Chautaugua-AG 910611 AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL ~TING June
FORM
HEARING
Consideration ~nd approval of a
Family-Z, to (PD-SF-7)
Road at the intersection of
at the
SUBMI'I-I-ED BY: ~
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
STAFF REP.:
~, f I Multi
side of Harris
GatT L. Sieb, Plan.i.~o Director
OTHER REP.:
DATE:
Date of Plznninoo & Zoning Meeting: May 16, 1991
Decision of planning & Zonlnoo Commission: Approved (4-Z) with the following conditions:
1) that the house sizes be a minim,,m of 1800 square feet; and
Z) that lot 3 have a side entrance.
Applicant's request: Approval of a zoning change from (MF-Z) to (PD-SF-7).
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
N/A
AMT. ESTIMATED
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM: ~
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
LOCAT I ON:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #:
May 16, 1991
June 11, 1991
PD-117, CHAUTAUGUA PLACE
Along the west side of Harris Road, at the intersection of
Bethel School Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 8.257 Acres
REQUEST:
Approval of a zoning change request from (MF-2)
Multi-Family-2, to (PD-SF-7) Planned
Single-Family-7.
Development
APPLICANT:
Matthews Investments S.W.X, Inc.
Mr. Tim House
5220 Spring Valley Lane
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 934-0123
Nathan Maier Engineers
Mr. Peter Staks
8800 N. Central Expw.
Dallas, Texas 75231
(214) 739-4741
HISTORY:
No recent zoning history on this parcel.
TRANSPORTATION:
Harris Road is a residential street 27 feet wide, contained
within a 50 foot right-of-way. Kaye Street (to the
immediate north of this parcel) has been dedicated at 50
feet, has not been constructed.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant, MF-2
East - Recently developed SF-9
South - Developed PD-SF
West - Developed PD-SF
COMPREI~SIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan
this area.
indicates
single-family usage for
ANALYSIS:
There are two major issues generated by this zoning
request. One, is the zoning change appropriate given the
surrounding land uses, and, secondarily, is it in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? Two, is the plan
of development based on good design, density, aesthetics,
and existing physical characteristics?
The first issue is easily addressed in that the majority of
developed land around the subject property is single-family
residential. The fact that this application is a down zone
from MF to SF, is strongly supported by staff, and if
rezoned, the property will be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, from a zoning and Master
Plan perspective, the application is encouraging.
The second issue - the physical layout of the property -
is much more troubling to staff. Double frontage lots,
ignoring the Kaye Street right-of-way on the north, the
lack of alleys (normally required in single-family
development), the awkward street intersection with Bethel
School Road and Harris Street, the lack of any identity to
this development, all compound staff concern.
It could be argued that the only reason this application
has been submitted is to allow single-family construction
(MF does not allow single-family housing), and to eliminate
alleys. Since the PD can be used to address both these
issues, such zoning would accoz~odate the applicant's
objectives. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the PD was
designed to permit design flexibility, innovative
development solutions to problem parcels, opportunity to
create an identifiable product, and was envisioned as a
much more creative tool for development projects.
Reviewing this application suggests that some license was
taken in applying for a P.D. Will there be landscaped
areas? Does this 8 acre parcel create any type of unique
identity? Are there screening walls? Is the ignoring of
Kaye Street an economic problem rather than a planning
decision? Is it possible to redesign this project to
minimize traffic safety problems?
Our gness is that all these concerns can be addressed given
more careful consideration of this land's ultimate use.
The applicant has already modified the plan, reducing
density from 30 lots to the current 28. Unfortunately,
other issues (street layout, amenities, identity,
screening, access, etc), which are impertant to any
approval of a P.D. have not been satisfactorily addressed
with this application.
Staff would, therefore, recommend denial without prejudice
of the application, in order that the applicant might
prepare a more comprehensive, and truly PD-oriented
request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION $1JBSE~UENT TO PL~NNING COMHISSION &CTIONt
After the Commission hearing, the applicant stated a desire
to continue working with staff and revision of the plan
which might warrant an alteration to staff's objection. A
revised plan (attached) has been submitted, but in no way
addresses the issue of proper PD application. By
definition in the Zoning Ordinance, a PD:
"... permit growth flexibility in the use and
design of land and ... is not contrary.., or
inconsistent with .. planning ... APD District
... used to permit new and innovative concepts
in land utilization."
This proposal is nothing more than an attempt to use the PD
for eliminating the alley requirement. As such, it is
grossly misusing a good planning tool, and should be denied.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the zoning request
2) Deny the zoning request
3) Modify the zoning regnest
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Plan of Proposed Development
Z) Entry Median Site Plan
PDll7STF