Vistas of C 1stP-CS 960215 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMF. NT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: PD-149, VISTAS OF COPPELL
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 15, 1996
C.C. HEARING DATE: March 12, 1996
LOCATION: [:a~t side of Denton Tap Road; north of the Denton Creek
SIZE OF AREA: Total site area: 128.15 acres
Tract I area: 21.781 acres
Tract II area: 45.819 acres
Tract III area: 17.441 acres
Tract IV area: 26.558 acres
Tract V area: 16.555 acres
CURRENT ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial), MF-2 (Multi Family-2), LI (Light
Industrial), and C (Commercial)
REQUEST: PD-SF-7 (Planned Development-Single Family-7) and MF-2
(Multi Family-2)
APPLICANT: Owner: Engineer:
Vista Properties Carter & Burgess, Inc.
5950 Berkshire Lane, Ste. 400 7950 Elmbrook Dr., Ste. 250
Dallas, TX 75225 Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 360-1500 (214) 638-0145
HISTORY: The City of Coppell annexed portions of the Vista Ridge Business
Park in 1986 and 1990, including the property currently requested
for rezoning. In connection with the annexation proceedings, the
City held public hearings to establish the existing zoning and
reinforced those decisions by adopting a new Official Zoning Map
in 1991 as part of Ordinance 91500, the current Zoning Ordinance.
Item # 5
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a proposed P6D, six-lane divided (120 foot
r.o.w.); currently, a two-lane roadway; the S.H. 121 Bypass will
be built to freeway standards and currently contains one-way
access roads, each 33 feet in width, within 450 feet of r.o.w.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - vacant; City of Lewisville
South - vacant; Denton Creek
g:a~t vacant; Highway Commercial 'HC"
West - vacant; Planned Development ' PD-133 FP, HC, SF-12, SF-9"
COMPREI-IF. NSIVE PLAN: The 1987 Comprehensive Plan shows this property outside
the boundaries of the planning area.
DISCUSSION: Sixty-three of the 128.15 acres requested for rezoning are classified
currently in the lvlF-2 Multi-Family Residential district, permitting nearly
1400 apartment units. The market for apartments between Lewisville and
Valley Ranch has not proven to be strong enough to bring about recent
development of anything near that number of units. Therefore the
prospect of marketing or absorbing that kind of development on this
property in the near term may be unrealistic. The alternative of
converting 63.26 acres of multi-family zoning to single-family residential
zoning, 16.555 acres of highway commercial zoning to multi-family
residential zoning, and 21.781 acres of highway commercial zoning to
single-family residential zoning compels serious consideration.
While the existing multi-family zoning will have freeway exposure, its
access to the proposed freeway will be limited. The service road is one-
way eastbound, with the nearest exit ramp from the main lanes east of the
property and the nearest entrance ramp to the main lanes west of the
property. Denton Creek cuts off access from the south. Therefore, traffic
generated by development of the site will impact both Denton Tap Road
and MacArthur Boulevard where they intersect the Highway 121 service
roads. Even construction of an additional through street would inject
additional traffic on Denton Tap and MacArthur. The proposed 76%
reduction of the number of potential households on the 63.26-acre site
significantly reduces the impact on the traffic-handling capability of those
streets and intersections.
Transferring 16.555 acres of MF-2 zoning to the northeast comer of
Denton Tap and 121 will not adversely impact the traffic situation. To the
contrary, the MF-2 will replace HC zoning which has the potential of
producing equal or greater traffic generation from retail, office and hotel
uses. Furthermore, Highland Drive is already in place there to provide
Item # 5
eastbound and westbound travel between Denton Tap and MacArthur.
This makes the proposed apartment site much more conducive to efficient
traffic movement than is the existing apartment site.
The Coppoll Independent School District is negotiating to pumhase Tract
IV, the 26.558-acre site on the south side of new Highway 121 just east
of Denton Tap. If the school district acquires the land for a middle
school, there is no need to rezone it. The HC, C, and LI districts permit
educational facilities.
