TR9303-SY 941001 CITY OF COPPELL
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
October, 1994
Prepared By:
15400 Knoll Trail, Suite 111, Dallas, Texas, 75248, (214) 661-1265
City of Coppeli
Roadway Impact Fees
Methodology and Approach
The four basic steps of calculating roadway impact fees involve determining:
1. An appropriate service unit.
2. The cost of each service unit.
3. The number of service units needed to serve various land uses.
4. The impact fee for a particular development.
Steo 1. ~;ERVICE UNITS
Service Units create a link between:
· Capacity (Supply) (roadway projects)
and
· Demand (new development)
Both Supply and Demand can be expressed as a combination of:
a. The number of VEHICLES traveling during a given time period, and
b. The distance traveled by these vehicles in MILES or
Vehicle-Miles
· For Roadway Projects, V~hiql¢-Miles are:
Capacity X Length
(vehicles) (miles)
For example, take a 6-lane divided roadWay project 3 miles long which can carry 725
cars per hour in each lane. Then:
725 vehicles per hour x 6 lanes = 4,350 vehicles per hour
4,350 vehicles per hour x 3 miles - 13,050 vehicle-miles supplied per
hour
· For developments, v~hi~l¢-mil¢$ are:
Trips Generated X Average Trip Length
(vehicles) (miles)
For example, take a 100-unit residential subdivision generating 100 trips in the PM peak
hour with an average trip length of 6 miles. Then:
100 vehicles x 6 miles = 600 vehicles-miles in the PM peak hour
1
A time period must also be chosen for assessing impacts. The PM peak hour is
recommended because:
· The heaviest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour
· Roadways are sized to meet this demand
· Roadway capacity can be defined on an hourly basis
Therefore, an assessment based on the PM peak hour capacity and demand provides a
mechanism for charging for the burden placed on the roadway system from new
development.
~;TEP 2. DETERMINING A COST PER SERVICE UNIT
There are 3 components involved in calculating a cost per service unit.
1. The Roadway Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.)
2. The service area structure
3. Service area calculations
Roadway C. 1. P.
Two types of projects can be included in the Roadway C.I.P.
· New - projects planned in the next ten years which add capacity
· Recoupment - previously constructed projects which have ~xcess capacity
Only arterials and collectors listed on the City's official thoroughfare plan may be
considered for inclusion in the Impact Fee Roadway C.I.P. State routes are not eligible
for impact fee funding. The proposed C.I.P. was developed in coordination with City
staff based on the adopted thoroughfare plan. The projects included in the Roadway
C.I.P. are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1.
The following statistics summarize the roadway C.I.P.
New Projects $18,825,300.00
Recoupment Projects ~
Total Cost $32,129,584.00
The new project costs of $18,825,300 are estimated total costs and represent the expected
additional expenditures for major roadways in the next ten years. The recoupment project
costs are actual costs provided by City staff.
2
1311,4
~37
~38
CITY OF COPPE/ / = TEXAS
SERVICE AREAS FOR
ROAD/FAY IMPACT FEES
OF' ~ £XIS~ING 0~ ~0 STI~L~T,,-~u~' 01{ ~Ctl~
~L ~ CIm~ L~m L~~ 15 ~E.
Service Areas
Service areas are required by the State Law to define the area served by the Roadway
Capital Improvements.
In the case of roadways, service areas are restricted by State Law to a 3 mile limit. That
is, no point in the service area can be more than 3 miles from another. The service areas
for Roadway Impact Fees are shown on Figure 2.
Other considerations in developing a service area structure are to:
· Conform to Traffic Survey Zone (TSZ) boundaries. This facilitates
calculations and updates because TSZ's are the smallest area for which
land use information is compiled. Subdividing TSZ's for impact fee
purposes may be necessary when city limit boundaries are crossed by zone
· Make as large as possible. This promotes fee uniformity because it tends
to average costs out over several projects.
· Use roadway projects included in the C.I.P. as boundaries to maximize
the distribution of projects among service areas.
Calculations
Separate fee calculations are included in each service area. These calculations may be
made on a system-wide basis in each service area.
1. Inventory usage and deficiencies on the existing major roadway system in terms
of vehicle-miles.
2. Calculate service units (vehicle-miles) supplied by Impact Fee Roadway C.I.P.
and adjust for:
- existing usage
- deficiencies
3. Determine the cost of providing available service units. For new projects,
estimates were made. For recoupment projects, the actual costs to the city were
used. The engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction costs for the
C.I.P. projects are estimated costs developed in coordination with City of Coppell
staff.
~ 4. After the number and cost of service units available to new development have
been calculated, the portion of the C.I.P. attributable to the new development
within 10 years must be determined by:
calculating the expected service units (vehicle-miles) to be
generated from new development. This was done by using the
City's previously adopted land use assumptions in the North
Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTOG) regional
transportation model.
- comparing that demand to the service units made available from
C.I.P. projects.
6
NOTE: Only the portion of the C.I.P. actually attributable to and made necessary
by development in the next 10 years may be changed. Therefore, if only
60% of the service units supplied by the C.I.P. are needed in the next l0
years, only 60% of the cost may be considered in calculating fees.
5. Calculate the cost per service unit:
Cost of Needed Supply*/Service Units of Demand
* If the C.I.P. does not provide all the service units need by new
development in the service area, only the cost of what is provided
can be considered.
Table 2 lists the cost per service unit in each service area. This cost represents the
maximum fee per service unit which can be charged under the state statute. The weighted
average is based on a city-wide calculation and is not the average of the individual
service area costs.
The inventory of existing streets, detailed roadway project information and calculations
of cost per service unit for each service area are included in the appendix.
TABLE 2 - SERVICE UNIT COST SUMMARY
Service Cost Per
Area Service Unit
1 606
2 340
3 392
4 1121
5 540
6 447
7 337
8 73
9 1173
10 1258
Weighted Average 629
7
STEP 9, SERVICE UNITS NEEDED TO SERVE INDIVIDUAL NEW
DEVELOPMENT
/:or developments, service units (vehicle-miles) are:
Trips Generated X Average Trip Length (vehicles) (miles)
Trip Generation
This portion of the equation determines the number of vehicles generated by a
development. The trip generation rates were:
· Development for the PM peak period
· Determined by:
- size (office, retail, industrial)
- number of units (residential, institutional)
· Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates when possible
· Checked against NCTCOG travel demand model rates
· Adjusted for:
- pass-by trips
- diverted trips
Pass-by trips are those that are already on a particular route for a different purpose that
stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a convenience store
on the way from the office to home is a pass-by trip for the convenience store. This trip
does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be
double-counted. The burden of this type of trip is assigned to the office and residence.
