CC AGNREQ&SR 061609
THE:.CITY.OF
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
cOrreLL
DEPT:
PLANNING
DATE:
June 16, 2009
ITEM #: 6
D WORK SESSION
D CONSENT
o REGULAR
ITEM TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of Case No. PD-241-SF/C. Red Hawk, zoning change request from 0 (Office) to PD-241-SF/C
(Planned Development - 241- Single Family/Commercial) with a Detail Plan to allow 54 single-family lots with a
minimum lot size of 5,765 square feet and an average lot size of 8,484 square feet, including the retention of the
Bullock Cemetery on approximately 14,9 acres of property and a Concept Plan for two commercial tracts containing
approximately 1,5 acres of property, located along the west side of S. Denton Tap Road, north of Bethel School Road.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The following P&Z conditions remain outstanding:
1. A drainage study acceptable to Engineering will be required.
2, Tree mitigation fees will be required,
3, North board-on-board fence will be eight feet tall.
4, Stucco shall not be allowed beyond the 20%/80% standard; an SUP shall be required in excess of these
development standards,
5, Properly dimension width of Lots 6-12, Block A Wynnpage Addition,
6. PD condition Number 4 - change Lots 16-18, Block A to Lots 16-17, Block A
7. PD condition Number 8 - change "Street A" to Oxford Place.
8. PD condition Number 11 - change Lot 25, Block B to Lot 23. Block B,
9, Move Oxford Place street name change symbol to the north side of Lot 12. Block B,
10, Change three-foot minimum side yard to five-foot minimum in PD Side Yard Site Data Table,
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
On April 16. 2009. the Planning Commission recommended approval
of this zoning change (6-1), subject to the above-stated conditions.
Commissioners Shute, Frnka. Haas, Sangerhausen, Kittrell and Shipley
voted in favor. Commissioner Jett opposed,
On May 26,2009. Council continued consideration of this request to
June 16.2009 (6-1),
Staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
ON ABOVE DATE
Motion to close Public Hearing & Approve subject to
conditions 1 & a minimum 3-foot side shall be
permitted for water features (pools, spas & fountains)
M - Faught
S - Brancheau
. Libby Bali
~ 2009.06.26
10;04;42
-05'00'
Vote - 6-1
Tunnell voted against
I@Ol PD-241-SF-C. RH. l-AR
P&Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
STAFF REP.:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT ZONING:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO,: PD-241-SF/C, Red Hawk
March 19,2009 (Continued to April 16, 2009)
April 10, 2009 May 12,2009 (Rescheduled to May 26,2009)
Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning
West side of S, Denton Tap Road, north of Bethel School Road
16.4 acres of property
o (Office)
A zoning change to PD-241-SF/C (Planned Development 241-
Single-Family/Commercial) with a Detail Plan to allow 54 single-
family lots with a minimum lot size of 51765 square feet and an
average lot size of 8.484 square feet. including the retention of
the Bullock Cemetery and a Concept Plan for two commercial
tracts.
Terry Holmes
THBGP, Inc. dba The Holmes Builders
1445 MacArthur Drive
Suite 200
Carrollton, TX, 75007
(972) 242-1770
Fax: (972) 242-2931
There has been no recent development history on the parcel
although the former owner (now deceased) lived in a trailer on
this property for many years. Approximately eight years ago
the zoning was changed from "C" Commercial to "0" Office,
although no development activity reflecting office use
occurred.
ITEM #4
Page 1 of 7
TRANSPORTATION:
Denton Tap Road is an improved P6D six-lane, divided
concrete roadway built within a proposed 11 a-foot right-of-
way (ten feet being dedicated by this application), Bethel
School Road is a C2U, concrete two-lane road built within a
proposed 60-foot right-of-way, with five feet being dedicated
by this proposal.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-single-family homes and office; PD-115 SF-7 and "C",
Commercial
South-Ace Hardware; "C", Commercial
East-retail/gas station; "C" Commercial
West-single family homes, PD-95 SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan, as amended, shows this property as
appropriate for mixed use,
DISCUSSION:
As one of the last remaining vacant tracts in the city, this is a
case which warrants very close review. On the one hand, the
applicant is proposing a mixed use project which is supported
by the Comprehensive Master Plan and the 2030 Plan, due to
the inclusion of residential and commercial uses. The
development proposal is somewhat unique in that 50 and 60
foot wide lots are proposed in the same subdivision, very
unusual for Coppell development. The applicant in this case is
a well-known local builder and the projects he has been
involved with here have all been first rate,
On the other hand, there are some concerns which merit
consideration before any recommendation is formulated. The
density is high, stucco is requested, there appears to be little
attention directed at approximating the size and width of lots
adjacent to this property, lots with three and seven-foot side
yards are troubling, Facing single family, 50-foot wide lots
toward Denton Tap Road is not typical of a residential
development adjacent to a major thoroughfare, and in this
case, along the most highly travelled vehicular roadway in the
city,
To the applicant's credit, the perspective drawings
accompanying the request appear to suggest a variety of
housing styles and price ranges, offering variety to dwelling unit
types in Coppell. The additional distance from Denton Tap with
the screening wall. substantial landscaping and a street lends
ITEM #4
Page 2 of 7
credence to his residences facing this major thoroughfare,
(although the market for such a product could be
problematic), and the inclusion of a landscaped entryl a
curvilinear street pattern, several common areas, and a
substantial wall is to be commended.
