Chaucer-AG 910625AGENDA
cr~ ~ M~ET[NG ~,,-e Z5, 1991
;T FORM
[=~2~L~[i PUBLIC HEARING
Cc~ideratic~ ~,~ apl~'oval of a zouing change reque~
from (TC) To~n Cente~r, to (PO=SF-7)
we~t corner of .e,~ly fJk~ Road and Heartz Road..
N~dee
SUBMITTED BY
~ ~h~bllc Heat~ was ]eft open
on ~tme 11, 1991.
Date of Fl~nning & Zoning Meeting: April 18, 1991
OTHER R~P.:
DATE:
Deci~o~ of pl*.ni.g & Zoning Commlccio~: Apln'oved (5-Z) with
1) they add landscaping on the outside fence on Eeartz Road to
soften up the wall,
2) they deed restrict the minimum dwelling size to 2400 sgllare
feet,
3) that the developer see that the pond is maintai~ as a
constant level pond,
4 ) that the developer use chemical algae prevention in
maintaining the pond. as well as a fountain aeratio~ device,
5) that there be a 25 foot building line tbxongbout the
development, and
6) that there be a Homeowners Association created, and the
purchaser be notified of the Association, as a part of the
contract of sale
BUDGe- t AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
RE~U~WED BY CM:~
D.R. HOR[DN
CUSTOM HOMES
Amer/c~s Confidence Builder
June 11, 1991
Coppell City Council
city of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Zoning Case No. PD-116
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
T~s letter is written to respectfully request the Council to
table ~ny action on the Northridge zoning and preliminary
plat and leave the public hearing open until the meeting to
be neid on June 25, 1991.
We feel that, due to this special request, an explanation is
in order. The property owner, as a condition to the sale of
the property, has required our closing of the land to occur
within ten days of the Zoning Approval, should it be granted.
Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have not provided
all necessary documents to our lender, to facilitate the
closin9 at sucn an early da~e~ Therefore, the extension cf
time is necessary in order to finalize the financial si6~ of
this ~evelopment. We stand ready to follow Staff's guidance
on thi~ issue, and appreciate your consideration of this
request.
GDJ/mlk
Vice President
Mil/0971
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE ~: PD-116
April 18, 1991
May 14, 1991
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Sandy Lake Road and Reartz Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 20.07 Acres (which includes a 2.0 acre retention pond).
REQUEST:
Approval of a zoning change from (TC) Town Center to
(PD-SF-7) Planned Development Single-Family-7.
APPLICANT:
D.R. Horton, Inc.
(Prospective Purchaser)
Mr. Gordon Jones
2221E. Lamar Boulevard
Suite 950
Arlington, Texas 76006
(817) 640-8200
Unzicker, Sctmurbusch Assocs.
(Engineer)
Mr. Kevin Kendrick
8700 Stemmons Freeway
Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75247
(214) 634-3300
HISTORY:
There has been no recent zoning activity on this parcel.
TRANSPORTATION:
Sandy Lake Road, which abuts this property on the south is
currently a two lane asphalt road contained in a variable
width right-of-way. Sandy Lake is projected to be a four
lane divided thoroughfare within a 110 foot right-of-way.
Neartz Road, on the east, is currently under construction
as a two lane road in 60 feet of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant (TC) zoning
East - Vacant (TC) zoning, developing single-family in
(TC) zoning; SF-12
South - Single-Family residential in 2F-9 zoning
West - Vacant [TC) zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows town center activities- which
includes higher densities of residential use - as being
appropriate for this parcel.
ANALYSIS:
Looking at the request from strictly a zoning perspective,
this is a down zoning application. Because TC allows only
MF and TH by right, a request of PD-SF-7 is attractive.
This proposal calls for a maximum of 60 lots on 20 acres
for a density of 3 du/acre. The PD requires screening
walls, landscaping, specified setbacks and a host of other
development guidelines not required by straight zoning.
Because of the more detailed planning which goes into such
a request, and the fact that a better understanding of what
the finished product will look like results, generally
motivates staff to support such applications.
Such is the case with this Northridge plan. By scanning
this plan it is easily seen that the developer is
attempting to create a residential community which has
identity, preserves trees (which the original Town Center
plan did not do), capitalizes on the topography and
recognizes the water body at the northern boundary. In
addition, the applicant proposes brick screening walls,
entry features, and other amenity items which generally
reflect well on the proposal. Of secondary importance with
this proposal is the overall development objectives of the
owner of the remaining TC zoning (approximately 50 acres).
The original plan has been modified extensively, and
objectives which were initially outlined for TC zoning have
changed to the point that the whole development warrants
new examination. Although the entire TC zone does not
directly affect the request before you here, some mention
of its ultimate development needs to be pointed out.
Our main concern in evaluating this plan is not so much
with the information which was provided as it is with what
was not shown. For instance, brick pavers are required
at entry into this subdivision - the plan provided does
not show them. A solid, brick screening wall is required
along Sandy Lake, and landscaping which abides by our
Streetscape Plan is a condition of approval the
applicant has not shown these details. We understand a
refined level of landscaping will be provided along Heartz
Road - the application does not provided that information
on the submitted plan. Perhaps most important is the lack
of detail shown around the retention pond at the northeast
corner of the project. Detailed landscaping and
development plans are critically needed here to insure that
the ultimate appearance of the pond is compatible with our
library which is immediately adjacent and north of the
pond. Because the citizens of Coppell voted well over 2
million dollars to build our new library on this site, it
can not be emphasized too strongly that a comprehensive
development plan for the pond and adjacent property be
provided before we move forward with this zoning proposal.
These concerns have been expressed to the applicant, and
staff has been assured every attempt will be made to
accommodate our concerns. It is our understanding that
because of crucial time constraints placed on the
applicant, a less that preferred application had to be
submitted to meet our April Planning Commission deadlines.
Staff further understands that more detailed plans
addressing our concerns will be submitted prior to the
Commission hearing, with explanation of those plans being
presented at the public hearing.
If that is the case, staff would recommend approval of this
request provided the issues outlined above are adequately
addressed at the public hearing, through acceptable plans,
elevations, and more detailed development proposals.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zoning change.
2) Deny the zoning change.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Plan
PDll6.STF