A diverted trip a similar situation, but a diversion is made from the regular route to make
an interim stop. On a system-wide basis, this trip also does not add an additional burden
on the street system so it is not considered in assessing fees.
Trip Length
This portion of the equation determines the average length the vehicles generated by a
development travel. Trip lengths were:
· Based on information collected by the NCTOG
· Categorized by land-use type
· Adjusted to:
- meet State Law (3 mile limit)
- account for travel on State Routes
· Divided by 2 to split the burden of any given trip equally between origin
and destination. Each development pays for 1/2 of each trip made to and
from it; otherwise overcharging could occur.
8
Land Use/Service Unit Equivalency Table
The result of combining the trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency
table which establishes the service unit generation rate for various land use categories.
Separate rates must be established for residential, industrial, and commercial uses but it
is desirable to provide more rates to reflect the differences between uses within those
categories. For example, bartles and restaurants have different service unit generation
rates.
Information is not available for ever3, conceivable land use so some limitations exist. A
reasonable number of categories which cover the vast majority of cases was developed
with provisions for individual studies to cover cases not included in the established rates.
The equivalency table is shown in Table 3.
STEP 4. CALCULATING IMPACT FEES
For an individual development, a two pan process is followed to determine the impact
fee due.
part 1: Determine numar of service units (vehicle-miles) generated by the development
using the equivalency table.
No. of Development X Vehicle-miles = Development's
Units per development unit Vehicle-miles
Part 2: Calculate the impact fee based on the fee per service unit for the service area
where the development is located.
Development's X Fee per = Impact Fee due
Vehicle-miles vehicle-mile from Development
Examples: For developments located in Service Area 3, which has a maximum fee
per vehicle-mile of $392.00.
Single Family Dwelling
1 dwelling unit x 2.85 vehicle-miles/dwelling unit = 2.85 vehicle-miles
2.85 vehicle-miles x $392.00/vehicle-miles = $1,117.20
50.000 square foot (s.f.) Offic~ Building
50 (1,000 s.f. units) x 3.99 vehicle-miles/i,000 s.f. units = 199.5 vehicle-miles
199.5 vehicle-miles x $392.00/vehicle-mile = $78,204.00
~
9
100.000 s.f. Retail Center
100 (1,000 s.f. units) x 4.77 vehicle-miles/I,000 s.f. units -- 477 vehicle-miles
477 vehicle-miles x $392.00/vehicle-mile -- $186,984.00
300.000 s.f. Industrial Development
300 (I,000 s.f. units) x 1.06 vehicle-miles/I,000 s.f. units -- 318 vehicle-miles
318 vehicle-miles x $392.00/vehicle-miles = $124,656.00
l0
o z ~
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Roadway Impact Fee Timeline
B. Roadway Capacity Volumes Per Lane
C. City of Coppell Roadway Classifications
D. NCTCOG Hourly Service Volumes Per Lane
E. Existing Roadway Usage and Deficiencies By Service Area
F. Roadway CIP Vehicle-Miles and Costs by Service Areas
G. Service Area Maximum Fee Analysis
H. Land Use Assumption Report
CITY OF COPPELL
RQADWAY IMPACT FEE TIMELINE
7/21/94 P&Z makes recommendation to the City Council on Lane Use;
- 7/26/94 City Council passes Resolution to call a Public Hearing to consider Land Use
Assumptions;
8/8/94 Submit 1st notice of Public Heating to the paper;
8/12/94 Land Use assumptions made available to the public;
8/12/94 1st notice of Public Hearing published in the paper;
8/15/94 Submit 2nd notice of Public Hearing to the paper;
8/19/94 2nd notice of Public Hearing published in the paper;
8/22/94 Submit 3rd notice of Public Hearing to the paper;
8/26/94 3rd notice of Public Hearing published in the paper;
9/13/94 City Council holds Public Hearing on Land Use Assumption;
REVISED SCHEDULE (9/18/94)
10/20/94 P&Z discusses and offers comments on the Capital Improvement Plan;
10/25/94 City Council passes Resolution to call a Public Hearing to discuss the adoption
of the Plan and imposition of the impact fee;
10/31/94 Submit 1st notice of Public Hearing to the paper;
11/4/94 Capital Improvement Plan made available to the public;
11/4/94 1st notice of Public Hearing published in the paper;
11/7/94 Submit 2nd notice of Public Hearing to the paper;
11/11/94 2nd notice of Public Heating published in the paper;
11/14/94 Submit 3rd notice of Public Hearing to the paper;
11/18/94 3rd notice of Public Hearing published in the paper;
12/5/94 P&Z files written comments on the Plan and impact fees;
12/13/94 City Council holds Public Hearing on Capital Improvement Plan and adopts
Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION REGI, rLATION$ - CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
APPENDIX C - DESIGN CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
SECTION I - STREETS AND ALLEYS
GEOMETRIC DF.3IGN STANDARDS FOR THOROUGHFARES
ROADWAY CLASSIY'ICATIONS
There are four basic functional classifications of roadways.
* Freeways - high capa_ city facilities with controlled access intended to carry high volumes of
longer distance trips; high capacity supplement to arterial system.
* Arterial - carry through traffic between areas. Relatively high speed, continuous, high
capacity roadways with mobility as per their priority function. Property access is low
priority function.
* Collectors - primary function is to link the local streets with the arterial system; function as
collector-distributors and provide property access to commercial properties.
* Locals - provide access to individual properties. Accommodation of significant through
traffic is not an appropriate function.
RIGHT-OF-WAY and ROADWAY WIDTH REQUIRF3tENTS
Frteway Majo~ l~Fmor Major Collec~m' Rerdtkmtial
Arterial Arterial Colleetor
AA I~D C4D C4U CSU C4U C.2U C.2U
Nmnber minimum 6 lane~ 4 lanes4 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
of Lanes 4 lane~ divided dividedundivided w/ undivided undivided undividcxl undividcxl
divid,~! oontin, parking o~ parking mt
~lefl turn bo~ sides one sid~
R.O.W.
