Lakewood A-CS 920116 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
LAKEWOOD ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 16, 1992 (DENIED & RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY
20, 1992)
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 10, 1992
LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, south of
Parkway Boulevard, and along the east and west side of
Village Parkway.
SIZE OF AREA: 44.04 acres (Tract A = 13.97 acres, Tract B = 30.07 acres],
with 66 lots in Tract A, and 103 lots in Tract B.
REQUEST: Approval of a preliminary plat.
APPLICANT: Schnurbusch & Unzicker LOC Estates
(Engineer] (Prospective Developer]
Mr. Lynn Meyer 302 Sheridan Trail
8700 Stemmons Freeway Irving, TX 75063
Suite #400 (214] 220-3415
Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 643-3300
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on this parcel,
although property north of this request was rezoned to
single-family use in late 1991.
TR/hNSPORTATION:
MacArthur Boulevard is a major (P6D) thoroughfare built to
standard: Village Parkway is a two lane residential-type
street constructed in a 60 foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant; PD SF-7
South - Vacant building: R
East - Vacant; SF-12 ~ City limits of Carrollton
West - Vacant: TH-1
ITEM 11
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows residential development at
medium and hi§h densities.
ANALYSIS: Provided the applicant addresses the subdivision issues
pointed out in the zoning request which accompanies this
plat - that is, density, lot widths, circulation pattern,
common areas and their maintenance, general drainage
configuration, and the other physical development elements
discussed - staff could support the preliminary plat.
Without those concerns being resolved, we would recommend
denial of the preliminary plat.
Because the applicant was still working on several concerns
expressed by staff as this docket was being prepared, our
final staff analysis must wait until applicant
documentation has been received (which is after our docket
preparation deadline). Staff will be prepared to discuss
in detail the merits of a revised plat at the briefing
session held immediately prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing.
This plat was denied on January 16 because of problems with
the accompanying zoning case (PD-123). The revised plat
addresses the same concerns expressed in the zoning case,
and provided those concerns have been resolved, this plat
can be recommended for approval.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the preliminary plat 2) Deny the preliminary plat
3] Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat
LKWOOD. STF
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: PD-123 (LAKEWOOD ESTATES)
P & Z HEARING DATE: 3anuary 16, 1992 (TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL
FEBRUARY 20, 1992)
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 10, 1992
LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, south of
Parkway Boulevard, and along the east and west side of
Village Parkway.
SIZE OF AREA: 44.04 acres (Tract A = 13.97 acres, Tract B = 30.07 acres],
with 60 lots in Tract A, and 103 lots in Tract B, totalling
163 lots. (Revised February 20 plan shows 55 lots in Tract
A).
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning change from (MF-2) Multi-Family-2, to
(PD-SF-7) Planned Development Sin§le-Family-7.
APPLICANT: Schnurbusch & Unzicker JWL Investments
(Engineer) (Prospective Purchaser)
Mr. Lynn Meyer Mr. Waymon Levell
8700 Stemmons Freeway 6161 Harry Hines Boulevard
Suite #400 Suite #210
Dallas, TX 75247 Dallas, TX 75235
[214) 643-3300
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on this parcel,
although property north of this request was rezoned to
single-family use in late 1991.
TRANSPORTATION:
MacArthur Boulevard is a major (P6D] thoroughfare built to
standard; Villa§e Parkway is a two lane residential-type
street constructed in a 60 foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant; PD SF-7
South - Vacant building; R
East - Vacant; SF-12 & City limits of Carrollton
West - Vacant~ TH-1
ITEM 10
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows residential development at
medium and high densities.
ANALYSIS: Although it goes without saying that an application to down
zone property from apartment uses to single-family uses is
generally favorably received, staff has concerns with this
request from basically two levels - one, the use of the
P.D. and what makes this application a beneficial Planned
Development: two, the density, lot dimensions and general
land use contemplated by this application.
Regarding the proper use of P.D. zoning, this application
is right on the border of being recognized as a P.D. Based
on the requirements in the zoninG ordinance, it could be
argued that the only perceptible reason this application
has been submitted, is to gain reduced width lots on 35% of
the property. Landscaping details are minimal, at best.
There appears to be no effort to create a unique community
with this plan - there are no identity features, amenities
are few, integrated land use planning is nonexistent, and
the general circulation pattern is awkward at best,
especially at Bentwood Court and Village Parkway.
On the other hand, some effort has been made to show
general tree groupings, there is an attempt to reference
some landscaping along MacArthur, and the applicant has
identified requirements contained in the Master Homeowners
Association Agreement - wrought iron fencing stipulated on
drainage area lots, the 20 foot access requirement on the
same lots, etc. Although several meetings were held with
the applicant both prior and subsequent to application
submittal, staff is still bothered by the details (or lack
of same) contained within this request, and continues to
work with the applicant to obtain additional information
prior to public hearing which would make this proposal more
palatable as a P.D.
The second point, the land use itself, is more
problematic. Early in our discussions with the applicant,
%he history behind the similar 50 foot wide lot request
north of here which was finally resolved as 63 foot wide
lots was pointed out. This applicant has elected to move
forward with the majority of lots in his northwest sector
at something less than 60 foot widths, claiming that the
"unique" product planned for this parcel will be an asset
to the community. Staff is somewhat skeptical of this
claim. The twenty-foot front yard is bothersome - perhaps
the setbacks could be varied between 20 and 30 feet: the
narrow side yards concern us - some buffer, screenin§
and/or combination with brick fencinG would be more
satisfactory and the physical units to be placed on these
landscaping contributions on a lot-by-lot basis? In
addition, the over-al! density of this parcel is
bothersome.
