Parks Coppell ABQ-CS 920521 CiTY OF COPPEL5
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: ZC-538 (PARKS OF COPPELL, TRACTS I-IV)
? & Z HEARING DAIE: May 21, 1992
C. C. HEARING DATE: June 9, 1992
£OCA!ION: Tract i - southeast corner of Heartz Rd. & Parkway Blvd.
Tract II - northeast corner of Denton Tap & Parkway Blvd.
?ract III- southwest corner of Denton Tap & Parkway Blvd.
Tract IV - approximately 990' west of the intersection of
Denton lap Road & Parkway Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: Tract I - 30.7 acres containing 77 single-family lots
Tract !i - 27.6 acres containing 89 single-family lots
Tract III- 26.2 acres containing 88 single-family lots
Tract IV - 76.8 acres containing !57 single-family lots
16!.3 acres 411 single-family lots
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zoning from (TC) to (SF-7) on
Tracts If i!, III~ and approval of a change of zoning from
(MF-2 to (SF-7) on Tract iV.
APPSICANT: RTC as receiver for Dan !~. Dowdey & Assoc.
ABQ Federal Savings Bank (Engineer)
Owner} Mr. Bill Anderson
8080 Park Lane 16250 Dallas Parkway
Suite ~700 Suite #i00
Dallas, iX 75231 Dallas, TX 75248
!214} 692-6892 ~214) 931-0694
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on any of the four
tracts.
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is a six-lane divided thoroughfare (P6D)
contained within a 100 foot right-of-way: Parkway Boulevard
is a four-lane divided street (C4D) contained within an 88
foot right-of-way: Heartz Road is an improved two-lane
undivided street within a 60 foot right-of-way.
ITEM 13
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Andrew Brown Park & vacant land: TC (small portion
of R on western boundary)
South - developing single-family & vacant land; TC & C
East - Andrew Brown Park & developed single-family; TC &
PD-SF
West - highschool, vacant; C, PD-SF, & NF-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows Town Center (Tracts I, II,
Iii) and high density residential (Tract IVi as most
appropriate uses for this land.
ANALYSIS: Generally speaking, this is a zoning change request which
can be supported by staff. Although it would have been
preferable to look at densities more in line with BF-9
guidelines, it must be acknowledged that where this
proposal is contiguous to already developed or developing
land, the site plan exhibits identical, and in some cases
larger, lot dimension, areas, etc. On a tract by tract
basis, staff makes the following comments:
!P~CT I: TC to SF-7 on 30.69 acres of land. This parcel
proposes a total of 77 lots similar in dimension to Pecan
Hollow, the existing subdivision to the east. Positive
features of this request include limited access to Parkway
Boulevard, extension of the Parkway wall and landscaping,
and preservation and enhancement of an existing drainage
channel into a linear park dedicated to the City, but
maintained by the Home Owners Association. In addition, a
4' high metal fence is proposed along back yards adjacent
to the open space, and the developer shows a meandering
wide sidewalk to serve as a pedestrian walk-way.
The only negative element of this plan is the fact that the
plat calls for elimination of an alley on the eastern
boundary. Many of you will recall the reason alleys at
This location were not required when Pecan Hollow was
developed was because the developer wished to preserve an
existing tree line. A short drive down Pecan Hollow Drive
will illustrate whether that rationale is appropriate
here. Only the alley issue warrants additional discussion
at the public hearing. Staff has reluctance to grant the
alley waiver, but generally supports this request.
TRACT Il: TC to SF-7 on 27.56 acres. This parcel proposes
a total of 89 sin§le-fami!y lots. Again, the request shows
appropriate treatment of Parkway Boulevard and, in the case
of Denton Tap Road. Landscaping, screening walls, and
irrigation systems will be maintained by the Homeowners
Association. Modifications were made to points of
ingress/egress and access to Denton Tap Road was eliminated
from the plat during staff review sessions. The boundary
between the park land and this subdivision will be
delineated by a four foot decorative metal fence, thus
giving the homeowners adjacent a more "open" feel to their
lots, yet clearly marking what is City and what is private
property. It should be noted here that the Community Park
Master Plan shows active park uses north and east of this
Tract (see attached plan), and that appropriate
architectural design controls need to be exercised by home
builders to exacerbate any potential negative impacts of
the park area. Staff supports this request.
TRACT III: TC zoning to SF-7 on 26.24 acres. This parcel
proposes a total of 88 single-family lots. This is a
difficult tract to evaluate. On the one hand, the zoning
is changing from a more intensive use (TCi to a !ess
intensive use (SF-7} which is generally supported.
However, in discussions with the applicant, it was
mentioned that the topography of the site does not lend
itself to the planned use, and that the hill on the parcel
(actually, this hill i__s the site) will be removed. From
a planning perspective such development is problematic.
One of the major objectives to sound land use planning is
the preservation - as much as possible - of natural
amenities such as trees, streams, rock out croppings and
topo - to work with the natural contours of the site. This
plan ignores that principle. There is also some question
regarding the wall which buffers this subdivision from
Denton !ap, Parkway Boulevard, and especially the school
site. If zoning were to be granted here, it is strongly
suggested that the sa~.~e brick wail along the high school
access road be extended to the southern property line oi
this tract. Planning staff is ambivalent regarding this
request the zoning change is supportive, the site
details shown on the plat raise concerns regarding
environmental and aesthetic sensitivity - this plan needs
more work. Therefore, staff would recommend holding this
tract under advisement until the issues raised above have
been addressed.
TRACT IV: MF-2 to SF-7 on 76.75 acres of land. This
parcel will contain 157 lots if developed as proposed. Of
ali the tracts, this one lends itself best to larger lots.
