CC approval on 6/9/92 AGENDA REQUEST FORM
i7
,~ ~; ~ CO~L ~.F~NG June
ITEM CAPTION:
POB~C H~ARING= Co.ideation md a~v~ of a 3oning ch~ge ~quest, C~ ~ZC-538 (P~
of Coppe~, T~cts I-~), from (TC ~ M~-Z) Town Cent~ ~d M~ti-~amily-Z, to (S~-?) S~gle
~ami]y-7. located at the ~uthemt co~ of P~kway ~ev~ ~d Helm Road (Tract 1)~ the
no. beast co~ of P~kway
Denton Tap ~d P~kway ~ev~ (Tract 3), ~d no~hwest of the High School Access Road
~d no~h of P~kway ~ev~ (Tract ~). at the ~quest of D~ Dowdey ~d A~ociates.
SUBMI~ED BY: ST ~ar~ k. Sieb. ~lanninfl~irec~or
~ OTHER ~P.:
EV~UATION OF ITEM- DATE'
Date of P g Z Me~tinfl: May ~1, 199~
Decision o~ P ~ Z ~ommi~ion:
TRACT 1 - Ap~ved (6-0) zon~g ch~ge to
TRACT ~- Ap~oved (6-0) zon~g ch~ge to (S~-7)
TRACT 3 - De~ed (~1, Cotten oppo~d) without p~jMice
TRACT 4 - Ap~ov~ (6-0) zoning ch~ge to (SF-I~) on ~met~ lots fac~g the ~ek ~d
p~k; ~d (SF-9) on ~ oth~ lots
~,~',
BY /~-~
CIIY C ·
DATE ~/e/~ / d ..... '
BUDGET AMT. N/A AMT. ESTIMATED
A. MT +/- BUDGET F[NANCLAL REVIEW BY
COMMENTS:
LEGAL REVIEW BY: REVIEWED BY CM: '~/
· ~-.',7 · '~i.',7:.L.-.- :CFM ?.z"',~J~C: : ;:
CITY OF COPPELL
PL~INING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: ZC-538 (PARKS OF COPPELL, TRACTS I-IVI
? & Z HEARING DATE: May 21, 1992
C. C. HEARING DATE: June 9, 1992
LOCATION: Tract i - southeast corner of Heartz Rd. & Parkway Blvd.
Tract II - northeast corner of Denton Tap & Parkway Blvd.
Tract III- southwest corner of Denton Tap & Parkway Blvd.
Tract IV - approximately 990' west of the intersection of
Denton Tap Road & Parkway Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: Tract I - 30.7 acres containing 77 single-family lots
Tract !I - 27.6 acres containing 89 single-family lots
Tract III- 26.2 acres containing 88 single-family lots
Tract IV - 76.8 acres containing !57 single-family lots
161.3 acres 411 single-family lots
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zoning from (TC) to (SF-7) on
Tracts !, II, Iii; and approval of a change of zoning from
~MF-2) to (SF-7) on Tract IV.
APPLICANT: RTC as receiver for Dan ~. Dowdey & Assoc.
ABQ Federal Savings Bank (Engineer)
(Owner) Er. Bill Anderson
8080 Park Lane 16250 Dallas Parkway
Suite #700 Suite #100
Dallas, TX 75231 Dallas, TX 75248
~2i4) 692-6892 (2!4) 931-0694
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on any of the four
tracts.
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is a six-lane divided thoroughfare (P6D)
contained within a 100 foot ri~ht-of-way~ Parkway Boulevard
is a four-lane divided street (C4D) contained within an 88
foot right-of-way; Heartz Road is an improved two-lane
undivided street within a 60 foot right-of-way.
ITEM 13
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Andrew Brown Park & vacant land: TC (small portion
of R on western boundary}
South - developing single-family & vacant land; TC & C
East - Andrew Brown Park & developed single-family; TC &
PD-SF
West - highschool, vacant; C, PD-SF, & MF-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows Town Center (Tracts !,
III) and high density residential (Tract iV) as most
appropriate uses for this land.
ANALYSIS: Generally speaking, this is a zoning change request which
can be supported by staff. Although it would have been
preferable to look at densities more in line with SF-9
guidelines, it must be acknowledged that where this
proposal is contiguous to already developed or developing
land, the site plan exhibits identical, and in some cases
larger, lot dimension, areas, etc. On a tract by tract
basis, staff makes the following comments:
!RACT !: IC to $F-7 on 30.69 acres of land. This parcel
proposes a total of 77 lots similar in dimension to Pecan
Hollow, the existing subdivision to the east. Positive
features of this request include limited access to Parkway
Boulevard, extension of the Parkway wall and landscaping,
and preservation and enhancement of an existing drainage
channel into a linear park dedicated to the City, but
maintained by the Home Owners Association. In addition, a
4' high metal fence is proposed along back yards adjacent
to the open space, and the developer shows a meandering 8'
wide sidewalk to serve as a pedestrian walk-way.
The only negative element of this plan is the fact that the
plat calls for elimination of an alley on the eastern
boundary. Many of you will recall the reason alleys at
this location were not required when Pecan Hollow was
developed was because the developer wished to preserve an
existing tree line. A short drive down Pecan Hollow Drive
will illustrate whether that rationale is appropriate
here. Only the alley issue warrants additional discussion
at the public hearing. Staff has reluctance to grant the
alley waiver, but generally supports this request.
