Bethel Rd Est 2-CS 991118CASE NO.:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-176R, McMILLAN ESTATES
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
November 18, 1999 (continued until January 20, 2000)
December 14, 1999 (February 8, 2000)
LOCATION:
Along the north side of Bethel Road, approximately 120' east of
Hearthstone Lane
SIZE OF AREA:
1.49 acres of property for the construction of one single-family
residence
CURRENT ZONING:
PD-SF-9 (Planned Development, Single Family-9)
REQUEST:
PD amendment to allow the construction of a 54-inch storm drain
across the property.
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Applicant:
Terry Holmes, Holmes Builders
1406 Halsey Way, Suite 100
Carrollton, TX. 75007
(972) 2~2-1770
Fax: (972) 242-2931
This property was rezoned from SF-9 and Commercial to a
.$esidential PD to accommodate one single-family home on this
1.49 acre parcel in March of 1999. On November 18, 1999, the
Planning Commission continued this case unffi January 20,
2000, at the request of the .applicant. The case was continued
with the public hearing left open because several issues raised
during that hearing had not been addressed.
Item # 4
TRANSPORTATION:
Bethel Road is projected to be a two lane, undivided street in from
of this property, contained within a 50 foot right of way
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- Hunterwood Park; SF-9
South -vacant; PD-LI and "R', Retail
East - single-family house; "R', Retail
West -developing single family housing; SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
residential low density uses with, if appropriate, an historic
overlay.
DISCUSSION:
This is a request to extend a 54-inch storm drain across the width of the
subject property, a distance of approximately 150 feet. When heard in
March, this zoning was changed to a Planned Development for one single-
family residence. The PD was requested because of a desire to construct
the residence without an alley at the rear of the parcel, similar to the
housing being developed around it. A major concern to the abutting
community was the issue of tree preservation. That concern is still
relevant today, especially in that additional cut and fill is being proposed to
accommodate the extension of this 54-inch storm drain. To extend the
pipe will require extensive cut, fill, and grading around many old trees,
and their preservation, based upon the grading plan submitted, is seriously
questioned. The most recent plan shows 158 caliper inches of trees will
be removed with construction of the storm drain and swimming pool
facility (assnming the flood plain can be modified to accommodate
these improvements). The landscape plan shows 158 inches of
replacement trees 6 inch caliper or better, and an additional 72 inches
of trees 3 inch caliper or better for a total of 220 inches of replacement
trees. Although tree mitigation appears to be addressed, staff cautions
the applicant that close monitoring of tree preservation will occur if
development proceeds (see Leisure Services memo attached). As
proposed in March, the use was certainly appropriate for the tract, and
although the applicant needed to address our landscaping guidelines, the
house being designed took into consideration the existing tree cover on the
site. In fact, while approximately 155 caliper inches of existing trees were
to be removed to accommodate a 6,000 square foot house, the site was so
heavily wooded (at least 822 caliper inches of remaining trees 6 inch
caliper or greater)-that attempting to replace the caliper inches of removed
trees elsewhere on the site (as outlined in the landscaping zoning
provisions) could damage the existing tree stock. Because the request was
Item # 4
a PD application, the plan approved by Commission and Council took that
circumstance into consideration.
Now however, the applicant has changed his plans and proposes to fill in
much more land than the original application suggested. It is staff opinion
that this additional grading and subsequent filling of the land will seriously
affect the health of the remaining tree stock and we can not support such a
drastic change to the existing landscape form. In addition, the applicant
does not clearly state how many caliper inches of additional trees will be
lost to this storm drain, and has been somewhat elusive in delineating how
tree mitigation will be accomplished. The revised plan shows 14 trees
(with a total of 184 caliper inches) will be removed with construction of
the swimming pool and storm drain. The landscape plan shows 230
caliper inches of tree replacement. In addition, the head wall of the
storm drain will be as indicated in a photograph to be shown at the
public hearing, as well as a photo of the bag walls proposed to contain
the reclaimed floodplain around the swimming pool.
