Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Infill topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Builder seeks variances for garage placement and low roof pitch in Chandler's Landing infill

Rockwall Planning and Zoning Commission · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Jim Benson of Jim Benson Custom Homes asked the Commission for variances from garage placement and the city's 6:12 minimum roof pitch to allow a mansard-style roof required by the HOA; staff said similar variances have been approved in the subdivision and the case will go to public hearing.

Staff (Ryan) introduced Z2025-044, a specific-use permit request for residential infill at 5405 Ranger Drive in the Chandler's Landing subdivision on behalf of Justine Marengo Rao. Ryan outlined technical details: the garage entrance is 3 feet 6 inches in front of the declared front facade and the proposed roof includes a mansard/flat portion with a 2:12 slope, which does not meet the city's 6:12 minimum roof pitch standard.

Applicant Jim Benson explained that the homeowners association required the mansard-style roof to keep the home under the HOA's 30-foot height limit and that HOA approval would not have been possible without the design choice. He said the design includes gutters, downspouts and mirrored grade lines to ensure the house does not exceed the HOA's 30-foot maximum at any point. Benson asked what additional materials or clarifications they should provide before the public hearing.

Commissioners asked technical questions about how the front facade is defined (staff clarified the front facade is the actual wall, not a porch) and about the visual impacts of a 2:12 mansard; staff said flat or low-pitch elements have been approved previously in Chandler's Landing but each SUP/variance is considered case by case. The applicant was told to return for the August 12 public hearing and to appear at the August 18 city council meeting as well.

No vote occurred at the discussion stage; the Commission provided feedback and asked the applicant to bring clarified plans to the public hearing.