Width 450' 110' * 90' ** 70' 90' 70' 60' 55'
(fee~)
Roadway 2 - 48' 2 - 37'
Width w/2 - 10' back to 2 - 25'
49' b-b 63' b-b' 49' b-b 41' b-b 33' b-b 28' b-b
(feet) shoulders back b-b
each Co-b)
* 130' within 300' of an intersection (P6D)
** 1 I0' within 300' of an intersection (C4D)
TABLE 5: HOURLY SERVICE VOLUME PER LANE*
(Undivided Roads)
Functional Class
Principal Minor Frontage
Freeway Arterial Arterial Col 1 ector Local Ramp Road
CBD NA 500 500 400 400 1,100 500
A
R Fringe NA 550 550 425 425 1,200 550
E
A- Urban
Residential NA 600 575 450 ~50 1,250 575
T
Y Suburban
P Residential NA 675 625 500 500 1,400 625
Rural NA 725 675 525 525 1,500 675
NA - Not Applicable
* Service Volumes at Level of Service E {NCTCOG transportation models require level of
service E service volumes. However, continued use of level of service C service
volumes for planning purposes is suggested. Level of service C can be obtained by
~- taking 80 percent of the above level of service E service volumes.)
· If Volume/Service Vol~ne Ratio is <- 0.8 then Level of Service - A, B, or C
· If Volume/Service Vol~ne Ratio is 0.8 < x <- 0.9 then Level of Service - O
· If Volume/Service Volume Ratio is 0.g < x <- 1.0 then Level of Service - E
· If Volume/Service Volume Ratio is · L.0 then Level of Service - F
CITY OF COPPELL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY
EXISTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
% IN . VEH- MI VEH- MI EXCESS EXISTING
LENGTH NO. PK-HR VOLUME SERVIC~ CAPACrrY TOTAL CAPACrFY DEFICIENCIES
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE A B 'TOTAL AREA PK-HR DEMAND PK-HR PK-HR
PK - HR VEH - MI VEH- MI
SERVICE
1 * Parkway Blvd. Coppell Road Denton Tap 0.60 4 ma 80 78 158 100 1680 95 1585
Thweatt Rd. SH121 Coppall Rd. 0.95 2 ua 468 0 468 50 523 445 78
Coppell Rd. ~l~weatt Rd. Sandy Lake 0.40 2 ua 519 0 519 50 220 208 12
Sandy Lake Rd. Coppell Rd. Denton Tap 0.75 2 ua 809 0 809 50 413 607 0 - 194
Coppell Rd. Thweatt Rd. Parkway Blvd. 0.45 2 uc 84 37 121 100 450 54 396
Denton Tap Rd. Sandy Lake S. Denton Crk. 0.70 6 pa 0 1885 1885 50 1523 1320 203
Denton Tap Rd. S. Denton Crk. S.H. 121 Bypass 0.50 2 ua 0 1968 1968 50 275 984 0 - 709
Denton Tap Rd. S.H. 121 Bypass N. City Limits 0.50 2 ua 738 640 1378 100 55~0 68~9 0 - 139
· Segment not complete - under construction
· * SERVIC~ AREA TOTAL ** 4.85 5634 4402 2274 - 1042
2 Parkway Blvd. Denton Tap Lodge 0.75 2 ma 93 127 220 108 1050 165 885
Parkway Blvd. Lodge Samuel 0.55 2 ua 49 65 114 100 605 63 542
Sandy Lake Road Denton Tap Samuel 1.30 2 ua 0 526 526 50 715 684 31
Heartz Sandy Lake Parkway 0.55 2 uc 39 37 76 100 550 42 508
Moore Road Sandy Lake North 0.25 2 uc 202 146 348 100 250 87 163
Moo'e Road N. Sandy lake N. Parkview 0.60 2 uc 159 247 406 100 600 244 356
MacArthur Blvd. Glen Lakes N. City Limits 0.45 6 pa 354 387 741 I00 1958 333 1624
Denton Tap Rd. Sandy Lake S. Denton Crk. 0,70 6 pa 1839 0 1839 50 1523 1287 235
Denton Tap Rd. S. Denton Crk. SH 121 Bypass 0.50 2 ua 1886 0 1886 50 275 943 0 -668
Samuel Road Sandy Lake MacAHhur 0.90 2 uc 71 0 71 50 45~0 64 ~
SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 6.55 7976 3912 4730 -668
% 1N VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS EXISTING
LENGTH NO. PK-HR VOLUME SERVICE CAPAC1TY TOTAL CAPACrFY DEFICIENCIES
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI)LANES TYPE A B TOTAL AREA PK-HR DEMAND PK-HR PK-HR
PK-HR VEH-M! VEIt-MI
SERVICE
AREA
3 Parkway Blvd. Samuel MacArthur 0,65 2 ua 106 106 212 100 715 138 577
MacArthur Blvd. Sandy Lake Glen Lakes 130 4 pa 477 423 900 100 3770 1170 2600
Sandy Lake Road samuel MaeArthur 0.70 2 ua 491 0 491 50 385 344 41
Sandy Lake Road MacArthur E. City Limits 1.00 2 ua 671 0 671 50 550 671 0 - 121
samuel Road sandy Lake MacArthur 0.90 2 uc 0 134 47 50 45~0 ~42_
** SERVICE AREA TDTAL ** 4.55 5870 2365 3626 - 121
4 Bethel Road W, City Limits Royal 0.60 2 ua 457 0 457 50 330 274 56
Bethel Road Royal Freeport 0.65 2 ua 566 0 566 50 358 368 0 - 10
Bethel Road Freeport Coppell 0.25 2 uc 667 0 667 50 125 167 0 -42
~hweatt Rd. SH 121 Coppell 0.95 2 ua 0 183 183 50 523 174 349
Coppcll Rd. Thweatt Sandy Lake 0.40 2 ua 0 196 196 50 220 78 142
Royal Lane Bethel Rd. S, Thweatt 1.20 4 ma 353 558 911 100 3360 1093 2267
Royal Lane S. 'l'hweatt Thweatt 0.25 2 ua 351 557 908 100 275 227 48
Slate Rd. Ruby Rd. Thweatt 0.75 2 uc 11 2 13 100 750 10 740
Ruby Rd. State Coppell 0.50 2 uc 6 I 7 100 500 4 497
Coppell Rd. Bethel Sandy Lake 1.00 2 uc 395 0 395 50 5_~ 39~5 10~5
'* SERVICE AREA 'IDTAL ** 6.55 6941 2790 4204 -52
5 Sandy Lake Road Coppell Denton Tap 0.75 2 ua 0 470 470 50 413 353 60
Plantation Dr. Coppell Bethel School 0,80 2 uc 15 5 20 I00 800 16 784
Copp~ll Rd. Stl RR Bethel 0.35 2 uc 211 321 532 100 350 186 164
Bethel Rd. Freeport Pkwy. Coppell 0.25 2 uc 0 807 807 50 125 202 0 - 77
Bethel Rd. Coppell Denton Tap 0.75 2 uc 340 401 741 100 750 556 194
Freeport Piony Stl RR Bethel Rd. 0.36 4 ma 602 0 602 50 504 217 287
Coppell Rd. Bethel Rd. sandy Lake 1.00 2 uc 380 0 380 50 500 380 120
Denton Tap Rd. Stl SW RR sandy Lake 1.30 6 pa 1574 0 1574 50 2828 2046 78~1
** SERVIC~ AREA TOTAL ** 5.56 6270 3956 2390 -77
% IN VEH-M! VEH-MI EXCESS EXISTING
LENGTlt NO. PK-IIR VOI.UME SERVIC~. CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE A B TOTAL AREA PK-HR DEMAND PK-HR PK-HR
PK-HR VEH-M1 VEH-MI
SERVICE
AREA
6 Sandy Lake Road Denton Tap Moore Rd. 1.00 2 ua 581 0 581 50 550 581 0 -31
BetheISchool Rd. DentonTap Moore Rd. 1.00 2 uc 156 276 432 100 1000 432 568
Belt Line Road Denton Tap Moore Rd. 1.20 2 ua 540 497 1037 I00 1320 1244 76
Heartz Rd. Bethel School Sandy Lake 0.65 2 uc 16 23 39 100 650 25 625
Moore Rd. Belt Line Sandy Lake 1.00 2 uc 223 0 223 50 500 223 277
Denton Tap Southwestern Sandy Lake 1.50 6 pa 0 1885 1885 50 3263 2828 43~5
** SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 6.35 7283 5333 1981 -31
7 Sandy Lake Road Moore Road E. City Limita 1.80 2 ua 0 579 579 50 990 1042 0 -52