That said, there are three concerns with this proposal: density,
lot widths, sideyards.
DENSITY
One of our greatest concerns involves density of this project.
As submitted, density is proposed to be almost 4 units per acre.
All surrounding residential development is less than four-some
substantially less--and we recommend no greater density than
3 units per acre on this parcel. Taking into consideration that
the entire tract is 16.4 acres, we could support a density of 49
units with certain changes being made to this proposal. If the
developer were to widen the lots adjacent to the surrounding
single family neighborhoods, particularly on the west sidel and
widen the 50 foot lots, the accompanying reduction in density
would go far in gaining staff support for this project.
WIDTHS
Lot widths proposed for this subdivision are also troubling, Fifty
foot wide lots are very narrow for this area of the city, and none
of the lots meet our minimum single-family lot width of 65 feet,
It is recognized that the applicant has applied for PD zoning to
modify lot widths, but this proposal is just too intense, Staff
could support lot widths of 55-60 feet, still a reduction from the
normally required 65 feet, By increasing lot widths to be more
in line with neighboring residential lot dimensions, density, as
discussed above, would be reduced resulting in a lot count in
line with staff recommendation at 49 lots,
SIDEY ARDS
The sideyards requested are inappropriate. The proposed
seven-foot/three-foot side yards just will not work. HistoricallYl
staff experience in other cities has resulted in similar concepts
being difficult--if not impossible--to successfully implement, The
concept sounds good on paper, but in reality the result is a
troublesome land use proposal. The same effect for this
development (with walls/fences at the front building line
extending from structure to structure creating a privacy area)
can be achieved with typical sideyards, still placing the
ITEM #4
Page 3 of 7
~
fencing in the same location as proposed. The only difference
would be that each lot had an identical side yard, By
increasing lot widths to 60 feet. the problem evaporates and
the sideyard variance is no longer needed for the "interior
courtyard" feel. We recommend a distance between
structures of at least 15 feet. or 7.5 feet off each property line.
Because of lot widths, these two-story homes will be
considerably wider than existing narrow lot width
developments in Coppell and the sheer bulk of these structures
warrant additional spacing between units. Our suggested side
setback is still a reduction from the normally required sideyard
of 8 feet per lot.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
There are several miscellaneous errors or clarifications needed
to be made to this application, regardless of final outcome,
. Notes need to be added to the Site Plan indicating that
all screening walls and landscaping will be maintained
by a property owners association;
. "foot" needs to be added to PO Condition #3;
. Add "Lots 27, 28, Block A" behind Conceptual Planned
Development "Commercial" title;
. Add notation that Lot 28, Block A is responsible for
maintenance on outside of proposed screening wall;
. Add statement that Lots 1 and 2, Block A are responsible
for maintenance on outside of screening wall within their
property lines;
. Note # 11 should state lot 23, not lot 25;
. Streets need to be named and diamond symbol should
be added where street name changes.
. Insure cul-de-sac right-of-way radius is 50 feet.
. Add "Temporary" asphalt to sales office asphalt paving
note,
. Dimension all common areas on Landscape Plan.
. Spartan Juniper and Chinese Fringe are not in our Plant
palette, and other species need to be chosen,
. It appears that Live Oaks have been shown twice on
Plant List, and needs correction.
