Loading...
Arbor Manors-CS070118 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Case No.: PD-214R-TH-l'1 TH-2'1 C and SF-9'1 "The Elline:ton" P&Z HEARING DATE: January 18, 2007 c.c. HEARING DATE: February 13,2007 STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director LOCATION: South of Sandy Lake Road; west of Denton Tap Road SIZE OF AREA: 29.05 acres CURRENT ZONING: C (Commercial), R (Retail) and SF-9 (Single Family-9) REQUEST: Zoning change request from Commercial, Retail and Single Family-9 to PD-214R-TH-l, TH-2, C and SF-9 (Planned Development-214 Revised- Townhouse-I, Townhouse-2, Commercial and Single Family-9) with a Concept Site Plan, to allow the development of 122 townhouse units (66 TH-l units on approximately 12 acres of Tract Al and 56 TH-2 units on approximately 8 acres of Tract A2); Commercial uses on Tract A3 (approximately 2 acres) along Sandy Lake Road and on Tracts A4 and A5 (3.8 acres) along Denton Tap Road, and SF-9 zoning on 3.3 acres for park/open space use on Tract B. APPLICANT: JDB Real Estate Invest. Darron Ash 832 DeForest Road Coppell, TX 75019 (214) 663-6878 FAX (972) 393-9292 Engineer: Dowdey, Anderson Matt Alexander 5225 Village Creek Dr. Suite 200 PIano, TX 75093 (972) 931-0694 FAX (972) 931-9538 Item # 4 Page lof4 HISTORY: This case, originally submitted as a Conceptual Planned Development to the Planning Commission on July 20, was postponed to August 17 when it was approved by a vote of 4-2. The request was forwarded to Council on September 12 and continued for a variety of reasons until November 14. On that date a motion to approve failed, resulting in no action being taken by Council. The applicant proceeded to re-file the case and it was rescheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 18, 2007, The attached DISCUSSION portion of the original submittal is attached to give temporal perspective to the history behind this case and offer detailed staff concerns with the proposal. TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, improved, concrete, six-lane, divided thoroughfare contained within a 110-foot right-of-way; Sandy Lake Road is an existing asphalt two-lane road to eventually be improved to a C4D, four-lane, divided thoroughfare contained within a 110-foot right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North - retail uses; C (Commercial) South - single-family residential; PD-115 (SF-7) East - retail uses; C (Commercial) West - residential/commercial uses; SF-12 and R (Retail) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Coppell Comprehensive Plan of May 1966, as amended, shows this property to be developed in medium (generally in the neighborhood of four- dwelling units per acre or less) density residential uses. DISCUSSION: After a number of postponements, Council heard this case in November. A motion to deny the case failed. The Council then voted to approve the case and that motion also failed. At that point our City Attorney ruled that because motions to deny and approve both failed, no formal action had been taken, and as a practical matter, the case was denied. In a subsequent Council meeting, staff was directed to offer a rehearing to the applicant with all filing fees being waived. When contacted by staff, the applicant elected to resubmit for new hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. In essence this resubmission is identical to the earlier request with three general changes. One, the density has been reduced from 125 to 122 units. Two, a formal street now connects to Denton Tap Road (aligning with Braewood Drive) at the southeast comer of the property. Three, a 50-foot dedicated right- of-way with a 12-foot paved easement replaces a 12-foot easement-only, crossing the open space area at the southwest portion of the property. These Item # 4 Page 2 of4 relatively minor changes do not alter the basic development request, and staff concerns have not been mollified. It is still too dense. It does not conform to the Comprehensive Master Plan. Tree mitigation fees are an issue. Substantial citizen opposition (over 110 e-mails) has been expressed (a summary copy is included in the ATTACHMENTS section of this report) ranging from density to land use to tree preservation concerns. Guest parking placed totally within public right-of-way rather than on private property is awkward and could prove hazardous to the traveled way. Also, these guest spaces are randomly placed on the site and their practical utilization is questionable, at