Peninsulas-CS 950216 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: MACARTHUR PARK ADDITION, FINAL PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 16, 1995
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 14, 1995
LOCATION: Located along the east and west side of MacArthur Boulevard,
approximately 2,000 feet north of Samuel Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: Tract 1:7.6 acres;
Tract 2:14.36 acres, for a total of 50 lots on 21.96 acres of land.
CURRENT PD-SF-9
ZONING:
REQUEST: Consideration and approval of a final plat and variances.
APPLICANT: Coppell Partners, Ltd. (Owner) Carter & Burgess (Engr.)
Perry Builders 7950 Elmbrook Dr.
P. O. Box 34306 Suite 250
Houston, Tx. 77234 Dallas, TX 75247-4951
(713) 947-1750 638-0145
HISTORY: When this parcel of land was annexed, it came into the City with
an Agricultural zoning classification until permanent zoning
comparable to that granted by the disannexing entity was
established, which was commercial zoning. In 1994 the zoning
was changed to PD-SF9, and a preliminary plat was approved at
the same time.
TRANSPORTATION: The two parcels are bounded by MacArthur Blvd., a six-lane
divided (P6D) thoroughfare within a 120' r.o.w, which tapers
down to a 110' r.o.w., and is built to construction standards.
Item 10
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Vacant; (LI) and (HC) zoning
South - Vacant (A); developed residential (PD-SF7)
East - Vacant; (A) zoning
West - Vacant; (HC) zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The area north of Denton Creek was not incorporated into
Coppell until 1989, after having been disannexed by the
City of Lewisville. Therefore, this area is not included in
the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS: This final plat reflects a reduction in the total number of lots
granted in the preliminary approval from 52 lots to 50. The street
pattern has changed slightly (actually resulting in less street
paving), and the applicant has agreed to provide the hike-bike trail
on the northern boundary of this plat. The proposal shows a
typical corner lot fencing layout. It also shows preservation of the
vast majority of trees on site, and an arborist was employed to
develop the tree survey/plan. In general the plat before you is an
improvement on the preliminary approved last year.
There are five concerns that need to be addressed in reviewing this
plat:
1) The applicant requests the plat name be changed from
MacArthur Park to the Peninsulas of Coppell. We have had
problems with plat name changes in the past (Lake Park, for
example). Changing names at this point creates administrative
nightmares. Also, we encourage developers to name their
subdivisions with some relationship to the area (in this case,
MacArthur Park is adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard). The
applicant has offered no rationale for changing the name of the
subdivision other than "..essential to the sale of their homes".
Because we are so far into the process, we strongly discourage
this name change--there is no compelling reason why it should be
changed.
2) The hike and bike trail shows as an eight foot trail. We need
an easement of ten feet with the trail being constructed eight feet
wide by the developer.
3) A citizen in the adjacent subdivision has submitted a letter
expressing concern with the development proposal. Several of the
concerns have been addressed by the final plat document. The
employment of the arborist has achieved the desired result from a
staff perspective, but apparently this citizen wants more assurance
of on-going arborist review. That letter is attached to this plat
package for Commission review.
4) A comment on the Letter of Transmittal from Carter and
Burgess is somewhat troubling to staff. Specifically, the phrase:
"...landscaping of the common area is to be left in its existing state
of trees and vegetation." needs further clarification. As
Commission/Council knows, the preliminary plat was approved
with the landscaping, screening wall and irrigation system shown
on the attached Landscape Concept Plan. If the applicant is
proposing to delete this plan, staff would have serious reservations,
reminding the applicant that the landscaping proposal was one of
the reasons the zoning was changed to residential use. The
landscape plan was a part of the earlier zoning and platting
application and cannot be eliminated with final plat submittal. The
Streetscape Plan requires it. If the applicant proposes to abide by
the landscaping plan, staff has no concern. This issue needs to be
resolved at the public meeting.
5) Finally, attention is directed to our Engineering and Park
Planning comments. Assuming these issues are addressed to
satisfaction of staff, these statements are non-binding.
Provided these five issues are satisfactorily covered at the public
meeting, staff would recommend approval of the final plat. We
would remind Commission/Council that the preliminary plat was
approved with additional cul-de-sac length, alleys were waived,
and the 15-20 foot landscape easement along MacArthur
Boulevard was granted.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the final plat, along with variances requested.
2) Deny the final plat.
3) Modify the final plat.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Final plat
2) Letter requesting Plat name change
3) Tree Exhibit
4) Mr. Hedeman's letter
5) Carter-Burgess Letter of Transmittal
6) Landscape Concept Plan
7) Departmental comments (Engineering, Park Planning)