Loading...
PD183-CS 990805~ 10-00 O~e~P P.02 ~ OF COPI~.!.T., TEXAS BOARD OF ADJUSTMk':NT Thursdny, August 5, 1999 The Board of Adjustment met on Thursday, August 5, 1999, in the City Council Chambers located in Town Center, 255 Parkway. Roard members present: ~lternnte board members present: David Stonecipher, Chairman Robert Chomiak, Alternate Commissioner Mark I.eGros, Commissioner Charles Armstrong, Alternate Commissioner Jamshed Jamadax, Commissioner {ohn Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Steven Wright, Commissioner Board member unable to attend: Alternate board member unable to attend: Cletus Glasener, Vice Chairman Eric Wewers, Alternate Commissioner Staff members present: Al~lic~nts present: Greg lone. s, Chief Building Official Robert Howman, 100 Decker Court, Irving Sason Marshall, City Attorney's Office Gary Keep, SHW Architects Bob Kruse, Fire Chief Dot Hayman, Sun Ports International Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Sol Goldberg, Sun Ports International ITEM 1: Call to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Stonecipher. Commissioner Chomiak was invited to step forward and serve on the Board in the absence of Vice Chairman Olasener. ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes from April 1, 1999 Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Chomiak that the minutes of the April 1, 1999, meeting be approved as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 0, with Commissioner Jamadar abstaining. Chairman Stonecipher administered the oath for ali members of the audience wishing to speak either for or against the requests being presented at this meeting. ITEM 3: Public Hearing to consider requests for six special exceptions and three variances from the City's Zoning Ordinance, as listed below, for thc property located at 185 W. Parkway Blvd. The requests are being made by Mr. Robert Howman, of Glenn Engineering, on behalf of thc Coppell Independent School District. Special exceptions: Section 31-5-1: to allow the size of the new parking spaces to be 9-ft. by 18-ft. Ordinance statei: "Off-street parking spaces shah be a minimum of 9-ft. wide and a minimum of 19 ft, long.'' Section 31-6-32: to reduce the required parking spaces from 3,333 to 1,940. Ordinance states: "One parking space for each four seats in thc main auditorium, or eight spaces for each classroom, whichever is greater." Nou-lg-gg O3:§8P P.03 Board of Adju~m~ent August 5, 1999 Page 2 Section 34-1401)(3): to permit a single row of parking to contain more than 15 parking spaces without a planting island. Ordinance states: 'Planting islands shall be located at each terminus of each single row of parking and, when a single row of parking contains more than 15 parking spaces, at intervals between each terminus. The intervals shall be such that planting islands within a single row of parking shall be separated by no more than 15 parking spaces and by no less than 5 parking spaces." Section 34-1-8(B): to approve 18 landscape islands with tree preservation to fulfill the 88 planting islands requirement, as well as allow the one tree requirement per planting island be planted along the northern edge of the proposed parking pavement. Ordinance states: "A minimum of 10 percent of the gross non-exempt area utilized for off-street parking and loading shall be devoted to living landscaping which includes grass, ground cover, plants, shrubs and trees." Section 34-14(B)0): ~o allow some parking islands to be under the minimum area of 150 sq. fL and a minimum width of 9 ft. Ordinance states: 'Such planting islands shall have a minimum area of 150 sq. ft. and a minimum width of 9 ft." Section 34-1-8(B)(3): to allow the four rows of parking by the tennis courts with handicap parking spaces to not have the planting islands at the northern end. Ordinance states: 'Planting islands shall be located at each terminus of each single row of parking and, when a single row of parking contains more than 15 parking spaces, at intervals between each terminus. The intervals shall be such that planting islands within a single row of parking shall be separated by no more than 15 parking spaces and by no less than 5 parking spaces." Variances: Section 34-1-8(O: to waive the 30-inch high hedge or berm requirement to screen parking spaces along the northern edge of the property. Ordinance states: 'All off-street parking.., shall be greened from all abutting properties and/or public right-of-ways by a wall, fence, hedge, or berm. Plants and materials used in living barriers shall be at least 30 inches in height at the time of planting..." Section 34-1-8(B)O): to authorize concrete planting islands, as opposed to landscape islands, at the end of each row of parking. Ordinance states: 'Planting islands shall contain at least one tree. In addition, planting islands sba/1 be landscaped with shrubs, lawn, ground covet and other appropriate material no! to exceed 3 ft. in height." ~-10-00 O~eE~P P.04 Boa.,'d of Adjustment August 5, 1999 Page 3 Section 33-1-1: to waive the 6-t~. high screenin~ requirement for a non-residential use adjacent to a single family residential district. Ordinance state~: 'Where the side, rear, or service side of an apartment, or the side, rear, or service side of a non-residential use is adjacent to a single-family or two-family residential district, a screening wall not less than 6-ft. in height shall be erected separating the use from the adjacent residential district. In addition, a perimeter landscape area at least 10 ft. wide shall adjoin the screening wall." Six sm.n:ial exception.n: Commissioner Stonecipher inlxoduced the first six special exceptions, noting that they would be considered separately from the variance requests. Greg Jones reported that Coppell