The remainder of this discussion will center on the 333 housing units
proposed for Tracts I, II and III, totaling 85 acres, and currently zoned
MF-2 and HC. The reduction in density lessens the need for a through
street, similar to Highland Drive, between Denton Tap and MacArthur.
However, without a street crossing the drainageway separating Tract 1I
from Tract III, accessibility to the proposed homesites and school site is
meager at best. The only acceptable alternative is the full provision of a
trail as proposed on the City's hike-and-bike trail plan. A trail will
provide a principal means for adolescents to get to and from school and
a secondary means for adults to get around the neighborhood. Most
importantly it will bridge a natural bah'let and provide access from the
majority of the proposed homes to the 5.9-acre park site intended to serve
them.
The City has discouraged concentration of patio-style homes in large areas
by removal of the SF-0 District from the zoning ordinance and by relying
on the PD District instead. A PD permits 35% of the property to have
lots less than 7000 square feet in area. Due to the size of this request,
35 % of the total land devoted to single-family housing has the potential
to produce large concentrations of patio homes. The plans submitted
show 39.2 acres in 5000-square-foot lots, in two areas of 113 and 81 lots
each, because the request includes the school site as part of the PD.
Without rezoning the school site, only 29aA acres will be available for
5000-square-foot lots. Even that would enable a significant concentration
of 150 or more housing units.
Finally, between the Highway 121 By-Pass and the lots of Magnolia Park,
on the west side of Denton Tap, the City required a 50-foot-wide buffer.
The purpose was to provide protection to the adjoining residential
properties from the noise and pollution of a freeway designed to carry
12,000 cars per hour. A similar buffer along the north side of this PD
would be consistent with that requirement, add to the livability within the
backyards of the proposed adjacent homesites and provide a sound barrier
between the proposed freeway pavement surface and upper-story sleeping
quarters.
Item # 5
RECOIVlME~NDATION: Staff recommends for each tract:
Tract I Conditional approval ora 21.781-acre PD with plan
revised to show 5000-square-foot lots on no more
than 7.62 acres of property.
Tract II Conditional approval of a 45.819-acre PD with plan
revised to show 5000-square-foot lots on no more
than 16.04 acres of property.
Tract rtl Conditional approval of a 16.81-acre PD with plan
revised to show 5000-square-foot lots on no more
than 5.88 acres of property.
Tract IV Disapproval of rezoning or reclassification to the
SF-7 district (no PD).
Tract V Approval of the PD-MF-2 classification as
requested, provided that the MF-2 district is
removed in its entirety from the south side of
Highway 121 Bypass.
Recommended conditions of approval for Tracts I, II and III are:
1. Provision of a bermed 50'-wide, heavily landscaped buffer
along the full length of the property's frontage on Highway
121, with a 6'-high mason~ wall along the top of a 5'-high
2. Provision in Tract II of a 5.9-acre park site and a 1.37-acre
park site as proposed.
3. Provision of a street bridging the drainageway between
Tract II and Tract ffl; or, in lieu thereof, provision of a
hike-and-bike trail along the full length of Denton Creek
between Denton Tap Road and MacArthur Boulevard.
4. Provisions to prohibit fencing of side yards adjacent to
proposed streets.
5. Compliance with Engineering comments.
Note: This case was continued from January 18. The drawings which the applicant has
resubmitted now show dedication of the existing 15'-wide sewer easement along the south
side of Phase 11 and Phase 111 as an access/trail easement as n~ell. Our Leisure Services
Department supports this dedication. The applicant has not made changes to the 15'-
wide landscape easement across the north side of the property adjoining the Highway 121
Item # 5
Bypass, and will contend that a 6-high wall on top of a 2'-high berm provides as much
sound protection to ground-floor space within adjoining homes as a 6-high wall on top
of a 5'-high berm, and that neither provides sound protection to upper stories. Finally,
the resubmission shows no change in the number of total dwelling units, in the
distribution of 5000+ square foot lots, in the height of multi-family structures, nor in the
amount of proposed multi-family parking. We point this out becaase we perceived from
your questions at the January hearing that you had some concerns regarding building
density in both the single-family and multi-family areas of the requested PD.
