Lake Park-CS 870629' June 2~ '987
PARKWOOD ON THE LAKE PAGE 1
DRC COMMENTS '
I. FLOODING
SM-COMPARE TO FLOOD STUDY.
REQUIRE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEER PERMIT
FEMA APPROVAL REQUIRED
SHOW PAD FOR FINISH FLOOR 2' ABOVE FLOOD ELEVATION
SD-DELINEATE FLOODPLAIN & FLOODWAY, EXISTING & PROPOSED
GF-FLOOD PRONE AREAS TO BE DEPICTED ON DRAWINGS
Responses:
Roberts-Dowdey-General explanti on
Detail information to be provided with plat request
II. OWNERS ASSOCIATION; LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
SM-NEED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
GF-NO HOMEOWNER'S ASSN. DOCUMENT PROVIDED
Responses:
Is this required with PD concept plan? Sub'd ord. requires Assn.
The legal form of the Assn. should be required with platting.
Regarding maintenance of the proposed lake-During the
zoning/platting process on this development, the developer will seek a
commitment from the City of Coppell to accept the lake area as an
extension of the city park system, should this opportunity be offered to
the city by the owners of the Parks of Coppell.
II I. USE COMPATIBILITY/APPROPRIATE ZONING
SM-NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
GF-EXISTING ZONING IS SF-7; NOT SF-O
Responses:
Existing zoning adjacent to Parkwood sub'd is SF-O. Actually
Parkwood is built in SF-O. Only northern part of property is SF-7
'~'hich is adjacent to industrial and retail across the creek.
June 29, 1907
PARK¥/OOD ON THE LAKE PAGE 2
DR£ £OMMENTS
IV. STREET/ALLEY VARIANCES
SM-NO TO 30' OR 35' R.O.W.'S ALLEYS NOT SHOWN
MOORE RD. LOCATION NOT SHOWN
SD-ALLEYS REQUIRED PER SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TB-ALLEYS REQUIRED PER SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE-APPEN. A, 10
IS 30' THE WIDTH OF R.O.W. OR PAVEMENT
GF-ALLEYS REQUIRED PER SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
STREETS TO CONFORM TO GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS
DO NOT RECOMMEND PRIVATE STREETS TO BE ACCEPTED
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOWS MOORE RD.
IF STREETS TO BE DEDICATED, RECOMMEND 50' R.O.W.
Responses:
Roberts-Dowdey-On functional aspects
This landplan is designed to maximize the utilization of the backyard
in a medium density environment. The use of more narrow rights of way,
and the placement of utilities in easements in the front yards, allows
more efficient land use while still providing to the city the same
functional 50' wide area (30'paving plus two !0' easements) as in normal
~,.u.~.~. The helps the builder to construct housing which is affordable to
young growing families, and which provides a truly adequate and useable
back yard for children's play and family recreation. It is our belief this lot
arrangement is much better suited to the needs of families than the side
~ard oriented "patio home."
Although small in total area, the proposed lots lots provide a
backyard as large as is sometimes available with larger standard single
family lots with rear entry garages. Typical rear yards in the proposed PD
are 20'x50"or 1,000 sq. ft. A typical $F-9 rear entry lot can have a
47'x20' rear yard or 940 sq. ft. A typical SF-7 rear entry lot can have a
37'x20' rear yard or 740 sq. ft. Although the patio lot can provide a
reasonable amount of yard for a small lot, most of it is usually 10' wide
and therefore quite limited in function.
The proposed homes will be primarily 1 1/2 or 2 stories with a
typical footprint of 40'x40'. Minimum size will be 1,200 sq. ft. as in the
standard SF-O district. Average size will be around 1,600 sq. ft. The
homes are specifically designed to the proposed lots for the express
purpose of utilizing tt~e rear yards. They are not "patio" designs and
feature windows on bou'l sloe elp_.vations.
The streets proposed are 29' of paving in the 30' R.O.W.'s and 34' of
pav!ng in the 35' R.O.W.'s. Thus the street widths meet or exceed the city
June 29, 1987
PARKWOOD ON THE LAKE PAGE 3
DRC COMMENTS
requirements for a residential subdivision and the proposed paving
sections, with the 10' utility easement on either side, will have the same
appearance and functional purpose as the standard 50' R.O.W. The oversize
34' streets will more easily accommodate onstreet parking, although the
developer is not aware of any evidence that onstreet parking is more
prevalent in front entry vs. rear entry subdivisions. On the contrary, our
experience indicates less onstreet parking in front entry subdivisions. In
addiction, guest parking locations scattered through the subdivision will
assist in this regard.
Another principle used in the landplan is to attempt to divide the
r~eighborhood into a series of interconnected but separate "clusters" of
hsmes around U shaped street patterns or cul-de-sacs. We believe this
· ?.~.'~il enhance the subdivision because it avoids the appearance of long,
:.minterrupted blocks and creates a community "feel" within each cluster.
in order to accomplish this environment, we request support for variances
from some of the normal radius requirements for streets.
