Nash Manor/Re-DR010125 City of Coppell
Development Review Committee Comments
Planning Department
Nash Manor - Replat of Lot 6 of the Stringfellow Addition
Nash Street, South of Sandy Lake Road
DRC Date: January 25, 2001 & February 1, 2001
Planning & Zoning Commi~ion Meeting: February 15, 2001
City Council Meeting: March 6, 2001
Site Plan
1. Considering the established lotting and development patterns surrounding the subject
property (generally 20,250 sq. ft. lots -135' x 150'), it is strongly recommended that
the proposed lot sizes be increased to be more compatible with the adjacent lots.
2. The Landscape Easements need to be platted as separate lots (Lots 1X and 6X) to
allow for fences in the front yard.
3. Indicate maximum building pad for Lot 3 to determine if trees can be preserved.
4. Define "wood mould brick" - color, materials, etc. This wall needs to be a "brick by
brick" thin wall.
5. Landscaping detail needs to be a graphic detail (landscape plan) versus a listing of
plant materials.
6. The 8' building lines on the north of Lots 1 and 6 are not delineated.
7. Add surrounding zoning on site plan (see attached).
Replat
1. Considering the established lotting and development patterns surrounding the subject
property (generally 20,250 sq. ft. lots -135' x 150'), it is strongly recommended that
the proposed lot sizes be increased to be more compatible with the adjacent lots.
2. Need retribution information for two trees being removed, and a retribution fee will
be required. Contact Brad Reid in the Leisure Services Department at 972-304-3561.
3. Park Fees of $1,285 per lot will also be due prior to the filing of the plat.
4. Revise the Franchise Utility signature Block to include:
· Verizon instead of General Telephone
· TXU Electric and Gas instead of Lone Star Gas/TU Electric
5. Landscape Easements need to be platted as Lots 1X and 6X to allow for the proposed
walls.
6. Need to submit a draft of the proposed Homeowner's Association documents.
Note:
A.
Please revise plats, site plans, landscape plans, and building elevations based
on staff recommendations. Should applicant disagree with staff comments please
provide reasons why staff recommendations should not be followed when you
attend the February lStDevelopment Review Committee (DRC) meeting.
Page 1 of 2
Each applicant will bring two new sets of revised plats and plans to the
February 1st DRC meeting. Applicants will be asked to show, explain, and
defend any revision. A representative for this project is required to attend the
meeting.
Applicant will have till noon Tuesday, February 6th to resubmit sixteen (16)
folded copies of revised plans and three (3) reduced paper copies (8 1/2 X 11) of
each exhibit to the Planning Department
Page 2 of 2
~'2 PD149 '~
~ ,~ SF9 PD132 ~.~
%
?::i'!'! !':
F
~ ~ $1=.PD~142~
SF9-PD~3
~ PD144
·
A
;12 PD~i31
PD163,;::
MF2
-C
SF9-PDI05
SF9
C
SF12
R
MF2
PD182
TH2
SF7