Woodridge-CS 991021CASE NO.:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-145R2, Woodridge Section Five
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
October 21, 1999
November 9, 1999
130 Pinyon Lane.
1 residential lot of approximately 6,621 square feet
CURRENT ZONING:
REQUEST:
PD (Planned Development)
Amend the PD conditions as they apply to Lot 44, Block A.
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Ms. Patricia VanDeusen
130 Pinyon Lane
Coppell. Texas 75019
(972) 393-6845
Fax: (972) 393-6845
The garden homes located in the area bounded by Sandy Lake Road,
MacArthur Boulevard and MapleleafDfive originally were classified
as TH-I, Townhouse District. However, the houses are not attached.
In 1995, the City reclassified all townhouse districts containing
detached houses to PD Planned Development Districts. Since the
Board of Adjustment has no authority to grant variances in a PD
District, any variation from the setback and yard requirement of the
PD District stipulations must be handled as an amendment to the PD
or PD site plan.
In 1996, a special committee was formed to study the area with
regards to the construction of storage buildings, carports and garages.
The committee consisted of two owners of property within the area
to be affected, one resident and one non-resident; plus two resident
owner of property within the larger Woodridge neighborhood, both
officers of the Woodridge Homeowners Association; and two
members of the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission.
During the committee meetings, the majority agreed that fully
enclosed, attached garages were first preference. However, the
group realized that this would not be possible in many cases and that
Item # 10
covered parking in other forms may be preferable to uncovered
parking in its present state.
Following the committee discussion, staff prepared an ordinance
amendment that was approved by City Council on October 8, 1996.
(See attachment) Without citing details of the ordinance, a property
owner wanting to build a garage or carport in this subdivision has
two options. The first, is to comply with the subsection of J-2- (e) of
Exhibit B of the ordinance which allows an applicant to apply for a
Building Permit. The second is to submit a plan meeting the
remaining conditions of the ordinance subsections J-l- (a through f)
and J-2 (a through d) to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council for their review and approval. The ordinance also
designates the Director of Planning as the approval authority for a
minor revision to a Detail Site Plan.
This applicant had attempted to secure a building permit for a carport
but it was denied by Building Inspection as it violated the setback
requirement outlined in subsection J-2- (e) of Exhibit B. Also, this
case was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning
Commission on August 19, but was postponed twice at the request
of the applicant.
TRANSPORTATION:
Pinyon Lane is a local residential street with 27 feet of paving in a
50-foot fight-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single-family residential; PD- 145
South -single-family residential; PD- 145
East - single-family residential; PD- 145
West - single-family residential; PD- 145
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
single-family residential uses.
DISCUSSION:
When the builder of the Woodridge garden homes originally constructed
them, the City did not require an attached 2-car garage. The builder
provided no garage or carport. To comply with the off-street parking
requirements, the builder provided a 2-car concrete parking space accessed
from a rear alley.
If the houses were built today, the City would require an attached, fully
enclosed 2-car garage. Therefore, the existing structures would technically
be non-conforming. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow the expansion
of a non-conforming structure, except to provide off-street parking space
which complies with the dimensional and pavement material of the
Item # 10
ordinance. Therefore, a carport or garage may be added to a house that
does not have one. However, the Building Inspections Department will
not issue a building permit unless it observes the provisions of J-2-(e) of
Exhibit B of Ordinance 91500-A- 143.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached carport,
setback 3 feet from the rear property line, and extend the existing concrete
pavement area from 18' by 19' to 20' by 23'. The roof of the carport is
gabled with a 4:12 pitch, and the roofing material on the carport will
closely resemble both in color and type, the roofing material on the
existing home. As the home in question was built prior to December 8,
1983, the 80% masonry requirement will not apply. Rather, the addition
of the carport can not reduce the overall exterior masonry percentage on
this site. According to the applicant, the masonry coverage on the exterior
walls of the existing home is approximately 47%. Therefore, the masonry
requirement on the carport can not be less than 47%. Based on staff's
calculations the applicant will have to provide a total of 245 s.f. of
masonry on the utility shed and along the base of each post. Staff suggests
that 168 s.f. of the utility shed be masonry, plus 16 s.f. of masonry be
added to each of the 5 posts (approximately 2/3 of each post will have to
be masonry). The applicant is requesting a 5/8" thick brick veneer be
allowed to fulfill the masonry requirement. A veneer product is not
customarily allowed on homes, however, staff is of the opinion that on a
carport it may be acceptable as long it matches the hue of the existing
brick. The propose colors of the carport are as follows: Siding: "Stewart
House Brown"; Trim: "Spring Magnolia" (yellow); and the Roofi
"Weathered Wood" composition shingle.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends approval of the zoning change request subject to the
following conditions being met:
1) Submittal and approval of a color board showing all exterior building
materials of the carport.
2) Approval of the brick veneer to fulfill the 47% masonry requirement on
the carport structure.
3) Revise Carport Masonry Calculations to reflect correct percentages.
4) Engineered foundation plans will be required as part of the building
permit submittal. (See Building Inspections comments)
5) Existing utility easements are to remain free and clear of any and all
obstructions. (See TXU comments)
Item # 10
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the Site Plan Amendment
2) Recommend disapproval of the Site Plan Amendment
3) Recommend modification of the Site Plan Amendment
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
11)
12)
13)
October 7th Response Letter fi:om Applicant
PD-145 Site Plan
Photograph of Comparable Carport in Des Moines, Iowa
Carport Elevation (Rear view)
Carport Elevation (Front view)
August 9th Response Letter fi:om Applicant
Structural Changes To Concrete Slab
Masonry Coverage Calculations of the Carport
Elevations of a Generic Carport
Literature on the Castaic Thin Brick Veneer
Masonry Coverage Calculations of the Existing Home
Copy of Ordinance 91500-A- 143
Departmental Comments
Item # 10
0ct-01-99 10:36A -- P.03
DE VEL OPMENT RE VIE W COMMITTEE
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMENTS
DRC DATE: Sept 30, 1999 OCT -
CONTACT: Greg Jones, CMef Building Official (304-$$~ ~0)
I
COMMENT STATUS: ~
1. If approvea[ applicant will need to apply for building permi~
2. Engineered foundation .glans wigl~be requirett
d~c12345
O
TXU Electric & Gas
4200 North Belt Line
Irvina~ TX 75038
Comments for City of Coppell
Development Review Committee
September 30,1999
PD-145R2, Woodridge Section Five-Zoning Change Acceptable
Existing easements are to remain free and clear of any and all obstructions
Bobby Oney
OCT -1 1999'