Big Cedar-AG 911008located along the west side of Bethel School Road and approxiiil~t~y_ 40~)' nort _9~. -/~ethel Road,
at the request of Matthews S.W. Investments.
SUBMI2-rED BY: ~ ST/kFF R~P.: Gary L..c ;b, pl~n,in,~, Directs'
OTHER KEP.:
EVAI, UATION OF ITEM: DATE:
Date of planning fi Zoning Meeting: September 19, 1991
Decision of Planning & Zoning Commission: Approved (4-0) with the following conditions:
1) that the developer limit the number of exceptions to the side yard setback to 14 lots;
2) that they address the entry with a monument sign and landscaping;
3) that they address the access easement with a sidewalk ~nd landscaping;
4) that they provide an alley behind Lots 37 through 41; and
5) that the developer provide tree survey fca' the development
As Coundl will recall, during discussion involving the cul-de-sacing of Bethel School Road,
the Fire Department had concern with fire protection response time if access at Bethel and
Bethel School was eliminated. To address thi~ collc~l'l~ the representatives of both University
Park (now known as Big Cedar) and Country Place, agreed to ~la-inkler houses built in those
subdivisions if Bethel School was removed from the thm-oughfare plan and down-graded to a
local street.
The representative of Big Cedar contends that such an agreement was never 'officially' adopted,
(see letter dated October 4, 1991), and sprinklered houses should not be a condition of zoning
and plat approval Staff disagrees and recommends that the sprinkler condition be clearly stated
in considering both the zoninE and subdivision plat.
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
N/A
AMT. ESTIMATED
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BIG CEDAR ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: September 19, 1991
C. C. HEARING DATE: October 8, 1991
LOCATION:
Along the west side of Bethel School Road and approximately
400' north of Bethel Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 18.176 Acres of which 3.87 acres is dedicated park land,
41 lots.
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat.
APPLICANT:
Matthews Investments
(Developer)
Mr. Tim house
5220 Spring Valley Rd.
Suite #500
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 934-0123
Goodwin & Marshall, Inc.
(Engineers)
Mr. Matt Goodwin
6001 Bridge Street
Suite #100
Ft. Worth, Texas 76112
(817) 429-4373 (Metro)
HISTORY:
This parcel has not had any recent subdivision activity,
although there has been considerable zoning work
History under Big Cedar zoning case #PD-119).
(see
TRANSPORTATION:
Bethel School Road has been recommended to be down graded
from a two-lane undivided 65' right-of-way collector
thoroughfare to a residential dead-end street contained
within a 50' right-of-way, provided zoning on both sides is
residential. There is also a proposal to rename the street
to Harris.
SURROI/NDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - single-family residential; (PD-SF-9) zoning
South - undeveloped sparsely developed residential;
(C) Commercial zoning
East - undeveloped; (C) Commercial zoning
West - single-family & vacant; (PD-SF-9) & (SF-9) zoning
ITEM 14
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The plan calls for low density, single-family development
ANALYSIS:
Because staff has such reservations with the Planned
Development request which proceeds this plat, staff
recommends denial of this subdivision at the current time.
Once our PD concerns have been addressed, the plat can be
reconsidered. Several concerns which surfaced during our
review include lack of alleys, flood plain resolution,
access agreements, location of roads, set backs, side
yards, etc. By denying the plat at this time, those
concerns can be properly addressed and resolved, hopefully
by the October public hearing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
3) Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACfR~E'NTS:
1) Subdivision Plat
2) September 4 letter from applicant's engineer
BIGCEDAR.STF
GOODWIN
MARSHALL
CIVIL ENGINEERS -~ PLANNERS ~ SURVEYORS
September 4, 1991
Ms. Taryon Bowman
Planning and Zoning Coordinator
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Preliminary Plat, Prellmlnaty Engineering Plans and PD Zoning Site Plan for the Proposed
Big Cedar Addition to the City of Coppell
Dear Shohre:
Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above referenced plat, plans and zoning site plan for the
proposed Big Cedar Addition to the City of Coppell. Please note that the items have been revised
per Development Review Committee comments. The following are specific items that I feel require
addressing in regards to the DRC comments:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
PREI Jk'HNARY PLAT
We are still showing the right of way of Hanis Road (Bethel School Road) as fifty (50) feet.
This requires an additional 7.5 foot dedication from the subject property. As you are aware,
Mr. Tim House of Matthewa Southwest Investments has been negotiating with the landowner
aortas Harris Road as well as the City of Coppell as to the issues inherent to the improve-
ments of Harris Road. Engineering documentation is being prepared by others to address this
issue. It ia my understanding that ~ documentation will be presented to the City within the
next few days.
The ten (10) inch sewer line that traverses the property is not contained within any dedicated
public easement. For this reason, no easement is currently shown as e~ting on the
Preliminary Plat.
The twenty (20) foot private acc~s easement across Lot 1 has been previotmly agreed to with
thc McDowcll family.
We are formally requesting a variance from the City requirement for alleys on this project.
This has been duly noted on the Prelimlnary Plat as well as the PD Zoning Site Plan.
