Cambridge Phase 2-CS 980521CASE NO.:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-131R4, THE ESTATES OF CAMBRIDGE
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT ZONING:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
TRANSPORTATION:
May 21, 1998
June 9, 1998
Approximately 1,600 feet east of MacArthur Boulevard; along
the north side of DeForest Road.
Area of entire PD is 33.713 acres; area of Lot 4, Block B, is
15,356 s.f.
PD -SF-12 (Planned Development, Single Family-12)
Amendment to the Planned Development District as it applies to
the fence setback from Cambridge Manor Lane on Lot 4, Block B,
to permit a reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet.
Kristopher L. and Rita M. Howerton
817 Kings Canyon Court
Coppell TX 75019
972-393-0782
Fax 972-718-1976
PD-131 was established in 1994. One of the conditions of the PD
district stipulated that fences shall not extend beyond the platted
building line on any lot. There have been two amendments since,
both rclated to fence setback. Early in 1996 the fence setback
from Prince Edward Lane was changed from 15 feet to 5 feet, and
on Lot 7 of Block B the fence setback from Castle Creek Drive
was changed from 30 feet to 5 feet. Later that same year, on Lot
16 of Block D, the fence setback from Castle Creek Drive was
changed from 15 feet to 5 feet.
Deforest Road is a local street requiring a 50-wide right-of-way
and 27 feet of pavement width. Portions of the existing right-of-
way are less than 50 feet in width and the current pavement is
substandard in width. Cambridge Manor Lane and Kings Canyon
Court are both residential streets with 27 feet of pavement width
within a 50'-wide right-of-way.
Item//5
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-
South -
East-
West -
vacant; LI
single-family residential development; PD-SF
single-family residential development; A, PD-SF9
vacant; PD-SF12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
low density residential use.
DISCUSSION:
In November, 1995, the developer of the Estates of Cambridge Manor
requested a PD amendment to reduce the fence setbacks on 13 comer lots
within the subdivision, including this lot. The planning staff
recommended favorably on only two of the lots. In our minds these two
lots qualified because no homes faced the side street. In all other, cases
homes faced both street exposures of the comer lots.
At that time the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
favorably on the two lots and rejected all the others, with the exception of
Lot 7 of Block B, at the southwest comer of Kings Canyon Court and
Castle Creek Drive. This lot had a pool already under construction, so the
Commission recommended that the fence setback be reduced from 30 feet
to 15 feet. At the Council hearing City Council authorized a 5-foot
setback. Later that year the Commission recommended, and the Council
authorized, a 5' fence setback on Lot 16 of Block D, three lots north on
Castle Creek Drive.
In all cases, the planaing staff has been consistent in recommending denial
of requests to place fences on comer lots close to the street when homes
face the street across from the fence in question. There are 11 such
instances. The staff has been overruled in 2 cases, but there are still 9 lots
on which P&Z and Council have held the line. This lot is one of them.
The Zoning Ordinance is quite clear. On comer lots both street frontages
are to be treated as front yards, with one exception [see Section 32-2 (1)].
The one exception is when the City approves a plat showing a building
line less than the required front yard setback, but in no case less than 15
feet [see Section 32-3 (1)]. This means that, on the plat, when 30'
building lines are shown along both streets of a comer lot, they are both
front yards. The fence code prohibits fencing front yards.
Streetside appearance is one of the reasons for requiring a front .yard.
People rarely challenge prohibiting fences in the front, since unfenced
front yards tend to be an American standard. However, streetside
appearance is no less important at the street comer. In this particular
case, Cambridge Manor Lane serves as the entry to the entire
neighborhood. Houses face the street on both sides. The house in
Item # 5
question is the .4th house on the east side of the street. If the owner of the
second house requested a PD amendment to place a fence in the front
yard, for example, staff would recommend disapproval because the fence
would project in front of the first and third houses and look out of place or
even absurd. The presence of a fence there would adversely affect the
curbside appeal of the neighboring properties and, in all probability, their
value. Granting a request to place a fence near Cambridge Manor Lane
on the 4th house amounts to the same. It would have as great an effect on
the neighboring house as granting a request to fence the front yard of the
house on the other side.
Having made this argument on behalf of the neighborhood and adjoining
property owners, let us examine the privacy needs of the applicant. Is
there adequate backyard space which can be fenced? The answer is yes.
The amount of land which can be fenced south of the southernmost wall of
the applicant's house is approximately 1816 square feet. If the house were
placed on an interior lot measuring 94 feet by 128 feet (15% of the lots in
the subdivision are smaller than this), the amount of land which could be
fenced rear of the most rearward wall of the house would be 1880 square
feet. This is not an appreciable difference.
The designer of the subdivision oversized this corner lot. It contains
15,356 square feet, while the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet.
Undoubtedly the design took into account the privacy needs of
homeowners and provided sufficient area behind the platted building lines
to accommodate those needs.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The planning staff recommends denial of the request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Existing Site Plan
2) Proposed Site Plan
Item # 5