Reserve-CS 980618 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF RF. PORT
CA qF, NO.: PD-IO IRg RE ERVF
P & Z HEARING DATE: June 18, 1998
C.C. HEARING DATE: July 14, 1998
LOCATION: Along the south side of Bethel Road, approx. 970' west of
Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 9.71 acres (23 single-family residential lots)
CURRENT ZONING: R and PD-LI (Retail and Planned Development, Light Industrial)
Zoning change to PD-SF-9 (Planned Development, Single Family-
REQUEST: ~ 9)
APPLICANT:.~ .~Developer: Engineer:
. .~ , x~ ~ WPC Aequisifiom, Inc. Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc, Inc.
-- ~%.x \ thY_, RC" Dallas TX 75243 Piano TX 75093
/XX~x , ~.,,~ ~X 972-479-0697 972-9~1-0694
¥ '~ ~ Fax 972-479-0397 Fax 972-931-9538
\~~ land between Denton Tat) Road
~,'~'.cc HISTORY: k_~ Prior to 1973 the majority of the
.',,~ r \ ~/ and Coppell Road, north of the railroad and south of the present
~' .~ \,~ X/location of Bethel Road, was zoned SF-7 and SF-10. In March of
'~ ,'~ ~x,,~' ' 1973 the City Council reclassified 99 771 acres to CommercAal and
",J ,,~'~" .~/-, request of the owner, shown on the application as CoppeH
?~,'_ ~x the Council reclassified 114.75 acres, which included the 99.771-
~ .\ ~ x acre tract, from PD, C and R, to Planned Development - Light
.~ u ~ Industrial at the request of Centre Development Co., representing
~\ ~\y~' the Baptist Foundation of Texas, as owner. The conceptual plan
'"' ! Yk? attached to the ordinance showed street development to serve
~ ~r-,~ commercial, office and light industrial tracts surrounding the park
site and a proposed site for an extension facility of Texas A&M.
The 9.71 acre site, which is the subject of the current application,
is part of that property. There has been no platting to date.
Itel# 5
TRANSPORTATION: Bethel Road is a 2-1aue undivided asphalt road with side ditches
a 50'-wide right-of-way, proixm~ to be a C2U collector street
with curb and gutter imide a 50'-wide right-of-way from South
Coppell Road to Grapevine Creek.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- Largely vacant (one residence); "R~ Retail and "C" Commercial
South- Grapevine Springs Park; "PD-LI" Planned Development- Light
East - Grapevine Springs Park; "PD-LI" Planned Development - Light
West - Vacant; 'PD-LI~ Planned Development - Light Industrial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprebe~ive Plan shows the property as suitable for
DISCUSSION: The purpose of a planned development district is to provide flexibility in
the design of new development in situations where modification of
stalldard zoning ordinallce provisions is not conu'ary to the intent and
purpose of the ordinance. A PD District may be used to permit new and
innovative concepts in ia/id utilization.
The planning staff views a PD application as a give-and-take proposition.
For each advantage afforded a developer there should be an advantage
afforded the community or neighborhood. This frequently takes the form
of ope~ space to be rr~int,olned by a community association.
In this application the concession sought is an alley waiver resulting in
bigger lots to sell, but with little offered in return. If the subdivision
design provided greater public visibility of the park, better public access to
the park, or some other public enh:~ncement, an alley waiver might be
justifiable. However, before making...~t judgment the planning staff
would like to see how the developer would lay out the site if it were zoned
SF-9 and full com?l~ with ~flxiivizion regulations applied. A layout
with alley access to all lots might prove to be preferable.
There is also another important issue associated with planned
developments and alley waivers. In many planned developments
throughout the city the developer has created considerable value by
placing rear yards of homesites next to private open space. By eliminnting
the alley the private open space becomes an extension of private yard
space. Public open space owned by Dallas County, on the other hand,
presen~ an altogether different set of circmustances. Public use tends to
invade privacy. In response homeowners tend to fence their back yards
with solid fences and the value of viewing open space is lost. Conflicts
arise between public enjoyment and individual desires for privacy.
