Shadowridge P3/FP-AG 881213SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 5:00 p.m. Monday - 8 Days Preceding City Council Meeting
Rev.: Effective 1/20/88 f ?
i AGENDA REQUEST FORM
FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 13, 1988
I. REF/FILE NUMBER
: Shadowridge Estates Addition, 3RD Increment - Final Plat
II. ITEM CAPTION : TO consider approval of a final plat for Shadowrid§e
Estates Addition~ 3RD Increment~ located at the northeast corner of Coppell Road and
Plantation Drive.
III. ACTION RECOMMEN-DED : Date of Planning & Zoning Meeting:
Decision of Planninq & Zoninq Commission: Approved (7-0)
IV. REP. IN ATTENDANCE
NOTIFICATION TO
METHOD OF CONTACT : Letter
DATE : 11-21-88
November 17, 1988
VI.
FINANCIAL REVIEW : 1. BUDGETED ITEM N/A :
2. BUDGET AMOUNT :
3. ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR THIS ITEM :
4. AMOUNT OVER OR UNDER BUDGET :
5. LOW BIDDER RECOMMENDED :
YES NO
YES NO
SOURCE OF FUNDING
CO'S OR BONDS FUNDS :
(Series or year authorized) :
OPERATING BUDGET (Account Number) :
OTHER :
APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER :
ITEM NUMBER /G
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DMEMOI
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION FOR~AGE~A ITEM
****************************************
* DATE RECEIVED *
* TIME *
* To be completed by City Manager Dept.*
****************************************
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED
MEMORANDUMS ....................... :
LETTERS ........................... :
REPORTS ........................... :
BILLS ............................. :
BID ............................... '-
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ................ :
MINUTES ........................... :
ORDINANCE ......................... ;
RESOLUTION ........................ :
PROCLAMATION ...................... :
MAPS .............................. :
ZONING PLANS ...................... :
PRELIMINARY PLATS ................. :
FINAL PLATS ....................... :
SITE PLANS ........................ :
LANDSCAPE PLANS ................... :
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS .......... :
....... :
REVIEWED BY (If applicable)
CITY ATTORNEY ..................... :
FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. :
OTHER ............................. :
SUBMITTED BY
DEPARTMENT ........................ :
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ............... :
APPROVED BY
CITY MANAGER ...................... :
DENIED BY
CITY MANAGER ...................... :
AMOUNT PER/SET NO. OF PAGES
/
SIGNATURE
DATE SUBMITTED
S I GNATURE
/'/Il ~ "/~',~
~ I ~ATURE~'
/ /z-s
DATE REVIEWED
DATE SUBMITTED
SIGNATURE
DATE APPROVED
Additional documentation required
Need for further discussion
Submitted after deadline
At the request of
A~n,~ ¥ORM 2%~ SIDE (~ame~
DATE:
RE:
LOCATION:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
December 15, 1988
Case #:
Shadowridge Estates Addition Third Increment - Final Plat
Northeast corner of Coppell Road and Plantation Drive
APPLICANT:
Centex Development Company
TRANSPORTATION:
The applicant has submitted a traffic study, prepared by
DeShazo, Starek and Tang, Inc. which concludes that a
4-lane undivided thoroughfare is adequate for Coppell
Road. Therefore, the total width of R.O.W. required to
be dedicated by the developer is 32.50 feet, as indicated
as such on the final plat.
SUMMARY:
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS:
The applicant is requesting five variances. They are
provided on the attached letter from Schrtckel, Rollins
and Associates, Inc. Staff recommends that a note be
added to the final plat stating that the owner of Lot 50,
be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the
fence on said lot, and subject to the regulations as
outlined in the ordinance for PD-107. Additionally, the
street escrow for their 1/2 portion of Coppell Road along
the front footage of the property was calculated to be
$56,891.00. Fox and Jacobs has agreed to pay this
amount, once an escrow agreement has been signed by the
City and the applicant. (Please see attached letter from
Fox and Jacobs). The escrow agreement is not complete at
this time. Therefore, staff asks that the City Council
consider approval of the final plat with the condition
that the escrow amount be paid to the City.
1)
2)
3)
Approve the final plat with variances, and
conditions.
Approve the final plat.
Deny the final plat.