Bethel School Rd. Moore Road MacArthur 1.00 2 uc 148 228 376 100 1000 376 624
Belt Line Road Moore Road Mockingbird 0.50 2 ua 294 204 498 100 550 249 301
Belt Line Road Mockingbird MacArthur 0.60 2 ua 322 0 322 50 330 193 137
Belt Line Road MacArthur E. City Limits 1.10 6 pa 738 0 738 50 2393 812 1581
Riverchase Dr. MacArthur Sandy Lake 1.40 2 uc 325 441 766 100 1400 1072 328
Moore Road Belt Line Sandy Lake 1.00 2 uc 0 262 262 50 500 262 238
Mockingbird Lane Belt Line Sand), Lake 1.10 2 uc 127 33 160 100 1100 176 924
MacArthur Blvd. Belt Line Sandy Lake 1.24 4 pa 351 353 704 100 3596 87_~3 2723
SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 9.74 11859 5055 6856 - 52
8 Belt Line Road Mockingbird MacArthur 0.60 2 ua 0 402 402 50 330 241 89
Belt Line Road MacArthur E. City Limits 1.10 6 pa 0 630 630 50 2393 693 1700
Mac.Arthur Blvd. S. City Limits Belt Line 0.16 6 pa 459 356 815 I00 69~66 I_3D_ 5.__~
SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 1.86 3419 1064 2355 0
% IN VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS EXISTING
LENGTH NO. PK-HR VOLUME SERVIC~ CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE A B TOTAL AREA PK-HR DEMAND PK-HR PK-IIR
PK-HR VEH-MI VEH-MI
SERVICE
AREA
9 Bethel Road W. Cit3, Limits Royal 0.60 2 ua 0 131 131 50 330 79 251
Bethel Road Royal Lane Freeport Pkwy 0.65 2 ua 0 201 201 50 358 131 227
Gateway Blvd. Royal Lane Freeport Pkwy 0.70 2 ua 208 59 267 108 770 187 583
Royal Lane IH635 Bethel Road 0.60 4 pa 643 890 1533 100 1740 920 820
Freeport Pkwy. Cotton St. Bethel Road 0.77 4 ma 0 96 96 50 1078 74 1004
** SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 3.32 4276 1391 2885 0
10 Southwestern Blvd. Freeport Pkwy Belt Line 0.94 2 ua 351 284 635 108 1034 597 437
Conn. Wrangler Dr. Freeport Pkwy Belt Line 0.84 2 uc 740 655 1395 100 840 1172 0 -332
Freeport Pkwy IH635 Cotton 0.64 4 ma 1179 798 1977 100 1792 1265 527
Freeport Pkwy Cotton Stl SW RR 0.41 4 ma 635 0 635 50 574 260 314
Belt Line Road IH635 Southwestern 1.60 6 pa 1697 1350 3047 108 6960 4875 2085
Denton Tap Rd. Southwestern Stl SW RR 0.20 6 pa 0 1435 1435 50 435 287 148
Coppcll Rd. Southwestern Stl. SW RR 0.08 2 uc 211 321 532 1130 8~0 43 3~7
** SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 4.71 11715 8499 3548 -332
C:~-.oplnAl.wk I
CITY OF COPPELL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
% IN TOTAL VEIl-MI VEH-MI EXCESS TOTAL
LENGTH NO. SERVICE PK- HR CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY TOTAL COST IN
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE AREA VOLUME TOTAL DEMAND PK-HR COST SERVICE AREA
PK-HR VEH-MI
SERVICE
AREA
I Parkway Blvd. Coppell Denton Tap 1.10 4 ma 100 158 3080 174 2906 * *
Denton Tap Rd. Sandy L~ke S. Denton Crk. 0.70 6 pa 50 1885 1523 1320 203 $1,515,841.00 $757,920.50
Denton Tap Rd. S. of Denton Crk. SH 121 Bypass 0.50 6 pa 50 1968 1088 984 104 $2,175,000.00 $1,087,500.00
Denton Tap Rd. SH 121 N. City Limits 0.50 6 pa 100 1378 2175 689 1486 $2,175,000.00 $2,175,000.00
Coppell Rd. Thwcatt Rd. Sandy Lake 0.40 4 ma 50 519 560 208 352 $1,210~00.00 ~)05,250.00
Sandy Lake Rd. Coppell Rd. Denton Tap Rd. 0.7__~5 4 ma 50 8_~_~ 1050 60~7 44~3 $2,269,500.00 $1,113,750.00
* Constructed by Developer
** SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 3.95 6717 9476 3982 5494 ~_5,739,420.50
2 Denton Tap Rd. S. of Denton Crk. SH 121 Bypass 0.50 6 pa 50 1886 1088 943 145 $2,460,000.00 $1230,000.00
Denton Tap Rd. Sandy Lake S. Denton Crk. 0.70 6 pa 50 1839 1523 1287 235 $1,515,841.00 $757,920_50
Sandy Lake Rd. Denton Tap Samuel 1..___~ 4 ma 50 52.._~6 1820 68~4 1136 $4,452,500.00 $2226,250.00
* * SERVI CE AR EA TOTAL ** 2.50 4251 4431 2914 1516 $4,214,170.50
3 Sandy Lake Rd. Samuel MacArthur 0.70 4 mn 50 491 980 344 636 $2397,500.00 $1,198,750.00
Sandy Lake Rd. MacArlhur E. City Limits 1.00 4 ma 50 67__~1 1400 67_~1 72__~9 $600,000.00 $300,000.00
** SERVIC~ AREA TOTAL ** 1.70 1162 2380 1015 1365 ~ !~498,750..09_
% IN TOTAL VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS TOTAL
LENGTH NO. SERVICE PK- HR CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY TOTAL COST IN
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE AREA VOLUME TOTAL DEMAND PK-HR COST SERVICE AREA
PK - HR VEH- M I
SERVICE
4 Bethel Rd. Royal Freeport Plony. 0.65 4 ma 50 566 910 368 542 $2,135,000.00 $I,067,500.00
Bethel Rd. Freeport Pkwy. Coppell Rd. 0.25 4 uc 50 667 250 167 83 $510,000.00 $255,000.00
Coppell Rd. Thweatt Sandy Lake 0.._~_~ 4 ma 50 19..~6 56.___0 78 48~2 $1,210,500.00 $605,250.00
** SERVI(~. AREA TOTAL ** 1.30 1429 1720 613 1107 ~_1,927,750.00
5 Bethel Road Freeport Pkwy. Coppell Rd. 0.25 4 uc 50 807 250 202 48 $510,000.00 $255,000.00
Denton Tap Rd. Stl SW RR Sandy Lake 1.30 6 pa 50 1574 2828 2046 78~1 $2315,133.40 $1,407,566.70
* * SERVICI~ AREA TOTAL * * 1.55 2381 3078 2248 829 Yt~6~_ 2~566-70
6 Denton Tap Rd. Southwestern Sandy Lake Rd. 1.50 6 pa 50 1885 3263 2828 435 $3,248.231.00 $1,624,115.50
Belt Linc Road Denton Tap Rd. Moore Rd. 1.20 4 pa 100 1037 3480 1244 2236 $300,000.00 $300,000.00
Sandy Lake Rd. Denton Tap Rd. Moore Rd. 1.00 4 ma 50 58~1 1400 58__!1 8~11_9 $3,425,000.00 $1,712,500.00
SERVICE AREA TOTAL · * 3.70 3503 8143 4653 3490 ~[_3~_63_~6 615.50
7 Belt Line Rd. Moore Rd. Mockingbird 0.50 4 pa 100 448 1450 224 1226 $125,000.00 $125,000.00
Belt Line Rd. Mockingbird MacArthur 0.60 4 pa 50 322 870 193 677 $175,000.00 $87,500.00
Belt Line Rd. MacArthur E.C.L, 1.10 6 pa 50 738 2393 812 1581 $300,000.00 $150,000.00
MacArthur Belt Line Rd. Bethel School 0.30 6 pa 100 704 1305 211 1094 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
Sandy Lake Moore Rd. MacArthur 1.00 4 ma 50 579 1400 579 821 $3,425,00000 $1,712500.00
Sandy Lake MacArthur E. City Limits 0.80 4 ma 50 57__.~9 1120 46~3 65~7 $600,000.00 $300,0(10.00
· · SERVICE AREA TOTAL ** 4.30 3370 8538 2482 6056 $_2~87~000:00
