Carter Phase 2-CS000720 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: CARTER ADDITION, PHASE II, REPLAT OF
LOTS l&2
P & Z HEARING DATE: July 20, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: August 8, 2000
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Carter Drive and Moore Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 7.96 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: SF-12 (Single Family-12)
REQUEST: Replat approval of two lots in this 5 lot subdivision
APPLICANT: Mr. Brian Rathe Engineer: Needham/Wright
846 Mallard 10290 Monroe Dr.
Coppell, Texas 75019 Suite 101
(972) 393-9784 Dallas, Texas 75229
Fax: (214) 678-9669 (214) 357-2981
Fax: (214) 357-2985
HISTORY: There has been considerable platting history on this property with
subdividing and re-subdividing stretching over at least the last four
years on this 5 lot subdivision! The original Final Plat was
approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 1996.
That plat was not filed for record within the expiration date (May
21, 1997). Therefore, the original plat was deemed null and void
and re-platting was required. In April of 1998 a new final plat was
submitted which contained the same five lots, but in a different
configuration. After staff review, the plat was approved. In the
fall 1999 a re-plat was submitted with the same five lots, and it was
approved in October of 1999.
Item # 7
TRANSPORTATION: Moore Road is a C2U, two-lane undivided road built in a 60 foot
right-of-way. Carter Drive is a two lane local street contained
within a 50 foot right of way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single-family homes; SF-12
South - DART right-of-way; "A" Agricultural
East - single family homes; SF-12
West - vacant; SF- 12 and "A" Agricultural
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the propert)' as suitable for
low density residential uses. However, a portion of the
southern area is shown to be in the floodplain.
DISCUSSION:
As indicated in the History Section of this report, there have been several
iterations of proposed subdivision development on this parcel. In
hindsight, the first plat which showed five lots with each sharing the
floodplain designation was unquestionably the best solution for developing
this land from a planning perspective. Since that first approval, this
property has been gerrymandered to the point that with one submittal, one
lot will take all the floodplain; a second submittal will have a different lot
taking all the floodplain land. The most recent application not only
enlarges one lot substantially, but also takes width from the adjacent lot,
making that lot more difficult to develop. Looking at these plats from a
strictly platting perspective, these lots do not make good planning sense,
and it appears that this ever changing lot boundary is based upon the whim
of a potential lot buyer, not on good platting practice!
Very early in the initial review process--we're talking almost two years
ago--we were approached by the engineer and asked to expedite
processing this subdivision because a lot buyer was "ready to go". Staff
accommodated that request and the land set vacant. Last year we
supported enlarging lot//2 and reducing lot//5 at the expense of sound land
planning, again because someone was "ready to go". It still sat vacant.
Now we are again asked to compromise good subdivision design because
we have yet another buyer who is "ready to go". In this case lot//1 goes
from 63,000 square feet to 298,600 and lot//2 is reduced from 284,000
feet to 48,000. In addition, Lot//2 is reduced in width from 160 feet to
137 feet. This lot layout just does not make sense. Unfortunately, we
have already approved a plat which, in essence, did the same thing only
with a different lot. Therefore, although it is recognized that this replat
layout does not reflect good subdivision design, we have unfortunately set
Item//7
RECOMMFNDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
We have stated above our concern with the history of this subdivision and
the lack of good design principles being followed here. Unfortunately we
have already approv~ a plat that, in hind sight, probably should have
received major redesign. Because that plat was approved, we are compelled
to consider this replat in the context of what has already been approved.
That being the ease, we support this application provided TXU easements
are provided (see TXU comments attached), and the word Corporation is
spelled correctly on the plat.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Replat Document
2) TXU comments
Item # 7
Comments for the City of Coppell
Development Review Committee
June 28, 2000
Carter Estates Phase II, Replat of Lots 1 8,: 2
Replat Unacceptable
Easements for TXU Electric and Gas facilities will be required on plat. Please contact David
Dean at 972-323-8907 to discuss easement requirements.
Jeff Curry
JUN 2 9 2CC0 b~
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITFEE
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM: Carter Estates Phase II, Replat of Lots 1 and 2, to allow the development of two
single-family homes on approximatelyZ96 acres of property located at the
southwest corner of Carter Drive and Moore Road, at the request of Brian
Rathe.
DRC DA TE: June 29, 2000 and July 6, 2000
CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., ~lssistant City Engineer (972-304-3679)
COMMENT STATUS: PRELIMINARY ,,/FINAL REVISED
AFTER P&Z
No comments.