best. In some cases, front, side, and rear yard setbacks are non-compliant. Five-foot garage setbacks in Tract A.I are unacceptable. Additionally, revised PD conditions now state that Tract A.2 could also utilize these same unacceptable five-foot garage setbacks if alley access structures are constructed on the southern tract. Although the applicant has reduced his unit count by two, modified the circulation plan, and redesigned his lot to be more in compliance with ordinance standards, this request is basically the same as initially submitted. Staff has the same concerns we had with the earlier case. To review those concerns in detail, we have attached a copy of our earlier recommendations to the ATTACHMENTS section of this report. RECOMMENDA nON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The applicant has made minor changes to the original proposal. However, it still does not comply with the Master Plan. It contains too many units, is not reflective of housing styles nor densities surrounding it, and still proposes questionable development standards. Attempting to provide parallel on-street parking for guests on 25-foot-lot widths will be a nightmare here, and their locations do not adequately address the need for said parking. Garages five feet off an alley are extremely difficult to maneuver, especially with the sizes of SUV's and large station wagons and four-door cars. This proposal completely ignores our 20-foot setback regulations. The revised request, allowing the same unit-type on the southern parcel, would potentially double this concern. As we stated in our original staff report, a substantially lower density product more closely aligned with our current development standards and respectful of the adjacent residential communities is encouraged for this site. Rethinking site development by significantly lowering the density will result in larger lots. That, in turn, will modify tree mitigation figures, substantially reduce citizen expressed rental concerns, effectively diminish traffic generation/potential school demands, and decrease on-street parking safety issues. Single-family units at 3-4 dwellings per acre will result in a product which reflects the life- style Coppell citizens envision for this community. Coupled with Engineering, Parks, and Fire comments (attached) which are either similar or identical to the earlier review, this case should be DENIED. Item # 4 Page 30f4 ALTERNATIVES: 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 ATTACHMENTS: 1) Concept Plan at 1" = 60' 2) Zoning Exhibit at 1"=100' 3) Planned Development Conditions Exhibit 4) Landscape Details 5) Staff comments (Engineering, Parks, and Fire) 6) Opposition E-Mail Summary Correspondence 7) Staff Original (July) and revised (August) Discussion and Recommendation Item # 4 Page 4 of4 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Case No.: PD-214-TH-l'1 TH-2'1 C and SF-9'1 "The Ellinf!ton" 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 "Ardinger parcel." Back in 2001-2, staff recommended the property be rezoned to low density residential use of 3-4 dwelling units per acre, to be compatible with the surrounding residential density. Mr. Ardinger 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 smaller Southlake Town Center. That development never materialized. Roughly three years ago, we were presented a plan for a townhouse project with density approaching 9-10 units per acre. That proposal was never formally submitted. In early 2006, staff informally reviewed a development containing all single family detached residences at less than 3 dwelling units per acre for a total of 57 homes which was enthusiastically received. We have attached a copy of that plan for your information and possible comparison purposes with the request before you. That plan did not proceed beyond casual discussion (for whatever reason-price, communication with owner, pending contract, etc.) which brings us to the case before you this evening. ,'\s you will recall, at the July 20th heariBg a letter was submitted (attaehed) requestiBg the COBlmissioR aRd CouRcil to disregard a low deBsity resideRtial proposal submitted as a possible deyelopBleRt sceBario far the subject tract. Staff iRcluded that plaR ORIy to shaw the subject tract could be developed with Blueh lower resideRtial deRsity. What is being proposed here is a mixed use Planned Development reflecting open space, 128 townhouses, commercial and retail uses. A number of exceptions have been taken with our townhouse development requirements including setbacks, densities, alley widths, circulation patterns, lot coverage, among others. For instance, the northern parcel (Tract A.1) proposes 5- foot rear yard setbacks from garages/structures where 20 feet is required by ordinance. We are extremely concerned with this setback request, even with the 20-foot alleys the developer is proposing. 