We’ve lived here since 1969, long before Coppell became the “COPPELL TX” it is today. Seen all sorts of changes, development, road improvements and some real bone-headed decisions over the decades. It is unthinkable that the City of Coppell would (out-of-the-blue) cite long time residents, or even newly established residents, to tear-down & destroy awnings that have been attached to a home for decades. These so-called “undesirable” awnings were established long before the ordinances, so it seems they would/should be “grandfathered” if the awning structures are soundly built and purposeful. Now, if an awning is severely damaged/destroyed/in-disrepair, then a homeowner would have to contend/abide by current City ordinances. And beware, if a homeowner thinks they can simply tear-down their old existing awning to put up a new awning, they are sadly mistaken. Once the old awning is removed, you just lost your “grandfathering”.
Jim & Sally Goyne, I would fight this all the way! Good Luck to you and your awning-established neighbors!
I understand the carport issue is frustrating but wanted to point out their intent from a safety perspective. Technically, any accessory structure is a safety hazard. Imagine your neighbor constructs a wood building just a few feet from their home that abuts your shared fence – that’s a recipe for disaster if a fire were to occur. Masonry and concrete are more resilient to fire which is likely why they mention it in the code as a preference to metal, it is not just for aesthetic reasons.
Although this clause may not have existed when some of these original carports were constructed, safety concerns cannot be 'grandfathered' in for building codes if they are found to be a known safety issue. In a conversation with the City (specifically the Building and Standards Commission), I would bring up that the minor safety risk of having a metal carport is outweighed by the increased safety a carport can provide with refuge from severe weather. Hopefully they can come to some kind of compromise.
“Must Carports Come Down?”
Answer: No!
We’ve lived here since 1969, long before Coppell became the “COPPELL TX” it is today. Seen all sorts of changes, development, road improvements and some real bone-headed decisions over the decades. It is unthinkable that the City of Coppell would (out-of-the-blue) cite long time residents, or even newly established residents, to tear-down & destroy awnings that have been attached to a home for decades. These so-called “undesirable” awnings were established long before the ordinances, so it seems they would/should be “grandfathered” if the awning structures are soundly built and purposeful. Now, if an awning is severely damaged/destroyed/in-disrepair, then a homeowner would have to contend/abide by current City ordinances. And beware, if a homeowner thinks they can simply tear-down their old existing awning to put up a new awning, they are sadly mistaken. Once the old awning is removed, you just lost your “grandfathering”.
Jim & Sally Goyne, I would fight this all the way! Good Luck to you and your awning-established neighbors!
I understand the carport issue is frustrating but wanted to point out their intent from a safety perspective. Technically, any accessory structure is a safety hazard. Imagine your neighbor constructs a wood building just a few feet from their home that abuts your shared fence – that’s a recipe for disaster if a fire were to occur. Masonry and concrete are more resilient to fire which is likely why they mention it in the code as a preference to metal, it is not just for aesthetic reasons.
Although this clause may not have existed when some of these original carports were constructed, safety concerns cannot be 'grandfathered' in for building codes if they are found to be a known safety issue. In a conversation with the City (specifically the Building and Standards Commission), I would bring up that the minor safety risk of having a metal carport is outweighed by the increased safety a carport can provide with refuge from severe weather. Hopefully they can come to some kind of compromise.