Arbor Manors-CS060720
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: PD-214-TH-l, TH-2, C and A,
"The Elline:ton "
l'IJOTE: Comments in bold have been added since this case was taken under advisement on
July 20, 2006.
P&Z HEARING DATE
July 20 2006 (Continued with the hearing left open to August 17)
C C HEARING DATE
August 8, 2006 (Estimated reschedule date of Sept. 12)
STAFF REP
Gary L SIeb, PlannIng Dlfector
LOCATION
South of Sandy Lake Road, and West of Denton Tap Road
SIZE OF AREA
29 05 acres
CURRENT ZONING
C (CommercIal), R (RetaIl) and SF-9 (Smgle FamIly-9)
REQUESl
ZOnIng change request to PD-214-TH-J, TH-2, C and SF-9
(Planned Development-214-Tovmhouse-l, Townhouse-2,
CommercIal and Smgle FamIly-9) wIth a Concept SIte Plan to
allow the development of 128 townhouse UnIts (67 TH-1 UnIts on
approxImately 11 6 acres of Tract A 1 and 61 TH-2 UnIts on
approximately 7 5 acres of Tract A 2), CommercIal uses on Tract
A 3 (approxImately 2 acres) along Sandy Lake Road and along
Denton Tap Road (approxImately 44 acres on Tracts A.4 and
A 5), SF-9 zonIng on 3 6 acres for park/open space use on Tract B
APPLICANT
JDB Real Estate Invest
Darron Ash
832 DeForest Road
Coppell, TX 75019
(114) 663-6878
FAX (972) 393-9292
Engmeer' Dowdey, Anderson
Matt Alexander
5225 Village Creek Dr
SUIte 200
PIano. TX 75093
(972) 931-0694
FAX (972) 931-9538
hem tI 10
Pi'!Q"e I off>
HISTOR 'y
There has been no recent zomng hIstory on the subject tract
although there have been numerou<; past development proposals
that ne\er resulted In a zoning appl1catIOn
TRANSPORTA TION
Denton Tap Road IS a P6D, unproved, concrete sIx-lane, divided
thoroughfare contamed WIthin a 11 a-foot nght-of-way, Sandy
Lake Road IS an eXIstmg asphalt tViO-lane road to eventually be
Improved to a C4D, 4-lane, dIVIded thoroughfare contamed WIthIn
a II a-foot nght-of-way
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING
North retail uses, "C', CommercIal
South- SIngle-famIly resIdentIal, PO-lIS (SF-7)
East - retaIl uses, "C', CommercIal
West ~ reSIdential/commercIal uses, SF-12 and' R" RetaIl
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the ('oppel! ('omprehenslve Pilm of May 1966, as amended,
shows thIS property to be developed m medIUm (generally m the neIghborhood of 4-dwellIng
umts per acre or less) densIty reSIdentIal uses
DISCUSSION (Because the Planning Commission continued this case to the August 17th
hearing to give the applicant an opportunity to address staff concerns, the statements
depicted in bold are responses based on applicants re-submittals) Over the last few years,
staff has reViewed a number of land use proposals for thiS property, locally referred to as the
A.rdlnger parcel" Back In 2001-2, stafl recommended the property be rezoned to low denSIty
reSidentIal use of 3-4 dwellIng umts per acre, to be compatible WIth the surroundIng reSidentIal
denSity Mr Ardmger vigorously opposed that recommendatIOn and promised a plan that would
create an excitIng mIxed-use development of whIch the CIty would be proud. HIS representative
lIkened It to a <;maller Southlake Town Center That development never matenalIzed. Roughly
three years ago, we were presented a plan for a townhouse proJect \vlth denSIty approachmg 9-10
Units per acre That proposal was never formally submitted. In early 2006, staff mformally
reVIewed a development contalnmg all Single famtly detached reSIdences at less than 3 dwelling
Units per acre for a total of 57 homes which was enthUSiastIcally receI\ed. We have attached a
lOpy of that plan for your InfOrmatIon and po<;sibIe companson purposes With the request before
\-ou. That plan dId not proceed beyond casual dISCUSSIOn (for whatever reason-pnce,
commUniCatIOn WIth owner, pending contract, dc ) WhICh bnngs us to the case before you thIS
evenmg As you will recall, at the July 20th hearing a letter was submitted (attached)
requesting the Commission and Council to disregard a low-density residential proposal
~ubmitted as a possible development scenario for the subject tract. Staff included that plan
only to show t the subject tract could be developed ",ith much lower residential density.
