Wynnpage-AG 910326AGENDA
;T FORM
~ A. Reco~ideration of action taken Council regarding z~ing ~-hnnge reqm~t
A~a~p.~(C) Comm~ to ~SF-7) ~n~ S~e F~7, f~ C~ ~P~l15 W~ge
i~, l~t~ a~mately 1000 f~t ~th of ~ R~ ~ ZOO f~t ~t of ~t~
Road and ZOO feet
from~Comm~n! to (PD-SF-?) plnnned
W page Additim~[ifi~ ~.at~ted appeo=imately 1000 feet s~th
,Road, at~%~luest of Siep~ela Intewests.
STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Pla'""i"g Director
OTHER REP.:
EVALUATION OF ITEM: DATE:
By a vote of 5-Z (Cotmcilmembers Morton and Smothermon in the minority), the City Council on M~mh
1Zs 1991, recomm~ed de-in] of the above captioned zr~inE case. Subsequent to +hnt action, aeveeal
Couw-ilmember~ have expressed concern with the ontcome of the hearlng= have i~licated a denir~
to reconsider their actio~ and have requested staff to draft this reconaideratio~ request.
The City of Coppell Code of Or, in=rices on~li~ the mnn~er in which reconsideration action ~=n bo
tmdertake~. Chapter It Sectio~ 1-10-?.9 Recomdderation states:
=A motion to reco~sidor any action of the Council can bo m~le (ml~ upon the
affirmative vote of four or mm members of the City Council=
In ~hi~ instancet th~-ef~'e~ a moti~ to reconsldor would bo a first ~ler requirement. If four or m~
Co~nr-/lmembea-s vote to rec~nslder the zoning case, the next action wo~ld be consideration of the
requested ~ing with a vote of Council to apl=~vet deny, or modify the March 1Z hearing~aplicatinm
BUDGET AMT. N/A ~/ .~T. F_~T]~TF.D 0/
AMT +/- BUDGET FINANCIAL REVIEW BY ~
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
Page
Date of p~nnln~o & Z,~o CommissUre Mee~u~o'~ Fel~m'y 21t 1~1
De~ou of l~n~o & ~m~E Commi~m: Apl~oved with conditions.
At the pl~,m~o~ Comm~m meet~uo of February Z1, 1~1, the Commi--~m recommended ap~woval
with the followiug ccmditicm~
· 7,400 squ~e foot minimum lot size
66 foot wlnlmum lot width
8 foot m~n~mum side yard
25 foot m~imum f~ont yard
20 foot miu~m~X~l ~ear ~
?~ lots ma~mum
1,850 squ~e foot -~um a~r comfiticmed house s~ze
8 foot wooden sc~e~g femce with cap cu westewn Imundary
6 foot mascm~ scze~mh~g femce em southern boundary (lots 10-15) ami 6 foot womlem scre~i~
fence oo rem~m~er (lots 3-9) of lots in Block A
6 foot masmu-y s~o fence ~m eastewn and nm-theaste~n r~emtial boundm~
landscapi~ cm ourse of southern mascmry fence
· establ~hment of homeownews association to maintain scweenin~ fences ami all commen m~.as
· m~w~m~m O~e stc~y structures en lots 11-2~t Block A
· alleys throughout mb~ivisiou
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: PD-115
February 21, 1991
March 12, 1991
LOCATION:
Approximately 1,047 feet south of Sandy lake Road, with 892
feet fronting on the west side of Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 20.377 Acres
REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a change of zoning from (C)
Commercial to (PD-SF-7) Planned Development Single
Family-7, for single family detached residential
construction.
APPLICANT:
Siepiela Interests, Inc.
(Jim Siepiela, Developer)
5001 LBJ Freeway
Suite 830
Dallas, Texas 75244
214 960-2777
Unzicker-Scb. merbusch & Assoc.
(Engineer)
8700 Stemmons Freeway
Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75247
214 634-3300
HISTORY:
This is a parcel of land owned by Bluebonnet Savings Bank
F.S.B. of Dallas. There has been no recent zoning activity
on this property, partially due to the fact that it has
been foreclosed on by the FDIC. In fact, discussion
regarding rezoning to residential has been going on for
over one year.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road, the means of access to the land, is a
six-lane divided thoroughfare contained within a 120'
right-ofiway.
wide
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
Property to the north and south is vacant, (C) zoning. To
the west is (PD-SF-9), the Shadow Ridge development.
Across Denton Tap Road to the east is vacant (C) zoning.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be developed with
retail uses.