While staff recommendation remains the same, you may want to explore other options
which rnay (or may not) accommodate development of the parcels. For instance:
Straight SF-7. The PD District permits smaller lots on up to 35% of the property. As
a general rule, this kind of concession is made in exchange for a public benefit. That
benefit often takes the form of increased common area, increased landscaping, innovative
housing concepts or an upgrade in development standards. If you do not feel that the
public benefits achieved by this land plan are sufficient to offset the density bonus granted
by the PD (as proposed by the applicant, 58% of the lots are under 7000 square feet in
area), you can recommend rezoning the property to SF-7. Under SF-7 there would be
no requirement thai the applicant set the screenwall off from the north property line, bat
the minimum size for all lots would be 7000 square feet.
Restrict Building Height. Staff recomtnendation for a 50'-wide landscape buffer along
121 is consistent with the provisions of the Magnolia Park PD. There are other ways to
protect land from an adjoining highway, lf you elect to reclassi~ the property as a PD,
you could restrict the first tier of lots adjoining Highway 121 to single-story construction,
thus reducing noise intrusion.
Examination of alternative layouts. If you are not com~nced that this is the best
possible plan for a PD, you could request the applicant to prepare additional design
schemes. For example, one plan could show how many lots would be lost by providing
a 50'-wide landscape buffer along Highway 121. In addition, one could show how many
lots would be lost by restricting 5000+ square foot lots to 35% of the combined area of
Phases L 1I and III, and intermingling 3 or 4 enclaves of 5000+ square foot lots among
areas of larger lots. One could show how many lots would be lost by doing both. One
could show a screenwall designed to protect an adjoining home's second story from
highway noise. Also, one could show conceptual layouts for both 2-story and 3-story
apartments with and without parking redactions so as to justify increasing the height limit
while, at the same time, reducing the parking requirement. These and alternative
scenarios might be investigated to insure the City obtains maximum benefit from this
proposed zoning change.
Recommendation. Conditional approval of Tracts I, H and 111 as outlined above.
Disapproval of Tract IV or reclassification to SF- 7. Approval of PD-MF2 for Tract V,
provided that the MF-2 designation is removed on the entirety of the property south of
Highway 121 Bypass.
Item # 5
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the request
2) Disapprove the request
3) Modify the request
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Planned Development Zoning Exhibit
2) Planned Development Site Plan Phase 1
3) Planned Development Site Plan Phase 2
4) Planned Development Site Plan Phase 3
5) Zoning Exhibit for Phase 4
6) Zoning Exhibit for Tract 5
7) Preliminary Landscape and Irrigation
Sheet 1. Cover Sheet
Sheet 2. Landscape Concept Graphics
Sheet 3. Landscape Concept Graphics
Sheet 4. Detailed Landscape Plans Tract 3
Sheet 5. Detailed Landscape Plans Tract 3
Sheet 6. Detailed Landscape Plans Tract 2
Sheet 7. Detailed Landscape Plans Tract 2
Sheet 8. Detailed Landscape Plans Tract 1
Sheet 9. Irrigation Details
8) Typical Sections Along Denton Creek
9) Pelton Marsh Kinsella's Letter
10) Departmental Comments
Item # 5
mmmw
· -"- Pelton Marsh Kinsella
ConsuJlanls in Acoustics. Theatre. Television ~ ~ :.. \':: ~
and Audio/Visuai Design ,il'.::/
~:-~ ~ U :~-'-'O = l i,
I .
MEMORANDUM m-
TO: Terry Mitchell FROM: Ted N. Cames, Phd., P.E.
Carter & Burgess Pelton Marsh KJnsella
DATE: January 29, 1996
SUBJECT: Noise Reduction Determination
Alternative Wall Alignment
Vistas of Coppel!
