Westchase-CS 990415CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: WESTCHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
April 15, 1999
May I1, 1999
LOCATION:
Along the south side of Bethel Road, east of Coppell Road.
SIZE OF AREA:
37.04 acres (102 single-family residential lots)
CURRENT ZONING:
PD-108 "LI', Light Industrial
REQUEST:
Preliminary Plat approval.
APPLICANT:
Developer:
Papagolos Development Co.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 300
Plano, TX. 75093
(972) 931-9537
Fax: (972) 931-2660
Engineer:
Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc., Inc.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 200
Piano, TX. 75093
(972) 931-0694
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 January 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.
That project never materialized, and a portion of the 99-acre parcel
was rezoned for single-family housing in 1997 and is now referred
to as Summit at the Springs. The current application proposes to
subdivide a remainder of the original property into single-family
building sites. A similar request was denied in the fall of 1998.
Item//5
The Planning Commir~ion on February 18, 1999 denied this
case because the zoning request on the property was held under
advisement until the March public hearing. The plat as
submitted could not be considered until the zoning was
changed. On March 18, the Planning Commission denied this
plat again because the zoning which would allow this proposal
was held under advisement until April 15, 1999.
TRANSPORTATION:
Bethel Road is a 2-lane undivided asphalt road with side ditches in
a 50'-wide right-of-way, proposed to be a C2U collector street with
curb and gutter inside a 50'-wide right-of-way from Coppell Road
to Grapevine Creek. South Copper Road is a 2-lane undivided
asphalt road with side ditches in a 60'-wide right-of-way, proposed
to be a C2U collector street with curb and gutter inside a 60'-wide
right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-
South -
East-
West -
Old Coppell Estates & retail; "SF-9' Single-Family 9 & "R'
Retail
Railroad, housing mixed with businesses within residential
structures; "C" Commercial & "LI' Light Industrial
Grapevine Springs Park; "PD-LI" Planned Development - Light
Industrial
Largely vacant, one industrial building, retail and housing; "R'
Retail & "LI" Light Industrial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
medium density residential use.
DISCUSSION:
The preliminary plat should conform with the site plan approved for the
planned development district, if in fact a planned development district on
the property is recommended for approval. Because of the lack of
complete information regarding the zoning case heard earlier, and
assuming Commission is not comfortable with approving the PD, then this
application must be denied. On the other hand, if the applicant can answer
satisfactorily all questions posed by staff and Commission members during
the zoning hearing, thi.q application could be approved with conditions as
listed below.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
IF Commission approves the PD zoning application, then this plat can be
approved subject to the following conditions:
-Burns Drive to be in place prior to building permit
-Appropriate Planning comments stated on the PD case
Item g5
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS:
-Engineering comments
If the PD is denied or taken under advisement, this plat should be denied.
As stated above, this c~se was denied because the zoning request was
held under advisement for adch'tional information. Provided ,the
Commi.~Mon is satisfied with the resubmittal, thin plat can be approved
with the following conditions:
Engineering comments (attached)
No additional draina=oe should occur on park property
Acknowledgement of the $1285/1ot park fee
If, however, the Commission still has problems with the zoning case
and does not approve it, thin application should be denied.
As noted above, this case was denied in March for the reasons stated.
Provided the application for zoning is approved by Commission in April
the plat could be approved with the following cotnments:
No additional drainage occurring on park property
Payment of the $1285/1ot park fee
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
1) Prelhninaxy Plat Document
2) Departmental Comments
Item
CITY or-~C~L -) CITY OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
COMMENT
reparation/or all protected ~rees ant~pated to be removed due to construction o/Ow
Developer shall provide ia Tree MitJgathm plan, for approval, which w~ll provide
roadwatjs, sidewalks, utilities and Proposed building pads.
The developer should be made atoare that the proposed develolnnent is affected bIj the
Park Dedicahon Ordinal, stilmlat~n~ $2,285.00 per dwelling unit.
leisure Services Depart~t requests to meet o~ site to discuss the storm drainage
w~h ~mp~s into t~ p~..rk.
DRC.~25~gb
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-108R4, WESTCItASE
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATES:
April 15, 1999 (originally heard on Feb. 18, heard again March
18 and continued to April 15,1999)
May 11, 1999
LOCATION:
Along the south side of Bethel Road, east of Coppell Road.
SIZE OF AREA:
37.04 acres (102 single-family residential lots)
CURRENT ZONING:
R, HO-R, PD-LI and HO-PD-LI (Retail; Historic Overlay, Retail;
Planned Development, Light Industrial; Historic Overlay, Planned
Development, Light Industrial).
REQUEST:
PD-SF-9 (Planned Development, Single Family-9).
APPLICANT:
Developer:
Papagolos Development Co.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 300
Plano, TX. 75093
972-931-9537
Fax: 972-931-2660
Engineer:
Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc, Inc.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 200
Piano, TX 75093
972-931-0694
Fax: 972-931-9538
HISTORY:
Prior to 1973 the majority of the land between Denton Tap Road
and Copper 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 Copper
Historical Corporation. At that time, the projected use was
envisioned to be similar to Sandy Lake Park. In January 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.
That proposal never materialized. In 1997 a portion of the 99-acre
tract (to the east of the subject property) was rezoned for residential
development with the subsequent construction of Summit at the
Item # 4
Springs subdivision. In 1998 the Planning Commission denied a
request for residential development on this property.
At the February 18* public hearing, Comminsion took this case
under advisement until the March meeting to allow the
developer to address several issues needing clarification. The
Recommendations Section of thi.q report outlines those issues.
Because the Commission took the case under advisement again at
the March meeting, please refer to the Revised Recommendations
Section of this report.