ANALYSIS:
Staff, developer and area homeowners have spent a
considerable amount of time attempting to reach consensus
on this zoning request before it reaches the public hearing
forum.
Issues discussed among these groups in two separate
meetings included, among others:
· appropriateness of the zoning request
use, density, dwelling unit size
height of structures
screening provisions
drainage
alley requirements
access
Support of rezoning from (C) to (PD-SF-7) was agreed;
residential use was accepted provided minimum lot size was
7,400 square feet, 25 foot front yards were shown, a
maximum of 79 lots was developed, a 35 foot height limit
was imposed, and a minimum building size of 1,850 square
feet was offered. All these conditions are shown on the PD
plan and will be made conditions of approval.
The developer has also agreed to construct a six foot,
wooden fence with decorative cap, to be supported by metal
poles, along the common western property line, running the
length of the property. This fence will be maintained by a
homeowners association which the developer will establish.
The applicant has also agreed to construct a similar
screening fence on the southern property line, also to be
maintained by the association. The developer has indicated
that the poles to support this screening fence will be
located on the developer's side of the southern fence.
The neighborhood has also expressed great concern regarding
potential drainage problems with development of this
tract· Although drainage is an issue which is resolved at
subdivision platting, this neighborhood does not appear
willing to accept that process and may express concern at
the public hearing. Staff position is one of noting the
neighborhood concern, addressing the issue at its proper
place -- when the subdivision plat is submitted for
review.
The developer has agreed (although no plans have been
submitted) to landscape the access from Denton Tap into
this subdivision and will provide a point of contact with
the property to the north as shown on the PD plan.
-2-
Perhaps the most volatile issue which was not resolved to
the homeowners' satisfaction in our meetings concerns the
alley shown on the western boundary. Allegations were
raised that City staff had promised a park would be located
here. The Comprehensive Plan does not show such a park.
Comments suggested that a strip as much as 200 feet wide
would remain open space. Staff has been unable to locate
the source of such an inaccurate statement. The
neighborhood apparently does not support this re~ired
alley. We, however, strongly urge the placement of a 15
foot alley on the western boundary. We currently have a
15 foot sanitary sewer easement here, and our alley
requirement would merely overlay this existing utility.
The alley would assist in directing the flow of storm water
and would decrease the flow of water on the homeowners on
Southern Belle, as well as control the velocity of water
which would flow into the drainage channel to the south.
In addition, the subdivision regulations and zoning
ordinance mandate alleys in new subdivisions. Our Public
Works, Engineering and Planning staff cannot over emphasize
the importance of this alley.
Finally the homeowners have requested no two-story houses
be built on the western or southern tier of lots contained
within the zoning application. The developer is reviewing
the economic feasibility of such a restriction and will
address this issue at the public hearing. Staff is
ambivalent regarding the southern lots, feels such a
restriction would assure the privacy of the Southern Belle
homeowners.
In sum then, staff recommends approval of this PD subject
to:
7,400 square foot minimum lot size
66 foot minimum lot width
6 foot minimlu~ side yard
25 foot minimum front yard
79 lots maximum
1,850 square foot minimum air conditioned house size
6 foot wooden screening fence with cap on western
boundary on plan
· 6 foot wooden screening fence with cap on the
southern boundary
· 6 foot masonry screening fence on eastern
residential boundary
· landscaping as shown on plans
· establishment of homeowners association to maintain
all common areas
· height limitations as determined by Planning
Commission
· alleys throughout subdivision
-3-
At the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1991,
the Commission recommended:
· 7,400 square foot minimum lot size
66 foot minimum lot width
8 FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD
25 foot minimum front yard
20 foot minimum rear yard
79 lots maximum
1,850 square foot minimum air conditioned house size
8 FOOT WOODEN SCREENING FENCE WITH CAP ON WESTERN
BOUNDARY
6 FOOT MASONRY SCREENING FENCE ON SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
(LOTS 10-15) AND 6 FOOT WOODEN SCREENING FENCE ON
REMAINDER (LOTS 3-9) OF LOTS IN BLOCK A
· 6 foot masonry screening fence on eastern and
northeastern residential boundary
· LANDSCAPING ON OUTSIDE OF SOUTHERN MASONRY FENCE
· establishment of homeowners association to maintain
screening fences and all common areas
· MAXIMUM ONE STORY STRUCTURES ON LOTS 11-26, BLOCK A
· alleys throughout subdivision
landscaping as shown on plans
PDll5STF
-4-