Jefferson-CS 940519 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: . efferson @ Riverchase, Preliminary Plat Addition
P & Z HEARING DATE: May 19, 1994
C. C. HEARING DATE: June 14, 1994
LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 400 feet north
of Rive~¢hase 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/engr.)
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 heating 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 heating. That
data is presented here as information, and later in this docket for additional
discussion.
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D containing 4 lanes in a 110 foot r.o.w.
Item 12
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 0VlF-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.
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 heating regarding the traffic
study (access, deceleration lanes, gates, etc.), variance requests involving
screening walls and dumpster 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 Commission'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.
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
.stf