With reference to the over-all land use proposal, and as
already mentioned, there is a very awkward relationship
between Bentwood Court and VillaGe Parkway~ landscaping
adjacent to the Parkway should be addressed, as well as the
concerns involvin§ the screening of the Pump Station.
Also, caution must be exercised to insure properties east
of this proposal are not land-locked with execution of
development here.
To summarize, the applicant must convince us that the
product visualized on the small lots (the area which
reflects the 35% reduction from typical SF-7) is a unique
product which will serve to enhance and compliment our
residential life-style. Elevations, floor plans, examples
of current subdivisions which duplicate the residences
proposed here, a clearer idea of how the units work as a
subdivision - al! need to be clearly conveyed to Generate a
favorable staff recommendation. Also, landscapinG, amenity
creation, screeninG proposals, and a General focus on what
truly makes this 44 acre parcel a bonifide PD needs a
sharper definition.
At the January !6 meeting, Planning Commission closed the
public hearing and took this case under advisement until
February 20. The troublesome points of the staff analysis
pointed out above needed addressinG. The applicant has
decreased the density on Tract A by five units, established
a variable setback, and has provided information which more
closely conforms to the P.D. Ordinance. If Planning
Commission feels their earlier objections have been met,
staff would recommend approval.
ALTER_NATIVES: !} Approve the zoninG change
2) Deny the zoning change
3) Modify the zoninG change
ATTACF/~_~ENTS: 1] Plan of proposed development
PD123STF
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: PD-123 (LAKEWOOD ESTATES)
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 16, 1992
C. C. HEARING DATE: February 11, 1992
LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, south of
Parkway Boulevard, and along the east and west side of
Village Parkway.
SIZE OF AREA: 44.04 acres (Tract A = 13.97 acres, Tract B = 30.07 acres),
with 60 lots in Tract A, and 103 lots in Tract B, totalling
163 lots.
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning change from (MF-2) Multi-Family-2, to
(PD-SF-7) Planned Development Single-Family-7.
APPLICANT: Schnurbusch & Unzicker 3WL Investments
(Engineer) (Prospective Purchaser)
Mr. Lynn Meyer Mr. Waymon Levell
8700 Stemmons Freeway 6161 Harry Hines Boulevard
Suite #400 Suite #210
Dallas, TX 75247 Dallas, TX 75235
(214) 643-3300
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on this parcel,
although property north of this request was rezoned to
single-family use in late 1991.
TRANSPORTATION:
MacArthur Boulevard is a major (P6D) thoroughfare built to
standard: VillaGe Parkway is a two lane residential-type
street constructed in a 60 foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant; PD SF-7
South - Vacant building; R
East - Vacant; SF-12 & City limits of Carrollton
West - Vacant; TH-1
ITEM 6
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows residential development at
medium and high densities.
ANALYSIS: Although it goes without saying that an application to down
zone property from apartment uses to single-family uses is
generally favorably received, staff has concerns with this
request from basically two levels - one, the use of the
P.D. and what makes this application a beneficial Planned
Development; two, the density, lot dimensions and general
land use contemplated by this application.
Regarding the proper use of P.D. zoning, this application
is right on the border of being recognized as a P.D. Based
on the requirements in the zoning ordinance, it could be
argued that the only perceptible reason this application
has been submitted, is to Gain reduced width lots on 35% of
the property. Landscaping details are minimal, at best.
There appears to be no effort to create a unique community
with this plan - there are no identity features, amenities
are few, integrated land use planning is nonexistent, and
the general circulation pattern is awkward at best,
especially at Bentwood Court and Village Parkway.
On the other hand, some effort has been made to show
General tree groupings, there is an attempt to reference
some landscaping along MacArthur, and the applicant has
identified requirements contained in the Master Homeowners
Association Agreement - wrought iron fencing stipulated on
drainage area lots, the 20 foot access requirement on the
same lots, etc. AlthouGh several meetings were held with
the applicant both prior and subsequent to application
submittal, staff is still bothered by the details (or lack
of same) contained within this request, and continues to
work with the applicant to obtain additional information
prior to public hearing which would make this proposal more
palatable as a P.D.
The second point, the land use itself, is more
problematic. Early in our discussions with the applicant,
the history behind the similar 50 foot wide lot request
north of here which was finally resolved as 63 foot wide
lots was pointed out. This applicant has elected to move
forward with the majority of lots in his northwest sector
at something less than 60 foot widths, claiming that the
"unique" product planned for this parcel will be an asset
to the community. Staff is somewhat skeptical of this
claim. The twenty-foot front yard is bothersome - perhaps
the setbacks could be varied between 20 and 30 feet; the
narrow side yards concern us - some buffer, screenin§
and/or combination with brick fencin§ would be more
satisfactory and the physical units to be placed on these
landscaping contributions on a lot-by-lot basis? In
addition, the over-all density of this parcel is
bothersome.
With reference to the over-all land use proposal, and as
already mentioned, there is a very awkward relationship
between Bentwood Court and ¥illage Parkway; landscaping
adjacent to the Parkway should be addressed, as well as the
concerns involving the screening of the Pump Station.
Also, caution must be exercised to insure properties east
of this proposal are not land-locked with execution of
development here.
To summarize, the applicant must convince us that the
product visualized on the small lots (the area which
reflects the 35% reduction from typical SF-7) is a unique
product which will serve to enhance and compliment our
residential life-style. Elevations, floor plans, examples
of current subdivisions which duplicate the residences
proposed here, a clearer idea of how the units work as a
subdivision - all need to be clearly conveyed to generate a
favorable staff recommendation. Also, landscaping, amenity
creation, screening proposals, and a general focus on what
truly makes this 44 acre parcel a bonifide PD needs a
sharper definition.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zoning change 2) Deny the zoning change
3) Modify the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Plan of proposed development
PD123STF