. Engineering concerns include:
o the need for a flood study,
o the driveways on Denton Tap need to be
removed although Lot 27 will be allowed access
when firm plans are submitted for this lot,
o Lot 28 drive entrance on Bethel School needs to
be a minimum of 120 feet from the Denton Tap
intersection, and
ITEM #4
Page 4 of 7
o drainage requirements will not be expanded
upon until engineering plans are submitted.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIAL of the request as submitted. We could support
the request with major modifications including:
1, A maximum density of 49 units
2. Elimination of stucco residences
3. A minimum 15 feet between units with 7.5 foot side yards
4. All units in Block B maintain 20 foot rear yard setbacks or 20 foot minimum
front yard setbacks, developer has his choice. In no case shall any
setback for garage or structure be less than 15 feet, and note on each lot
5. Bullock cemetery maintained by HOA
6. Change title of PD to J,C. Thweat Dreams
7, Fees for Tree mitigation and Park development are required
8, Lots 20 - 26 Block A maintain 20 foot rear yard and note on each lot
9, Address all "Additional Comments" stated above
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, Site Plan
2, Landscape Plan (2 sheets)
3, Stone Screening Wall Elevation
4. Sales Center Elevation and Floor Plan
5, Red Hawk Villas Perspectives of 60 and 50 foot lots (2 colored sheets)
6, Tree Survey (2 sheets)
AMMENDED ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Site Plan
2. Revised Landscape Plan (2 sheets)
3. Tree survey (2 sheets)
ADDENDA:
As you are all aware, Commission continued this case to the April 16 hearing, and
directed staff to meet with the developer and up to three Commission members
focusing on resolving several Issues. After reviewing the 3 and one-half hour tape,
staff has reduced concerns of citizens and Commission to nine basic elements. The
committee of Chairman Haas and Commissioner Frnka met with the applicant, Terry
ITEM #4
Page 5 of 7
-
Holmes and staff member Gary Sleb on March 30. What follows Is a summary
discussion of that meeting.
Drainage
A major concern of the adjacent neighborhoods
Applicant understands a drainage study must be undertaken
and will be a development condition
The retaining wall needs more explanation such as type, height,
length, construction material, etc.
Traffic
One entry/exit will work. If possible, main entry should be lined up
with second entry at hardware store
Close all curb cuts off Denton Tap Road, one cut will be allowed for
north commercial site when development occurs
Cemetery
Legally, an HOA can maintain the cemetery. The applicant
(somewhat reluctantly) agreed to Include cemetery maintenance In
his HOA open space maintenance requirements
Tree Mitigation/North Screening Fence
Initial mitigation figures Indicate an approximate $30,000 mitigation
fee. Staff will not recommend waiver of that fee
A related item, the screening fence on the north property line will be
a 6 foot wooden board-on-board fence, protecting as many existing
trees adjacent to it as possible
Side yards/Setbacks
Still a point of contention. Developer wants 7'/3', staff recommends
5'/5'; the 7'/3' is troubling
stucco
Staff recommends denial as submitted. Applicant wants 12 structures
of stucco, separated by 4 lots
Density
Unresolved. Applicant wants 54 lots, staff recommends 49. Applicant
shows 3.6 du/ac. Staff recommendation Is 3.0 du/ac.
Use
More detail needed' on commercial tracts, I.e., contemplated uses,
length of time sales office remains, when developed, etc.
other
Question was raised regarding why no parking on some streets, not
all (Fire Dept. can address that question); there were 13 additional
conditions that need to be addressed regardless of zoning outcome,
and developer agreed to address them by the April 6 submission.
ITEM #4
Page 6 of 7
AMMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the committee meeting and comments stated above, staff modifies
our recommendation to APPROVAL, provided the following conditions are met:
1. A drainage study acceptable to Engineering will be required,
2. Indicate construction material for retaining walls,
3. Main entry needs to line up with second hardware store entry,
4. Close both drives along Denton Tap Road at SE property line,
5. HOA to maintain cemetery,
6. Tree mitigation fees will be required,
7. Clarify whether north board-on-board fence will be 6 or 8 feet tall
8. Sideyards on 60 foot-wide lots shall be 7.5 feet, those on 50 foot
lots shall be 5 feet. Front yard setbacks on 60 foot-wide Lots 3-11
Block A shall be 25 feet, rear yards no less than 20 feet on Lots 1-
11,16-18, Block A,
9. stucco shall not be allowed beyond the 20%/80% standard: an
SUP shall be required In excess of these development standards,
10. Density shall not exceed 3 units per acre (49 lots),
11. No parking will be allowed where shown on plan,
12. Add "Lots 27, 28, Block A" behind Conceptual Planned
Development "Commercial" title.
13. Dimension length of entry median.
14. Change title of PO to Thweat Place.
15. Change Bullock Place to Thweat Place, assign another street
name to Bullock.
16. Properly dimension width of Lots 6-12, Block A, Wynnpage
Addition.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1. Need dimensions on all common areas.