DRC comments
Final Plat
Letter requesting variances
SHADOW-RIDGE. STF. RPT
MEMO1
. FOX ICOBS
December 7, 1988
Taryon Bowman
P & Z coordinator
city of Coppell
Per our conversation on the above date, we (Fox & Jacobs)
will pay the escrow amount of $56,891 on the 3rd increment
of the Shadow Ridge Estates. This amount will be paid at
the time a written agreement is established between Fox &
Jacobs and the city of Coppell
sincerely,
Tom Houser
North Dallas
Production Mgr.
NORTH DIVISION / 1422 W. Main / Suite 206 / Lewisville, Texas 75067 / 214-221-5556
GINN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
November 4, 1988
Taryon Bowman
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, TX 75019
Re: Shadowridge Estates, 3rd Increment
Final Plat & Construction Plans
DRC - Engineering
Dear Taryon:
We have no objections to the final plat and construction plans
overall. A note does need to be added to the plat, however,
regarding a floodplain development permit as required per the
Comprehensive Floodplain Management Ordinance, Section C,
paragraph 4, page 34. Also, based on the results of the traffic
study by DeShazo, Starek & Tang, the right-of-way width for
Coppell Road should be 65' total (32.5' each side). The final
plat should be revised to reflect this.
At the time of final platting, the applicant shall be required to
escrow $56,891.00 for their one-half obligation to the paving and
drainage improvements for Coppell Road along their frontage.
This request shall be in lieu of a half street being constructed.
The above escrow deposit is based on $100.00 per front foot
construction cost. The actual cost due to the City will be
computed upon completion of the roadway improvements and the
account adjusted accordingly.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin Peiff~rF P.E.
cc: File 88305
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas, Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
$chrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
November 3, 1988
Taryon Pastor Bowman
Planning & Zoning Coordinator
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Taryon:
I
/' /
The following variances are requested for Shadow Ridge Estates
Third Increment:
Ao
Be
There shall be a side yard on each side of the lot having a
width of not less than six (6) feet.
That the width of the lot shall be less than sixty (60) feet
at the front street building line.
That a screening fence shall be constructed within the
property line of lot #50 and that said fence will be
constructed of wood and that the maintenance of said fence
shall be the responsibility of the owner of lot #50.
That the alley in its east to west configuration will
intersect Coppell Road.
Homes will front Coppell Road·
Contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SCHRICKEL, ROLLINS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ogden Bass
Urban Planner
November 14, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Taryon Bowman, P&Z Coordinator
Russell R. ~, P.E., City En§ineer
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 determining 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 Sizinq Study
RECOMMENDATION:
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 recommends relative only to roadway considerations, that
the R.O.W. should be 60 feet in width). If, 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 C4U classification on page 31, Plat 6, Major Thoroughfare Plan.
Then on page 24, Item 5, defines C4U, 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 pa§e 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 congideration for traffic. (The study indicates none
is needed. Other considerations needed for school traffic could be
developed on site).
3. Distances 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.
ROAD
./
?
SANOY LAKE R~AD
BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD
J.T DUNKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC
Major Thoroughfare
Propoaed Major Thoroughfare
Collector
Propoaed Collector
Exlatlng Interchange
Propoaad Interchange
Propoaed Overpeea
Thoroughfare Type
L.
LU
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 surf~_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 arid
I
J,-- ~. ~' ~ ~' ~ __
TYPE C4D
MINOR ARTERIAL
C~IU - Minor Arterial - The C~U Minor Arterial streets are intended to utilize 65 feet of right-
of-way. Two 12-fo.07.~. 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 C4U,
Minor Arterials are Coppell Road, Cowboy; Drive and Southwestern Blvd.
TYPE C4U
MINOR ARTERIAL
GEOMETRIC DES1GN STANDARDS FOR THOROUGHFARES
DEFINITIONS
No)o= A=te=ia]:
Mina= A~te~ial:
Collecto::
Local:
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Mo)o= A=te=ial:
Minor Arterial:
Collecto=:
L°col:
A tho=oughfa=e that se=ves the entt=e =egion
and co==tes o high volume of long t=tps.
A tho=oughfo=e that inte=connects w~th the
ma)o= a=te=iol, but se=yes o smalle=
geog=aphtc o=eo.
