Woodlands-CS 941114CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: PD-135, THE WOODLANDS OF
COPPELL
P & Z HEARING DATE: November 14, 1994 (rescheduled for November 14, 1994)
C. C. HEARING DATE: December 13, 1994 (December 15, 1994)
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT
ZONING:
REQUEST:
Southeast corner of Coppell & Thweatt Roads
18.19 acres for a 36 (38) lot subdivision
SF-12
Planned Development (PD) for private street, single-family uses
APPLICANT:
Mr. Mike Beste
(Potential Purchaser)
P.O. Box 293178
Lewisville, Tx. 75067
393-0525
HAP Engineering
Mr. Gary Hobbs (Engineer)
1451 Empire Central, Suite 103
Dallas, Tx. 75247-4063
630-2005
HISTORY:
This property was recently rezoned from MF-2 and R to SF-12.
At the October 20, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, this
case was taken under advisement with the hearing left open
because the applicant had changed his application increasing
the lot number and staff needed additional review time.
TRANSPORTATION:
Coppell Road is an unimproved C4D/6 to be built in 110 feet of
rooowo
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - vacant; SF-7
South - developed single-family; PD SF-9
East - vacant; SF-12
West - developing single-family; PD SF-9
Item 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 1987 Plan showed retail as most appropriate here,
although our recent re-analysis suggested residential as
most appropriate considering the development which has
occurred since 1987.
ANALYSIS:
Although we applaud this applicant for the proposed PD, there are
several concerns which staff must discuss before recommending on
this request. Because this is a PD, alleys can be eliminated as
shown on the site plan, and we have no problem with their
deletion; also, although there is an existing alley on the west and
normally we would require access to it, the PD gives this
developer the option of not connecting to it if desired. In addition,
although we would prefer to have the entrance to this PD align
with Winding Hollow Road (because that's where the median
break will occur), if the developer clearly indicates on his plans
and plats that no median break will be allowed where he shows his
entrance, we can live with the proposal. In addition, we have
asked this developer to include a statement similar to the Oakbend
airport noise recognition statement on both his PD site plan and
plat. The applicant has agreed to that condition. Comments
relative to flood plain delineation, finished floor elevations,
drainage and water lines, etc. are outlined in the attached memo
from Engineering. The tree survey work is recognized, a
conceptual landscape/screening wall plan has been reviewed, a
hike and bike trail easement will be provided, and staff generally
supports the development proposal.
Where we primarily object to this plan is the request for private
streets, and in extended conversations with the applicant we have
found no solid justification for recommending them. As early as
1992, I submitted a memo to then City Manager Alan Ratliff
regarding a potential private street development in Riverchase, and
although I strongly recommended they not be allowed, Council did
approve their construction. As an aside regarding the private
streets allowed, the developer agreed that the gates would
remain open from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. which really
defeats the reason for having private, gated, secured
communities to begin with. In the past two years, nothing has
changed in the development of this community to alter my 1992
memo, so staff would recommend that the PD be approved with
public streets a requirement of approval. To assist the
Commission in arriving at the same conclusion, I have attached
a copy of the 1992 memo which outlines several concerns
generated by that earlier proposal.
Therefore, in sum, staff generally feels this PD merits a
recommendation for approval, provided the above-mentioned
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS:
conditions are met. Of primary concern--assuming all minor staff
concerns are addressed-ois the issue of private streets. We
strongly recommend public streets be provided in this PD.
At the October 20, 1994 meeting, the Plapning Commission
took this case under advisement until the November hearing
because the applicant had increased his density and had
redesigned his plan just prior to the October meeting. To give
staff an opportunity to reflect on the changes, the c~ was held
over. We have now had an opportunity to review this revised
plan in detain and offer the following comments:
he has re-aligned his entrance to staff satisfaction
private streets are still problematic
the screening fence on the west side should be
constructed at one time to insure design/appearance
continuity
major street trees should be Cedar Elms, not Live Oaks
insure airplane noise notation is on plan
Provided theses issues are addressed to staff satisfaction,
approval would appear to be in order.
