Cambridge Phase 1-CS 940217 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE//: PD-131 (A to P.D. SF-12), The Estates of
Cambridge Manor
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 17, 1994
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 8, 1994
LOCATION: North side of Deforest Road, 1600 feet east of MacArthur Blvd.
SIZE OF AREA: 33.713 acres for 56 single family lots
CURRENT ZONING: (A) Agriculture
REQUEST: Change from (A) Agriculture to PD SF-12
APPLICANT: Beamer Development, Inc. Dowdey, Anderson, Engrs.
(Owner) (Engineer)
Jack Bommarito, Manager Bill Anderson
P.O.Box 2312 16250 Dallas Parkway
Coppell, Tx. 75019 Dallas, Tx. 75248
908-1068 931-0694
HISTORY: Approximately six months ago, this applicant submitted a straight
zoning request on the property, had only roadway access to
Deforest, and was asked to reconsider his zoning, the frontage on
Deforest, and insure maintenance of the floodplain area. At the
January Commission meeting, this zoning request was denied
because of concern that the potential additional development on
the east side of this property (which was represented at the
January public hearing as property under contract) was not
included in the zoning request. In January, the acreage was
23.92, with 46 lots proposed. The applicant has included the
eastern land area in this proposal, and we now look at 33.7
acres with 56 lots proposed.
Item 6
TRANSPORTATION:
Deforest Road is to remain a local street in the thoroughfare plan
requiring 50 feet of right-of-way and 27 feet of paving.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - vacant; LI zoning
South - existing single-family; SF-0
East - existing scattered single-family, farming; A
West - existing scattered single-family; A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Plan shows this area to be utilized for low density single-
family uses.
ANALYSIS:
This is a request staff supports with three general concerns; the
maintenance of the open space/treatment of the floodplain area,
MUD impacts, and the total elimination of alleys, even where no
environmentally sensitive adjacencies occur. The request fits well
into the ultimate development plan for all of Deforest Road, and
proposes a density (SF-12) which is not often seen in the city.
Maintenance of open space will be handled by a homeowner's
association, and the developer of the property has submitted a
letter to further explain how the common areas will be maintained
on an on-going basis. Staff has no objection to this clarification
letter, but would only point out that we do not want to get into the
business of "policing" these HOA's obligations.
The issue of providing a common open space easement adjacent to
the creek--so that enhancement of the city's open space plan can
be more readily accomplished--is a bit more complicated. As we
write this recommendation, we understand that the developer is
willing to grant said easement, and will provide information
deemed appropriate at the public hearing. At the January
hearing the developer clarified his position regarding this issue,
and staff was supportive of his position.
Another concern of staff was how this property could be
developed, and not prejudice or leave out some of the abutting
property for future construction. Because of the way this parcel
is planned and platted, future development can occur both east and
west of the subject tract through the extension of the proposed
street pattern.
The MUD Board will hear a summary report on Monday
afternoon, December 13, regarding the capacity of the MUD to
service this area with sanitary sewer. Again, we will be prepared
to brief Commission and Council relative to MUD service after
that 13th meeting. Subsequent to the MUD's review, we
received a letter dated January 27, 1994 stating the MUD's
position that any development outside the MUD (this is one of
them) cannot discharge sewage into the District's sewer system
without District approval. This project does not have District
approval, and this is an issue the developer must resolve.
The developer has provided additional landscaping information,
presents a much better reason for the elimination of at least
some of the alleys (although justification for total elimination
is still questionable), shows how the land under contract fits
into the overall development plan and includes that land in this
request, and has generally provided much more detail which
better fits our planned development standards.
Assuming that the concerns addressed above are adequately
addressed prior to the Commission
public hearing, a street name is changed, and the concerns of
Engineering are addressed (see plat notes), staff would
recommend approval of this PD.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the PD
2) Deny the PD
3) Modify the PD
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Planned Development Plan
2) Entry Concept
3) Landscape Plan
.stf