2. Indicate where 20 Carissa Holly are planted on mec;lian plan,
3. Note: Moss boulders, bowls with planters, and cedar arbor have
been eliminated In median by this revised plan. In their place Is a
chess board and attendant landscaping,
4. Change "landscaping" to "common areas" In description of
property owners maintenance responsibility on Sheet 2.
ITEM #4
Page 7 of 7
-
~
~
~
~
,
"'''"'_''" "'Ii I.
:c t''''''''' tt ~
ihIH,lII!Wi ~ .~ t
Il!~if rill i" ~ ;,
j - 1 - II ~,
i
~.~-~.
\
!ii~!!!ii ~~; ~
u!l !iI, -I
i~i; l~i'll
!il~ ;!: 31~
idi ii!~ id
!" i~~~ Ug
S!. li~' i"
- '-I sl
<O!
~
&
< It~-
~l.
~!i
?~>
PI' 5 9,
~1!l 8 ~ ~ Ii Uwui. ";"' l". .."
J>I I!: 5 ~~~ 'i !llhllil!!!t!lhl!l!llillUi
g;l~ ~~~ iiI ~ ~8 i il ~~HflHlflll!~~ i!H!a~iriiii
" I 0-'"" ~ R ' I' ,/'"-,, ' ;.Il 1'1' h. "'I
'!ii!;~i ~: r > ~i ! I! j,lillUij1ilU lili!!!! I'!I
l!l~ ~I: ~ 8~ ~ ! H ,'!lbml!!!!!! h'Ul!lllt
;;lnz ,,3::- I t~ ira""l'litf:! I~ I Jl' ~ (1
ai~ )> 3:: ~ ~ If if noJjail!!;iJlu ij 1111' I i~
. g_ 3:: li l{ I,lir~itn ii l ~~ i U
~ ~~~ llf' nUiiftUfj!H iH
':: L ,I ~ ill; lIlt! 11 i If ! ,U
iqi q.dl" H n! HI
. I ~.t "~
., l il
~'~il'
~H~~
_& i~
.~.~~
~~~.~
. :riJ;;
~~~~
~<.
~ ~".~-
~u~~
H~I
i;
~
~
I
.
r\08~1 , -08~2!\0!528 a.l~.1 Se~ool\lOT ANNO ~EV 02~09_d"g, 3/~/2009 ._~ LOSS ~"', POF995.od
- ------
H
~
~
;:
u;
-
-------
------
----
~
"
'"
"
'"
"
"
"
'"
"
'"
~
"
o
Pllontll'uMelr0817.379.4011
MorJj!817-903-'ml
RED HAWK
LOTS 1.28, BLOCK A & LOTS 1-28, BLOCK B
BEING A 1U207 ACRE TRACT IN THE
EDWARO A. CROW SURVEY. ....BSTAACT NO. 301
COPPELL DALLAS COUNTY. TEXAS
n N
~~i ~ OI
~~~~a ~~ ~?~
~~~;:;lAl::;:07 -'.
;1;5~~2 2~
~~~ ~ ~
~r~ ~ rlf)
"J::A"? LAND~g~~.c-~.c_I:!LTEC.TS
1205 V"lIcynillgc 01.. KcllcrTX. 7G2~6
I
~ l. r i
i I -- ... i
"
~
,
~z I
..~ vnliUt~,~ ;!il~i~~ljl!;il~I~II~!lilii~ll~ I
.~"
;!~.. s!IFIJ~~ ~ I:~~
~~
r Iii ..HmrF;t ~~ ~I~~~~ !~$I~~g E~~~~~I I Z
~! "~~i~il~J~ ~II~
O' Ui ~ ~1;Uim!il ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~.
~~
;~ i:~lh!nIIIU ~ ~;::i ~ ~ ~ ~
'0 ~ " ~
U ::;: '" ~ ;;.: ;:::;
~i ~~~ i5lh~ ~~ .1
~~ =I~ u IIi ~;~ ,-_' d .. "': "':"... '1 ""
H~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .
~ JIm ~ I~I ~ ~ HH ~
F .~ ~... . ~~~~~ ~
~ ~ . ~lli; ~ i ~ ~()~ () ~ g g d >
~ () "" ('l ~ ('l ('l n
~ ~ i i~! !
~
.
':<:J17 LAN~C~P~.~!:l(~.TEC-r:s
lZOSV,,1Jcy nitlyc 01., KCIIC:rx.1b~e-
PhotIeIFax Mello 811.J79-401 I Moona!7.90J.JJ31
I
:' ,I
l RED HAWK
,.' ., LOTS 1-28, BLOCK A & LOTS 1-28, BLOC, K B
\ BEING'" 16.-4201 ACRE TRACT IN THE
EDWARO A. CROO SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO 301
COPPElL. DAl..L.AS COUNTY. TEXAS
n ~
~~~ ~ 8I
~~@ ~ ~O ~'.""