95 IN TOTAL VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS TOTAL
LENGTH NO. SERVICE PK- HR CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACrl~Y TOTAL COST IN
ROADWAY FROM TO (MI) LANES TYPE AREA VOLUME TOTAL DEMAND PK-HR COST SERVICE AREA
PK - H R VEH - M I
SERVICE
8 Belt Line Rd. MacArthur E.C.L. 1.10 6 pa 50 630 2393 693 1700 $300,000.00 $150,000.00
Belt Line Rd. Mockingbird Mac,arthur 0._~ 4 pa 50 ~_~ 87~0 24__!1 6_2~9 $175,000.00 S87,500.00
* * SERVI(~. AREA TOTAL * * 1.70 1032 3263 934 2329 ~237,500.00
9 Bethel Rd. Royal Freeport Pkwy. 0.65 4 ma 50 201. 910 131. 779 $2,135,000.00 $1,067,500.00
SERVICE AREA TOTAL * ' 0.65 201 910 131 779 ~1~067,500.00
10 Denton Tap Rd. Southwestern Stl SW RR 0.20 6 pa 50 1435 435 287 148 $2315,133.40 $1,407,566.70
Belt Line Rd. IH 635 Southwestern 1.60 6 pa 100 3047 6960 4875 2085 $8,240,212.00 $8,240,212.00
* * SERVICE AR EA TOTAL * * 1.80 4482 7395 5162 2233
C:\Coppell3.wkl
CITY OF COPPELL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE
SERVICE AREA MAXIMUM FEE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
SERVICE AREA: 1
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 9476
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 3982
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = - 1042
NET CAPACITY = 4452
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $5,739,420.50
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $2,696,485.87
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $3,042,934.63
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 82
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 246
PERCENT OF CIP ATYRIBLrIED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 5.5 %
COST OF CIP ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $148,997
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $606
SERVICE AREA: 2
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH- MI CICAP) = 4431
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI CIT)EM) = 2914
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = -668
NET CAPACITY = 849
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $4,214,17030
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $807,454.47
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $3,406,716.03
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA -- 792
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 2376
PERCENT OF CIP ATTRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT -- 280 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $807,454.47
MAX IMPACF FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $340
-- SERVICE AREA: 3
· TOTAL CAPACITY VEH- MI (TCAP) = 2380
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 1015
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = - 121
NET CAPACITY = 1244
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $1,498,750.00
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $783,380.25
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $715,369.75
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 666
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 1998
PERCENT OF CIP ATI'ItIBLrIED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 161 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $783,3802.5
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $392
SERVICE AREA: 4
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 1720
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI ('IT)EM) = 613
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES CI"DEF) = -52
NET CAPACITY = 1055
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $1,927,750.00
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $1,182,428.05
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $745,321.95
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA -- 72
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 216
PERCENT OF CIP AT'FRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 20.5 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $242,090
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $1,121
SERVICE AREA: 5
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH- MI (TCAP) = 3078
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 2248
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = -77
NET CAPACITY = 753
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $1,662,566.70
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $406,72928
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE -- $1,255,837.42
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 139
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 417
PERCENT OF CIP ATFRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT -- 55.4 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $225,241
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $540
SERVICE AREA: 6
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 8143
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 4653
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = -31
NET CAPACITY = 3459
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $3,636,615.50
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $1,544,768.88
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $2,091,846.62
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 10
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 30
PERCENT OF CIP ATIRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 0.87 %
COST OF CIP A'ITRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $13,.398
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $447
SERVICE AREA: 7
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 8538
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) -- 2482
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES CFDEF) = -52
NET CAPACITY = 6004
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA -- $2,875,000.00
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $2,021,726.40