TRANSPORTATION:
Bethel Road is a 24ane undivided asphalt road with side ditches in
a 50'-wide right-of-way, proposed to be a C2U collector street with
curb and gutter inside a 50'-wide fight-of-way from Coppell Road
to east of Grapevine Creek. South CoppeH Road is a 2-lane
undivided asphalt road with side ditches in a 60'-wide right-of-
way, proposed to be a C2U collector street with curb and gutter
inside a 60'-wide right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-
South -
East-
West -
Old Coppell Estates & retail; "SF-9' Single-Family 9 &
Retail
Railroad, housing mixed with businesses within residential
structures; "C' Commercial & "LI' Light Industrial
Grapevine Springs Park; "PD-LI' Planned Development - Light
Industrial
Largely vacant, one industrial building, retail and housing; "R'
Retail & "LI' Light Industrial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
medium density residential use.
DISCUSSION:
This request is similar to the one heard by Planning Commission in the fall
of 1998. At that time staff was supportive of the request, with the
exception of an approximate 300-foot buffer along Coppell Road. This
application recognizes that concern and does not show any residential
development closer than 290 feet of Coppell Road. The major issue
remaining for this development proposal is the advisability of placing new
homes within critical earshot of planes departing from Runway 35R at
DFW. The planning staff is of the opinion that housing thi.q close to the
runway approach should include sound mitigation features. Suggestions
include triple glazed windows, extra attic and ceiling insulation, and other
sound deadening techniques. That guarantee could be addressed through
specific conditions listed in the PD, and monitored through the
Homeowners Association. In addition, the aircraft activity note needs to
Item # 4
be included on any development exhibit presented with this case to insure
future homeowners are aware of potential noise issues.
There are other concerns to be addressed such as access to the park, the
unique relationship of this property to the park and to Old Coppell, the
ability of this property to serve as a connecting pedestrian link between the
two, and the degree to which the community benefits from the designation
of the property as a residential planned development. The developer has
proposed a decorative metal fence along the eastern portion of the lots that
abut the Park, so he has addressed that common boundary. He also shows
pedestrian access from the subdivision to the park, and a residential use
adjacent to Grapevine Springs Park is much more desirable that the
existing industrial use possibility. What is not clear is how the
homeowner's common area is to be delineated and separated from public
land. Finally, the screening wall along Park Road should be identical to
the one on the east side.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is supportive of this request as it reflects the ultimate use of this
property as recommended by the Comprehensive Master Plan. There are,
however, several conditions which must be addressed before this case is
ready for development, including:
-zoning on the zoning exhibit needs correcting (condition
met)
-means of separating lot 18X and park property must be
stated, as well as common brick walls on Park Road
(County will accept dedication of open space, we'll place
it in our existing lease-hold--see letter from County
dated March 2, 1999; common brick walls now show on
Park Road, as well as landscaping)
-additional sound mitigation needs to be provided and stated
on the PD and in the Homeowners Agreement (see
attachment)
-add the D/FW ambient aircraft noise statement to the PD
(the statement has been added)
-trees removed will have to be mitigated, where's the
mitigation plan?
-all plant material must be specified/provided in tabular
form (now shown on landscape plan)
-west side 6-foot brick screening wall needs to extend the
entire length of the subdivision, not just behind the alleys
(condition met)
-no additional drainage should occur on park property
-Burns Drive is to be in place before building permits will
be issued (so stated on plan)
-Departmental comments from Engineering and Leisure
Services need to be addressed
Item//4
-An acoustical engineer to assist in desiooning houses
(offered by Planning Commi.~%ner)
Because of the number of conditions needing attention, it might be
prudent to take this case under advisement until all issues
have been clearly resolved. Although staff is supportive of
this case, there are several items requiting more detailed
study, which have not been addressed to date.
Now that the revised plan has been submitted, staff can recommend
approval with the following conditions:
1) additional sound mitigation needs to be provided and stated
on the PD and in the Homeowners Agreement
2) Tree mitigation plan is needed
3) No additional drainage should occur on park property
4) Department comments from Engineering need to be
addressed
5) Address the comment of employing an acoustical engineer to
assist in designing these houses
6) A very strongly worded statement on appropriate
documents (the P.D., plat, contract of sale, etc.) noting the
noise issue/close proximity to the airport is recommended
The applicant has also addressed the 3,000 square foot minimum house
size, is moving the brick columns to lots 18 and 19 Block B, and has
specified that the screening fence along the railroad tracks will be a six-
foot high wooden fence with metal poles.
REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has addressed the
majority of the above listed concerns. The remaining items--tree
mitigation plan and noise issues have resulted in the following:
The noise mitigation plan is workable and will result in the noise
issue being addressed, provides a procedure whereby the developer and
builder are responsible for insuring proper building practices are carried
out. Saff can support this plan.
The tree mitigation plan replaces trees being removed, includes a
monetary account to address those trees which are not replaced, and
outlines a procedure whereby an accounting procedure is established to
monitor tree replacement as the project builds out.
In sumnutry then, conditions 1) sound mitigation, 2) tree mitigation, 3)
drainage, 4) no comments form Engineering regarding the revised plan,
5) the employment of an acoustical engineer, and 6) the disclosure
statement have all been addressed by the applicant. Staff can now support
this application for rezoning based on these conditions being met, and
some revision to the tree mitigation plan.
Item # 4
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) PD Zoning Exhibit
2) Pre 'laninary Landscape Plan
3) Tree Survey
4) Departmental comments
5) Letter from County dated March 2, 1999
6) Letter(s) from DFW dated July 16,1998, Febnmry 18,1999, March
15,1999
7) Tree mitigation plan (needs some revision)
8) Proximity to DFW Disclosure Statement
9) Residential Construction Standards shown on face of PD
Item# 4