Villages CC 1-3-CS 920220 (2) CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE ~: ZC-534 (VILLAGES ~ COTTONWOOD CREEK, SECTION II)
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 20, 1992
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 10, 1992
LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Coppell Road and Parkway
Boulevard.
SIZE OF AREA: 19.91 Acres proposed for (SF-0) with 116 lots; and 24.59
acres proposed for (SF-7) containing 87 lots.
REQUEST:
Approval of a zoning change from (MF-1) Multi-Family-1 and
(MF-2) Multi-Family-2, to (SF-0) SinGle-Family-0 and (SF-7)
SinGle-Family-7.
APPLICANT:
Jim Sowell Const. Co., Inc.
(Owner)
4809 Cole Avenue
Suite #250
Dallas, Texas 75205
(214) 522-3739
Nelson Corp. (EnGineer)
5999 Summerside Drive
Suite #202
Dallas, Texas 75252
(214) 380-2605
HISTORY:
There has been no recent zoning activity on this property.
TRANSPORTATION:
Parkway Boulevard is a C4D four-lane divided thoroughfare
contained within an eighty (80) foot riGht-of-way; Coppell
Road is a C2U two-lane undivided street with variable width
riGht-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North - vacant; MF-2
South - sinGle-family/school site; SF-0
East - vacant; MF-1
West - vacant; LI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows high density
for this property.
residential uses
ITEM 6
ANALYSIS:
This is the third request we've processed in recent months
which is basically down zoning property from an apartment
classification to a single family category. In each of the
earlier requests, lots in the 50-55 foot width range were
proposed, met staff, neighborhood, and Planning Commission
objection, and were eventually revised to 60 foot width
minimums.
Although we have attempted to guide this applicant to a
more supportive staff position relative to the proposal -
greater width lots, more extensive landscaping, redesign of
the street system (particularly where the zero lot line
product is proposed), reconsideration of the basic zoning
request, more attention to existing housing stock, value
and size, greater attention focused on screening walls,
neighborhood identity and a host of other concerns, our
advise has been generally ignored.
We have reviewed this proposal on numerous occasions,
conducted telephone conversation an inordinate number of
times, conveyed to the applicant the results of somewhat
similar requests, with their ultimate outcome, resulting in
a plan which is reflected by the attachment.
This request is totally unacceptable to staff - it's too
dense, shows little imaginative site design, proposes
unacceptable or unknown landscape and screening materials,
does not recocjnize and relate to the fine residential
community adjacent to it, suggests an awkward circulation
system - in short, this request needs to go back to the
drawing board (which, I understand may be underway as this
analysis is written) for major revision. Staff recommends
denial of this proposal.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zoning change 2) Deny the zoning change
3) Modify the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Zoning Exhibit
ZC534STF
rlJ!
:'
-1 [
tl~llljtl
Ill :,::
· , 11 !
i