Westchase-CS 990218 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-108R4, WESTCHASE
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
February 18, 1999
March 9, 1999
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
Along the south side of Bethel Road, east of Coppell Road.
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
Plano, 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 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 # 8
Springs subdivision. In 1998 the Planning Commission denied a
request for residential development on this property.
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 Coppell Road
to east of Grapevine Creek. South Coppell 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:
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 this close to the
nmwa~y 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
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
Item # 8
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 thi.q
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
-means of separating lot 18X and park property must be
stated, as well as common brick walls on Park Road
-additional sound mitigation needs to be provided and stated
on the PD and in the Homeowners Agreement
-add the D/FW ambient aircraft noise statement to the PD
-trees removed will have to be mitigated, where's the
mitigation plan?
-all plant material must be specified/provided in tabular
form
· ~/west side 6-foot brick screening wall needs to extend the
entire length of the subdivision, not just behind the alleys
-no additional drainage should occur on park property
-Burns Drive is to be in place before building permits will
be issued
-Departmental comments from Engineering and Leisure
Services need to be addressed
Because of the number of conditions needing attention, it might be
prudent to take thi.q case under advisement until all issues
have been clearly resolved. Although staff is supportive of
this case, there are several items requiring more detailed
study which have not been addressed to date.
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) Preliminary Landscape Plan
3) Tree Survey
4) Departmental Comments (Engineering and Leisure Services)
Item # 8
972 3~4 354?
CITY G~LL ~ CITY OF ~LL
DRC DATE:
CONTACT:
DEVEL
' LEIStIRE SERVICES
Wes~h,~e, Zoning Clumge
Brad R~d, Park Planning and Landsmpe Manas~r
COMMENT STA TLI$ :
_-~PRELIMINARY
Provide a Tree Removal Permit Application~ schedule of tree removal and re~pw~t~d
Tree RepOt Credits as stipulated in Section 34-2.
Provide name and quali~icaffons of tl~ person performing the Tree Surve~j.
Tht devetoper' ShouM be awar~ that the Park Develo~t Ordinance is in affect for
this develop~nt re~uirin8 park dtdication or $1,285.00 per dandling ~nit inlieu
t~wreo/.
DRC12~99e
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: WESTCHASE PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
February 18, 1999
March 9, 1999
Along the south side of Bethel Road, east of Coppell Road.
37.04 acres (102 single-family residential lots)
CURRENT ZONING:
PD-108 "LI', Light Industrial
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Preliminary Plat approval.
Developer:
Papagolos Development Co.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 300
Piano, TX. 75093
(972) 931-9537
Fax: (972) 931-2660
Engineer:
Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc., Inc.
5225 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 200
Plano, TX. 75093
(972) 931-43694
Fax: (972) 931-9538
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//9
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 Coppell 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;
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, this 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
-Engineering comments
If the PD is denied or taken under advisement, thi~ plat should be denied.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Preliminary Plat Document
2) Departmental Comments
Item