A thoroughfare that co])ects t=offtc within
residential, commercto! and indust=tal areas,
and channels it into the a=te=ia) system.
A thoroughfare that p=imort]y se=yes os di=ect
access to abutting p=ope=ty, such as o
=esidentiol st=eet.
d Lanes divided, 110 feet, within 300 feet of
intersection 130 feet.
q Lanes divtded, BS feet, within 300 feet of
intersection lOS feet.
6 Lanes undivided 9S feet.
S Lanes undivided ?S feet.
4 Lanes undivided 6S feet.
2 or q Lanes undivided 60 feet.
2 Lanes undivided SO feet.
Appendix A
TABLE 1 November 16, 1.988
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.
2-33 (DTRD WIDTH
MAJ.ART 120)
M6D
2-33
MAJ.ART
100 - 80 14 33/3
13.5 -
10
MODERATE
SPEEDS
ROYAL/BETHEL/
MCARTHUR/
SANDY LAKE/
FREEPORT
- 5/75 - 59 ......
- 4/65 - 45 ......
C4U MIN - 65 - 48 NONE 24/2 - 8.5 COPPELL/
COWBOY/
SOUTHWESTERN
BLVD.
CLU 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'
- 6/95 - 67 ......
C4D MIN - 85 - '65 17 24/2 LOW -10 PARKWAY BLVD.
44 to (LEFT TRAFFIC
2-22 TURN) VOLUME
RESTRICTED
ROW
Minutes of November 17, 1988
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 3
Following discussion, Commissioner Weaver moved to deny the
preliminary plat for Shadow Woods Estates. Commissioner
Tunnell seconded the motion; motion carried (?-0) with Chair-
man Munsch and Commissioners Green, Johnson, Redford, Thomas,
Tunnell and Weaver voting in favor of the motion.
Item 11:
To consider approval of a preliminary plat for Heartz Road,
located between Parkway Boulevard and Sandy Lake Road, approx-
imately 1,400 feet east of Denton Tap Road, at the request of
Jerry Parche Consulting Engineers.
Following discussion, Commissioner Johnson moved to deny the
preliminary plat for Heartz Road. Commissioner Tunnell
seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Chairman Munsch
and Commissioners Green, Johnson, Redford, Thomas, Tunnell and
Weaver voting in favor of the motion.
Item 12:
To consider approval of afinal plat for ShadowridKe Estates -
Third Increment, located at the northeast corner of Coppell
Road and Plantation Drive, at the request of Schrickel
Rollins, and Associates.
Again Taryon Bowman introduced the item to the Commission.
She stated that this final plat will allow for the con-
struction of nine single-family lots. She further stated that
the applicant has submitted a traffic study, prepared by
DeShazo, Starek and Tang, Inc., which concludes that a 4-lane
undivided thoroughfare is adequate for Coppell Road. There-
fore, the total width of R.O.W. required to be dedicated by
the developer is 32.50 feet, as indicated as such on the final
plat. She further stated that the applicant has requested
five variances. They are as follows:
A)
There shall be a side yard on each side of the lot having
a width of not less than six feet.
~)
That the width of the lot shall not be less than sixty
feet at the front street building line.
c)
That a screening fence shall be constructed within the
property line of lot #50, and that said fence will be
constructed of wood with metal posts set in concrete, and
that the maintenance of said fence shall be the respon-
sibility of the owner of lot #50.
D)
That the alley in its east to west configuration will
intersect Coppell Road.
E) That homes will front Coppell Road.
Minutes of November 17, 1988
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page 4
Item 13:
Following discussion, Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the
final plat for Shadowridge Estates, Third Increment, as
submitted with variances. Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion; motion carried (7-0) with Chairman Munsch and Commis-
sioners Green, Johnson, Redford, Thomas, Tunnel1 and Weaver
voting in favor of the motion.
To consider approval of a final plat for the Creekview North
Addition, Lots 1-4, Block 1.
Following discussion, Commissioner Johnson moved to deny the
final plat for Creekview North, Lots 1-4, Block 1. Commis-
sioner Tunnell seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with
Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Green, Johnson, Redford,
Thomas, Tunnell and Weaver voting in favor of the motion.
MINITS 111788
MEMO1