First United-CS 971010 MI~MO~~
DEPARTMF. NT OF ENGINF~ERING
To: Peter G. Smith, City Attorney
Via: Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager f
From: Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering & Public Works ~'~
RE: Usage of new or innovated products not covered under the
Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances
Date: October 10, 1997
The City of Coppell has recently been approached by an engineer to allow the usage of a
product on parking lots which is basically a removal of the soil and replacement with a
modified base and then an over seeding of grass to provide a surface adequate enough to
park vehicles on. A local church has requested the utilization of this product for what they
term as their overflow parking on Sunday morning. Obviously, the usage of this product
is not covered either in the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance. Both of those
ordinances require concrete parking on a lime stabilized base for any parking lot. The only
exception to that is the new Historical Zoning District which allows an asphalt parking lot
in lieu of concrete. There have been instances during an SUP request for Council to grant
different paving surfaces but for only.a limited time. I have visited a test site where this
product is in use and it appears to be a very intriguing application and may be one that
could have some usage for businesses such as churches which would only utilize the parking
surface on a limited basis. This product is not intended to provide a parking lot which is
used on a daily basis year in and year out.
There is no mechanism in place to allow the utilization of this product. The only suggestion
I could offer is to make a request to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance. While I have some latitude in the Subdivision Ordinance regulations, I have
no latitude, nor does any staff member, in varying the Zoning Ordinance. To gain
approval at the Board of Adjustment, the applicant should show a hardship. In this
particular incident, there is no hardship, but only a desire to use a new and innovative
product. The benefit of this product is that you have less drainage runoff and it's more
aesthetically pleasing than concrete. Obviously, the down side to this product is how can
it be striped and will people want to walk across it when they're dressed up.
The purpose of this memo is to seek your opinion on whether or not there is some
mechanism in place to allow the utilization of not only this particular product but any new
or innovative product of which the City would like to test on a limited basis. Clay and I
have discussed this somewhat and are questioning whether or not an ordinance could be
drafted that would give the City Engineer the ability to allow a new or innovative product
to be field tested for a period not to exceed one year. At the end of one year, the product
would be reevaluated and if it was performing as originally stated then it would be allowed
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGUVEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Memo to Pete Smith
October 10, 1997
Innovated Products
Page 2 of 2
to be left in place. If at the end of that one year period the product was not performing
as anticipated, then the owners of the property would have a six month period to bring the
construction up to the City's standard at that time. In this case, if the product for the
grass parking area was not performing at the end of one year, then the church would have
six months to remove the product and pave the area with concrete.
Any insight you can offer on this issue would be appreciated.
Thank you for your consideration of thi~ issue.
fde/kgriffin/psmithl 0.97
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"