PD145R(CH)-NR 960805 ' ' AUG 51996
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY
AUGUST 2, 1996. THANK YOU.
The Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop is scheduled for 7:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, August 7th, in the Planning Department on the 2nd floor of Town
Center. PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS!
QUESTIONNAIRE
for
WOODRIDGE PD-145 GARAGES AND CARPORTS WORK SESSION
You can accomplish much more in a given amount of time if you know the issues in advance.
By polling you prior to the meeting, staff can determine many of the points upon which you
already agree. This will eliminate the need to discuss those items and provide more time to
focus on the points still at issue.
Our reading of the July 18 discussion was that P&Z generally agreed on the Woodridge
Committee's standards regarding how garages and carports should look (roof style, materials,
colors, etc.), but we want to confirm that. There appeared to be less decisiveness concerning
where garages and carports should be located on a homesite, especially relative to the alley.
There also appeared to be a lack of consensus on circumstances warranting site plan review and
who should serve as the review authority.
Let's start with your opinion on the results of the committee survey regarding carports and
garages for the PD-145 district:
Tend to Tend to
Agree Disagree
Flat roofs are unacceptable. ~ []
Roofs should be pitched, though not necessarily as ~ []
steeply as the roof pitch on the house
Roofing material and brick on an added garage ~ []
should match the roofing and brick on the house
Roofing matefi~ and brick on an added carpo~ ~ []
should match the roofing and brick on the house
Wood and other materials on an added carport ~ []
or garage should match the paint on the house
Garage doors (with or without garage door openers) ~)~ []
need to be farther away from the alley than carports
no more than one accessory storage ~ D
There
should
be
building in addition to a garage or carport
Since May, 1993, Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance has required a rear setback of 20 feet for
accessory buildings used as a garage or carport. (In Woodridge the alley fight-of-way is 20 feet
wide with a 10'-wide alley pavement centered in it, placing the alley pavement 5 feet from the
rear property lines of the adjoining lots. Therefore, this setback standard places the building a
minimum of 25 feet from the near side of the alley pavement.) Several owners of garden homes
in Woodridge have built in accordance with these provisions, so obviously some of the lots will
accommodate compliance. Staff estimates that 41 of the 11~2 lots in PD-145 can meet this
standard. See Exhibit 1.
An estimated additional four lots can be accommodated by reducing the rear property line
setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, placing the building no less than 20 feet from the near side of
the alley pavement. See Exhibit 1.
Staff estimates that to get an attached carport or garage on the remaining 67 lots will require the
structures to be as near to the rear property line as 10 feet, which is 15 feet from the near side
of the alley pavement, and in some cases the structures will need to be even closer than that.
Any separation or detachment from the house, because of topography or any other reason, will
necessitate a placement closer to the alley even on the largest of these lots.
Since clearly over half the houses do not have the space to accommodate a backyard car shelter
with room to head in and park cars between the car shelter and the alley pavement, what type
of car shelters, if any, do you think the city should permit on the 67 smallest lots? (check as many
as you think appropriate)
[] attached 1-car garage with manual garage door
attached 2-car garage with manual garage door
[] attached 1-car garage with garage door opener
attached 2-car garage with garage door opener
[] detached 1-car garage with manual garage door
X detached 2-car with manual door
garage
garage
[] detached 1-car garage with garage door opener
)a( detached 2-car garage with garage door opener
[] attached 1-car carport
attached 2-car
carport
n detached 1-car carport
fi~ detached 2-car carport
[] open, uncovered parking only
Now the issue becomes: If our standards permit car shelters within 15 feet of the near side of
the alley pavement, and sometimes even closer, should we apply higher standards on lots that
can accommodate higher standards. An argument can be made that, if over half the lots will
have structures quite close to the alley, there is nothing wrong with all of the structures being
that close to the alley. The counter argument is that we only want structures that close to the
alley when it is unavoidable. If the property owner has sufficient land, the structure should be
farther from the alley. What is your opinion? (Check one.)
[] The standard should be the same. Whatever we are willing to
accept on the smaller lots we should be willing to accept on the
larger lots as well.
If possible there should be space to head-in park between the
structure and the alley. We should accept less only in those cases
where space is unavailable or topography makes providing more
setback impractical.
The turning radius of an average car is 24 feet. Therefore, if your car is perpendicular to the
alley with the front of the car 25 feet from the far side of the alley pavement, and you have
nothing on either side of you to obstruct your cutting the wheels and beginning your turn, you
are likely to be able to back into the alley until you are parallel with the alley. With a 24'
turning radius your wheels will end up 1 foot from the far side of the alley pavement. It is
important that you be able to back into the alley until you are parallel with the alley, because
with only 10 feet of alley pavement width you have very little room to maneuver when you
begin to pull forward. (In a parking lot the situation is different. You do not have to turn a full
90 degrees because the aisle is 20 feet wide or more. You have twice as much width in which
to maneuver and straighten out the car as you move forward.)
Therefore, it is critical that a driveway be clear of any obstructions from the near edge of the
alley pavement for a distance of 15 feet into the property, which is 10 feet in from the rear
property line. There cannot be any parked cars, carport supports or garage door openings which
would interfere with the turning movement into one side or the other of a garage or carport.
Also, without encroaching on adjoining property, the driveway needs to be flanged to
accommodate turning movements.
If a structure or parking will occur in this critical area, do you think the ordinance language can
be drafted adequately to preserve proper clearance, or do you think the property owner should
submit a layout of the turning movements for review? (Check one.)
[] I think it would be best for the City to review a site plan.
)x/ I think it would be best for the City Ordinance to specify the standards.
If you think under certain circumstances the City should review site plans, as opposed to
specifying the requirements, are there any circumstances where you think site plan review would
be unnecessary?
No, there needs to be flexibility on all these lots. The City should establish a site
plan review procedure in all cases.
A plan which currently could get a building permit (structure 20 feet or more
from rear property line) should not have to undergo further site plan review. All
others should.
A structure 15 feet or more from the rear property line (20 feet from the near
side of the alley pavemen0 should not have to undergo further site plan review.
All others should.
)~x structure 10 feet or more from the rear property line (25 feet from the far side
A
of the alley pavement and, therefore, clear of minimum turning radii) should not
have to undergo further site plan review. All others should.
[] As I said before, I don't think under any circumstances the City should review
site plans.
Section 28 of the Zoning Ordinance describes Planned Development District site plan
procedures. In most planned developments, P&Z and the City Council review and approve a
detail site plan prior to the start of the initial construction. The initial construction for PD-145
took place 13 years ago. Additions of carports and garages essentially are refinements to the
inital plan. Who do you think should be the review authority.
~1x City Council on recommendation from P&Z
[] P&Z
Planning Director
[] Other (please specify)
On the 41 to 45 lots which are larger than the others, do you think the City should permit a 1-
car garage or carport?
yes ~ no
The City Code regulates fences separately from the Zoning Ordinance. Rear fences may be as
much as 8 feet high. They must be set a minimum of 5 feet from the alley pavement.
Therefore, any property owner with rear alley driveway access could easily have a solid fence
on each side of the driveway, limiting visibility. It is not a major safety problem, because alley
traffic is usually light and relatively slow. People driving in the alley can see a car backing into
the alley and stop in time. In PD-145 there are more driveways because the lots are narrower,
but the longest runs of alley have driveways only on one side. In this regard do you see a
significant difference between this neighborhood and the majority of others in Coppell?
yes c~ no
Please complete and return by August 2
Work session is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 7
in the Planning Department
on the second floor of Town Center