1) Approve the PD
2) Deny the PD
3) Modify the PD
1) Zoning Plan
2) PD Site Plan
3) Landscape/Wall Plan
4) Tree Survey
5) 1992 private streets memo
6) departmental comments
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
FROM: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services
SUBJECT: Private Streets, Preliminary Plat of Fairways at Riverchase
DATE: September 4, 1992
The issue of private streets, and their applicability to the City of Coppell, will come to
the attention of Council relative to a preliminary plat of Fairways at Riverchase on
Tuesday evening, September 8, 1992.
Because I was attending a seminar when this subdivision plat was heard by Planning
Commission, and the fact that the applicant altered his position at that hearing relative to
private streets--I had understood the request for same would not be requested at the
Commission meeting--staff did not properly address this issue at that hearing.
I would like to take some time here to present staff position regarding this important,
potentially, city-wide issue. As a planner, I cannot emphasize too strongly a position
which does not support private streets. In my career, I have never worked in a public
sector position nor lived in a community which supported this concept. Philosophically,
it goes without saying that cities are established to offer the free access to all its citizens
to all areas of the community. One of the major attractions of Coppell, and one element
which makes it unique in the metroplex is its *neighborliness~, its friendly nature, indeed,
its wholesome community-wide spirit (exemplified by the numbers of citizens who
volunteer for public Boards and Commissions, the efforts of Kid Country, etc.). This is
a very fragile attribute of the city and must be nurtured and encouraged. The
introduction of a private area, not accessible to all is a return to--if you will permit a
little poetic license here--the secured communities of the middle and dark ages of
centuries gone by.
In conversations with the Las Colinas developers--the model this development is quoted
as saying it will emulate--I was advised that one must take a very careful look at how a
homeowners association will maintain the streets, provide the security suggested here, and
deal with any other number of problems including drainage issues, emergency service
response, etc. In addition I was advised that it has taken a full 15 years for the Las
Colinas Association to reach the point where escrow has built up to the point where the
Las Colinas Corporation has not had to underwrite street maintenance, infrastructure
repair, and other responsibilities normally conducted by the City. I was also advised that
typical assessments to maintain the Las Colinas system range from .41 to .60 per $100
valuation. This is in a development of over 1700 units overall ranging in price from
$225,000 to well over $2,000,000 per unit. The proposal before the Council contains 98
lots and will range in price from the high $100's to the mid $300's. I just don't see how
the economics will work here.
Beyond these arguments, there are procedural difficulties with this request--it is a
violation of our existing subdivision ordinance; there is a valid question regarding the
efficiency and ability of public services to respond to emergencies in such an area; there
is a question of the bona fide need for this request, among others.
I cannot emphasize too strongly staff opposition to this request for private streets,
regardless of the applicant's agreement to provide break-away gates, and other
concessions. Coppell is not comprised of citizens who necessitate this type of
development; Coppell does not need the introduction of Mexclusive' subdivisions and the
inherent discriminatory message this exclusivity conveys; the subdivision directly across
the street from this development approved less than a month ago saw no need for such
a gimmick; the approval of this request sets a dangerous precedent which will not serve
the best interests of all Coppell's citizens.
Finally, Coppell is developing as the type of city which deserves more from its
development partners than this very questionable development concept which, in effect,
tums its back on what living in this community is all about. Staff would recommend
approval of this plat only with the provision that public, dedicated streets without guard
gates, are a part of the preliminary plat.
pvtst
NOV--10--94
THU 16:59
Nov~b~ 10, 19~4
C.R. PICCREAR¥
ROBERT LANOE
ASSOC. 2145920759
landscape architec
Mr, O~y Sieb, A,I,C.P.
Director of Plamiia8 and Community Development
City of ~p~U
~$ P~y BI~,
C~, Te~ 7~19
P.O:~
Re: The Woodlands of Coppell, 18.2 acres of land south of Coppell Road at Winding Hollow Lane.
Dear Gary:.
]htrsuant to our phone conversation of November 11, 1994, on behalf of The Woodlands of Coppcll, J.V., we
hcrrby request that om' zoning case on thc above referenced property (PD.135) bc held under advisement until
we ask for it to be reachcduled (by early lgg~). Further, wc request that the application fees atready paid be
applied at the tlmc of thc amended submittal,
Bob F'mley
Michael Beste
LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
63t0 LBJ Freeway, SuRe 210 Dallas, Texas 75240 Telephone; (214) 060-8901 Facsimile: (214) 392-0739