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE -- $853,273.60
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 90
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 270
PERCENT OF CIP ATFRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 4.5 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $90,917
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $337
· SERVICE AREA: 8
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 3263
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 934
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = 0
NET CAPACITY = Z~29
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $Z~7'500.00
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $169,518.08
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $67,981.92
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 214
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 642
PERCENT OF CIP ATYRIBITIED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 27.6 %
COST OF CIP ATFRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $46,728
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $73
· SERVICE AREA: 9
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH- MI (TCAP) -- 910
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 131
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES CFDEF) = 0
NET CAPACITY = 779
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $1,067,500.00
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $913,826.92
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $153,673.08
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 76
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 228
PERCENT OF CIP ATI"RIB~D TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 29..3 %
COST OF CIP ATI"RIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $267,462
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $1,173
SERVICE AREA: 10
TOTAL CAPACITY VEH-MI (TCAP) = 7395
TOTAL EXISTING DEMAND VEH-MI (TDEM) = 5162
TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCIES (TDEF) = -332
NET CAPACITY --- 1901
TOTAL COST OF CIP IN SERVICE AREA = $9,647,778.70
COST OF NET CAPACITY = $2,480,111.87
COST FOR EXISTING USAGE = $7,167,666.83
TOTAL NEW TRIPS IN SERVICE AREA = 657
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND (3 MI AVG.) = 1971
PERCENT OF CIP ATFRIBUTED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = 104 %
COST OF CIP ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT = $2,480,112
MAX IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT = $1,258
Land Use Assumptions Report
For The
Roadway Impact Fee Study
Prepared for the
City of Coppell
July, 1994
by
15400 Knoll Trail, Suite 111, Dallas, Texas, 75248, (214) 661-1265
PURPOSE
In October, 1993, the City of Coppell authorized a study to implement roadway impact fees as
defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Chapter 395 requires that capital
.. improvements accommodate new development expected to occur over a 10 year period. A land-use
study has been conducted to establish demographic estimates for the base year (1994) and growth
· within a ten-year period (2004). As pan of this study an ultimate build--out of the City of Coppell was
also developed. This document defines the methodology used to establish this information.
METHODOLOGY
When developing this type of data several factors should be examined. The type, quantity and density
of existing development, growth trends, and the availability and access of vacant land were all
included in the development of growth factors. Also considered were the recent zoning changes
recommended by the City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission and acted upon by the City
Council.
To establish a reliable base for growth estimates the 1990 census data was used as a starting point.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Data Center recently
completed their 20 year projections for population and employment within this region. This data was
based on the 1990 census data and the DRAM/EMPAL models (demand driven models using
employment locations, household income quartile, land use and travel time). A Demographic
Methodology Task Force consisting of 10 local city planners and representatives of TxDOT,
NCTCOG and DART provided review and input into the process. Final approval of this data was
made by all Planning Directors within the region.
TRAFFIC SURVEY ZONES
NCTCOG established Traffic Survey Zones (TSZ) for use in their transportation model in the early
1970's. These zones are based on homogeneity of land uses and are delineated by census tracts or
natural boundaries (roadways, creeklines, railroads, etc). For this study, TSZ served as a natural
division for collection of data. TSZ's reflect the reestablished Denton/Dallas county line and recent
annexation of land into the City of Coppell.
SERVICE AREAS
Chapter 395 dictates that a roadway service area cannot exceed three miles in diameter. All service
areas conform to this requirement and relate to existing roadway facilities as shown in Figure 1. Each
service areas consist of one to five TSZ 's. These service areas will be used in the development of
capital improvement inventories and development of fee structures.
BASE DA TA
It was determined that the above information best served as a basis in establishing growth rates within
1
the City of Coppell. An annual growth rate was calculated from 1990 to 2010 (these rates are
compouncled annually). Tables 1 (Employment) and 2 (Population) illustrate growth rates for each
TSZ and Service Area. The projected growth rate for each TSZ was then examined for validity using
the City of Coppell aerials (December 1993), the current zoning map, the City of Coppell
Subdivision Development Map, and input from the Planning and Engineering Departments.
The 1994 projections of employment and population were verified using the above method.
