Magnolia Park-CS 940616CASE #:
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-133, COPPELL 200 SOUTH
June 16, 1994
July 12, 1994
LOCATION: West of Denton Tap Road, just north of Denton Creek
SIZE OF AREA: 87 acres
CURRENT
ZONING:
PD-FP, LI, HC
REQUEST:
Planned Development for Residential, Commercial, a
with 26 acres of FP, 10 acres of HC, 51 acres of S
lots; 8 acres with 21 lots--both essentially SF-9; 15
essentially SF- 12).
APPLICANT:
Coppell 200 Joint Vent.
(Owner)
101 Renner Road, Ste. 170
Richardson, Tx. 75082
907-1907
Dowdey, Anderson and
(Engineer)
16250 Dallas Pkwy, Su
Dallas, Tx. 75248
931-0694
HISTORY:
There has been no recent zoning history on this parc,
case was submitted in 1991 and looked at again in 1
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six lane divide~
currently a two lane roadway; the 121 Byl:
Freeway standards with access roads in 450
Item 6
.DDITION
nd Flood Plain Uses
F (28 acres with 77
acres with 21 lots--
Assoc.
[te 100
~1 although a zoning
792.
1 (120 foot r.o.w.);
ass will be built to
~et of r.o.w.
RROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- vacant; HC
South - Andrew Brown Park; TC
East - vacant; LI and C
West - vacant; R
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan indicates open space and mixed u:
development as most appropriate here.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission spent many hours determining wh~
use for this land in the land analysis exercise. After sc
Commission came to the conclusion that single-family residen
highway commercial uses was most appropriate. This re
arrived at after much discussion, research, and review of sew
this parcel.
Since 1985, every potential developer of this tract has ag
approximate 30 acre land area adjacent to Denton Creek fo~
addition, every former zoning applicant had also ag:
approximately $300,000 for park land improvements (see al
allocation document). It is not clear from this applica
responsibility and park plan is contemplated--that needs to b
Of additional concern to staff is the proposed single-family
Bypass. As discussed in the land use exercise, the Commi:
that no residential use should abut the Bypass, and a reco
along the entire length on both sides was the consensus of Co
This plan ignores that proposal. The plan submitted does sh,
with landscaping and a wall, but it remains to be seen if sucl
Commission's concern with traffic and residential adjacencl
This plan does have some positive elements. The propos
commended in that several existing trees will be preserved i
this plan does show approximately 30 acres being dedicate,
(although staff has concerns regarding specific plans and fin.
mentioned above), the overall density is comparable to the ea
(this plan shows 119 dwelling units, the earlier showed 125
common area which addresses the drainage of the Bypass.
Overall, however, this submittal does not reflect the land
Commission when a hearing was authorized to determine p~
tract. There are major questions regarding the park, a plan
of the park improvements; residential zoning adjacent to the
;e with commercial
tt it felt was the best
:veral sessions, the
:ial, open space, and
commendation was
:ral earlier plans for
:eed to dedicate an
'park purposes. In
reed to contribute
tached plan and fee
:ion what financial
e determined.
uses adjacent to the
;sion's position was
mmendation of HC
mmission members.
>w a 50 foot buffer,
proposal alleviates
entrance is to be
n the common area;
for park purposes
ncial obligations as
ier plans submitted
and 170), there is a
~ses propose by the
oper zoning for this
for it, and financing
121 Bypass has been
questioned by the Commission; more detail is needed for
common open spaces; with one point of access, a traffic im
needed at platting, among others.
Because the Commission took the originally called hearing
the land owner to address issues which were discussed in
hearing, the fact that the plan before you is not compreh¢
:levelopment of the
act analysis may be
~der advisement for
some detail at that
nsive in form with
several PD issues left unresolved, and the fact that the land
by the developer's proposal do not reflect the suggestions ~
staff would recommend that this property be rezoned to HC
121 Bypass (with a 250 foot depth), 30 acres be designated
purposes along Denton Creek, the remainder of the parcel
family, (density to be determined at the hearing) with a mini
12 along the park boundary.
ALTERNATIVES:
I) Approve the suggested PD
2) Deny the PD
3) Modify the PD
4) Recommend rezoning based upon Commission st~
ATI'ACHMENTS:
.stf
1) PD site plan
2) Detail of entry features
3) Additional landscaping details
4) Plan of approved park development
5) Park development cost allocation
u ~e pattern suggested
~f the Commission,
along the proposed
FP for public park
be rezoned single
~num lot size of SF-
~dy and research
EXERCISE STATION
LOW WATER OROJ~INO
LL COMMUNITY PARK
;SIBLE
PICNIC
PD-FP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
When the original Lincoln Property zoning was approved, c~rtain conditions
were agreed to regarding the PD-FP tract (approximately 30 acres). When
Magnolia rezoned the property three years later, these! same conditions
were reiterated. The conditions:
Approximate Cost:
One picnic shelter
Six picnic tables ($375.00)
Six forged cooking grills ($400.00)
Ten trash cans ($60.00)
Six (10-12' high) antiqlle fixture poles,
plus 34 jogging trail fixtures
One jogging trail~
Twelve exercise stations
Twenty acres of seeded Bermuda grass
One hundred shade trees (2-3" caliper)
Temporary irrigation to get plants started
Sixty ornamental trees (8' height average) (incl.
One pedestrian bridge (subject to COl?PS & FEMA approvall
Clean-up and clearing
Erosion control
Appearance grading
Electricity and water to shelter
contingenc]
~"-$20,000
2,250
2,400
600
--- 34,000
--~m~27,000
~-~_8,000
55,000
23,000
17,000
in trees above)
--42,000
ti15,000
20,000
15,000
i 2,800
8284,050
28,405
0'~ ~
$31~,455 +
i\
%
\
W
O¥O~ d¥£ NOINgQ
0
).