Eastbury Manor-CS 980521CASE NO.:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-167, EA qTBURY MANOR
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
May 21, 1998
June 9, 1998
LOCATION:
Northeast corner of Lodge and Sandy Lake Roads.
SIZE OF AREA:
Approximately 7 acres; 25 residential lots.
CURRENT ZONING:
SF-12 (Single Family-12)
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
PD-SF-7 (Planned Developmem, Single Family-7)
Developer:
Grand Homes
11300 N. Central,
Dallas, TX 75243
(214) 750-6528
Planner/Engineer:
Macatee Engineering, Inc.
440 N. Central Expwy.,//414
Dallas, TX 75206
(214) 373-1180
HISTORY:
No zoning hiswry. [The zoning case was held under advisement
at the March 19th Planning and Zoning Commi.s~ion Meeting]
TRANSPORTATION:
Sandy Lake Road is a two-lane asphalt road within a variable-
width fight-of-way, shown on the thoroughfare plan as a C4D
four-lane divided collector street to be built within a ll0'-wide
right-of-way. Lodge Road is an undivided collector built to
standard, but within a substandard right-of-way width of 50'' (60'
is standard).
Item//8
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-
South -
East-
West -
Pecan Valley residential subdivision; "PD-113-SF-9' Planned
Development, Single Family-9
Highland Meadows and Stringfellow Addition residential
subdivisions; "PD-99-SF-7" and "SF-12' Planned Development,
Single Family-7 and Single Family-12;
Rejoice Lutheran Church; "SF-12-S.U.P.' Single Family-12,
Special Use Permit
Residential Lot and Pecan Ridge Estates; "SF-12' Single Family-
12 and "PD-113, SF-9' Planned Development, Single Family-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property suitable for
low density residential use.
DISCUSSION:
[Note: The subsequent discussion was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission on March 19, 1998. The bolded text pertains to the
information that will be presented at the May 21st meeting .]
Initially, the density of this proposed residential subdivision was a concern to
staff. The Comprehensive Master Plan suggests the area be developed with
single family homes ranging in density from 1 to 3 dwelling units/acre. The
proposed subdivision has a density of 4.07, typically considered a medium
density single family residential community. When comparing this proposal
with the adjacent Pecan Valley and Pecan Ridge subdivisions, the average lot
size for Pecan Valley subdivision is approximately 10,000 square feet, while
in Pecan Ridge the average lot size is about 12,000 square feet. In this
particular subdivision, the average lot size is 8,474 square feet comparable to
Pecan Valley. The developer is proposing 9,000 square feet lots adjacent to
Pecan Valley and 8,000 square feet lots against the eastern property line.
The interior lots and the ones adjacent to Sandy Lake Road are all
approximately 7,000 square feet, with the exception of 3 interior lots that are
less. From staff perspective, the developer is proposing a site plan sensitive
to the density issue, placing the larger lots along the perimeters and smaller
lots in the interior of the subdivision.
The conditions requested with this planned division include: 1) alley deletion
for Lots 1-11, Block 1; 2) decrease the street centerline offset from 125 feet
to 66 feet; and 3) allow for 10 Planned Development lots. Staff takes
exception with the last condition, because the number of PD lots exceed the
35 % deviation allowed in a planned development district. In reviewing the
site plan, staff counts only 3 true PD lots (Lots 24, Block 2), the rest of the
marked PD lots all meet the minimum SF-7 standards with the exception of
the 20 foot front yard setback and 5 foot side yard setback requirements.
Staff suggests converting LOts 1 and 10, Block 2 into SF-7 lots. The
Item # 8
reduction of PD lots would bring this PD proposal in compliance with city
regulations. With regards to the alley deletion and reduction in the street
centerline offset distance, staff supports both requests.
At staff suggestion, the applicant is providing a screening wall along Lodge
Road. The screening wall along Lodge Road will be similar to the screening
wall at Pecan Valley and Pecan Ridge, a combination of 6-foot high
decorative metal with brick masonry columns every 28 feet. However, the
metal portions of the screening walls of Pecan Valley and Pecan Ridge are
landscaped with shrubs. Staff would like the same landscaping treatment to
be continued in this subdivision. The screening wall proposed along Sandy
Lake Road, is required by ordinance and will be a 6-foot high solid brick
masonry wall landscaped with trees and shrubs.
[The subsequent information will be presented at the May 21st meeting]
Grand Homes has taken the assi?ment of the Ryland Contract for this
property. Also, Macatee Engineering has taken over the engineering
responsibilities of the project from Goodwin and Marshall. The
neighboring homeowners have met with the new developer and had an
opportunity to voice their concerns.
The new plan shows a reduction in the total nnmber of lots from 27 to 25
lots, reducing the overall net density from 4.07 dwelling units per acre to
3.77 du. The average lot size has increased from 8,474 sf to 8,760 sf. A
lot has been eliminated from the block adjacent to Pecan Valley, allowing
for the creation of larger lots (10,000 sf and larger) to better match the
size of lots to the north. A second lot was also eliminated from Block 2,
the interior block where all the Planned Development lots are located,
thus considerably increasing the PD lot sizes. All lots in the subdivision
are now greater than 7,000 s.f.
The location of the northern alley has shifted eastward. The alley is now
shown between Lots 13 and 12 of Block 1, instead of having it between
Lots 14 and 15 of Block 1. The reason for the reorientation of the alley
was to minimize the car headlights shining into neighboring residents'
backyards. The new location will greatly mitigate that problem.
The conditions requested with this planned development include: 1) alley
deletion for Lots 1-11, Block 1; 2) decrease the street centerline offset
from 125 feet to 66 feet; and 3) allow for 7 Planned Development lots.