High School received Council approval in 1987 to construct ira present facility, including the 6,000-seat stadium. He noted that the school is now undergoing a 9,000 sq. ft. addition that will increase classroom size, including the addition of a two-story ninth grade wing at the south end, a band hall expansion, and modifications to the administrative offices and lecture halls. He noted that these changes have been approved, the permit was issued, and construction is now underway. He added that this evening's hearing pertains to proposed changes which ax~ scheduled for next summer, including: additional parking areas at the north end; a new multi-purpose building; the relocation of tennis courts; and modifications to the stadium to increase the seating capacity to 10,000. As background information, Greg Jones refen'ed to the letter ia the packet, dated January 28, 1987, in which certain conditions concerning the high school property were previously approved by City Council when the high school was first built. Referring to a sketch, Greg ilones highlighted each of the six special exceptions under consideration. He also distributed an updated item-by-item listing, provided by Glenn Engineering, of the variances and special exceptions, noting that he would have preferred that this case be handled as a Planned Development, due to the large number of individual requests involved. He added that although Staff is sympathetic to the growing needs of the high school, the property hardship conditions have not been fully explained by applicant. He further indicated that 125 notifications of this meeting were mailed to property owners within a 200 sq. ft. radius of the high school, but no written re. sponses were received from any of them. He concluded that these requests were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and are scheduled for the next Tuesday's City Council agenda. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. Robert Howman, of Glenn Engineering, presented the case on behalf of the Coppell Independent School District. Referring to the sketch, he pointed out the 14-acre upper tract and floodplain, noting Board of Adjustment August 5, 1999 Page 4 that the school is attempting to reclaim the portion of this tract, which is outside the floodplain, with the intention of building a living screen to buffer the two sections. He noted that the parking reduction, from the required 1:3 to approximately 1:5 ratio, is a common ratio in other school districts around the area. In addition, he explained that the school has implemented a district-wide contingency plan involving bussing from Middle School North and Town Center Elementary, in the case of a massive parking event. Mr. Howman pointed out that the tree preservation area consists of some very old oak trees, which the school plans to preserve. He further explained that to maximize available space for parking, the required planting islands would be replaced with additional plantings in thc tree preservation area and at thc perimeter to create a living buffer between the school and the residential area to thc north. He noted that this would be equivalent in square footage to 187 planting islands, which far exceeds the original requirement. Mr. Howman indieated that removal of the tree islands at the end of the four rows of handicap parking would allow placement of the parking spaces closer to the tennis courts. Commissioner LeGros asked for clarification on what the current stadium parking ratio is, and Mr. Howman indicated that it is approximately 1:5. Commissioner Wright asked how the common 1:5 parking ratio was determined, and Mr. Howman indicated that it was determined by SHW Architects, which speclnliTes in schools. Commissioner Wright asked how the 1:5 ratio is working in Coppell, and Gary Keep, representing SHW Architects, indicated that the several of the football games have reached the 6,000 mark in attendance, adding that a 10,000-seat capacity reduces the congestion most of the time. Chairman Stonecipher asked how the size of the parking spaces compares to that of other schools, and Mr. Howman responded that the 9-ft. by 18-ft. size is standard in 80 percent of the districts. The meeting was opened to the public for those wishing to speak in favor of the special exceptions. Melvin Gross, 152 Cottonwood Drive, asked how the school acquired this section of land and how they plan to make it useable. Chairman Stonecipher asked that this question be addressed at a later time. Iim Kendrick, 331 Martel Lane, expressed his concern that the ongoing construction at the high school will seriously limit the number of available student parking spaces, creating a natural overflow of parking into the Mattel Lane area. He requested that "no parking" designations be posted on Martel Lane, Auburn Lane, and Mattel Court. Members of the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the special exceptions were invited to step forward. No one spoke in opposition to the request. The public hearing was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Iamadar to grant the six special exceptions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Six special exceptions were grant~. Nov-]B-BB 04:00P P.06 Board of Adjustment August 5, 1999 Page 5 Three variance re~luests: Chairman Stonecipher announced that the variance request to waive the 30-inch high hedge or berm requirement to screen parking spaces along the northern edge of the property had been withdrawn by the applicant. Chairman Stonecipher introduced the variance request to allow concrete islands, as opposed to landscape islands, at thc end of each row of parking. Greg Jones explained that this variance request is to modify thc landscape islands with either a concrete or brick substitute for thc required landscaping, noting that the applicant would provide clarification. