Woodlands-CS 941020CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #; PD-135, THE WOODLANDS OF
COPPELL
P & Z HEARING DATE: October 20, 1994
C. C. HEARING DATE: November 8, 1994
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT
ZONING:
REQUEST:
Southeast corner of Coppell & Thweatt Roads
18.19 acres for a 36 lot subdivision
SF-12
Planned Development (PD) for private street, single-family uses
APPLICANT:
Mr. Mike Be, sm
(Potential Purchaser)
P.O. Box 293178
Lewisville, Tx. 75067
39343525
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
TRANSPORTATION:
Coppell Road is an unimproved C4D/6 to be built in 110 feet of
r.o.w.
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
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.
Item 12
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. 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 conditions are met. Of
primary concern--assuming all minor staff concerns are addressed--is the
issue of private streets. We strongly recommend public streets be
provided in this PD.
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS:
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
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: TIlE WOODLANDS OF COPPELL,
PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: October 20, 1994 (rescheduled for November 14, 1994)
C. C. HEARING DATE: November 8, 1994 (December 15, 1994)
LOCATION:
Southeast comer of Coppell & Thweatt Roads
SIZE OF AREA:
18.19 acres for a 36 (38) lot subdivision
CURRENT
ZONING: SF-12
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
TRANSPORTATION:
Mr. Mike Beste
(Potential Purchase0
P.O. Box 293178
Lewisville, Tx. 75067
393-0525
HAP Engineering
Mr. Gary Hobbs (Engineer)
1451 Empire Central, Suit~ 103
Dallas, Tx. 75247-4063
630-2005
There has been no recent platting history on this parcel, just
zoning. At the October 20, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting, the applicant submitted a letter asking that this plat
be withdrawn for further study. The Commission complied.
Coppell Road is an unimproved C4D/6 to be built in 110 feet of
r.o.w.
Item 6
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
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 1987 Plan showed retail; the re-analysis suggested
single-family as most appropriate land use.
ANALYSIS:
Comments have already been made under the zoning aspects of this
development regarding the entrance to this community,the inclusion of
private streets (they are not allowed under our subdivision regulations),
landscaping, the tree survey, floodplain, finished floor elevations, etc.,
and your attention is invited to the appropriate soction of the zoning
analysis for additional information. We did not specifically discuss the
inclusion of the hike/bike trail in the zoning discussion, but suffice it to
say that this developer has shown it on his preliminary plat, and
understands it is to be constructed at his cost. We have also received a
preliminary copy of the Homeowner's Agreement, and our City Attorney
is reviewing it for conformance with our guide. Water, sewer, and
drainage issues are included in the attached memo from Engineering--as
well as other related items--and staff would recommend approval of the
plat subject to all our conditions being met. The re..submlttal of this plat
addresses the concerns expressed above, although the notes on the face
of the plat have several spelling errors which need to be corrected. In
addition note 6 needs to be clarified to indicate a "...4 foot wide fence
easement...", and the width of the hike/bike trail needs to be stated.
There was some concern expressed in staff review of the latest plan
that Lot I Block A might not be a buiidable lot. It is our
understanding that the applicant will submit a drawing at the public
hearing that suggests how Lot I can be utilized meeting all city
setback requirements. Assuming aH our concerns are adequately
addressed, staff would recommend approval of this preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the Preliminary Plat
2) Deny the Preliminary Plat
3) Modify the Plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat document
2) Departmental comments