ST9801-CS 881114November 14, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Taryon Bowman, P&Z Coordinator
R. ~, P.E., City Engineer
Russell
Evaluations to Determine the R.O.W. Width for Coppell Road
From Bethel Road to Sandy Lake Road
BACKGROUND:
As you know, in the early stages of the preliminary plat for the
Shadow Ridge Estates Addition, Third Increment, the engineering
division was asked by the applicant what our opinion was (or what
would be required) for the R.O.W. on Coppell Road. We made the
determination of a 95 foot R.O.W. and the rationale will be presented
below. The applicant then placed 95 foot R.O.W. dimensions on the
plats and plan.
On the Friday before the October P&Z meeting, when the above
mentioned subdivision was to be considered, Steve Stolte discussed
with me the rationale for a 95 foot R.O.W. on Coppell Road. There
was some previous staff DRC discussions, but no others.
During the October P&Z meeting, the R.O.W. issue was discussed and
the applicant offered to have a study done by a professional
engineering firm to help in determlining the recommended width of the
R.O.W. Since the predominate criteria for determining the R.O.W.
width is the needed width of the roadway within the R.O.W., the
consultant Traffic/Transportation Engineering firm conducted a "Road
Sizing Study" for Coppell Road. We received that study on Monday,
October 10, 1988. Staff has reviewed that study and provides the
following comments for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council consideration.
Summary Coppell Road R.O.W. Width/Road Sizing Study
RECO~PiENDATION:
In essence, staff accepts the Study's information and arguments. The
R.O.W. width should not be less than the City's standard of 65 feet.
(The Study recolm~ends relative only to roadway considerations, that
the R.O.W. should be 60 feet in width), lf, in fact, when Coppell
Road is improved in the future, and a four foot reduction in the
roadway width is then determined in designing the improvement, then
the four feet can be distributed to the parkway areas increasing them
from 8.5 to 10.5 feet, more in line with the 10 to 11.5 foot parkways
as prescribed in the City of Coppell current standards (See Table 1).
DISCUSSION:
When first asked to render an opinion or decision, the engineering
staff referred to the current Transportation Plan and Subdivision
Ordinance. We did not have the benefit of any resources such as was
provided by the 'Road Sizing Study'. The determination was made to
request 95 feet of R.O.W. with the intent that perhaps we would
arrive at 75 or 85 feet of R.O.W., but intuitively felt that only
having a 65 foot R.O.W. would constraint severely future decision
making. However, with the resources and information brought to bear
in the 'Road Sizing Study', we feel that this provides the best
decision for a recommendation of a 65 foot R.O.W. width.
Staff found that the Comprehensive plan identifies Coppell Road with
a CdU classification on page 31, Plat 6, Major Thoroughfare Plan.
Then on page 24, Item 5, defines CdU, as a Minor Arterial, with a 65
foot R.O.W. providing a 48 foot roadway with two 12 foot lanes in
each direction; citing Coppell Road, Cowboy Drive and Southwestern
Boulevard as examples of C4U, Minor Arterials.
Then on page 6 of Appendix A - Streets and Alleys, of the Subdivision
Ordinance, R.O.W. options under the minor arterial classification are
given as follows:
6 lanes Undivided 95 feet
5 lanes Undivided 75 feet
4 lanes Undivided 65 feet
The classification Collector was determined not to be considered.
Having that information, staff observed the added following
conditions existed for this R.O.W. determination/recommendation
1. This section of the Coppell Road connects two 6 lane divided
arterials - M6D (Sandy Lake Road and Bethel Road) per the Major
Thoroughfare Plan. Through traffic was thought to be potentially
significant, (the study indicates differently).
2. The proposed school site was thought to require some additional
roadway width consideration for traffic. (The study indicates none
is needed. Other considerations needed for school traffic could be
developed on site).
3. D/stances between Coppell Road and the proposed major north/south
thoroughfares (Denton Tap Road and Freeport Parkway) were standard,
but the only other connecting thru arterial was Coppell Road, and it
may be needed or used to carry some of the north/south traffic. (The
Study proves to the contrary).
4. Review of current development in this section of Coppell Road
indicated that except for a minimal section, a R.O.W. wider than 65
feet was attainable.
