Riverchase(1)-CS 940120 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE:Riverchase Club Apartments, Preliminary Plat
Riverchase Club Apartments Two, Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 20, 1994
C. C. HEARING DATE: February 8, 1994
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Beltline Road and MacArthur Blvd.
SIZE OF AREA: 13.84 acres, with 280 apartment units
CURRENT
ZONING: MF-2
REQUEST: Approval of preliminary plat showing 280 units in 15 buildings
APPLICANT: RPG Estates, Ltd. C.E.D. Const. N.D. Maier
(Owner-now sold) (Developer-owner) (Engineer)
8440 Walnut Hill Lane 2200 Lucien Way 8800 N. Central
8th Floor Suite 450 Suite 300
Dallas, Tx. 75231 Maitland, Fl. 32751 Dallas, Tx. 75231
373-6666 (407) 660-1110 739-4741
HISTORY: There has been no recent platting activity on the subject tract.
This plat was denied by the Planning Commission on Dee. 16,
1993 for a variety of reasons, among them the need for a
traffic study which will be addressed in detail under
"Analysis".
Items 9 and 10
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D, divided four-lane
thoroughfare,contained within a 110 foot r.o.w.; Beltline Road is
projected to be another P6D, but currently is a two lane, undivided,
asphalt road.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - vacant; MF-2
South - developing commercial; C
East - vacant, golf course and developing single-family; R, SF-12 SUP,
and PD-SF-7
West - vacant and developing single-family; TH-1 and SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows this parcel to develop with Office and Commercial
UseS.
ANALYSIS: Although there are arguments which could be made regarding the construction of
apartments at this location (because of the Comprehensive Plan document), the
land is currently zoned MF-2, and the owner has the right to develop the land as
shown and allowed through zoning. Based on our requirements for subdividing
land, this proposal basically abides by most of our platting rules. There are
several additional comments to be made:
~ a deceleration lane needs to be provided by the applicant for south-bound
MacArthur Blvd. to aid in entering the site. Right-of-way needs to be
shown on the plat and the lane needs to be completed before a c.o. is
issued for the development
,'.~-'" a minimum 5 foot sidewalk must be constructed along MacArthur Blvd.
~. re-evaluation of the drainage system needs to be undertaken prior to
submittal of the final plat
4. assurances that there is no gated/secured entrance to this proposal
5. all covered parking must be interior to the site, needs to be shown on the
plan, and is no closer than 20 feet from the rear property line.
With regard to the type of unit proposed here (low income, not to exceed $27,000
annually), and the fact that we are evaluating two other low income requests in
the immediate area, staff is concerned with the possible negative impact these
developments could have on a city the size of ours, and the concentrated area in
which they are being proposed. To that end, the Council will discuss this issue
at its December meeting and may reflect its collective concern with a letter to the
State. It is our further understanding that the State must ~sign-off" on these low
income projects before funding can occur. Although the type of unit being
proposed is not part of the platting process, this data is conveyed to you for your
information.
Addenda: At the December meeting, Council directed a committee to draft
a letter to the State expressing concern with the potential concentration of
moderate income housing in the City.
We have also learned that the CED group has closed on this land and their
ownership has been reflected above.
For this hearing, the applicant has submitted two plats, Riverchase Club
Apts. (the original plat submission), and Riverchase Club Two (assuming the
r.o.w, along Riverchase Blvd. was not abandoned). At the January 11 City
Council meeting, Council elected to not abandon the Riverchase r.o.w.
Because of that action, the site plan reflected by the original plat submittal
does not comply with our subdivision regulations--it does not show the
dedication of Riverchase Blvd.-and, therefore warrants a denial from the
Commission. It is our further understanding that the applicant would,
therefore, have us conduct a detailed review of the new plat in your packet,
Riverchase Club Two.
As you will recall, there were several concerns expressed at the Dec.
Commission meeting, including drainage, EMF's, appropriate use, safety,
open space, among others. One of the perceived major problems the
community focused on was the lack of a def'mitive traffic study. The plat was
denied and the applicant proceeded to hire a traffic consultant. We have
reviewed that study, and the comments included from Engineering in the
attached memo are provided for Commi~ion's information. There have been
meetings with the developer subsequent to submission of this study, and we
continue to work with him to resolve the problems we see with his
conclusions. Because of our traffic concerns, the applicant has requested until
the end of business on Thursday, January 13, 1994, to respond to our
comments. Because our docket must be prepared prior to that submission,
and because we are having a continuing dialog with the developer regarding
several issues outlined in Engineering's memo, we will reserve f'mal comments
until the public hearing.
Beyond the traffic issue, there are other concerns which are not reflected by
the Riverchase Club Two plat. Among them:
a twenty to thirty foot water line easement should be shown basically
paralel to the western property line
the extension of Riverchase Drive needs to be included with Phase One
development
right-of-way dimension of St. Louis Railroad needs to be shown
school district boundary line needs to be indicated on the plat
In summary, Riverchase Club Apartments plat warrants a denial from
Colnmission for a variety of reasons including the fact that Riverchase Blvd.
r.o.w, is not recognized by this plat. The Riverchase Club Two plat has
several omissions (see above) and many public safety issues discussed warrant
additional dialogue at the public hearing.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the Preliminary Plat
2) Deny the Preliminary Plat
3) Modify Preliminary Plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat Document (2)
2) Landscape Plan
3) Engineering Comments