping, which requires 10 percent of the paved area to be landscaped; and non-vehicular, which is 15 percent of the outside perimeter of the site, after the building footprint has been subtracted. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. Bill Dahlstrom, representing the applicant, reiterated that the full requirement of 23 trees would be provided. Referring to the drawing, he pointed out the existing facility, and indicated that City Council has already approved the addition of the nine menu-board spaces, as well as additional parking spaces in the rear, pending approval of the variance by this Board. Mark Wainscott, architect for the project, explained that his architectural fnma designed the original site for the Sonic five years ago. He noted that this current plan was submitted to DRC and additional land was purchased to the north to accommodate more landscaping. He explained that Sonic purchased as much land as was available, while maintaining the sales value of the remaining tract of land. He noted that, with the exception of the landscaping, the applicant agreed to comply with all other requirements, such as type of planting material and moving the dumpster, as outlined by Planning and Zoning. Mr. Wainscott further commented that the Mayor and one councilmember recently received comments from a resident who lives behind the Sonic property, expressing approval of this expansion, and adding that Sonic has been a good neighbor these past five years. Regarding the perimeter landscaping, Mr. Dahlstrom pointed out the perimeter areas which comply with the Ordinance. In addition, he pointed out the areas in which perimeter landscaping cannot be provided because it would interfere with the circulation of traffic on the site. He noted, however, that the same protection to adjacent properties that exists today would be maintained under the new configuration. Referring to the non- Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 6 vehicular landscaping requirement, Mr. Dahlstrom reported that they attempted to make up some of the landscape shortfall within the interior, but it is physically impossible to meet the full requirement. Mr. Dablstrom emphasized that the resultant landscaping, when the expansion is complete, will be more than is currently available on the site. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification on the comment that there is no more land available for purchase. Mi'. Wain.scott responded that the property owner cannot sell off any more land without reducing the remaining tract to an undesirable size for its intended use. The meeting was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance request was Margaret Kressmann, 131 Clover Meadow Lane. She indicated that she was the resident, referred to earlier by the applicant, who spoke to the Mayor and councilmember in favor of Sonic's proposed plans. She explained that while she does not live immediately adjacent to the Sonic property, she is a member of the homeowners' association board, and is speaking tonight on behalf of that organization. She added that she felt the spirit of the landscape ordinance was being fulfilled in the applicant's proposal. No one spoke in opposition to the variance request. Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner LeGros asked if the landscape requirements were being fully met if the new expanded section was considered separately, and Greg Jones responded that properties generally are not viewed in that way, but rather as an overall consideration. Commissioner Armstrong asked if the net result of the expansion is a gain in landscape area, and Greg Jones agreed that landscaping is being added to the site at a greater ratio with this expansion, than it was originally, but the shortfall is still approximately 3400 sq. ft. Motion was made by Commissioner Jamadar to grant the variance request as written. Chairman Stonecipher clarified the motion to exclude the variance request for a reduction in the tree count. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Commissioner Wright voting in opposition. Variance granted. OTHER BUSINESS: Greg Jones announced that Vice Chairman, Cletus Glasener, moved out of the City and has resigned. Because this happened at appointment time, he explained that City Council will be able to fill that vacancy, at the same time as the regular appointments, and a current alternate will be moved up to fill that position on the Board. Greg Jones reminded the Board that elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman will be held in October, or at the next meeting. Board of Adjustment September 2, 1999 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Commissioner l.~Gros that the mc~ing be adjourned. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. David Stone. cipher, Chairman Spletzer, Rec~rding~ecretary