5. Requiring more R.O.W. now would not inhibit or obstruct the
latitude of future decisions, since the City currently does not have
a roadway design programmed and funded. (The Study provides enough
information and statistics to show that a R.O.W. width greater than
65 feet is not and will not be needed).
IN SUMMARY:
Given the Current Comprehensive, and Transportation Plan, Subdivision
Regulations and the Study furnished, staff recommends that Coppell
Road R.O.W. be determined to be 65 feet with a 48 foot roadway
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that any down sizing be
done when future funding is available, and the final design of the
roadway is completed.
Staff and the applicant will be available to respond to any questions
on this matter at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
meetings. It is a great Opportunity to present this professional
argument to further determine the future of the City of Coppell.
'I
, /
UJ
C4D - Minor Arterial - Parkway Boulevard is an example of a C~ID Minor Arterial within the Coppell
system. Roadways of this type should consume approximately 85 feet of' right-of-way, consisting of
two 24-foot road surfa_ces separated by a 17-foot median. Ten feet of right-of-way will remain on
the exterior of the roadway. These roadways may be used in areas of Iow traffic volume and
restricted right-of-way.
TYPE C4D
MINOR ARTERIAL
C4U - Minor Arterial The CqU Minor Arterial streets are intended to utilize 65 feet of right-
of-way. Two 12-foot lanes in each direction will carry the traffic flow with no median separation.
Approximately 9 feet of remainder right-of-way will buffer adjacent properties. Examples of C~IU,
Minor Arterials are Coppell Road, Cowboy Drive and Southwestern Blvd.
TYPE C4U
MINOR ARTERIAL
24
GEO#ETR1C ~SI(~4 ST~,~ID~J~S F(~R TH(~RO~X)HFARES
DEFINITIONS
Ntno= A=te=tal:
Collecto=:
Local:
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Ma)o= A=te=ial:
Mtno~ A~te~tal:
Collecto=:
Local:
A tho=oughfa=e that se=yes the enti=e ~egion
and co=ales a high volume of long t=ips.
A tho=oughfa=e that inte=connects with the
ma~o= sate=iai, but se=yes a smalle=
geog=aphic a=ea.
A thoroughfare that collects t~affic within
~esidential, comme=ctal and industrial a~eas,
and channels it into the a=te=ial system.
A thoroughfare that p~ima~ily sec'yes as dt=ect
access to abutting p~ope=ty, such as a
~esidential street,
Lanes divided, 110 feet, within 300 feet of
inte=sectton 130 feet.
Lanes divided, 85 feet, within 300 feet of
trite=section 105 feet.
Lanes undivided 9S feet.
Lanes undivided 7S feet.
Lanes undivided 65 feet.
o: ~ Lanes undivided 60 feet.
Lanes undivided 50 feet.
Appendix A
TABLE 1 November 16, 198~
TYPE LNS/ROW ROW RDWY. RDWY. MED. RDWY/LNS. REMKS PKWY OTHER
AA FWY 450 - 350 36 48+34 CONTROLLED 50 LARGE
LARGE ACCESS VOLUMES
VOLUME HI-SPEEDS
P6D - 110 - 83 17 33/3 MAX. 13.5
2-33 (DTRD WIDTH
MAJ.ART 120)
M6D - 100 - 80 14 33/3 - 10 MODERATE
2-33 SPEEDS
ROYAL/BETHEL/
F~%J.ART MCARTHUR/
SANDY LAKE/
FREEPORT
- 6/95 - 67 ......
C4D MIN - 85 - '65 17 24/2 LOW -10 PARKWAY BLVD.
44 to (LEFT TRAFFIC
2-22 TURN) VOLUME
RESTRICTED
ROW
- 5/75 - 59 .....
- 4/65 - 45 .....
C4U MIN - 65 - 48 NONE 24/2 - 8.5 COPPELL/
COWBOY/
SOUTHWESTERN
BLVD.
C5U MIN - 60 - 37 - 18.5/2 COLLECTOR 11.5 -
C6U MIN - 50 - 27 - 13.5/2 RESIDENT 11.5 -
LOCAL
COLLECTOR - 60 4/45 .....
2/4
36'-44'