Oakbend Addn-CS 900118''`1
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 18, 1990
RE: Case #ZC-523.1
LOCATION: Near the southeast corner of State Road and Thweatt Road.
SIZE: 50.64 acres (and commonly referred to as Oakbend Addition)
REQUEST: City Planning Commission called public hearing to
determine proper zoning.
LANDOWNER: Mr. Jerry Lacy, Trustee
HISTORY: On September 21, 1989, the City Planning Commission denied
a request for a change of zoning from (LI) Light Industrial
to (SF-7) Single Family-7 on this tract.
On October 10, 1989, the zoning case was appealed to City
Council. At that public hearing Council modified the
applicants' request and granted (PD-SF-9) Planned
Development Single Family-9 with conditions that included:
~ minimum house size of 1600 square feet,
* any buildings in the remaining (LI) area at the
northwest corner of Thweatt and State Roads
be limited to 35 feet in height,
* three lanes of State Road be constructed in its
entirety,
~ masonry screening fence be built along State
Road's residential frontage,
* notice of airline overflight noise potential be
indicated to lot purchasers within the
development,
* developer pay pro-rata share of Thweatt Road
improvements.
Shortly after the Council action, renewed attention was
focused on the zoning change and allegations of noise
problems, non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
safety issues, land use compatibility, and other concerns
were raised. Responding to these citizen concerns, the
Planning Commission authorized the calling of a public
hearing to determine proper zoning at its November 16, 1989
meeting. At that same meeting, the Commission denied the
preliminary plat because the plat did not reflect all
conditions called for when Council approved the zoning
change. When the Planning Commission called the public
hearing, a January 18, 1990 hearing date was set.
I T B M 7
.~ -.
On December 21, 1989, the applicant appeared before the
Planning Commission and requested a reconsideration of the
Commission action of November 16th, which called for the
January 18, 1990 public hearing. The Commission considered
the request, and elected to retain its earlier action to
call the hearing in January.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
There are several issues which warrant discussion fn any
proposition aimed at determining proper zoning. Of major
emphasis fn a staff analysis, is the health, safety, and
general welfare concern. The fact that the current 65 Ldn
boundary runs parallel to this property raises this issue.
Although staff would point out that the zoning case is
technically outside the 65 Ldn area, Coppell citizens have
been quick to point out that the line is not absolute, and
indeed overflights are a common occurrence. It should also
be noted that the 65 Ldn contour will move to the west and
south as more Stage III aircraft come on line suggesting
that the current safety and noise issue will eventually be
diminished. When that will happen is not easily
determined.
A second staff review element relates to whether the
proposed zoning is the best use of the land area. There is
no question that a residential subdivision can be platted
here, and the proposal submitted recognizes the aesthetic
value of Cottonwood Branch. Whether this is the "highest
and best" use of the tract is subject to opinion. It is
also puzzling why the eight acre parcel at Thweatt and
State Roads was left out of the zoning request if, indeed
residential zoning is best for the rest of the parcel.
Potential economic return to the community in the form of
property taws is another planning concern. If this
proposal is developed with residential structures, there is
no question that taws will increase from recent years
collection - developed ground generates more taz revenue
than vacant property. It is also true, however, that (LI)
Light Industrial zoned land, when developed, generates
greater taz revenue than comparably sized residential
property, and requires less municipal maintenance and
services.
Although not normally a major factor in zoning case
analysis, staff would be remiss if the potential for
future litigation were not mentioned in reviewing this
case. Because of the recent law suits brought by our
sister cities - particularly as that litigation relates to
residential properties being negatively affected by
aircraft noise, danger, etc., - there is a possibility that
. ' ,. .-~
a similar future action could occur here, regardless of
mitigation efforts taken. Our sister cities problems are
much more severe than ours, but the potential for future
legal action does merit mention when considering this case.
Perhaps the item which is of greatest planning concern here
is the conformance this proposal has with the Comprehensive
Plan. When viewed from that perspective, there is little
doubt that the proposal does not conform to Coppell's
Comprehensive Plan.
One final comment. If Commission feels the zoning by
Council is appropriate, note should be taken that a
screening wall should also be placed along Thweatt Road.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Taken in toto, then, health/safety is an issue which should
be addressed, as well as recognizing its potentially
reduced importance as more Stage III aircraft come on
line. An analysis regarding whether the proposal is beat
for the parcel - not merely acceptable, but best for the
parcel -must be considered. Future economic return to the
community in the form of increased taa revenues is a third
area to be evaluated. Possible litigation can not be
ignored in this instance, particularly as the airport
controversy heats up with our sister cities. The question
of this proposal's conformance to the Comprehensive Plan
must be weighed, as well as the development's impact on
surrounding land use. Finally, comments presented at the
public hearing must be evaluated for their individual and
collective importance before a decision regarding this
issue is finalized. After evaluating all the facts, the
Commission will decide whether the zoning should remain as
is (PD-SF-9), or whether a recommendation for more
appropriate zoning - what the Commission feels is proper
after weighing all the facts - should be forwarded to
Council.
ALTERNATIVES: 1} if the Commission, after considering all the facts,
feels the current zoning (PD-SF-9} is appropriate,
move to retain eaisting zoning.
2) If the Commission, after considering all the facts,
feels the current zoning (PD-SF-9) is inappropriate,
move to recommend the appropriate zoning.
N[JI~IDER OF NOTICES MAILED : 16
ZC523STF