Loading...
BOA minutes of 4/2/98 CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS t DRAFT BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN .~,, -. Thursday, April 2, 1998 D) The Board of Adjustment met on Thursday, April 2, 1998, in the City ]~.iacil Chambers locat~ the Town Center, 255 Parkway. Board members present: Alternate board members present: Jerrie Kertz, Chairman Charles Armstrong, Commissioner David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman Jamshed Jamadar, Commissioner Board members unable to attend: Alternate board members unable to attend: David Hymer, Commissioner Richard Hohnholt, Commissioner Michael Seifert, Commissioner Norman Kressmann, Commissioner Cletus Glasener, Commissioner Staffmembers present: Greg Iones, Chief'Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Applicants present: John A. Nelson, 204 Samuel, Coppell Robert Ahmuty, MEPC Quorum Properties, Dallas ITEM 1: Call to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Kertz. ITEM 2: Invocation was given by Vice Chairman Stonecipher. ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of March 5, 1998 Meeting. Commissioner Stonecipher made a motion that the minutes of the March 5, 1998, meeting be approved, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, and a vote was taken. Motion carded, 4 to 0. Chairman Kertz administered the oath for all members of the audience who were speaking either for or against the requests being presented at this meeting. ITEM 4: Public Hearing to consider a request for a variance from Section 29-5-2 (B) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which concerns the minimum setbacks for monument signs, for the property located at 332 S. MacArthur Blvd. Mr. John A. Nelson, on behalfofChurch of the Apostles, is requesting a 1 O-ft. variance to the minimum 15-ft. setback in business zoned districts. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 15-fL setback from the street right-of-way. Greg Jones referred to a drawing of the property as he explained the restrictions involved in this request. He indicated that the plan shows the sign placement to be in approximately in the middle of the property. He noted that there's a dramatic elevation drop-off from the street fight-of-way back toward the flood plain and beyond the rear of the property. He referred to the cross-section drawing in the packet which Board of Adjustment April 2, 1998 Page 2 shows the sign location in relation to the property line, the sidewalk and MacArthur Blvd., pointing out the sign visibility with and without the variance. He further reported that, based on input from the City Attorney's office regarding topographical qualifications, this property condition seems to meet those requirements. He noted that Staff recommends approval. Greg Jones distributed a letter which had been received from a nearby property owner expressing concerns over illumination of the sign and possible visibility problems created by the sign placement. Chairman Kertz cotnmented that the letter refers to the distance from the street, even though such measurements are actually calculated from the property line. She asked how far from the edge of MacArthur the property line would be, and Greg Jones estimated that it would be at least 10 feet. He further explained that the letter writer's primary concern seems to be sign lighting, noting that he is not aware of any current plans to illuminate the sign; if the church should decide to do so later, any lights would be required to be pointed away from the single family properties across MacArthur Blvd., per the glare ordinance, l.le reported that the reference made to the possibility of traffic accidents due to the sign_ placement does not apply in this situation, since the sign is located outside of any visibility triangles. Commissioner Stonecipher asked about other possible options, such as placing the sign at the 15-foot setback, but making it taller or placing it on a pedestal, and secondly, raising the ground level at the position of the sign Greg Jones reported that those options were discussed with the applicant, but were not feasible in this situation. He commented that although berming is an option, it would need to be done in such a way as to blend with the landscaping, which is usually more involved and costly for the property owner. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. John Nelson elaborated, from the church's standpoint, on the other options available to solve this problem. He reported that the hillside on this property is rather steep and would require a build-up of approximately 100 t~et on each side, making it cost-prohibitive for the church. Raising the height of the sign was also considered, but because the sign is constructed of stone to match the church, this option would also be very costly. In addition, he commented that the further the sign is located from the street, the more drivers will have to turn and strain to look at it, thereby creating greater potential for a traffic accident. He concluded that the church's preference is to place the sign closer to the street. The public hearing w~s 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. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that this case is a prime example ora true property hardship. Motion was made by Commissioner gamadar that the I0-t~. variance be granted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Armstrong, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 0. Variance granted.