Categories of uses followed the existing zoning ordinance: Residential (SF-ED, SF-0 thru SF-I 8, 2F-
9, TH-I & 2, MF-1 &2, and MH) and Nonresidential (O, IL HC, TC, LI, HI, PD, FP, SUP).
Population was verified using the City of Coppell Engineering Department Subdivision Development
Map, an inventory of existing housing and input from the Planning Director. Employment was
verified using an inventory of existing development, information provided by the Planning
Department, on-site review, and input from the Planning Director.
GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS AND TEN-YEAR PROJECTIONS
It was assumed that the City of Coppell could accommodate future growth through increased school
and infrastructure facilities. Growth areas were identified by identifying TSZ with the highest growth
factors. These area were then cross checked for available vacant land, land uses (existing and
potential development), trends of development, and accessibility (future roadway/freeway
improvements). This information was reviewed for logical uniformity with the 1994 and ultimate
build-out of development. The Planning Director again provided input as to the validity of these
assumptions.
UL TIMA TE BUILD-OUT PROJECTIONS
An inventory of vacant land was made using the City of Coppell aerials. Vacant gross acreage were
coded using the zoning categories listed above and modified for recent changes made by the City
Council. Roadways and landscape requirements were then subtracted from these gross acreage to
reflect the net amount of developable land. Floor area ratios were taken from the City's zoning
ordinance and modified by the Planning Director to reflect a realistic density. Table 3 depicts these
calculations for all land uses within a service area. These numbers were then added to the existing
1994 inventory to define an ultimate build-out of the City of Coppell.
SUMMARY
The 1994 existing inventory (Figure 2) shows a total of 7,060 persons employed within the city
boundaries and a resident population of 21,675. These numbers conform to the estimates made by
NCTCOG and the City of Coppell Planning Department. By 2004 (Figure 3) employment will
increase by 60% for a total of 11,325. Population for 2004 is projected to increase approximately
37% for a total of 29,765. Ultimate build-out for the City of Coppell (Figure 4) shows the total
capacity of employment to be 89,966 and a population of 38,167. Based on these numbers the city's
1994 residential development is 76% built and employment is at 0.1174% of its capacity.
Leftwich & Associates
Transportation Planners & Engineers
Ph (214)230-0865, Fx (214)230-8183
City of Coppell Service Areas
TOTAL ~ 1
EMPLOYMENT - 7,0~0
POPULATION - 21,675 ~ o.¢.~.~
307 2
Pop - 906 (348) Emp - 385 3
Pop- 4,447 (1,71 0)
Emp - 81
.d Pop - 4,358 (1,676)
~ Sandy Like Rd
4 "'
Emp- 171 ~ '-
~ v 6; 7'
Pop - 725 (279) 5 ~o o ,- ~ ~.
~o ~ o~ o ~ Emp - 376
'-, ~, ¢), ~", =~ Pop - 4,837 (1,860)
a..~ ~ E o
9 / ,,, ~.t iii/~1 BeR Line Rd
Emp - 248
Pop - 0
Emp - 4,454
,, Pop - 47 (18) Employment - (basic, retail, service)
Population - xxx (number of households)
1994 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Figure 2
Data from NCTCOG- 1990 Census data
Numbers reflect existing land developed
Lefiwich & Associates
Transportation Planners & Engineers
Ph (214)230-O865, Fx (214)230-8183
City of Coppell Service Areas
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT - 11,325
POPULATION - 29,765 Emp - 445 2
Pop - 1,957 (753)
Emp - 486 3
Pop- 7,224 (2,778)
Emp - 209
Thweet Rd Pop - 5,296 (2,037)
Sandy Lake Rd
4 '-'
Emp - 404 ~
7
Pop- 1,344 (517) 5 ~. ;~ ~..
(o ~ ~ ~ Emp - 415
, , , , Pop- 6,192 (2,382)
~""d E ~
~J ~. ~ O. 8~Un~Rd
Emp- 1,005
Pop- 0
Emp - 6,810
Pop- 5
, Employment - xxx (includes basic, retail, service)
Population - xxx (number of households)
2004 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Figure 3
Data from NCTCOG - 1990 Census data
Lefiwich & Associates
Transportation Planners & Engineers
Ph (214)230-0865, Fx (214)230-8183
City of Coppell Service Areas
PopulationEmpl°yment- 38,' 89,966167 ~_.._. Pop - 4,459 (1715) Pop - 9,275 (3,567) ~ ~
Emp
542
~ Pop- 5,691 (2,189) ~')
Pop- 1,282 (493) ,5 >-. ~ ~
~ ~ ,- ~ · Emp - 1,525
' , ' Pop- 9,978 (3,837)
Bethel Rd ct ct
E~ E~
9 ~
Emp - 11,424
Pop - 0 Emp - 21,747
10 ?o -
j Employment - xxx (includes basic, retail, service)
Population - xxx (number of households)
BUILD-OUT POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Figure 4
Numbers reflect vacant land under current zoning and exlr,ting 1994 developed land
CITY OF COPPELL ROADWAY IMPACT STUDY TABLE 1 07/14/94
EMPLOYMENT --
ServlceAm. TSZ TPZONE OWTN/I~ATE 1990 1991 1992 1N3 1994 1996 19~ 1~7 1~8 1999 20001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200~ 2007 2008 2009 20t0
7 ~ 00100 1~- 201 203 ~ 207 209 211 213 -~15 5~-8- -' '~ -252 2-2-4 2~-- 2'29 231 23~3 238 238~- 2~40- 243
g~)6/13114 288 0 0001 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 ___3_3 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
307 448
__2 9 265 0 0100 2~4 2g7 300 303 308 309 312 315 318 322 325 328 331 335 338 341 345 348- 352 355 359
9642/13115 285 00010 1 4 8 8 79 147 147 147 147 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 ~49 149 149 149 149
3~ 4~
3 12 ~ 0 1000 55 81 67 73 81 89 97 107 118 130 143 157 173 190 - ~209 230 253 278 3~ 338 370
~ 4_ ...... 23 271 .... ~0_ _0,~0_ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 - -4 $ 8
24 270 00gO0 4_7- 51 58_ 81 e~ 72 79 88 94 102 111 121 132 144 157 171 18· 203 222 242 2~3
27 2~9 0 _0900~ 73 80 87 95 103 112 122 133 145 159 173 188 205 224 244 ~ 290 31~ 344 37~'- 409
171 404
_ ~ 5 .... 19 272 0_0--100 55 58 58 57 57 58 58 59 ~0 ~0 61 81 82 63 83 84 ~4 ~5 ~ ~-- 67
~__ 20 263 00gO0 91 gg 108 118 128 I~4~_ _ 1~.~_ 1~ 181 198 215 235 258 279 304 331 381 394 429 488 510
1~6
6 33 273 0 0010 ~5 ~ 85 85 ~5 85 ~E, 85 -'~ ~ 68 ~ ~ 88 68 88 ~ ~ ~ ~1
15 275 00100 180 182 1~3 165 168 1~ 170 172 173 175 177 179 180 182 184 18~ 188 189 191 193 195
___ 16 274 0 0100 441 445 450 454 459 483 488 473__ ~478 482 4_8.7~ 492 49_7 . ~502~ ~ 507__ 512 517~ _5.~. _52~8 ..... 5_33___
8~I 787
7 13 259 00100 361 3~5 3~8 372 378 379 383 387 391 395 3~9 403 ~ 411~ 415 41~ 423 428 432 ~ 43~ 440
378 418
8 ~ -~ 0 1000 100 I~:N~) 1~2 145 100 178 103 212 ~1 ~7 283 ~11 -~2- ~7(~ 414 45~ 501--' --551 ~ ~7'
16'2 427
9 29 539 0 1500 1 I 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 ~ 5 5 8 7-- ~ 9 11 12 14 16
3~ ~1 o15o0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 ,~ 4 5 ~ e 7 8 ~ . ~2 14
.......................................