1-2 r"1 rr1r.:,~,
[ll~- iji AJ~
~o~ 2 ()
.,,~~ ~ ;;:;fT1
~. ~ ~ rUJ.
'''--,\;\>A:.
.,~ ..,~
, n'
'-D
~l
~~
(0
~,.t
F
III
..~
.
\ft
h;
j
;f
!
I
.I
/
"
,
f
, .r
/,w
~
t" ~,'
\ .
;
~ ,i
r
q
"
.~ "\
"~l:'rmr~.
-~~
- \ .-.
~.
.
- ( -......
~.. '\
, ,
l
r
f ~
~\O~~11-O~~2B\08~2! 8ttt
,~I Sc~ool\SVF!vFY\fRFF SURvn.~
'"9. 3/9/20C9 4'46'.~2 PM, (k~ lOS400 DCJ
)>l
Sll~
V ~ I
!i~ ~~ ~
. 8 ~Q N
in> oi:110 'l! ~,
'''~I~~~~~~ ~ ~
~id ~~)> g ~ - i
"i .~ ~ ~ rTl ~ ~ ~
i~ o~ ~ !;i .~.
5 ~~ (") -< .
I~ . --l
~ lr~ ~ ~..
~~
.
\
J
~.
Q';\';
f,'''\
<:~~:
~"!'''"'''1i I"
am~lll!!J!! 13 : ~ t
'i~!f'fm'i!i ~ ;.
, . . 'r ~.
! . .
! .
. ..----
~
CJ
rr1
Z
-l
o
Z
-l
)>
""0
;0
o ' ~
)> I '
CJ fO.<'l
r
I i
\ d I
O'
~ ~g ~ z ~~~~~~~
I/) Oz ~
nt ~-l I I i'l :;l :;l
o )(fR ~ ~~S0~~~
~ ~i i ~n~limi ! ffi III
l~ ~
~ ~5 ~ ~ .. ~~f I~~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~l~ ~I i ~ ~
!! 5::: ~ ? " ~ ~ i ~
.,~ ~ I ~ m ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ " ~
" i ~
tj ~
1> ~ is ~ ~ ~ & i i I
~ i ~ v. V. " v. v.
i ~ ~ ~ ~ i !
.
~\08~II-06~28\U8~28 B.t~.i SCMol\SUI'NN\T"Et SU'lV[y,d"g. J/g/WOg ~~I_V PI,l. Oce TOS.OO,pd
te
~
)>l
m~ ~
~fi~ j~ ~
s ~ ~ .j>.
· 8 g ~
ijl~ "iill-.J:il~
.' MI ~~0)>J:l~
~i~ 8~~~~~
f11 !lili;ll: IV
~, .~~ il
f 6~ )>
t ~z (")
!il p ~
';;1 ~
~ Ir@
> ~C') '!I
t! 5g ):
Iii ;;I:!i z
~ ><Ai ~
~ ~~ s
~ i"l!l il!
'" ~s ~
!:l m;J l ~
~ ~R1 ~ 5
~~.. I
~
~~ ~~q~
~ " ~!l'""
~'i ~~~~~
.~ ~~j~"
l~ ~~~~~
~ ,doo
~ .. -; ~ ~
~ rn ~
~ ~
~
is
~
i
..
~ f;-
~ 5.
~ 1
! I
~ i
~
~
~
m
~
nI
n
~
~
~
m
..
~
>
~
o
z
o
~
I
i
~
I
- "
N
~
I
I ~ -,
,~ f}>
I 'QI~~
L-\"I... r"
g~'-
""N
\ ~""
;:
~
~~
E -
cf:
~
f
~~
-~
~1l
I~
<
~
P
4\
~
.
~
r--n
u
::::x
~
~
<
I I
1 I
1
~
(./J
I
~
o
-"11
c:::>
o
~
l ~'}
o
~
t..A
-
-"
r-n
:::=0
t..A
-"
r-n
('l
~
-
-=:::
r-n
.
"
\
~
r--n
U
::::J:
~
--~
!-~
-<
t 1
l 1
1
~
t./'
.
L./I
o
-"
o
o
~
r-
o
~
t..A
-
-"
r--rs
:::=u
t..A . !
-" f
r--rs
~
--I
-
<
r--rs
)
"
t
,
./' ,;~~.~
, l~'
I
\