Vistas of C P1-CS 960221February 21, 1996
Mr. Dennis Winzeler
Vista Properties
Suite 400
5950 Berkshire Lane
Dallas TX 75225
re: PD-149,¥istns of Coppell
Dear Dennis:
So that our staff recommendations will not come as any surprise to you, the following
summarizes our position regarding some of the key points discussed at our meeting yesterday:
If you produce the documentation from the Levee Improvement District
authorizing the City to use the levee for wail purposes, staff will support the
dedication of the 15' sewer easement on Phases H and Ill in conjunction with land
on the levee to achieve the City's hike and bike trail plan.
Staff will support the use of the hike and bike trail to accomplish internal
circulation, and will not require a street crossing between Phase II and Phase III.
However, our reading of the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussions is
that P&Z may impose that condition.
In a follow-up conversation with Oary Sims, and in reading his previous
correspondence, there is no evidence to indicate staff support of the application
of park land dedication in Phase I, II and III as an offset to the park land
dedication requirements of Phase V. The evidence is quite to the contrary.
Regarding the placement of single-family housing against Highway 121 By-Pass,
staff is flexible as to the means of buffering. However, staff will not support the
means you have proposed previously. If you agree to limit the first tier of lots
adjoining the proposed freeway to single-story houses, staff will support a 15'-
wide buffer with a 3'-high berm, 6'-high masonry wall and extensive landscaping
on a par with or greater than that required of a primary image zone in the
Streetscape Plan of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Dennis Wiaz~l~r
Page 2
As to the distribution of smaller lots within the PD, staff will agree to another
solution to the problem. The problem is one of sameness that occurs when
builders line up houses in rows and place them closely one to the other. If you
can offset this effect by creating interest in other ways, staff is willing to support
that approach. We will reserve judgment until after we see your proposal.
Regarding the amount of land to be devoted to lots less than 7000 square feet in
area, the P&Z motion could not have been clearer. Furthermore, the motion
passed unanimously. It instructed you to resubmit a plan with no more than 35 %
of the total area of Phases I, H and IH devoted to lots less than 7000 square feet
in area. The Planning Department has never indicated its support of anything
else. If you do not comply with P&Z's instructions by limiting smaller lots to an
area of 29.76 acres or less, we will point it out in the staff report. However,
with careful redesign, you may be able to increase lot yield on a select 29.76
acres of your land. If you could achieve a yield of five 5000-square-foot lots to
the acre, it would take a yield of only 3.4 lots per acre on the balance to maintain
your total lot yield of 333 units.
Finally, concerning the apartment site height and parking, it is difficult for us to
take a position with so few specifics. Our best suggestion is for you to produce
as many charts and graphics as you can to support your case.
We believe that we have shown a willingness to work with you to bring forth a plan which staff
can support and which P&Z will be likely to approve. We look forward to a response from you
which, in particular, recognizes the community's concerns with respect to small-lot housing, as
well as with ~t to the other points mentioned.
Sincerely,
, ~- 3( 5,./ .,.-' .,. , ,c ,,~' .-
Pert Virtanen, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Services
cc: Dennis Serke
._..._~,' Ken Griffin
Gary Sims
Gary Sieb