Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Building official recommends updates to Garland carport ordinance: permits, setbacks, size limits and enforcement suggested
Loading...
Summary
City building official Al Raymond reviewed Garland's carport ordinance, flagging inconsistent definitions, a 2006 effective date and recommending clearer setback rules, permit requirements, size limits and enforcement steps, including stop-work orders and appeal routes.
Garland’s building official briefed the Development Services Committee on Sept. 9 about proposed updates to the city carport ordinance, recommending clearer definitions, routine permitting, setbacks, and limits on size to reduce ambiguity and improve enforceability.
Al Raymond, the city’s building official, summarized the current code: “In the nutshell, the carport ordinance prohibits metal carports being in the front yard,” he said. He also described other provisions in the existing ordinance including a 15-foot height limit for carports, a prohibition on converting carports to enclosed structures, and a provision allowing covering or siding no more than 2 feet from the roof line intended to keep carports “open.” Raymond noted the ordinance went into effect on 08/18/2006 and that older installations should generally be considered existing nonconforming structures under current practice.
Raymond identified a conflicting definition in the development code (section cited as “603” in his review) that states a carport “shall not … be considered a building or portion of a building,” language Raymond said needs alignment with the building code and likely requires amendment.
He reported the department’s permit records (as presented) as a starting point for analysis: permit counts by year were read aloud during the meeting (staff noted those figures while cautioning the committee that some year-to-year items require confirmation). Raymond said the department’s draft recommendation is to permit carports going forward, establish explicit setbacks (front/side/rear) whether attached or detached, and set a reasonable maximum size — he suggested a 20-by-20 (400 sq. ft.) example for discussion.
On enforcement, Raymond said staff would treat most existing carports in good condition as existing nonconforming and focus enforcement on hazardous or newly constructed unpermitted work. He proposed stop-work orders and follow-up to bring properties into compliance, and described appeal routes to the Unified Building Standards Board (for structure issues) and the Board of Adjustment (for lot/zone issues).
Committee members asked for the legal basis for the existing prohibition on metal carports in front yards and for better integration of carport rules with facade and residential design standards; one committee member suggested tying design standards to existing facade guidance rather than an absolute materials ban. Staff agreed to research the original rationale for the metal-carport restriction and to return with recommended ordinance edits, updated definitions, proposed setbacks, size limits, and clearer enforcement and appeals language.
Raymond also recommended that staff bring photo examples and a heat map of carport locations to the next meeting to help craft pragmatic standards that balance resident needs, aesthetics and enforceability.
No formal ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting; the committee requested staff return with draft language and examples.
