Loading...
CC approval on 9/9/03AGENDA REQUEST FORM COl'FELL DEPT: Planning DATE: September 9, 2003 ITEM #: 15 ITEM CAPTION: Consider approval of the St. Andrews Estates, Lots 1 through 24X, Block 2, Preliminary Plat, to allow a 23 lot single-family subdivision, and one common area lot, on approximately 10 acres of property located along the north side of DeForest Road between Prestwick Court and Stratford Lane. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON ABOVE DATE GOAL(S): I~l O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Date of P&Z Meeting: Decision of P&Z Commission: Motion to Approve, subject to conditions 1,3, 5 below; specify that the common landscaping and wall easement will be maintained by the HOA; ensure that a connecting sidewalk will be constructed between lots 14 & 15; understanding that a $ 2,000 flood study review fee will be paid to the City, and no development will be allowed in the floodplain areas until all appropriate approvals are obtained; no structures or fill will be allowed in the revised floodplain; engineering will require additional information on the grading plan and determination and approval of the final tree mitigation plan. M - Peters S - Suhy York absont August 21, 2003 Approval (6-0) with Commissioners McCaffrey, Reese, Kittrell, McGahey, Halsey and Foreman voting in favor. None opposed. Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1) Cul-de-sac exceeding 600 feet in length being granted by City Council. (CONDITION MET) 3) Approval of the alignment of the extension of Stonewick Lane. (CONDITION MET) 5) Wall and alley waivers being granted by City Council. (CONDITION MET) 7) Abide by other review agency comments. Staff recommends approval. DIR. REVIEW: , -~, FIN. REVIEW: CM REVIEW: Digitally signed by Jim Witt DN cn=Jim Witt Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: ~4St. Andrews Estates PP 1-AR CASE: CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT St. Andrews Estates~ Lots 1-24X~ Block 2 Preliminary Plat P & Z HEARING DATE: C.C. HEARING DATE: August 21, 2003 September 9, 2003 STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director LOCATION: Along the north side of DeForest Road, between Prestwick Court and Stratford Lane. SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 10 acres of property CURRENT ZONING: SF-12 (Single family-12) REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval to allow a 23-1ot subdivision, plus a common area lot. APPLICANT: The Holmes Builders, Inc. 1406 Halsey Way, Suite 100 Carrollton, TX. 75007 (972) 242-1770, Ext. 201 FAX (972) 242-2931 HISTORY: Page I of 4 There has been no recent development history on the subject tract, as it has been used as the City's Service Center for many years. The Service Center recently moved to a new location, and this 1 O-acre Item # 7 property was placed in the market place for sealed bids. The Holmes Builders, Inc., was the successful bidder and now wishes to plat the property for residential development. TRANSPORTATION: DeForest Road is an unimproved asphalt road contained within a variable-width right-of-way ranging from 40 to 50 feet. It is planned to eventually be a 27-foot wide concrete street with a 50-foot right- of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- single-family residence; PD-184 SF-ED South single-family residences; PD-137 (zero lot line) East - single-family residences; PD-161 SF-12 West - single family residence; SF-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 1996 Comprehensive Master Plan shows the property as suitable for public/institutional use which has now' moved: single-family residences were proposed if the Service Center were to vacate the property. DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 4 Recently, this 10-acre City-owned land was put out for bid and purchased by The Holmes Builders, Inc., a single- family developer/builder. There are concerns with this plat that must be addressed before development can occur. First, alleys are normally required in any residential development not requesting a zoning change to PD. Although the Planning Commission cannot waive the requirements of the subdivision regulations (which require alleys), Council can make exceptions to those rules on a case-by-case basis. Second, the cul-de-sac maximum length is specified as 600 feet. As measured to the back of the cul-de-sac, this distance is a bit greater than 600 feet. Third, setbacks along DeForest Road are normally 30 feet. If this were a normal privacy fence, the Building Official would not allow it. However, this particular structure is a screening WALL, and the 30-foot setback can be waived by Council. Fourth, this plan shows a screening wall height in excess of eight feet. Our maximum allowable height is eight feet. The proposal indicates a screening wall in Item # 7 excess of nine feet. Again, Council can approve the height. Fifth, the most prudent way to address these concerns is normally through the PD zoning process. However, because Council has the authority to waive development guidelines generally spelled out in the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant has the right to apply as he did. This procedure bypasses the zoning process and the advertisement of the case to landowners within 200 feet of the request. Sixth, in an attempt to resolve the 600-foot maximum cul-de-sac length, the applicant has realigned his street with the logical extension of Stonewick Lane in the Prestwick subdivision to the west. This causes a realignment of the existing Stonewick, as well as crossing the Estrada property adjacent to St. Andrews. This alignment needs careful thought regarding its