Stratford Manor-CS030417CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: STRATFORD MANOR, LOT IOR, BLOCK B
REPLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: April 17, 2003
C.C. HEARING DATE: May 13, 2003
STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
LOCATION: 638 Stratford Lane
SIZE OF AREA: 0.41 acre lot
CURRENT ZONING: PD -161, SF -12 (Planned Development 161- Single Family SF -12)
REQUEST: Replat approval to revise the approved 7 to 8 foot side yard fence
line to allow an existing fence to remain within 2 feet of the side
property line.
APPLICANT:
Owner:
Mr. Patrick Stayer
638 Stratford Lane
Coppell, TX. 75019
(214) 529 -9511
Builder:
Brentwood Builders
c/o Mark Leaumont
P. O. Box 1829
Addison, TX. 75001
(972) 393 -3802
FAX (972) 304 -8216
HISTORY: In October of 2002, Council approved a replat of this lot to
accommodate the addition of a brick and decorative metal side yard
fence. In approving the fence, there were specific conditions
regarding its location.
Item # 10
Page 1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION: All streets are residential roadways built to standard (27 feet
wide) in a 50 foot right of way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single - family structure; PD- 161 -SF -12
South- single - family structure; PD- 161 -SF -12
East- single - family structure; PD- 131 -SF -12
West - single - family structure; PD- 161 -SF -12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
single - family uses.
DISCUSSION: A review of staff comments when this issues was discussed in the fall of
2002 is in order:
"When this area of Coppell was initially developed, and the
Stratford Manor subdivision was Zoned and platted, there was
considerable discussion regarding a buffer between this subdivision
and Cambridge Manor to the east. Final resolution required a 30
foot no build /fill area on lots immediately adjacent to the real
property line of several Cambridge Manor houses. This lot
includes that no build easement on its east side.
"This applicant does not debate that fact, but requests removal of a
plat note requiring a 15 foot building and fence line on the north
property boundary. It is our understanding that the applicant
wishes to build a fence within this 15 foot area, similar to the
fenced property north and across the street from this lot. Because
the house on that north property currently has a fence in this same
general location, the fact that we have received support for this
request from the immediate neighborhood, and the fact that our on-
site inspection determined no safety issues are apparent, staff
concludes that this request has merit. Coupled with the comment
from the applicant that the fence will be decorative metal with brick
columns (again, similar to the property across the street) staff
supports this request. "
Our staff report went on to recommend approval of the replat conditioned
upon placement of the fence "approximately 7 -8 feet behind the existing
sidewalk ". By locating the proposed fencing at that point, it would be
similar in placement to the fencing on the north side of the street. This
condition was included in both the Planning Commission and City Council
Item Il 10
Page 2 of 3
staff reports, and was unanimously included as a condition of approval by
both bodies. A copy of the Council agenda item is attached.
What has occurred subsequent to the replat approval is construction of a
fence —not 7 to 8 feet behind the existing sidewalk —but a fence within 2
feet of the sidewalk.
The Building Inspection office has cited this construction as not
conforming to the above referenced approval condition, hence, the request
before you now.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Because there were specifically articulated conditions for fence placement
when the original replat was approved, and those conditions were clearly
pointed out to the applicant with his approval, staff can not support this
resubmittal. We had agreed to assist the homebuilder in establishing a fence
line on his side yard with the understanding of its specific location. The fact
that the fence contractor ignored that condition does not warrant staff
modifying our recommendation. In addition, when the fence builder
obtained a building permit to construct the fence, he was advised of the
location condition and incorporated on the face of the building permit was
the following language:
"Builder additionally furnished indemnity letter with permit
application for column removal at Brentwood's expense if
any problems detected"
We do, therefore, recommend denail of this replat. The fence needs to be
located where originally agreed. In addition, to prevent this fence location
question occurring in the future, we would further strongly recommend
that a note be placed on the plat specifying the fence location at 7 -8 feet
behind the property line as called out in the original condition. Finally,
the plat attached to this agenda item states in Note 2 "The fence will
observe the same general setbacks as the existing north side fence of two
(2) feet behind the existing sidewalk ". On -site inspection reveals that the
north side fence is setback a minimum 7 -8 feet from the sidewalk.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request.
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Replat
2) October 8, 2002 Council agenda item
Item # 10
Page 3 of 3
A
( T ` ' ' Y DEPT: Planning & Economic Development
L
-AGENDA REQUEST FORM COPPELL
* DATE: October 8, 2002
t O
E + ITEM #: 11
ITEM CAPTION
PUBLIC HEARING
Consider approval of the Stratford Manor, Lot 10, Block B, Replat, to revise the 15 -foot building and fence line to
a 15 -foot building line, allowing the placement of a fence within 15 feet of the side property line on 0.41 acres of
property located at 638 Stratford Lane.
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
ON ABOVE DATE
GOAL(S): 4 0
Motion to close PH A
Approve w /cond. 1 & 2
I M - York
- Brancheau
- 7 -0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P &Z MeetinE September 19, 2002
Decision of P &Z Commission: Approval (6 -0) with Commissioners Clark, Kittrell, McGahey, Halsey,
Dragon and Stewart voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions:
1) Any fence constructed will possess the same type architectural elements as the
fence on the north side of Prince Edward Lane (brick columns with decorative
metal inserts).
2) The fence will observe the same general setbacks as the existing north side
fence of approximately 7 -8 feet behind the existing sidewalk.
and AT&T Bfeadband. (CONDITION MET)
Staff recommends approval.
DIR. REVIEW: O.
FIN. REVIEW. ,
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09,/02 Document Name: @3StratfordRPL 1 -AR
w�M
f�
CM REVIEW:
a
eoex
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09,/02 Document Name: @3StratfordRPL 1 -AR