As you may recall with the previous submittal, staff took exception with
the third condition because the total number of PD lots exceeded the
maximnm 35% of property allowed to deviate from SF-7 standards. This
submittal is showing only 28% of property deviating from SF-7
Item # 8
standards. Therefore, staff is comfortable recommending the approval
of all three requests.
The landscape/screening wall plan shows along Lodge Road a 6 foot high
wrought iron/decorative metal fence with brick/stone column every 28
feet interspersed with sections of 6 foot high stone walls similar to the
existing fence treatment along both sides of Lodge. This plan fails to
show the exact location and quantities of the proposed photiuias being
proposed against the wrought iron/decorative metal fence which is
essential to provide the visual continuity along Lodge. However, staff
requests that the photinias be substituted with the Neme R. Stevens holly.
The photinia is no longer an approved plant material in the City's Plant
Palette. During the development review process, the applicant reassured
staff that it was his intention to pattern his screenwall on Lodge with the
existing wall by Pecan Valley and Pecan Ridge subdivisions.
The applicant, also is showing a 7 foot high stone entrance wall wrapped
around the corner of Lodge and Sandy Lake Roads with a cast-stone
attached subdivision sign. Another cast-stone attached subdivision sign is
shown on the 36 inch high signwall at the southwest corner of LOt 1,
Block 2. The zoning ordinance allows the placement of subdivision signs,
either monument or attached signs, only at the entry of the subdivision.
Staff suggests applicant relocate the attached sign on the stone entrance
wall at the corner of Lodge and Sandy Lake Roads to the northern entry
into the subdivision or include the location of the sign as an additional
condition of the PD.
Along Sandy Lake Road the applicant is showing a solid 6'3" high brick
thinwall fence with a thinwall column every 10 feet maximum and every
third column being a capped 7'3" high column with a stone base.
Adjacent to the screenwall is a 15 foot wide landscaped area to be
maintained by the Homeowers Association.
The submitted tree survey reveals that the tree groupings are located in
the northwest quadrant of the subdivision, along the eastern and
southern property lines. A mixture of Post Oak and Pecan trees, as well
as a grouping of Hackberry trees will be eliminated when the residential
street of Eastbury Circle is installed. Staff recommends preserving as
many of the existing trees located in the 15' Landscape Easement and
Common Area, as well as the Live Oak, Post Oak, Cedar Elm, and
Pecan trees located in the front, side and rear yards of Lots 1-16, Block 1
and Lots 5-9, Block 2.
Item # 8
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends approval of the zoning change request subject to the following conditions
being met:
1)
City Council authorizing the following variances to the Subdivision Ordinance:
a) Alley deletion for Lots 1-11, Block 1.
b) Reduction in the street centerline offset requirement from 125 feet to 66 feet.
c) Allow for 7 PD lots.
Relocate attached subdivision sign on the 7 foot high stone wall wrapped around
Lodge and Sandy Lake Roads to the northern entry into the subdivision or include
the location of the sign as a condition of this particular PD request.
3)
Modify the Landscape Plan to reflect the following conditions:
a) Substitute the proposed photinias to be planted in front of the wrought
iron/decorative metal portions of the fence along Lodge Road with
Nellie R. Stevens holly. Also, dearly specify on the plan quantifies
and location of the shrubbery along Lodge Road.
b)
Correct the height of screening wall along Sandy Lake Road on the
Partial Screening Wall-Wrought Iron Fence Elevation caption to 6'3".
c)
List type, quantifies and size of all plant material in the common areas
on the landscape plan.
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) PD-Detail Site Plan (Revised)
2) Conceptual Landscape/Screening Plan (Revised)
3) Tree Survey (Revised)
4) Grand Homes Letter (New Item)
Item # 8
May l2, 1998
Ms. Isabelle Moro
City of Coppell
Planning and Zoning Coordinator
Post Office Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Eastbury Manor
Via Hand Delivered
Dear Isabelle:
Enclosed please find revised plans for Eastbury Manor. Upon meeting with the Pecan Valley
Homeowners Group, we have listened to their concerns and modified our plans. You will please
notc that we have reconfigured thc location of thc alley connection from its proposed connection
directly behind Lot 31 w be more closely aligned with the alley connection heading north. The
alley is now eon_figured to adjoin the existing alley in a location that will not adversely impact the
neighbors to the north, nor require the removal of the two (:2) large pecan trees. We were
successful in designing a City Standard Right-of-Way to intersect the alley, yet we plan to save
both large pecan trees and keep them outside of the Right-of-Way.
In reconfigurmg the alley, we eliminated one of the lots adjacent to Pecan Valley. This has allowed
us oversize all of the lots adjacent to Pecan Valley to significantly over 9,000 square feet.
We reduced the number of PD lots from ten (10) to seven (7). We eliminated a lot on the interior
block and converted two (2) other lots from PD to SF-7.
Upon meeting with the engineering department, we have determined that we can make slight shifts
of the paving within the right-of-way in order to save many of the large pecan trees on the site.
Additionally, I have located the contractor who built the existing walls along Pecan Ridge and
Pecan Valley and we will commit to matching the existing walls, landscaping and screening
treatment along Lodge Road.
In addressing these concerns, I request that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
grant approval our project to allow us to build a quality community that the staff, leadership and
citizens of Coppell will be proud of.
'~ ~xiw;ard ~ Tooic III -
Executive Vice President
EDT/smo
Enclosure
cc: Stephen H. Brooks
f~docume~t~d~elop,moro
11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75243-670.q (214) 750-(~28 Fax: (214) 750-6849 -