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). Also, the proposal allows 3-foot overhangs in the front yard resulting in only 7 feet of space between a unit and the street R.O.W. Side yard spacing is less than code (10 feet rather than the required 15 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 guest Item # 10 Page lof4 parking this plan proposes. Our ordinance states that .5 guest parking spaces must be provided per unit with a development of this magnitude. Tract A2 provides this minimum (31 spaces), but Tract A.I provides none. Following code would require 34 guest parking spaces being provided on this tract. A statement on the Plan requests guest parking for Tract Al be provided on street. This is totally unacceptable. Adequate guest parking can not be provided this way what with the narrow lots, the "flag" properties that have only 10 feet of frontage, the minimal front yards throughout the project, and the hazardous maneuvering which results if fire or emergency 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 appropriate for this area. We do, however, have concern with the three-story townhouses. When visualized in its true form, these are sizeable buildings, towering above 46 feet in height, and connected up to five in a row. To give a proper perspective to what the product would look like at completion, visit the new Lewisville project at the northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Vista Ridge Mall Drive, 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 buildings. Settlers Village building height (approximately 38 feet) is less than The Ellington's by at least ten feet, but their appearance conveys buildings that would be out-of-scale with our surrounding 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 attached to this staff report dated August 10, 2006. The written PD Regulations exhibit essentially requests the standards we have objected to in the proceeding paragraphs. There are minor changes that need to be made to that document such as this property is located in Dallas not Denton County. Detached garages are not allowed in residential projects, the density figure for Tract Al needs to reflect 67 units, not 71. The same holds true for Tract A2, density should be 61, 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 Planning. A final comment needs to be stated regarding circulation patterns proposed by this development. The Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments strongly recommend extension of Tealwood Drive into this property. This extension would do at least two things. It would give the Wynnpage residents an alternate way in and out of their subdivision, and it would greatly enhance fire and emergency services access to both properties. In all fairness, and recognizing the applicant's attempts to address many of our concerns, we have attached as an enclosure, his reply to our staff review labeled "Applicant's Response Memo." In parentheses we have summarized the issue at hand with regard to each specific rejoinder. Item # 10 Page 2 of4 Planned Development districts were established over 40 years ago to provide a mearIS of developing larId that could not conform to established building guidelines. It was initially conceived to offer a variety of mixed land uses that, if developed together, could result in a product from conventional standards just would not work; i.e., residential mixed with commercial/office/retail uses in a pattern that blended together. Over the years, the original concept has been modified to the point that today's PD bears little resemblarIce to the initial offering. That is the case with this proposal. What we have here is a request to modify our residential guidelines to satisfy a particular land use proposal. There is no "blending" of a variety of larId uses, no uniform design statement to bring a variety of land uses into one cohesive whole. The PD addresses only a residential component. As such, it takes a great deal of license with our established development starIdards with little justification for it other tharI