Loading...
PD110R-AG 980827 AGENDA REQUEST FORM CITY COUNCIL MEETING: October 13, 1998 ITEM # _]/t~ ITEM CAPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of Case No. PD-110R. Pecan Hollow, zoning change request to amend PD-110 (Planned Development, Single-Family 9), to change the development conditions as they apply to Lot 15, Block D, to permit a reduction of one foot to the required 8 foot side yard setback to accommodate a two-story addition to the house located at 325 Beechwood Lane. APPROVED BY TITLE: ~._Director ~' Pl~mng and Community Services STAFF RECOMMENDS: APPROVAL STAFF COMMENTS: Date of P&Z Meeting: September 17, 1998 Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (5-0) with Commissioners Nesbit, Stewart, Kittrell, Lowry, and McCaffrey voting in favor. None opposed. Commissioner Turner was absent. Commissioner DeFilippo has resigned. Approval subject to the Site Plan and the building elevations, as submitted. Agenda Request Form Revised 3198 Document Name: ~PDll0R.p CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: PD-110R, PECAN HOLLOW P & Z HEARING DATE: September 17, 1998 C.C. HEARING DATE: October 13, 1998 LOCATION: 325 Beechwood Lane. SIZE OF AREA: 8,280 s.f.; approximately 2,250 s.f. 2-story structure and proposed approximately 800 s.f. 2-story addition CURRENT ZONING: PD-SF-9 REQUEST: Amendment to the Planned Development. APPLICANT: Applicant: Mitchell and Kay Schnurman 325 Beechwood Dr Coppell TX 75019 972-462-8023 HISTORY: City Council rezoned this property from SF-12 to PD-SF9 in 1990. In 1992 Council amended the PD site plan to permit a 23' front yard setback on Lot 17, Block C (324 Beechwood Lane), instead of 25'. TRANSPORTATION: Beechwood Lane is a 28'-wide residential street within a 50'-wide right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- Single-family residential; SF-7 & PD-Residential South - Single-family residential; TC, SF-9 & PD-SF9 East - Single-family residential; PD Residential West - Single-family residential; SF-7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable fcr medium-density residential uses. Item # 6 DISCUSSION: Since the property is within a Planned Development District, the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction over side yard variances. Therefore, because the applicant wants to extend a building addition one foot within ~ required side yard, the appropriate procedure is to request a PD site plan amendment. The purpose is to accommodate a proposed new washer/dryer area. This can be accomplished with or without the site plan amendment, because Section 32-3 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the projection of architectural features such as window sills and cornices by as much as 12 inches. However, to do that would require cantilevering the floor out from the foundation. With no foundation upon which to rest the exterior brick veneer, the practical solution would be to face this portion of the structure with wood siding, while the applicant and the applicant's next-' door neighbor prefer an all-brick exterior. Consequently the site plan amendment accomplishes a better result with no greater intrusion on the side yard than that which is already permissible. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The planning staff recommends approval subject to the 3ite plan ag.d building elevations as submitted. 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) Site Plan, Elevations & Applicant's Supporting Material Item # 6 .4-.~' .'~, i. :;..,, . ~,',, Au~. 17, 1~8 ' ~" ~, ~,~'~'~ Dear Membe~ of the Coppell Planning&Zoning Co--ission an~~~ W e are s~ng a reduction of one (l) foot to the required side yard of our home. We plan to build a two-sto~ addition, and the reduction would let us best accommodate a washer and d~er on the ground floor. We live at 325 Beechwood Lane in the Pecan Hollow subdivision, w~ch requires a mi~mum side yard of 8 feet. Our home has a side yard width of nearly 18 feet, but it is a challenge to design an attractive addition that has maximum utili~ and fits within the na~ow space. ~r architect h~ proposed a design that will combine a game room and laund~ room on the ground floor and, on the second floor, a home office. In the laund~ room, we want to put the washer and d~er along the hallway wall (see enclosed desigm), but their depth requires extra space. By wide~ng the area (1) foot, we can build a hallway that is about &foot, 9-inches wide -- and, when the washer is in use and its closet doo~ a~ open, is about 3-foot, 6-inches wide. We believe this is an appropriate