The area along Cottonwood Creek is perfect for SF-9 and
SF-12 sized building sites. In like fashion, the area
adjacent to Andrew Brown Park and Denton Creek appears
sited for similar sized lots. Several builders have
expressed a desire to procure lots with widths in the 75-85
foot category and complain that there are very few
residential areas in Coppei! upon which they can build a
product designed for that width. These two acres of Tract
IV could address that market. The screening wall and
landscapin§ alon§ the Parkway, the homeowne~ maintenance
open space, and the construction of the bridge and
completion of Parkway Boulevard are all reasons to support
this request. If the developer can assure us the provision
of a 20 foot access easement to Andrew Brown Park from the
area adjacent, and reduction of density to provide the
larger width lots addressed above and provided the easement
for bridge purposes can be worked out legally, staff would
recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES: i) Approve the zoning change
2) Deny the zoning change
3) ~odify the zoning change
ATTACh~'.ENT$: 1~ Zoning Exhibit - Tracts I, ii, III, IV
2) Community Park Plan - partial (to be used in conjuction
with Tract II}
3) landscape graphics
ZC538.STF
·
i ..- ,; · , ................. ~- ': - .':' ':,;'m,': ,"-'.: ~: °<- i ii-.-:. ~--
~,.; -:~ : !;.~ ;!.:::~::-:i.::~-: ~i:-a .r; t :a:~'i; ~-~"~. :~-'..' :'- :~'~ $=- I lo~ mo: -:
:.?'.":: ._-:-.-"...~!:i~.".--.:.i,.~::.~: :i..~--'l.~:~ -':-":il:: ,i.-': ~:'.-.,i: .~:,~-':i .~D · ~a ;~!. 4; : ~
-'c.: .~i~:--.-' :.~:'.'.;.i::-s-.-'t-' ~ I':~'l-~.:;:~I-.I--:'-o~ I-'l---%r,. '1'--~;: ~ _ ~/~::J I
I .il;~;:;-:-.i :-%'._-*'.i-'.,'~.'-; :''":'"':~ '1::: i'-:~l'[:'l:I~- '::l[I''l · --~ Z
":-' .'~ ....... :-:":': ': ; '-i,~' ', .......... :-'- :' ,' :i:'-'-" u~- - ~, ~ ~;
-'-"-~e:; ~ ~- : :'z:-'.:'-t'.~t.~e~ ~:-.-:':': .-o~- '-':~s,,'Is.:'-: F: ~-';'-.' , o~g' ~-~ I ~ -$ :
-;:-::-.-c .... %::-.-~.~:.~o:."~ '.:~:'-~:;.-."" = ! :' -:l.:~: '-:-.:1' . . '~.~ ~-'~ ~ ,,.,~ ~,.~
'-'-',- ~ -' .... :~'-;:r::~ ": ~-'--] "'"":-:."i~':.':':' :~'r:el' c,, -~
-'iq-i; i :.' ~:i l.r:':~ ::I;: '::::: ; · : ..... - ...... , .o--o. ~,:~o
'-"-~q'{ = I-: fi:: 'G.-~:!;: :1;;}' ;":.~ii ; '.
-:- t~i ~:';- --,?'::.=:~-' :':.-' .r:e~-'& .: ~ '.. \
~ Z 0 · ' z
i!-'''-' -.q~ "i-"::'~::'--;~ ----': -'i .... :':~- - ;. \ - = o N ;7 ~
?", .,:. o
i-: -g"v- -"*-,,--";~'i-':::i zl %~.i::~{; .... ' { . = . _: a
h..;:i
-'-;~ :' ~:j , : ;::_; :';i .%. . ~ ~N . '. ~
.i::': i_-' :ii -: : ::::' ::! :~ ~_ ,o z ~
:::z::' '~ ::. : ; -'z.";i :,:; :i ~ , ~ m · _~ -- .
.:;~:~ -.'_ ::.; ~:-:::::. ::. -! - . ~ ~ ~
%-:;L.h; .p ,,-,ii .... -~; ,,~· - -, .... ,., :~ .'..':: -:= ! . ;, ~. r
:z~..,~;_,., .-,% -.:i..~-: :-' ' '- -1,- , ~ :~ ~.* :.
;-;.:?~.=.-:: .-:':~.;~,:.?;.:..'; ..:. ;? ., , · , ,:_~
-'-';-;:.i'-~:.-';' :i'=:k:ii.=ii-;..' :.:- .!.i:-i-_.i;. , "., ~ :i .=
-"= ':";"~'* "':"~""" :-: " -2'?.; ~',.~'-~ - ..;..~.~
ii-:i:.;:.:J;:~:-';-:-;;;;;.i~:i; ;': i;:!!-"~Tl:~ ~ : ' ' '
i:i~-"i i; ig :. i=; -:i ii!,_! ~t:';i ~ . ,
.:'2 ": = ~ ' "-~ l_.-- ;
.... -ii ;' ':.l.'-~ '%. :.
'' "'" 0 Z -: .,.~-~--~' ...
' ': r'" ;
(~_ ~: ,i., ""~=- '"' ....
............ ' '~,.~' '-~
M A S T E R P L_A N
C OPPELLCOMMU.,IITY PARK
CITy OF COP PEL L
TOTAL KREAG[: zll& ,AC.
~NUARy ~, 1991 htORTH 0 $0' 100' 200' 400'
0
6 ASEi~&LL ! SOFT B Al: '..
_ .~-[ EX:STaG TREES
CAMP
coc~ r
~ CO--UNIfY
ZONED ~ CEN~R