TRACT !i: TC to SF-7 on 27.56 acres. This parcel proposes
a total of 89 single-family lots. Again, the request shows
appropriate treatment of Parkway Boulevard and, in the case
of Denton Tap Road. Landscaping, screening walls, and
irrigation systems will be maintained by the Homeowners
Association. Modifications were made to points of
ingress/egress and access to Denton Tap Road was eliminated
from the plat during staff review sessions. The boundary
between the park land and this subdivision will be
delineated by a four foot decorative metal fence, thus
giving the homeowners adjacent a more "open" feel to their
lots, yet clearly marking what is City and what is private
property. It should be noted here that the Community Park
Master Plan shows active park uses north and east of this
Tract ~see attached plan), and that appropriate
architectural design controls need to be exercised by home
builders to exacerbate any potential negative impacts of
the park area. Staff supports this request.
TRACT I!I: TC zoning to SF-7 on 26.24 acres. This parcel
proposes a total of 88 single-family lots. ibis is a
difficult tract to evaluate. On the one hand, the zoning
is changing from a more intensive use (TC) to a less
intensive use (SF-7) which is generally supported.
However, in discussions with the applicant, it was
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 i_~s 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 ignores that principle. There is also some question
regarding the wail which buffers this subdivision from
Denton Tap, Parkway Boulevard, and especially the school
site. If zoning were to be granted here, it is strongly
suggested that the same brick wail along the high school
access road be extended to the southern property line of
this tract. Planning staff is ambivalent regarding this
request - - the zoning change is supportive, the site
details shown on the plat raise concerns regarding
environmental and aesthetic sensitivity - this plan needs
more work. Therefore, staff would recommend holding this
tract under advisement until the issues raised above have
been addressed.
TRACT IV: ~F-2 to SF-7 on 76.75 acres of land. This
parcel will contain !57 lots if developed as proposed. Of
all the tracts, this one lends itself best to larger lots.
The area along Cottonwood Creek is perfect for SF-9 and
SF-12 sized building sites. In like fashion, the area
adjacent to Andrew Brown Park and Denton Creek appears
sited for similar sized lots. Several builders have
expressed a desire to procure lots with widths in the 75-85
foot category and complain that there are very few
residential areas in Coppell upon which they can build a
product designed for that width. These two acres of Tract
IV could address that market. The screening wail and
landscaping alon§ the Parkway, the homeowner maintenance
open space, and the construction of the bridge and
completion of Parkway Boulevard are all reasons to support
this request. If the developer can assure us the provision
of a 20 foot access easement to Andrew Brown Park from the
area adjacent, and reduction of density to provide the
larger width lots addressed above and provided the easement
for bridge purposes can be worked out legally, staff would
recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES: 1 Approve the zoning change
2 Deny the zoning change
3 Modify the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS: i Zoning Exhibit - Tracts I, ii, III, IV
2 Community Park Plan - partial (to be used in conjuction
with Tract II)
3) landscape graphics
ZC538.STF
MASTER PLAN
COPPELL COMMUNITY PARK
CITy OF COPPELL
TOTAL ~,~REACE: .11~ ,~
JANUARy 8, 1~91 NORTH 0 50' 100' 200' 400'
ZONED HIGI~P,'VAy
\ ~.'
8AS£B~,J_L/S,C)FTgAL£ ~/
· ~-[ EXIST~ TREES
~DAY ~P AREA
~KE
c~
ZONED ~ CE~
P.O. 8
The City With A Beautiful Future ~ !~ (~ ~ 0 ~ ['~ ~''~' 2Cl°4P-4P;I~'-0'I~7s 75019
May 28, ~992
~r. Steve Bosak
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Grants-in-Aid Branch
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Tx 78744
RE= Proposed Crossing of Parkland in Coppe11, Texas
Dear Steve=
As you are probably aware, the City of Coppell has received an
application for a subdivision plat which locates the extension of
an existing roadway over anapprox{mate 2,000 square foot tract of
parkland. This letter is intended to describe to you the proposed
project and to request whether the proposed ~mprovement qualifies
as an exception to the Conversion of Fund Supported Properties
process.
Enclosed, please find a reduced copy of the preliminary plat for
Section Four of Parks of Coppell. Property immediately east of the
subject property is City of Coppell parkland. Also enclosed,
please find a copy of a map delineating the park. Please note, on
the preliminary plat, Parkway Boulevard which traverses the
proposed subdivision. The portion of Parkway Boulevard to the
southeast of the subject property that is shaded is existing.
Because of the existing alignment, the developer's engineer is
required to extend Parkway Boulevard over an approximate 2,000
square foot triangular tract of parkland that is also shaded on the
drawing.
Parkway Boulevard is proposed to extend through the proposed
subdivision and further extend through land in westernCoppell that
does not have convenient access to the parkland. Therefore, the
slight encroachment across parkland significantly enhances access
from western Coppell to the primary activity area in the park.
Additionally, access to the park is enhanced by a 20'
ingress/egress between lots 30 and 31 of Block A of the proposed
plat.
Mr. Steve Bosak
May 28, 1992
Page 2
Consequently, because the encroachment greatly enhances access for
a significant portion of Coppell, we believe that the proposal
satisfies the exception as a public facility which increases the
benefit to public recreational opportunity. Please review the
enclosures at your earliest convenience and forward your response
to us.
Your assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. If you
need additional information, or have any questions regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to call me. If I am not available,
please speak to Rick Wieland, Parks and Recreation Manager.
~i~cerely,'i
st~ G. 'Goram
Director of Public Works
/dm
Enc.
cc: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
William S. Dahlstrom
Rick Wieland