Loading...
PD110R-CS 980817Aug. 17, 1998 ['_d. 2 .'.~e.~ ~ Dear Members of the Coppell Planning & Zoning Co~ission and C~ ~~Iz[~~ W e are seeking a reduction of one (1) foot to the required side yard of our home. We plan to build a two-story addition, and the reduction would let us best accommodate a washer and dryer on the ground floor. We live at 325 Beechwood Lane in the Pecan Hollow subdivision, which requires a minimum 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 utility and fits within the narrow space. Our architect has proposed a design that will combine a game room and laundry room on the ground floor and, on the second floor, a home office. In the laundry room, we want to put the washer and dryer along the hallway wall (see enclosed designs), but their depth requires extra space. By widening the area (1) foot, we can build a hallway that is about 4-foot, 9-inches wide -- and, when the washer is in use and its closet doors are open, is about 3-foot, 6-inches wide. We believe this is an appropriate space to provide safe and comfortable passage. We have four children under the age of 10, and we worry that a narrower hall could cause safety problems in what will be a high-traffic area. 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 approach would allow us to put the 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 problems from insects and severe weather. We believe the best solution is to extend the width of the slab by 1 foot. In deliberating on this request, would you please consider several factors: 1. If the reduction is granted, the 1-foot extension would begin deep in our backyard, at the point designated for the washer; this point begins about 12 feet behind the fence that currently runs ft'om our home to our neighbor's and about 24 feet from the front of our house. We do not believe that the 1-foot reduction would be very noticeable -- if noticeable at all -- from the front curb. 2. If the reduction is granted, the total square feet between our house and the property line would still exceed the minimum requirement. That's because we are starting the front of the addition almost 10 feet behind the front of the existing house. Although this design offers less total interior space, we believe the larger setback will enhance the beauty of the improvement and provide a more attractive view from the curb and my neighbors' homes. The minimum required side yard along the east side of our home totals 560 square feet; if we are granted the reduction, we would still have a total of 779 square feet between our home and the east property 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. CFhe 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 Schnurman Kay Selle Schnurman ,L. ,,,_~ ..,~ .. "~ ~.0' CL~?&./.../N F-. EAST 5tOE /~//~'¢ L~rf' ID ,P__.,A,5 E'M F_-AjT EASEMEMT ~p..(Du t I?..E'D ' F,.EQU I 'i~.¢--'{2 AO-i'UAL ,/ x ~ e,q.'Fl'. ,k ---- DIFFER.EMOE: , z~q _' x,