space to provide safe and co~o~able passage. We have four cMldren under the age of 10, and we wo~ that a na~ower hall could ca~e safe~ problems in what will be a ~gh-traffic ~ea. If the reduction is not granted, we probably would build a wood frame to sit atop the concrete slab and cantilever beyond the slab for 1 foot. This approa~ would allow us to put ~e washer in the same place and meet the building codes. But it is a less desirable option, because the concrete slab is more durable and less prone to proble~ from imects and severe weather. We be~eve the ~st solution is to extend the width of the slab ~ 1 foot. In deliberating on t~s request, would you please comider several factors: 1. If the redu~ion is granted, the 1-foot ~temion would begin deep in our backyard, at the point designated for the washer; tMs point begins about 12 feet be~nd the fence ~at cu~ently rum from our home to our neighbor's and about 24 feet from the front of our house. We do not believe that the 1-f~t reduction would be ve~ noticeable -- if noticeable at all -- from the front curb. 2. If the reduction is granted, the total square feet between our house and the prope~ line would stiB exceed the mi~mum requirement. ~at's because we are starting the front of the addition almost 10 feet be~nd the front of the existing house. Although tMs design offers less total interior space, we believe the larger setback will enhance the beau~ of the improvement and provide a more at,active ~ew from the c~b and my neighbors' homes. ~e ~nimum required side yard along the east side of our home totals ~0 square feet; if we are granted the reduction, we would still have a total of ~9 square feet between our home and the east proper~ line. We have a similar, deep setback on the west side of the house, which has a brick pathway and landscaping beds. When that space is included in considering our total side yard easements, we far exceed the minimum requirements. On the west side, we also are required to have at least 560 square feet of space between our home and the property line; we have 896 square feet. If we are granted the reduction, we would have a total of 1,675 square feet on the two sides of our home. That is about 50 percent greater than the minimum required side yard space. 3. My neighbor directly across the street, Phil Mani of 324 Beechwood Lane, was granted a reduction when he built his home in 1992. The city of Coppell unanimously agreed to a 2-foot reduction on his front setback, because it would help him preserve trees in his backyard. 4. We have designed the addition so that it would not have a negative impact on our neighbors. Our neighbor to the east is Baxter Fullerton of 329 Beechwood Lane. If the reduction is granted, the back our addition would end about six (6) feet shy of the back line of Mr. Fullerton's home. We believe that would give him more backyard privacy for his family. We also plan to have 100 percent brick along the addition's east wall, including an attractive roof line over the first floor. If we are not granted the reduction, we would have to use siding to enclose the washer's cantilevered wood frame. We believe that siding is a less attractive alternative. 5. If the reduction is granted and the addition is completed as planned, we believe our home would still have less total square feet (and a smaller footprint) than my next-door neighbors to the east and west; than both neighbors directly to the south; and than two of the three neighbors to the north of my property,. (The one exception is a home that is smaller even before the addition.) We have lived in Coppell for 12 years, and in 1991 were the first family to build a home in Pecan Hollow. We have made many improvements to our home, and we believe our current plans would greatly enhance its value. The addition also would blend well into the neighborhood, reflecting the area's construction styles and not overshadowing the larger homes. We are committed to Coppell and this neighborhood, and we believe this addition will allow us to remain here for the foreseeable future. Thank you for your attention and consideration in this request. Very truly yours, Mitchell $chnurman Kay Selle $chnurman ~ , ! I ~-Ya*~C. ~ ~-~. ' · -. I~, ', , , . ~' !~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~1 ~ " / ~ ' ~'~' ~ ~ ~ ..' .... ~ ~"~'" t. . ' _y~. ~ = I'.~P ' OF ~tPF_ . ~ "1 ~'-~~ i I EAsT ~IDE :. L~'r IZ.~.~u~ P-ED '" EASEMEN'T' . .'SQ. 'F£~-'T: SbO / ° '~F. Ei, i(..~)/, ' . ; .. F_AST 4' ~ST 'l"C::rl'Al,., ¢.E~otR..'e"D 5Q. FE.: li,ZO TOTAL ACTUAL 5~.FT: /~,75" ']Z:~AL.