We are currently in the process of determining our desire to access the park. This issue will
be addressed prior to filing a Final Plat. If we do decide to access the park, we will plat a
suitable easement between lots adjacent to the proposed park dedication.
6001 BRIDGE STREET, SUITE l OO / FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76 ! 12 / 817-429-4373 (METRO)
Big Cedar Addition
September 4, 1991
Page 2 of 3
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
PRFI,nVIINARY DRAINAGE LAYOUT
We intend to design proper erezion control devices at the outlet of the proposed storm drain
pipe to serve the property. This issue will be handled during the final design phase of the
project.
As you are aware, we have proposed a reclamation project for this region. The City has
accepted the project and forwarded a flood study to FEMA for review. The DRC comment
requesting information on the proposod plan of improvements for the creek area in relation
to the Albert Halff study must have been made by someone outside the loop on this issue.
If any questions remain, please calL
The flood study diseussod in (2) above clearly shows that minimal impact of the reclamation
project is experienced at the proposed park location.
Area A5 as shown on the preliminary drainage layout is expected to be picked up in the future
Harris Road storm drain system, ff there is a timing problem for the two projects, we will
accommodate the runoff through the concrete flume as shown.
We are proposing that the drainage easements be fifteen (15) feet in width. A twenty foot
easement would actually encompass more area than the side setbacks for the lots. We feel
that the fifteen foot width provides adequate acc. cas to the storm drain system.
6) We have included a watershed area map of the drainage basin clearly indicating the project
location.
1)
2)
3)
PIt~I.n~IINARY WATg2.R AND SEWER LAYOUT
We agree to show a 15 inch sewer line through the project as called for under the recently
completed sewer master plan. However, we feel that the over si~ing of thi~ llne should be cost
shared by the City. Please advise as to how you wish us to proceed with this request.
The proposed sanitary sewer between lot 8 and lot 9 will be offset within the easement so that
the manhole ~ be accessed from one lot, i.e. no fence will cover the manhole lid.
The actual configuration of thc connection to the existing sewer near the south property linc
of lot 8 and lot 9 will be designed for the beat poas~le connection angle. The complicating
factor in this situation is that an existing aerial crossing is in this location~ During the design
process we will work with the City to establish the best possible situation given the existing
configuration in this location. For the purposes of this preliminary submittal, we have not
changed the configuration as originally submitted.
I have not included the fire hydrant at the intersection of Harris Road and proposed Brock
Street (Street "A"). All lots within this region are well within 500 feet of an existing or
proposed fire hydrant.
Big Cedar Addition
September 4, 1991
Page3 of 3
Rather than add the fire hydrant at the end of Leigh Street (Street *C"), we have moved the
proposed hydrant near the intersection of Leigh Street and Brock Street to a location that
places all lota within 500 feet of the hydrant. Please contact me if either item (4) or (5) as
indicated are a cause of problem to you. These issues can be worked out during the design
of final engineering plans for the project.
As a courtesy Mr. Tim House is contact the McDowell family regarding the change in street name
to Harris Road. We feel that the City should also provide official notification of the name change
as well.
I feel that this letter, together with the changes made on the revised preliminary plat and plans
attached, address the concerns expressed by City Staff on this project. Please feel free to call mc if
there are any additional comments.
As always, I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
D. Matthew Goodwin, P.E.
DMG/jc
Ma. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E.
Mr. Tim House
Mr. Fred Joyce
Ma. Mary Myers
M
I
GOODWIN !
· el. (214) g34-0123 Fax (214) ~0-2421
October 2, 1991
Ms. Taryon Bowman
Planning & Zoning Coordinator
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Big Cedar Addition
Dear Taryon:
It is my understanding from Goodwin & Marshall, our consulting engineers on this project,
that you have requested a response on two issues:
(1)
How do we intend to address the access and development of the five lots that
front on Harris Street? and;
(2) Do we intend to install sprinkling systems in the houses?
Regarding the first issue, you are aware that we object to the request for an alley to serve
those five lots. We share your concern for the front yard/elevation appearance on these lots,
thus we propose the following additional requirements specifically for these five lots:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Increase front yard setback to 30';
At least two trees of 4" caliper or greater to be installed in front yard of each
lot;
Foundation landscaping on each house; and
(d) Irrigation systems.
Ms. Taryon Bowman
October 2, 1991
Page 2
As you know, the quality of houses intended for this area and usually constructed by Carmen
Homes and Street Custom Homes, (the two builders who will be purchasing all of the Iota
in the subdivision) might normally include such landscaping even without these requirements.
However, inclusion as a part of the City's approval will provide complete assurance of such
treatment.
Regarding the second issue, it has never been our intention to require sprinkling of the
houses in the subdivision. In fact, it is our opinion that this issue was specifically addressed
by City Council when it authorized the closing of Bethel School Road (May 14, 1991). Agter
a presentation by Richard Terry, thc Council concluded that the response time for
emergency access to the area would be adequate and no special requirements (i.e.
sprinkling) would be needed.
Taryon, I hope this adequately addresses these issues. Should you require further
information, please call me.
Sincerely,
Tim House
Vice President
TH/Ilw