This plan was also developed to try to maximize the development's
exposure to the proposed 25 acre lake to the west and to benefit from ti~at
~menity, ultimately as a public park to benefit the entire community. As a
~_,~rt of th~ subdivision development, the lake excavation will be completed
arid the lake area adjacent to the subdivision will be irrigated and mL~iched
'.~'ith a perennial grass. In addition, an aerator fountain will in installed in
the lake and a 5' sidewalk will be built along the lake edge in the indicated
greenbelt adjacent to the development. Oversized access streets, a large
amount of single loaded street and guest parking was devoted to making
the lake an enjoyable and useful amenity. We hope this effort to provide a
recreational area for this development, as well as the community at large,
· ?~:~il merit some additional consideration of the efforts to make the res~
of the plan as efficient as is practical.
Moore Road- The proposed lake is substantially in place at this time.
The amount of fill necessary to ever reclaim that area is economically
unrealistic. Therefore the decision of the Parks of Coppell to create a l~ke
at that location makes the extension of Moore Rd. virtually impossible. We
'.:Youl~-I suggest the intended purpose of Moore Rd. extension can be
accomplished as well by routing traffic down Parkway Blvd. to Samue!ls,
and then north to Mac Arthur.
,~ ,-u~ 1987
~.i~e ~_,
PARKWOOD ON THE LAKE PAGE 4
DR[: [:OMMENTS
V. LOT CONFIGURATION
SD-FRONT YD. SHOULD BE 20', NOT 15'
GF-DEVEL. STANDARDS SAY FRONT YD. TO BE 20', PLAN SHOWS 15'
ZONING ORDINANCE-NO PARKING IN FRONT YD.; DEV. STAN.
SAYS NO REQUIRED ENCLOSED PARKING IN FRONT YARD
ZONING ORD. SAYS 4000 MINIMUM SIZE LOT; DEV. STAN. SAYS 3500
TB-FENCES NOT ALLOWED IN FRONT YARD-RE: DEV. STAN. I(A)
CLARIFY REAR BUILDING LINE
DISCOURAGE USE OF LAYDOWN CURB
Responses:
As required in the standard SF-O district, front yards will be 20' for
the portion of a structure accomodating of f street parking. Otherwise, the
front setback would be 15' as in standard SF-O.
Parking-The standard SF-O district requires enclosed off street
parking to be behind the front building line. The PD intent is the same.
Lot size-Request for 3,500 sq. ft. minimum and 15' rear yard is only
to allow for some leeway for atypical lots, such as on cul-de-sacs.
Typical interior lot is 50'x80' and many are larger. Could provide that no
more than 5% of the lots could be less than 4,000 sq. ft. or 20' rear yd.
Front yard fences was copied from SF-O ordinance. We can delete.
Laydown curbs are used extensively in very high priced mid-density
developments, and are much more practical in front entry subdivisions
because they avoid the problem of the builder having to break out curbs for
driveway entrances after subdivision completion. Why are they
discouraged?
VI. UTILITIES/EASEMENTS
SM-NEED UTILITY LAYOUT/ (?) LINES
TPL-WILL REOUIRE EASEMENTS. WILL DESIGN WHEN PLAT SUBMITTED
'-.BELL-PARAGON CABLE TO FOLLOW TPL EASEMENTS
J.DAVIS-GTE NEEDS 5' ON THE REAR OF LOT OR ADD 5' MORE ON
THE EASEMENT IN FRONT OF LOT
Responses:
Roberts-Dowdey to provide with PD development plan.
We will provide an easement on the rear of the lot for GTE
June 29, 1987
PARKWOOD ON THE LAKE PAGE 5
DRC COMMENTS
VI I. FIRESTATION
SG-SUGGESTS ON COMMERCIAL TRACT
Responses:
Are willing to consider. What is budget for land acquisition, timing
of proposed construction, architectural styling?
VIII. FEES
GF LIST-
FINAL PLAT-S3920- Explain how computed
UT IL. AVAIL.-$75,240($440/L)-Developer responsible to pay $220/L
PARK-$25,659($150/L)-Developer responsible to pay $75/L
ST. ASSESSMENT,MCART.($115,000)-L&N to build
UTILITY INSPECTION($12,825)-Explain. Should be included under
Construction Permit Fee which was to cover cost of inspection.
VII. MACARTHUR
GF-HAS R.O.W. BEEN DEDICATED OR PLATTED. HAS ALIGNMENT BEEN
APPROVED
Responses:
ROW. has not been dedicated or platted. Suggest you discuss this
with Mr. Ratliff or Mr. Trando. Alignment is shown as provided to Parks of
Coppell by Ginn & Co. Supposed to be necessary alignment to co-ordinate
with L&N plan to the north. It is our understanding that the City of Coppell
has a contract with L&N whereby L&N is to build and pay for all of the cost
of MacArthur from its present termination point at Deforest Rd.
VIII. INFORMATION NEEDED ON PLAN
GF-SHOW SURVEY, ABSTRACT, NAME AND ADDRESS OF
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR. SHOW TRACT DIMENSIONS. INDICATE
GENERAL TOPO
Responses:
Roberts-Dowdey to provide