River Ridge Add-CS 930916 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: River Ridl/e Addition Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: September 16, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: October 12, 1993
LOCATION: South of Sandy Lake Road, west of Riverchase Drive.
_ _9[~.
SIZE OF AREA: 18.578 acre ,
10
CURRENT SF-7
ZONING: .-
REQUEST: Preliminary plat reflecting 61 lots (3.3 du/ac.)
APPLICANT: R.B.R. Properties, Inc. C.C.M. Engineering Corp.
(owner) (Engineer)
P. O. Box 796303 1120 Empire Central Place
Dallas, TX 75379 Suite 308
(214) 788-0797 Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 630-5200
HISTORY: In the early history of Col>peg as a City (mid 1980's), this property was
zoned SF-12. By the late 80's, and the introduction of the Riverchase
development, this parcel was rezoned to MF-2. In late 1991, the property
was rezoned again, this time to SF-7. The plat being considered reflects
SF-7 development.
Item 16
TRANSPORTATION: Riverchase Boulevard is an existing four lane undivided street
contained within a 60-foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - undeveloped PD SF-7; developing SF-7
South - Riverchase Golf Course; $F-12, S.U.P.
Faqt - developing residential; SF-7
West - utility line R.O.W., undeveloped land; PD SF-7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The existing Comprehensive Plan shows multi-family
development; the Plan under revision suggests single-family use as most
appropriate for this parcel.
ANALYSIS: Although at fa'st blush this plat appears to conform to our platting and
zoning regulations, there are several issues that bear additional discussion.
First, this property is adjacent on the west to a 130 foot T.U. Electric
easement, and concerns expressed by Commission in the past relative to
electromagnetic fields (the discussion regarding Mr. Lebowitz's PD),
needs further comment. Although there are no universal conclusions
regarding the harmful effects of EMF's - the research and popular
documentation argue different conclusions, i.e., EMF's are harmful; they
are not harmful - it is recognized that this plat attempts to place few lots
along the common utility easement by extending the cul-de-sacs to the
easement line. On the other hand, by extending the cul-de-sacs to that
line, views from the street into a rather unsightly and aesthetically
displeasing easement right-of-way are not blocked by structures. Perhaps
common, landscaped areas maintained by a homeowner's association
between the street right-of-way and the utility easement could serve to
screen at street level an unattractive view.
Second, the overall Riverchase development plan has advocated screening
walls and landscaping adjacent to the Boulevard. Although this
development proposes a screening wall adjacent to the lots along
Riverchase, the northern 400 feet or so contains no wall. For continuity
of development, an extension of the screening wall with landscaping seems
appropriate.
Finally, there are several engineering concerns that must be addressed
including:
A. drainage plans and contour information needs to be
provided;
2. widths of lots 16 and 17, Block A, appear narrow;
f3. drainage and utility easements need to be shown -- lots 8
and 9, Block A, will necessitate an off-site 20-foot
easement from the golf course;
.4. a floodplain development permit is required;
___5. the floodplain needs to be dimensioned;
6. minimum finished floors need to be shown for lots 1-18,
Block A;
!0 ~ ~ landscape easement adjacent to Riverchase Boulevard
O.I/-- needs to be shown;
-~8. Floodplain Administrator's signature block needs to be
added to plat;
9. off-site easements will be required by T.U. Electric
between lot 18, Block A, and lot 11, Block B, and between
lot 8, Block D, and lot 12, Block B; and
10. escrow for Sandy Lake frontage (approximately $1,600) is
required.
If the developer addresses these issues to the satisfaction of staff, approval would be in order.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the plat
2) Deny the plat
3) Modify the plat
AITACHMENTS: 1) preliminary plat document
.stf