Loading...
Jefferson-CS 940721 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE: Jefferson at Riverchase, Preliminary Plat P & Z HEARING DATE: July 21, 1994; last heard May 19, 1994 C. C. HEARING DATE: August 9, 1994 LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 400 feet north of Riverchase Drive SIZE OF AREA: 21.0222 acres for a proposed 386 unit apartment complex CURRENT ZONING: MF-2 (although Planning Commission has recommended Office zoning for this parcel) REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval APPLICANT: RPG Estates, Inc. JPI Texas Nelson Corp. (owner) (applicant) (planner/engineer) 8440 Walnut Hill 600 E. Las Colinas 5999 Summerside Dallas, 75231 Suite 1800 Suite 202 373-6666 Irving, 75039 Dallas, 75252 556-1700 380-2605 HISTORY: This property is one of the parcels upon which a public hearing was authorized by the Planning Commission to determine proper zoning. On March 14, 1994, the Commission unanimously recommended that (O) Office zoning was more appropriate than MF-2. That recommendation was forwarded to Council on April 12 at which time the City Council elected to hold the recommendation under advisement until June 14 so that the Planning Commission could consider additional data which had been submitted to Council before their hearing. That data is presented here as information, and later in this docket for additional discussion. On Ma), 19, the Planning Commis.~ion considered the additional data and denied the plat. Item 10 TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D containing 4 lanes in a 110 foot r.o.w. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North -vacant and TU r.o.w.; A and MF-1 (rec. for O) South - Riverchase Golf Course; SUP SF-12 East - Riverchase Golf Course; SUP SF-12 West -vacant; SF-9 and MF-2 (recommended for O) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows Office use as best for this site. ANALYSIS: This parcel has been recommended by the Planning Commission for Office use, in conformance with the Master Plan. If Office zoning is granted, of course, this plat would necessitate a denial because the plat would not conform to the appropriate platting requirements. However, on April 12 the Council failed to act on the Commission recommendation, electing to hold any rezoning action until June 14. This was done to allow the Commission time to consider a letter submitted to the City by RPG (attached) which suggests that if the current zoning (MF-2) is allowed to remain unchanged, RPG would be willing to "...develop one and two story.., townhomes..." on a 40 acre parcel RPG owns south of Riverchase Blvd, and currently zoned MF-2. After approximately 45 homes had been constructed, RPG would decide if the market was right for additional units; if not, then it is presumed that the remainder of the parcel would be developed as currently zoned (MF-2). Because of the complicated nature of this letter, recognizing that Commission has recommended Office zoning, and the fact that the Commission needs to exercise caution in considering anything that might even remotely suggest "contract zoning", it was suggested that a separate item be placed on the May 19 docket to discuss all ramifications of this proposal. Although the letter does not directly address the platting issue, eventual use of land does dictate how property can be subdivided, so the letter is provided here for your information. Staff has prepared a separate agenda item for a thorough discussion of the letter and will address the issue at that time. At that meeting, our City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that the letter should not be used to make any determination regarding an), rezoning and further stated that the merits of the townhouse use shouM be discussed if/when the townhouse proposal teas submitted. That proposal has now been submitted and staff will discuss it in detail under that case number. Relative to the plat itself, there are several concerns which are outlined most specifically by Engineering's DRC comments of May 2, 1994, and the applicant's response to some of the issues raised in our DRC meetings of April 28 and May 5. Those letters are included here for your information. Although many of the staff concerns are satisfactorily resolved, there are some which have not been addressed including comments to be made at the hearing regarding the traffic study (access, deceleration lanes, gates, etc.), variance requests involving screening walls and dulnpster locations, pavers needing to be shown at the second entrance, the "linear park" designation in the TU Electric r.o.w, needs to be taken off the plans, the question regarding EMF and residential building location should be addressed, we presume all buildings meet height requirements although no note is included on the plans, streetscape/landscape plans need refinement (botanical names, groundcover identification, plant material, etc.). To summarize, if Council were to follow the Cornlnission's recommendation regarding zoning to "O", this plat will not meet "O" platting requirements, and should be denied. If Commission has concern with the issues not addressed by this plat (and assuming the land will remain zoned MF-2), and prefers to have those concerns addressed before recommending the plat, then it should be denied. If, however, Commission rethinks its earlier recommendation to "O" zoning, or has no concern with the plat specifically addressing all issues prior to approval (for example, recommending approval subject to certain changes to the plat), then the plat would warrant an approval. Staff does not believe, at this time, all concerns can be properly addressed. If they can not, denial would be in order. On June 14, the City Council elected to not follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone this land for office uses, and instead, left the MF-2 zoning on the parcel. That being the case, Commission must look at this plat as reflective of the zoning on it today--MF-2. With an apartment development proposed for this site, staff comments are as follows: botanical as well as common names must be included on the landscape plan floodplain (after reclamation) needs to be shown on the plat trqffic issues must be addressed and resolved internal circulation needs re-analysis (no easy way through the project) RCP encroaching into TU r.o.w, and needs TU's written approval (it is our understanding TU will not allow such encroachmenO northern access gate needs a minimum 60foot set-back all plans need to track with one another all off-site easements need to be shown on the plat with volume and page number In addition, issues such as the EMF question, potential drainage problems, screening requirements', parking reduction, dumpster location, setbacks adjacent to single .family zoning, height limitations, and other issues all need to be discussed prior to taking action on this preliminary plat. Of particular concern to staff is the large number of potential variances proposed for this development. Because standards of development shouM be met through the platting process, and the fact that the Board of Adjustment has not granted any variances regarding this case, Commission needs to consider carefully this proposal, and should only recommend approval -- among other reasons -- (f the variances requested make logical sense, lf they don't, and there are other platting concerns, denial would be in order. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the preliminary plat 2) Deny the preliminary plat ATTACHMENTS' 1) Preliminary plat document 2) landscape plan 3) Republic Property Group April 8th letter 4) staff DRC comments 5) applicant's response to DRC comments 6) traffic study Items 1-6 were included in the earlier Commission packet, included here is the Conceptual Landscape Plan, Site Plan, Preliminary Utility Plan and Preliminary Plat document.