Item#
presents an altogether different set of circmustances. Public use tends to
invade privacy. In response homeowners tend to fence their back yards
with solid fences and the value of viewing open space is lost. Conflicts
arise between public enjoyment and individual desires for privacy.
All this said, staff r~gniTes nevertheless that 23 lots on less than 10
acres will create marginal impact on Grapevine Springs Park. We believe
that esthetic enhancenm~ along the southern edge of Bethel Road may be
sufficient to justify the PD. We would like to see more detail as to how
the space between the proposed north curb of Rosemount Court and the
proposed south curb of Bethel Road will be handled.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Unless we receive additional information prior to the Commission meeting
which we can embrace and support, the planning staff recommends taking
thi.~ case under advisement for reconsideration at anc._~r_'_'_~__-~a_ te and further
recommends requesting the applicant to provide the following:
1) Specifics as to how the full frontage of Bethel Road is proposed to
look. -
2) A subdivision plan showing the best development solution from a
marketing point of view if alley access and rear-entry garages were
required for each lot.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisemem for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) ~ comments
2) Zoning exhibit
3) Tree survey
4) Preliminary lzndsc~pe ......
Item# 5
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~I'A FF REPORT
CA E: RE F. RVF PREIJ]VIlNAR¥ PI.AT
P & Z HEARING DATE: June 18, 1998
C.C. HEARING DATE: July 14, 1998
LOCATION: Along the south side of Bethel Road, approx. 9'/0' west of
Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 9.71 acres (23 single-family residential lots)
CURRENT ZONING: PD-SF-9 (Planned Development, Single Family-9)
REQUEST: Pre 'lnninary Plat approval.
APPLICANT: Developer: Engineer:
WPC Acquisitions, Inc. Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc, Inc.
9330 LRI Fwy, Ste 745 5225 Village Creek Dr, Ste 200
Dallas TX 75243 Plano TX 75093
972479-0697 972-931-0694
Fax 972479-0397 Fax 972-931-9538
HISTORY: Prior to 1973 the majority of the land between Denton Tap Road
and Coppell Road, north of the railroad and south of the present
location of Bethel Road, was zoned SF-7 and SF-10. In March of
1973 the City Council reclassified 99.771 acres to Commercial and
Planned Development for a Family Entertainment Complex at the
request of the owner, shown.--on the application as Coppell
Historical Corporation. At that time, the projected use was
envisioned to be similar to Sandy Lake Park. In lanuary of 1991,
the Council reclassified 114.75 acres, which included the 99.771-
acre tract, from PD, C and R, to Planned Development - Light
Industrial at the request of Centre Development Co., representing
the Baptist Foundation of Texas, as owner. The conceptual plan
attached to the ordinance showed street development to serve
commercial, office and light industrial tracts surrounding the park
site and a proposed site for an extension facility of Texas A&M.
The 9.71 acre site, which is the subject of the current application,
is part of that property. There has been no platting to date.
Item# 6
TRANSPORTATION: Bethel Road is a 2-lane undivided asphalt road with side ditches in
a 50'-wide fight-of-way, proposed to be a C2U collector street
with curb and gutter inside a 50'-wide right-of-way from South
Coppen Road to Grapevine Creek.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- Largely vacant (one residence); "R" Retail and "C" Commercial
South- Grapevine Springs Park; 'PD-LI" Planned Development- Light
East - Grapevine Springs Park; "PD-LI" Plnnned Development - Light
West - Vacant; "PD-LI" Planned Development - Light Industrial
COMPR~HENSIVE PLAN: The Comp~ive Plan shows the property as suitable for
medium density residential use.
DISCUSSION: The pre 'hminary plat should conform with whatever site plan is approved
for the planned development district, if in ~ct a planned development
district on the property is recommended for approval. Until that
recommendation is made the only action the Planning and Zoning
Commission can take is disapproval.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The planning staff recommends disapproval of the preliminary plat until
such time as a PD site plan has been approved.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recouune~ modification of the request
ATTACHES: 1) Depal~mental Comment, s
2) Preliminary plat
Item# 6