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. Robert Howman explained that the main purpose of this request is to relocate and group thc trees around the perimeter of the parking lot to provide a living screen between the school and the residents to the north. Mr. Keep added that planting islands are a tremendous maintenance issue in a high school setting. Commissioner Chomiak asked what thc material would be for the islands, and Mr. Keep indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission prefers the use of brick, while the architectural firm would like to explore brick-patterned concrete. The meeting was opened to thc public. Speaking in favor of thc variance was Pat Campbell, 315 Mattel Lane. He noted that stamped islands or patterned concrete would be acceptable, assuming that Glenn Engineering will follow through on their commitment to provide adequate screening between the school and residential areas. No one spoke 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 Chomiak that the variance request be granted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance granted. Chairman Stonecipher introduced the last variance request to waive the 6-ft. high screening requirement for a non-residential use adjacent to a single family residential district. Greg Jones indicated that because the single family use begins at the end of the school's parking lot, a 6-ft. high masonry screening wall is required. He noted that the applicant is asking that the spatial difference, as well as the proposed extensive landscaping, be accepted in lieu of the screening wall. Commissioner Chomiak asked if this request pertains only to the north boundary, or also to the west, and Greg Jones responded that this request would also apply to a portion of the western boundary. Commissioner Samadar asked for clarification on the location of the current chainlink fence, and Greg Nov-lg-gg 04:00P P.07 Board of Adjustment August 5, 1999 Page 6 Jones pointed it out on the sketch. Commissioner Iamadar also asked if the variance applies only to the new northern addition to the parking lot, and Greg Jones indicated that it did, due to the fact that those were the sections located adjacent to a single family district. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. Keep explained that the variance applies to the property line at the centerline of the creek, making it impossible to build a greening wall in that position. He noted that they have a 25-ft. bank, with a 3 to 1 slope that will rise from the creek to the parking lot, adding that this rise will exceed the 6-ft. requirement for greening. He noted that the treeline would be positioned on top of the knoll, adding that there would be approximately $ feet between the parking and the start of the 3 to I slope. He pointed out that City Ordinance does not al/ow a screening wall to be built in a floodplain. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the plans for the west side of the parking lot. Mr. Keep pointed out the natural channel on the west side which is lined with t~ees. Commissioner Wright asked if it would be possible to place a screening wail where the treeline would be, and ]V[r. Keep indicated that the location of the treeline is actually the only acceptable location for the fence, as determined by the federal government. He noted that the living screen, as opposed to a brick wall, is a better option for the neighbors, in order to maintain the creek environment. Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification on the distance between the perimeter trees and the houses on the north side, and Mr. Keep responded that it is between 200 and 300 feet. Cha/rman Stonccipher asked/V[r. Keep to provide a cross-section of how the northern perimeter will look. Mr. Keep pointed out the location of the 30-inch plantings (berm) needed to screen the CATS, as well the areas of underbrush and miscellaneous vegetation. Mr. Howman added that, through advance planning, 3-inch caliper oak flees and other native planting material arc currently being stocked at the Middle School and will be returned to the high school for transplanting during the landscaping process. Referring to the drainage ditch on the west side, Commissioner LeGros asked if it would be possible for pedestrian traffic to cross at that point, and ]vh-. Keep responded that it does not a~ways contain water, but a chainlink fence, as well as Dr. Gross' fence, would be a deterrent. Chairman Stonecipher commented that it would appear there will always be some sort of barrier, such as creek or drainage ditch, separating the school and residential area, and Mr. Keep added that he felt the creek provides an adequate buffer between thc two. Commissioner LeGros asked if the landscape design provides for pedestrian-unfriendly traffic on thc west side to discourage pedestrians. Mr. Keep responded that the landscaping, combined with the grading, provides a fairly solid barrier, but cannot totally prevent kids from passing through. Meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of the variance request. Nov-19-99 04:01P P.08 ~oard o~ Adjustment August 5, 1~ Page '/ Those speaking in opposition to the variance were: Brian DeCordova, 319 Martel, commented that the floodplain dimensions narrow considerably at his property line, noting that his backyard is only 50 yards from the center of the creek. He commented that although there usually is water in the creek, it's extremely shallow at the bend, and the concrete drainage positioned at that point allows kids to easily walk across. In addition, he commented that during this interim construction phase, only seniors are allowed to park on