Another point of concern expressed by staff initially and also with this
request relates to the pool and cabana area at the northwest comer of this
parcel. Without removal of the flood plain designation we do not see how
that portion of the site can be developed. If the floodplain can be
removed, a photo of the bag walls proposed to contain the swimming
pool has been included with this application, and staff will show the
photo at the public hearing. Utilities, construction vehicles, and actual
use of the area would require violating existing flood plain non-
encroachment requirements. Neighbors have expressed this same concern,
and without the floodplain and proposed tree preservation issue being
addressed to staff satisfaction, we can not endorse that part of the
proposal. The applicant has now addressed the tree preservation
concern. It is now the applicant's responsibility to procure flood plain
f'ffi permission. Without that f'fll permit, the pool and storm drain can
not be built. ~
A final point related to the cabana area, and the Fire Department's request
the applicant/property Owner be made aware that if the cabana area is
ultimately developed, because of its remoteness, fire/emergency response
could be delayed. During the original public hearings, the applicant
acknowledged that concern, and continues to do so.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends denial of this amendment to the PD. There are just too
many questions regarding grading, cut/fill and tree preservation issues that
have not been addressed. As mentioned in the original zoning case, we -
Item//4
cannot endorse the cabana, patio, and pool proposal bemuse those
structures currently lie within the 100-year flood plain. If the flood plain
can be reclaimed, drainage issues are resolved to the satisfaction of our
Engineering Deparunent, and the remote access to the cabana area is
recognized by the applicant/owner, building of these facilities can be
revisited.
The issue that precipitates our denial is the proposed 54-inch storm
sewer extension. It is unlikely that extension can be completed without
additional damage to the existing tree cover, and until we have assurance
that tree stock shown as being preserved in the original zoning proposal
can be preserved/mitigated, we can not endorse this change. This case
should be denied until such time as the grading plan, the extension of the
storm sewer, the tree preservation plan, and all flood plain removal
criteria are met to the satisfaction of the City. Because so much
additional information is needed before we can make a rational
recommendation--there are just too many loose ends that need to be
addressed --this case must be denied.
Subsequent to this staff report, and after the Commission continued
the hearing until January 20, the applicant revised hln plans and has
addressed staff concerns (see bold written comments above). That
now being the ease, and with the understanding from the applicant
that no development within the designated flood plain can occur until
that issue has been resolved, staff can support this request
conditioned upon the attached staff comments regarding the flood
plain and tree mitigation issues.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend appro*al of the request
2) Recommend denial of the request
3) Modify the request
4) Take under advisement for additional information
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Site/Grading Plan
2) Tree Survey/Mitigation Plan
3) Landscape Plan
4) Departmental comments (Engineering and Leisure Services)
Item # 4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM:
PD-176R, McMillan Estates, a zoning change request for property zoned "PD-
175" Planned Development-175, Single Family-9, by amending the planned
development conditions to permit the extension of a 54" reinforced concrete
pipe eastward for an approximate distance of 155' and the installation of a
stone headwall on 1.49 acres property, located along the north side of Bethel
Road, approximately 120' east of Hearthstone Lane, at the request of Terry
Holmes.
DRC DATE: December 28, 1999 and January 6, 2000
CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (972-304-3679)
COMMENT STATUS:
.p..I2~ I3'Y i'II /YI~ I' A lP V
Energy dissipation and erosion control measures may be required to protect the erosive
creek banks.
No work can be performed within the lO0-year floodplain without an approved floodplain
development permit.
No development (including structures, fill and landscaping) will be allowed in the lO0-year
floodplain until a flood study is approved by the City.
JAM 1 4 213130
CITY ~COPPELL -~ ~2 304 ~2 ~'~ ~0.~ ~
~2/29/99
DEVELOPME~ REVIEW COMMI~E
LEISURE SERVICES COMMENTS
FFEM: McMillan Estates, Zoning Change
DRC DATE:
CONTACT:
December 28, 19~9 and January 6, 2000
Brad Reid, Park Planaing and Landscape Manager
COMMENT STATUS:
, III · II III
The Tree Survey shows a total o]:150° of protected trees being removed from the site.
Development is preserving 651" of trees, allowing a preservation credit of
Development is adding 158" of proposed trees allowing a landscaping credit of 50%,
fulfilling the tree mitigation requirements.
A number of the trees targeted for preservation may bt in areas of cut or fill. The
preservation techniques used on such trees will be closely monitored and additional
mitigation may be required if it is determined these trees have little chance of survival
after development.
Please provide an executed Tree Removal Permit prior to removing trees from the site.
VRCI228f
DEC ;~ 9 ]9~9