feasibility. As stated above, it could be argued that this application should have requested PD zoning to resolve the above- listed issues and allow surrounding property owners an opportunity to review and comment on the development. However, the density proposed is much less than any zoning around this parcel. Lot sizes range from a little over 12,000-square feet to almost 28,000-square feet. The residential use proposed is a much less intense use than the former City Service Center. The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Public notice was given when the City advertised this property for sale and had a provision that the property would have to be used for single-family SF- 12 construction. Given these facts, it could be debated which process was the more prudent course of action. Staff would have preferred a PD application to cleanly resolve all the issues discussed above at the Commission level. On the other hand, City Council can modily the Subdivision Regulations and get to the same end result. In addition, the Prestwick subdivision just to the west of this property went through an identical development process, opting to request modification to the Subdivision Regulations rather than apply tbr a PD zoning. That project resulted in an excellent residential subdivision. The only issue which might require additional review is the alignment of the proposed extension of Stonewick Lane. Page 3 of 4 Item # 7 RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff recommends conditions: l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) approval subject to the following Cul-de-sac will not exceed 600 feet in length. Sideyard setbacks are placed on oversized lots. Approval of the alignment of the extension of Stonewick Lane. All lots must have 85 feet minimum width at building line. Wall and alley waivers being granted by City Council. Abide by other review agency comments. ALTERNATIVES 1) Recon'krnend approval of the request 2) Recommend disapproval of the request 3) Recommend modification of the request ATTACHMENTS: 1 ) Preliminary Plat 2) Review agency comments (Engineering, Utility Company, Parks, Fire) Page 4 of 4 Item # 7 COl'FELL Project ID PP-03-0056 Address 732 Deforest Rd CITY OF COPPELL DRC REPORT Project Name COP?ELL St. Andrews Manor Project Type Ap@lication Date Case Manager Project Description Preliminary Plat 7/22/03 Gary Sieb to allow a 23 lot single-family subdivision, and one common area lot Agency Building Inspection Electric and Gas Engineering Fire Administration Parks and Recreation 1 of 2 Reviewed By Review Date Greg Jones 7/31/03 Jeff Curry 7/31/03 Teresa Turner 7/31/03 Travis Crump 7/28/03 John Elias 7/30/03 1 .Building Inspection would like further information on improvements to west boundary of subdivision regarding retaining walls, drainage information to address potential future problems with Estrada tract. 2. Sidewalk will need to be constructed between Lots 14 and 15. Common/Flood Plain area? No Comments Recieved 1. include Floodplain Administrator's signature block on plat. 2. Include a note on the plat indicating the maintenance of the median is the responsibility of the HOA. 3. The City's fee for reviewing the Flood Study is $2000. 4. No structures or fill can encroach in the floodplain until the proper FEMA approvals are obtained. 5. It appears that the sidewalk along the north side of the cul-de-sac is proposed within the floodplain. 6. Surface drainage between Lots 16 & 17 and on Lot 14 will not be allowed. 7. A preliminary grading plan will need to be included in the site plan review submittal. 8. Have you planned the cross street to align with Stonewick Lane for a possible future connection? Cul-de-sac length exceeds limits. Do not have enough information to determine tree mitigation. Need to know which trees will be removed. From: Teresa Turner To: Gary Sieb Date: 8/13~03 2:03PM Subject: St. Andrews Estates Gary: 1. On the plat, the portion of the floodplain between Lots 16 & 17 is noted as being removed from the floodplain but retained as a drainage easement. Please explain. 2. A preliminary grading plan was requested and provided however, only proposed grades for the street are shown. Additional information regarding the amount of fill in the floodplain areas is also needed, as well as how each of the individual lots are proposed to drain. 3. As stated before, no development can occur in the floodplain areas until a flood study is submitted for review and all of the appropriate FEMA approvals are obtained. Teresa - ,flngr w Eisner Page 1 From: John Elias To: Gary Sieb Date: 8/21/03 8:19AM Subject: St. Andrews.Mac~r Gary, The tree retribution calculations on the plan are incorrect. I phoned Joe Grubbs the landscape architect that prepared the plans & calculation to discuss how he came up with the numbers. He informed me that he had only considered the trees that would be removed for the streets only. No consideration was given to the trees that would be removed to build the houses, or to fill in the creek on lots #16 & #17. I have calculated the retribution numbers based on trees that will be in the way of the construction of the street, grade issues, as well as the foot-print of each house. They are as follows: total protected trees on site total protected trees to be removed gross retribution preservation credit (705 1 1959) landscape credit (13 x 4 x 50%) 1959"(DBH) 705"(DBH) 1254"(DBH) 36% -4$1"(DBH) -26"(DBH) Net Retribution 777"(DBH) x~lO0.O0 $77,700 Contribution to City of Coppell Reforestation and Natural Areas Fund in the amount of $77,700. Thank You John Elias Park Planner& Landscape Manager City of Coppell. l 5;~t£ V£ 8~t ~At~2tGNV r