At your request, we have analyzed two wall locations for differences in noise levels.
The first wall is a 6 foot masonry wall on a 2 foot tall earth berm located 15 feet south of
the SH 121 right-of-way. The second wail is a 6 foot masonry wall on a 5 foot tall earth
berm located 35 feet south of the SH 121 right-of-way. The receiver was set 16 feet
high (at second story window height) and south of the SH 121 right-of-way fifty feet.
Our study, based on FHWA cdteria and 2010 traffic projection, indicated that there is no
difference in noise level for the receiver for either wall location. Generally, noise works
very similar to line-of-sight - if line-of-sight is blocked by a barrier, it will reduce more
noise than one which does not block the line-of-sight.
TNC:vh
7950 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 100 e Dallas, Texas 75247-4951
(800)229-7444 e (214)688-7444 · FAX(214)951-7408
Pelton Marsh KJnsella is a division of Carter & Burgess, Inc.
COPPELL LEISIYRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE; February- 9, 1996
TO: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services
/
YROM: Gary D. Sims, Director of Leisure Services ~.~~
RE: PD-149, Vistas of Coppell; Preliminary Plat for Pha~es I - III
The purpose of chis mcmoxandum i.~ to provide co~nmcnts from the Leisure Services
D~a~ment ~garding thc above referen~ pmJ~o b~ng ~nsid~ by ~c Planning
~ning Commission on Thursday, Pebm~ 15,
I have mview~ che set of plus ~at were submit~ by ~c d~clo~r ~i~ w~k m~d would
make thc following obsc~afions.
Dufin~ ~e Pl~ning and ~ninE Commission's last m~ng of/~ua~ 18, 1~6, city stuff
had b~ught w ~ attrition ~ the Commission chat ~mmunication n~ w ~e pl~
~tw~n the develo~r and the City At~rney regaling ch~ p~ use of ch~ l~'y as a hike
and bike ~il. In a ~nver~fion with ~e City At~mey on Friday, F~ruary 9, I~6, he
indi~ ~at a let~r lmm the ~'y Dis~ct W ~e Vis~ of Cog~ll w define this mater
had no~ ~n ~olv~ at this time.
I would al~ rei~m~ ~mments ~at we~ made on J~uary 23, 1~6, ~g~ding
d~ication of park land for P~s I-III. At ~m time, stuff hM indi~ ~at ~e primm-y
r~uirement in reg~ W the park land d~i~fion ordin~ for ~ Vistas of Cop~ll Phaws
I-I11 was in the a~uisifion of n~ pw~rty ~ sup~ the conat~cfion of a hi~ and bike
wail along Denton Cr~k. Any pro~ d~i~fion of park land by chc appli~t would
apply o~y w Ph~es 1 - III that were pw~sing prelimin~ plats. ~e p~tfing ~d
subs~uent devel~ment of Phase IV will be ~view~ separably at the time of platting
will not be aff~t~ by d~icafion from Phases I, II or III.
In reg~d to the trail, the City of C~ll r~ui~s ~i~=r d~i~tion or a h/kc ~d bike
~sement along ~ton Cr~k. ~e t~i~ hi~ ~d bike ~ail ~dor r~uires a wid~ of at
l~st ~i~y f~t (30'), howev~; ~e city has lndica~ a t~l width of a minimmn of fourt~n
f~t (14') in wid& on top of the levy would ~ a~p~ble. ~ile the a~lic~t has indica~
a hike ~d bike trail along ~e levy and ~r of pro.ny lines along Phases I - III, there
con~rn ~at a d~i~t~ widfl~ is not cl~rly define.
Bnscd on thc comments indicated above, thc l.cisurc Services Department cannot recommend
approval or' thc applicant's desired zoning charge nnd preliminary platting. Should you have
any ttuestions regarding this matter, please let me know.
OD$/rsw
PZ021596.RSW