PD129R-AG 921013AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC rn~el~: To consider approval of a zoning change, Case ~P~-I29-R, (Parks of
Coppell, Tract III), from (TC) Town Center, to (PD-SF-9) planned ~evelopment Single-
Family-9, located at the southwest corner of Park~aay Boulevard and Denton Tap Road,
PPR 0 - '/' .
at the request of Dan Dowd., and asso~'ciat, VED
CITY
SUBMITTED BY: DAT~
(Dl_cto~s~r~, S~gnamre) OTHER ~P.:
EV~UATION OF ITEM: DATE:
~ Sept~er 8~ Ci~ Co~ci1 took this case ~et ~is~nt (~th the ~blic Beati~
left open), ~ti1 October 13. Conse~s of ~ci1 centeted at.md the de~i~ pro-
posed, ~d the School ~istrict~s obl~ation to m~ta~ the ~tside of the
va~. Staff n~ ~erstads t~t the applic~t is prepared to ~t a te~sed pl~
sh~ 5~ less lots ~ further agrees to ~ta~ all c~ space ~clud~ t~t
area ~ch is adjacent to the School property.
Direotor. Oar¥ L. -~ieb
Date of P & Z ColtiSsion Heeting: August 20, 1992
.Decision of P & Z Co~mission: Approval (3-2) Thompson and Gross opposed;
· rith the fo110~dng conditions, and with modifications
bl City Council:
1) single-story houses, not to exceed 25 feet in height, will be built on all
perimeter lots, Cowboy Drive, Parkway Boulevard and Denton Tap Road
2) wall adjacent to high school will be constructed of same color brick,
3) top of screening wall will be a minimum of 8 feet above crown of the high
school drive, no side yard fences extending to this wall will exceed that height,
(continued on next page)
Please see attached staff report for further details.
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
COMMENTS:
AMT. ~TP~ ~
FINANCIAL ~ BY~
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
R~QUF..S-T FORM' REVISED 1/91
REVIEWED BY CM:
Page
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
2-'
columns of screening wall will duplicate high school columns, if possible,
landscaping, irrigation system, and water meter will be installed on school
side of wall at developers expense,
landscaping adjacent to school wall will conform to streetscape plan guidelines,
concept plan for pedestrian access to high school property including additional
landscaping and screening provisions will be finalized prior to final plan and plat
submittal,
any trees removed as the resUlt of development or construction of homes be
replaced caliper inch per caliper inch, (per the landscape ordinance)
~at~x-~[h~.o~s-a4c~c'''-~ ati?.ty ea~m~_nt an all _.,~_n-~!ey ~'*~-
10' utility easement on all non-alley lots,
no lot less than 70' wide, all lots at least 9,000 square feet in area,
35' front yard setback on perimeter lots
CASE #:
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-129-R - (PARKS OF COPPELL, TRACT III)
August 20, 1992
September 8, 1992
LOCATION:
The southwest corner of Parkway Boulevard and Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 26.244 Acres, containing 86 single-family lots.
REQUEST:
Approval of a zonir
Planned Developme
APPLICANT:
R. T. C.
(Owner)
8080 Park Lane
Suite #?00
Dallas, TX 75231
HISTORY:
On May 21 and aga
a zoning request an,
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is
g change from (TC) Town Center to (PD-SF-9)
nt Single-Family-9.
Dan Dowdey Associates
(Engineer)
Mr. Bill Anderson
16250 Dallas Parkway
Suite #100
Dallas, Tx 75248
214-931 -0694
~n on July 16, Planning Commission denied both
a preliminary plat on this parcel.
six-lane divided thoroughfare (P6D) contained
within a 100 foot ~]ight-of-way; Parkway Boulevard is a four-lane
divided street (C4DI contained within an 88 foot right-of-way.
I'rEM 5
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Andrew Brown Park & vacant land; TC
South - vacant land; C
East - vacant & City Hall; TC
West - High School; C
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan
appropriate for this area.
shows Town Center uses as most
ANALYSIS
Although the applicant had modified May's request from SF-7 to a
PD, the proposal still retained a total of 88 single-family lots, and
remains a difficult tract to evaluate. The case before you now (the
August Planning Commission application), has reduced density to 86
lots, and is very close to SF-9 density. On the one hand, the zoning
is changing from a more intensive use (TC) to a less intensive use
(PD-SF-9) which is generally supported. However, in additional
discussions with the applicant, it was again mentioned that the
topography of the site does not lend itself to the planned use, and
that the hill on the parcel (actually, this hill is the site) will be
removed From a planning perspective such development is
problematic. One of the major objectives to sound land use planning
is the preservation - as much as possible - of natural amenities such
as trees, streams, rock out croppings and topo - to work with the
natural contourS of the site. This plan still ignores that principle.
Although trees have been spotted on the site, and the applicant has
volunteered to replace caliper inch for caliper inch (total of 616
inches) all trees that are removed with new ones, this proposal still
removes the hill. We have also been advised that the applicant is
working with the School Board to minimize planning concerns
regarding walls and landscaping. The plan before you does show a
6' high screening wall, has a better circulation pattern, and is an
improvement from the May submittal. In addition, the applicant now
states that if the hill must be preserved, it could be done, but the
applicant would do that only if alleys were eliminated. On the other
hand, with the lower density, and with removal of the hill, the
applicant would be willing to retain alleys. Also the applicant is
agreeable to restricting building height along Denton Tap, Parkway
Boulevard, and adjacent to the high school to one story structures.
ADDENDA:
Planning staff remains ambivalent regarding this request - the
zoning change is supportive, the site details shown on the plat raise
concerns regarding environmental and aesthetic sensitivity and it is
our position that a more innovative way to plan with the hill intact
needs to be undertaken - we still have trouble in supporting this
request, although we do recognize it is an improvement from the
original submittal. Our first response to saving the hill is that it
should be preserved and the alley needs to be constructed. If,
however, this case boils down to alleys v. hill, from a planning and
aesthetic perspective, preservation of the hill is most important.
At a meeting of the School Board subcommittee (Board Members
Mary King and Randy Thompson), Commissioner Meador, Bill
Anderson, and Gary Sieb regarding the area adjacent to school
property, and presuming some form of approval of the request is
forthcoming, the following conditions were agreed to:
1) single story houses, not to exceed 25 feet in height, will be
build on all perimeter lots
2) wall adjacent to high school will be constructed of same color
brick
3) top of screening wall will be a minimum of 8 feet above crown
of the high school drive, no side yard fences extending to this
wall will exceed that height
4) columns of screening wall will duplicate high school columns,
if possible
5) landscaping, irrigation system, and water meter will be installed
on school side of wall at developers expense
6) school will maintain all landscaping outside wall adjacent to
school property
7) landscaping adjacent to school wall will conform to streetscape
plan guidelines ~'
8) appearance of each side of wall adjacent to school property
responsibility of each entity; construction maintenance (if wall
is physically damaged) of enti~e wall responsibility of
homeowners association
9) concept plan for pedestrian access to high school property
including additional landscaping and screening provisions will
be finalized prior to final plan and plat submittal
10) trees on building site may be moved to school site at school's
expense
if the hill is removed, restricted access across Parkway
Boulevard between the hours of 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. and 2:30
p.m.-4:00 p.m. will be required during week days
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the zoning change
2) Deny the zoning change
3) Modi~ the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Zoning Exhibit
2) Landscape Exhibits
pd129r.stf
't
q