What IS bemg propo<;ed here IS a mrxed use Planned Development reflectmg open space, 128
townhouses, commerCial and retail uses A number of exceptIons have been taken WIth our
lovmhouse development reqll1remenlc; Includmg setbacks denS1tles, alley WIdths, clrcu]atIOn
Itp111 tI 1 n
P::l p'e ? nf ()
patterns, lot coverage, among others For mstance, the northern parcel (Tract AI) proposes 5-
foot rear yard setbacks from garagesl structures where 20 feet IS reqUIred by ordmance We are
extremely concerned wIth thIS setback. request, even wIth the 20-foot alleys the developer IS
proposmg In addItIOn, lot depths are less than code (95 feet rather than 100 feet), lot wIdths do
not comply (24 feet rather than 25 feet), front yard setbacks are less than code (10 feet vs 20 to
25 feet) A]so, the proposal allows 3-foot overhangs m the front yard resultmg 10 only 7 feet of
space between a umt and the street ROW SIde yard spacmg IS less than code (10 feet rather
than the reqUIred ] 5 feet), and there are a number of "flag" lots that are dIscouraged from a
safety, aesthetIc and utIlIty proVISIOn perspective Also of concern IS the amount of bruest
parkmg thIS plan proposes Our ordmance states that 5 guest parkmg spaces must be provIded
per UnIt wIth a development of thIS magnitude Tract A2 provIdes thIS mInImum (31 spaces),
but Tract A 1 provIdes none Followmg code would reqUIre 34 guest parkmg spaces bemg
prOVIded on thiS tract. A statement on the Plan requests guest parkmg for Tract A 1 be provIded
on street ThIS IS totally unacceptable Adequate guest park 109 can not be provIded thIS way
what WIth the narro\\> lots, the "flag" properties that have only 10 feet of frontage, the mmllTIal
front yards throughout the project, and the hazardous maneuvenng WhICh results If fire or
emergenc\ servIces are reqUIred by reSIdents
The applIcant has proVIded colored elevatIons of the townhouse product and, at first glance,
these are attractIve Units The two-story UnIts, If lImIted to typIcal 2-story heIghts (35 feet), IS
appropnate for thIS area. We do, however, have concern WIth the three-story townhouses When
VIsualIzed 10 ItS true fonn, these are SIzeable bUIldmgs, towenng above 46 feet 10 height, and
connected up to five m a row To give a proper perspectIve to what the product would look lIke
at completIOn, VISIt the new LewIsvIlle project at the northwest corner of MacArthur Bou]evard
and VIsta RIdge Mall Dnve Settlers VIllage These are for sale townhouses--at a maXImum of
SIX Units attached--to get a feel for the bulk., heIght, and maSSIveness of these bUIldmgs. Settlers
Village bUlldmg heIght (approxImately 38 feet) IS less than The Ellmgton's by at least ten feet,
but then appearance conveys bUIldmgs that would be out-of-scale WIth our surroundmg
reSIdential communIty on both the south and west.
Tree mItIgatIOn IS another area that warrants careful review ThiS property IS full of trees
Although the applIcant has made some effort to recognize them, mItIgatIOn fees, reparatIOn
plans, and close revIew by the Parks Department IS mandatory If thIS project proceeds We take
strong ObjectIOn to the statement that the proposed open space areas of Tract B satISfy all tree
mItigatIOn and aSSOCIated fee payments Please see an updated response from Parks attacbed
to this staff report dated August 10, 2006.
The wntten PO RegulatIOns exhIbIt essentIally requests the standards we have objected to 10 the
proceedmg paragraphs There are mmor changes that need to be made to that document such as
thIS property IS located m Dallas not Denton County Detached garages are not allowed 10
reSIdentIal projects, the denSIty figure for Tract A ] needs to reflect 67 Units, not 71 The same
holds true for Tract A 2, denSIty should be 6] not 63 As mentIOned above, we take objectIOn to
the tree mItigatIOn statements Also, the statement referrIng to the DIrector of Development
needs to be reVIsed to refer to the DIrector of Planmng
A final comment needs to be stated regard 109 cIrculatIOn patterns proposed by thIS development.
The Planning, Engmeenng and FIre Departments strongly recommend extensIOn of Tealwood
Dnve mto thIS property ThIS extenSIOn would do at least two thmgs It would give the
Item # 1 ()
P;:Jpe 1 nfA
Wynnpage residents an alternate way In and out of thelf subdlVlslOn, and It would greatly
enhance fire and emergency servIces access to both propertIes
[n all falfness and recognIzIng the applicant s attempts to address many of our concerns, we
have attached as an enclosure, hiS reply to our statT reVIew labeled "Applicant's Response
Memo" [n parentheses we have summanzed the Issue at hand WIth regard to each speCific
re]omder
Planned Development dIstncts were estabhshed over 40 years ago to provide a means of
developmg land that could not conform to establIshed bUIldIng gUIdelines It was InItIally
conceived to offer a vanety of mixed land uses that, If developed together, could result In a
product from conventlOnal standards just would not work, Ie, reSidential mIxed WIth
commercIaVoffice/retaIl uses m a pattern that blended together Over the years, the ongmal
concept has been modified to the pomt that today's PO bears httle resemblance to the InItial
ofTenng. That IS the case With thiS proposal What we have here IS a request to modIfy our
residentIal gUIdehnes to satisfy a particular land use proposal There IS no "blendmg" of a
vanety of land uses, no unIform deSIgn statement to bnng a vanety of land uses IOto one
coheSIve whole The PD addresses only a reSIdential component As such, It takes a great deal
of license WIth our established development standards WIth little Justification for It other than a
dwellIng UnIt count needed to ensure an economic return. We cannot support thIS request m ItS
present form
The revised plan makes the following changes:
Tract A.I density is decreased by one unit (now 66 du's).