24~1 t
50 278 007_00~_ 188 190 192 1~4 19~ 198 ~ 202 204 206 20_8_ 210 21_2_ 214 216 218 2~---~23" 225 227
4.454 ~810
TOTALI ?~0~ 1 t
TABLE 1 WK4 LEFTWlCH & ASSOCIATES 1
CITY OF COPPELL ROADWAY IMPACT STUDY TABLE 2 07114/94
[-POPUI.. ~.TION
TSZ TPZONE 0WTHa~TE 1990 1881 IB82 1993 1994 10~6 19H 1H7 1808 lggg 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008I 200~ 2007 2008 2008 2010
4 287 00000 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 2~8 00400 578 801 625 ~50 878 703 731 781 791 823 _8~ 880 ~25 ~2 1,001 1,041 1,063 1,12~_ 1,171 1.218
13112 294 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 10 12 14 17 20 24 28 34 41 50 59 71
9~36/13114 288 01500 131 151 173 lgg 229 263 ~ 348 401 _ _4~_1~__ ~ -530 869 701 806 927 1,086 1,22~ 1,410 1,~21 1,8~4 2.144
9 2~5 00400 3.888 4,023 4.184 4,351 4,388 4,543 4,724 4,913 5,110 5,~3_1_ 4 5.52__7~ __5,748 5,978 8,217 8,486 8__,_72~4 8,993 7,273 7,584 7,867 8,181
8642/13115 285 0.2000 2 4 8 10 79 147 178 212 254 __~.~38~______~439____ ~52~7 ~3__2 7~58__ 910 1.__08~__~1._3~11 1,573~ 1.887 2.286
4,447 7,224
12 2~4 00197 1,187 1.210 2,~06 3.~0~ 4.358 4,444 4,531 4,820 4,711 4,804 4.889 4.g85 5,093 5,194 5,? 5,? 5,__5~ 5,815 5,725 5,838 5.1~3
4,3S~ 5,2~
23 271 00860 517 552 ~ ~30 873 718 787 819 875 935 . 99~8 1.~ 1,139 1.218 1.2~g 1,387 1,481 1.582 1.~g0 1,804 1.727
24 270 -01000 5 5____ 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
27 289 -0 0100 51 50 50 49 49 49 48 48 47 47 48 48 45 45 44 44 ~3 43 43 42 42
19 272 0-0400 1,911 1,987 2,087 2.150 2,238 2,325 2.418 2.515 2.815 2,7~0 2.829 2,842 ~3.~O 3,182 3.309 3.442 3,579 ~,722 3,871 4,02~ 4.18~--
2,303 3,384
33 273 -~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 - --~)- 0 ..... 0 ..... -0---- --~-- 0 --
15 275 00030 3,019 3,028 3,037 3,046 3,055 3,065 3,074 3.083 .~ 3,092 3,101 3.111 3,120 3,129- 3,139 3,148 3,158 3.187 3,177 3.186 3.198 3,205
4,081 _4,_3~_ 2~
1_3 25~ __ 002_50 4,809 4,829__ 5,052 5,179 4,~837 4,~58 5,082 5.2~ 5.339 _5,~473~ _5.609. _5,750 . 5.893__0.~041 8.192 · 8,347 8,505_. e,~68 . 0,83~__ 7,005 7,181
...... ~5--- ~-'- ~o00-' o-- ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o
61 257 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
:~ s3e 0 oooo 0 0 0 0 0 --0-- ~-- ~0--- -~ - -0 - --0--- - 0 0 0 - o-- 0 0 0-- 0 0 0
- 3o ~2 oa~o~_ 'b ..... o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___0 0 0 ~0__ _0~_. _0__ 0 o_
31 ~1 0 omo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
32 ~eO -0 2~O0 e7 78 e~ 50 40 32 25 20 18 13~ 10-- 8~ 7 5 ~ 4 ~ '3 ~ 2 1 I
37 277~ -0 2000 18 14 12 g 7 8- 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 I 1 --1 - 0 ~) 0 - -0 '
50 278 0 0000 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ -~ -- --~ - 0 · 0 --0- 0----
47 5
TOTALI 21 ~875 i ~788
TABLES) WK4 LEFTWlCH & ASSOCIATES 1
LEGEND
J-----J SINGLE FAMILY
DENTON CrlUNTt DENTON COUNfY
DALI_AS: CIDUNI'Y ~ TOWNHOUSE
OFFICE
RETAIL
~ TOWN CENTER
['----] LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
':I ~ :: ~ PARKS/OPEN SPACE
/ i]i~I JJ~J]~ INSTITUTIONAL,
SCHOOLS, &:
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
LAND USE ASSUMPTION MAP
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
1' = 3000'