campus, and other students will be forced to find parking elsewhere; in doing so, they will be searching for shortcuts through residential yards, etc. He noted that it's already apparent where kids arc cutting trails through the landscaping. In addition, Mr. DeCordova commented that the majority of the trees currently in this area are deciduous trees, which lose their leaves, thereby removing any sight barrier that was present during the summer months. Mr. DeCordova asked that the required masonry wall be placed at the highest point, in lieu of the trees. Pat Campbell, 315 Mattel, explained that he has a clear view through the Irees and into the high school parking lot. He commented that he voted in favor of the bond referendum because he's pleased with the qurtlity of the school system. He added that there are very few natural lots in the City, and he feels he paid a premium to get his lot, considering that the developer had to do extensive elevation work, not to mention the additional elevation work which became the homeowners' responsibility in order to meet FEMA requirements. He commented that a 25-ft. decline, as suggested by the engineer, would not really provide screening. In addition, Mr. Campbell commented that he felt the major variances being discussed this evening should have been part of the school district's original bond package. Further, he commented that he did not feel the Board couldn't adequately rule on this case without actually viewing the property. He emphasized the need for a 6-ft. screening wall, in addition to the proposed natural screening. He recommended that the Board decline the variance until: (A) the hardship is proven; (B) a staff recommendation is made; and (C) the Board members actually see the property. Melvin Gross, 152 Cottonwood, reported that when the school was first built, it was allowed a variance to put up a chainlink fence along his property, in lieu of a brick wall, with the understanding that the fence would be maintained with a thickness of ivy; Dr. Gross reported that this promise has not been kept, over the years. Fie further reported that because kids are often seen crossing through neighboring lots, a screening wall should be built along the west side, as well as on the north. Arlin Gaffner, 303 Mattel, expressed his opposition to this variance request. He indicated that he is pleased with the school district. Fie noted that very few specifics, and a lot of generalities, have been presented here tonight. He noted that a mock-up of this plan should be presented to the Board. He noted that landscaping on high school property simply is not a high priority, and a lot more information is needed before consideration can be given to granting this variance. Jim Kendrick, 331 Mm'tel, explained that he paid a premium price for his lot. He commented that, understandably, the previous required screening was waived when the school was first built because the residential area to the north had not yet been developed. Now that the residential area is fully Nev-lg-gg 04:01P P.09 Board of Adjustment August 5, 1999 Page 8 developed, it needs to be understood that the high school parking lot is clearly visible from Mattel. Mr. Kendrick expressed his desire for a solid structure wall with sound insulation. Ben Coe, 401 Mattel, noted that his house will be behind the new tennis courts, adding that the only thing that gives him and his neighbors a little buffer is the strip of property to the south. He emphasiTed_ that the distance between the residences and the school shrinks as the creek bends. The current noise and glare of lights from the high school makes the screening wall a necessity, adding that this problem will only worsen when thc tennis courts arc relocated. He indicated that this experience has been a little disappointing, due to the fact that there were no clues that the school would be expanding closer to Martel Lane, when he moved to the area just three months ago. Greg Adkins, 405 Mattel, reported that it is only 150 feet from his property Line to the center of the creek. He indicated that he has walked thc crock area many times, and in doing so, has seen evidence of partying, presumably by teenagers. He noted that it's quite a challenge, even now, to curtail the kids from crossing through private property. He commented that the screening wall is a reasonable request, adding that if nothing is done this situation will become a problem that the property owners will eventually be required to deal with, as the kids infringe more and more on surrounding private properties. Furthermore, he added that a sound barrier mechanism to reduce the noise is needed at that location. No one else spoke in opposition to the variance request. The meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Chairman Stonecipher asked the Board to consider whether there was a property hardship in this situation. He commented that the presence of a floodplain docs create a slightly different profile for this property. Commissioners LeGros and ~/amadar asked for verification of the fact that no building can take place in the floodplain. (3reg Jones confirmed that structures cannot be built in thc floodplain, and the Ordinance does not state that thc screening wall must be placed on the property linc, but rather, the applicant could build it right up against the parking lot. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to deny the variance request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner ~lamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Chairman Stonecipher thanked the members of the audience for their input. s Gremont, ate the 80 e proposed ent that all strut s be 80 percent masonry construction, lie noted that the proposed sl~'uctum will be used to