Tract A.2 density is decreased by 5 units (now 56 du's).
Tract A.2 3-story units reduced to 2-story. elevations also modified.
Commercial development has been reduced from 4.4 ac. to 3.6. eliminating possible
development behind the KFC building preserving .8 ac. of added open space.
A street connection has been made to Denton Tap on the south end of the project.
A 28-foot access and utility easement reservatIOn has been made at Tealwood.
"Flag" or "dog leg" lots have been eliminated.
Number ofumts reduced from 128 to 122 (their densit)' reduced from 5.7 to 5.4
du/ac.-our site density is calculated at 6.4 du/ac.). Also noted is a statement on the
Plan suggesting a possible dwelling unit count of 125 structures.
RECOMMENDATION T() THE PLANNINCr AND ZONING COMMISSION
Staff IS recommendmg DENIAL of thIS request, based upon the pomts stated above It IS
too dense, It Ignores most of our development gUIdelines, It does not proVIde satlsfactory
clrculatlOn, ]t creates senous health, safety and pubhc welfare Issues, It does not reflect
commumty hfe style values, and It dIsregards the adjacent reSidential development
patterns A substantIally lower denSIty product, more closely ahgned WIth our current
development standards and respectful of the adjacent reSidentIal commumtIes IS
encouraged for thiS site
There are still a number of concerns with this case. Density is still problematic,
especially with the Plan note that states a possible 125 units. Development code
ftt>!n # 10
P:Jrre 4 oft)
guidelines have not been met (i.e., lot depth should be 100', they show 95'; minimum
lot size should be 2500', the)' show 2200'; lot width should be 25', they show 24';
minimum garage setback should be 20', they show 5'). Guest parking requirements
have not been followed and they still show on-street parking as addressing this
concern. There are a number of inconsistencies between the plan and the proposed
PD regulatIOns. A landscape plan must still be submitted before accurate tree
mitigation fees can be calculated (see attached Parks Department memo).
Given these concerns Staff still has serious reservations regarding this development.
To gain our support, the following changes must be accomplished:
. Reduce density to 5 du/ac.
. Abide by Development Code guidelines (lot size, depth, width, etc.)
. Specify maximum unit height of two stories or 35 feet
. State minimum rear yard setbacks of 20 feet
. Provide guest parking at code requirements
. Eliminate on-street parking calculations for required parking
. Correct tree mitigation calculations and pay fees
. Meet City Codes relative to Driveway and circulation plan
. Revise PD and Plan to be consistent with one another
. Address DRC concerns
. Reduce number of bedrooms to no more than two per unit
. Remove .....area regulations for Alley Access dwellings..." from PD
conditions
. Submit conceptual elevations of non-residential uses proposed in PD
. PrOVide color board showing building materials
. Abide by departmental comments (Parks, Fire. Engineering)
On Friday afternoon additional clarification regarding this case was submitted to
staff. It was in the form of e-mail correspondence and is attached under New
Attachment below. Because of the late time of submission, staff will be addressing
any outstanding issues related to this message at the public hearing.
ALTERNA TIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend dIsapproval of the request
3) Recommend modIficatIOn of the request
4) Take under adVIsement for reconsIderatIOn at a later date
ATT ACHMENTS
I) Departmental Comments (FIre Engmeenng)
:2) ApplIcant's Response Memo
3) Suggested Planned Development RegulatIOns
4) Zonmg ExhibIt (2 Items)
5) Landscape DetaIls (2 exhIbIts)
6) Full-colored BuIldmg ElevatIons (3 examples)
Item # 1 ()
Pap'e 'i nfn
7) Colored Concept Plan
8~ Floor Plan Set (2 sheets)
9) 57 Smgle Family Umt Plan
NEW ATTACHMENTS:
1) Development package (zoning, concept plan, water/sewer, drainage.
landscape exhibits)
2) Proposed Planned Development regulations
3) 25' and 30' street access elevations (two sheets, one colored, one b/w)
4) 25' and 30' street access floor plan
5) Reduced, colored site plan
6) Tree Mitigation memo (Parks)
7) Departmental comments (Fire, Engineering)
8) Property owner letter dated July 20, 2006
9) E-mail correspondence from applicant dated 8/11/06
Itpln # 10
Pap'e h of h