a dwelling unit count needed to ensure an economic return. We cannot support this request in its present form. The revised plan makes the following changes: Tract A.l 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 of units reduced from 128 to 122 (their density 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 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff is recommending DENIAL of this request, based upon the points stated above: It is too dense; it ignores most of our development guidelines; it does not provide satisfactory circulation; it creates serious health, safety arId public welfare issues; it does not reflect community life style values; and it disregards the adjacent residential development patterns. A substantially lower density product, more closely aligned with our current development standards and respectful of the adjacent residential communities 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 guidelines have not been met (i.e., lot depth should be 100', they show 95'; minimum lot size should be 2500', they 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). Item # 10 Page 3 of4 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. Item # 10 Page 4 of4 11/9/2006 ELLINGTON: AREAS OF CONCERN TREE SCHOOL FORM RENTAL NAME ADDRESS MITIGATION DENSITY TRAFFIC IMPACT USE LETTER UNITS OTHER A. VanRiper 345 Spyglass Drive 1 1 S. Cravens 1 1 C. Raval 1 1 K. Monaghan 132 Hearthwood Drive 1 B. Dobson 313 Charleston Drive 1 1 R. Duhon 1 1 S. Adkins 713 Sparrow Lane 1 1 D. SUQes 145 Wrenwood Drive 1 1 K. Carrell 141 Wrenwood Drive 1 1 1 1 M. Hiller 139 Wynnpage Drive 1 1 1 1 P. Mylar 101 Tanbark Circle 1 1 L Cornish 263 Kailey Way 1 1 M. Buckley 333 Brock Street 1 1 D. Aquirre 175 Georgian Drive 1 1 R. Sanders 900 Cypress Court 1 1 K. Johnson 1 1 R. VanAssche Bueter 520 Blackfield Drive 1 1 S. Ross 232 Samuel Blvd.#08 1 1 J. Walker 400 Hawk Court 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J. Hall 1 1 D. Summers 1 1 A. Weller-Carlsson 307 Spanish Moss Dr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M. Myers 319 Gifford Drive 1 1 D. Raetzman 1 1 E. Woody 472 Halifax Drive 1 1 N. Bartel 737 E. Peninsula Drive 1 1 D. Prichard 414 Gifford Drive 1 S. McGraw 258 Winding Hollow Ln. 1 1 1 W. Lambert 120 Shadydale 1 M. Mathis 1 1 J. Mason 312 Meadowcreek Rd. 1 1 1 J. Atkins 1 1 K. Spence 714 Graywood 1 1 A. Anderson 1 1 11/9/2006 ELLINGTON: AREAS OF CONCERN TREE SCHOOL FORM RENTAL NAME ADDRESS MITIGATION DENSITY TRAFFIC IMPACT USE LETTER UNITS OTHER * T. Mulloy 577 Homewood 1 1 * S. Taylor 1 1 * M. Williams 1 1 * C. Matthews 701 Waverly 1 1 * C. Strauss 1 1 * D, Bauckman 110 WynnpaQe 1 1 * W. Haque 1 1 * W. Williams 1 1 * G. Buffington 130 Hartford 1 1 * S. Lambert 1 1 * L. Simmons 1 * S. Hallon 657 Raven 1 1 1 1 1 * S. Felton 649 Shadowcrest 1 1 * R. Hair 1 1 * K. Pearsall 325 Clear Haven 1 * T. DiPalma 1 * D, Johnston 344 Kyle 1 * p, Martin 1 * M. Hirshman 1 1 * P. Gallo-Stenman 136 Hearthstone 1 1 1 1 * Won Shon 125 Hearthwood 1 * S. Pilatzke 128 Fieldcrest Loop 1 1 1 1 * R. Kirkelie 141 Hearthwood 1 1 L. Fairchild 205 Chestnut Lane 1 1 1 L. Elieson 700 Woodmoor 1 1 1 1 1 D. Warren 1 1 S. Guess 400 Fieldcrest Circle 1 1 A. KOQutt 795 Pelican Lane 1 1 M. KOQutt 1 1 K. MCbrayer 1 1 G. Peck 144 Georgian Drive 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R. McBrayer 259 Kailey Way 1 1 1 1 C. Kaleri 137 Hearthwood Drive 1 1 D. Hair 333 Meadowcreek Road 1 1 1 2 11/9/2006 ELLINGTON: AREAS OF CONCERN TREE SCHOOL FORM RENTAL NAME ADDRESS MITIGATION DENSITY TRAFFIC IMPACT USE LETTER UNITS OTHER L. Tanner 1 1 B. Whitehill 747 Meadowlark 1 1 S. Carrick 123 Lodge Road 1 1 M. Leonard 1 1 1 1 N Donoahue 312 Beechwood Lane 1 1 D. Nicholson 143 Allencrest Lane 1 1 1 A. Richardson 320 Waterview 1 1 1 1 1 B. O'Shea 624 Deforest Road 1 1 R. Haves 259 Park Valley Drive 1 1 1 1 1 J. Jordan 228 Beechwood Lane 1 1 P. Leaer-Nicholson 143 Allencrest Lane 1 1 1 1 1 C. Hall 493 Forest Ridae Drive 1 1 1 1 1 M. Helm 138 London Wav 1 1 S. Schweitzer 646 Gravwood Lane 1 1 L. Mayes 1 1 J. Stephens 1 1 L. Mark 1 1 1 B. Murphy 1 1 M. McGradY 623 Meadowview Lane 1 1 E. Hall 1 1 M. Kirkham 432 Plantation 1 1 W. Lanaley 287 Tealwood Drive 1 1 J. Hewlett 1 1 C. Hermans 126 Carrington Drive 1 1 M. Milby 1 1 1 1 1 1 C, Tucker 1 1 1 1 1 L. Vincenzo 1 1 D. Bonson 821 Woodmoor Drive 1 1 S. Anderson 1 1 1 C. Collins 1 1 1 B, Morin 167 GeorQian Drive 1 1 1 1 1 C. Bliobenes 607 Levee Place 1 1 1 1 1 S. Earnest 1 1 J. Miller 1 1 3