Gibbs Station 2-AG 911112 (2) AGENDA
cr~f COUNCIL Mm~TING Nov. 12, 1991
ITeM b
Public Hearing
ion and zon~n
Station Addition, II)
and north
of Heath & Knight Properties.
for Case # PD-
of Village Parkway, at the request
SUBMITTED BY: -
cf. ofs Signatu~'e)
STAFF REP.:
OTHER REP.:
DATE:
PD-SF-7
Date of P & Z: October 17, 1991
Decision of P & Z: Approval, based on revised plan attached
Applicant's request: Approval of a zoning change from MF-2 to
with conditions as follows:
1) 20' front yard bld. line on Lots 1-15, Block G.
2) 55% lot coverage
3) 5' side yard side building line (interior lots)
4) 62' minimum lot width on Block G, Lots 1-15.
Please see attached staff report for further details.
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY ~
/
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM: ~~
CASE {:
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEAHING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-122 - (GIBBS STATION ADDITION,
PI{ASE TWO]
October 17, 1991
November 12, 1991
LOCATION:
Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, and north of
Village Parkway.
SIZE OF AREA: 12.2 Acres, 53 single-family lots.
REQUEST:
Approval of a zoning change from (MF-2) Multi-Family-2, to
(PD-SF-O) Planned Development Single-Family-O.
APPLICANT:
Heath & Knight Properties
(Developer)
Mr. Bammond Heath
16660 Dallas N. Parkway
Suite #1400
Dallas, Texas 75248
(214) 248-9190
Dan Dowdey & Associates
(Engineer)
Mr. Bill Anderson
16250 Dallas Parkway
Suite #100
Dallas, Texas 75248
(214) 931-0694
RISTORY:
There is no recent zoning history on this tract.
TRANSPORTATION:
MacArthur Boulevard is shown as a six-lane divided
thoroughfare (P6D), contained within a 110' right-of-way,
it is currently a 4-lane divided street; Allen Road is a
local street.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - single-family & park land; zoned SF-0,
and MF-2
South - Vacant; zoned MF-2
East - Vacant; zoned MF-2
West - Vacant; zoned TH-1
SF-12-SUP
COMPREMEHSlVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive
useage.
Plan shows
ITEM 9
low density
single-family
ANALYSIS:
Down zoning from (MF-2) to single-family is generally
supported by staff, even more so when the Comprehensive
Plan suggests a use reflected by the zoning application.
What troubles us here is the "gimmick' used to reduce side
yards, and the application of (SF-0) development standards
to raise denisty. As clearly explained in the PD section
of the zoning ordinance, in any PD, a maximum of 35% of the
lots may reflect less than (SF-7) development standards.
Thus, in this case, of the 53 lots proposed, 19 lots could
have less than 25' front yards, 8' side yards, and greater
than 40% coverage.
This request suggests all lots have a 20' front yard
setback, and 6' side yards. Simply stated, the zoning
ordinance does not allow such a development in a P.D. What
is evident here is the fact that the applicant wants to
build free-standing single-family units on lots of less
than 7000 square feet (typical average lot size is 5720
square feet). The only zoning district which allows this
product is (SF-0). The complicating factor is that (SF-0)
also mandates a zero side yard on one side of the
residential structure. A zero lot line product is not
selling in the market place today, hence the developers
desire to ask for a center load structure.
Staff can not support this zoning request. The developer
needs to determine whether he wants a true PD or a true
zero lot line development and proceed accordingly. Of the
two options, staff would favor a legal PD or (SF-7)
application. Such a proposal would allow approximately 45
lots, would be more in keeping with reasonable density
standards, and would discourage any future use of the PD
gimmick, a point which was clearly stated by Council at
their first meeting in October.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the zoning change request
2) Deny the zoning change request
3) Modify the zoning change request
ATTACIiMENTS:
1) PD Site Plan
2) Neighborhood Petition
PD122.STF