Stoneleigh P1-CS 961219CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTM~
STAFF REPORT
STONF. LEIGH AT RIVERCHASE,
PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
December 19, 1996
and denied]
January 14, 1997
[Originally heard on November 21, 1996
LOCATION:
Along the south side of Riverchase Drive, approx. 645' east of
MacArthur Boulevard.
SIZE OF AREA:
20.5 acres - 360 units
CURRENT ZONING:
MF-2 (Multi Family-2)
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
Approval of a preliminary plat that would allow the development
of a 360-unit apartment complex.
Applicant:
First Worthing Co./Seneca
8144 Walnut Hill, F550
Dallas, TX 75231
(214) 739-8141
Representative:
WSI Architects
6320 LRI Frwy., F228
Dallas, TX 75240
(214) 458-9999
HISTORY:
No platting history.
TRANSPORTATION:
Riverchase Drive is a 4-lane undivided collector street within a
60'-wide right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
East -
West -
Riverchase Golf course, "SF-12" Single-Family 12
railroad right-of-way (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), "A" Agriculture
vacant, "MF-2" Multi-Family-2
vacant and Riverchase Plaza, "R" Retail
Item # 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property suitable for
multi-family development.
DISCUSSION:
Apartments are a permitted use in the MF-2 zoning district and the
Comprehensive Master Plan shows this property to be suitable for multi-
family development. Staff has carefiffiy reviewed the site plan with
regards to setback from the street, building heights, and internal
circulation and is satisfied with the layout of the project, although the
f~nding garage ~islands* are not particularly aesthetically
pleasing (more extensive landscaping around these structures would
improve the overall appearance dramatically). The building elevations
including carports and garages were examined in terms of design appeal,
as well as in terms of the 80% brick masonry requirement and staff is
reassured that the final product will be compatible with the surrounding
developments in the Riverchase district. The plans will also have to be
approved by the Riverchase Architectural Review Committee. The
submitted landscape plan exceeds city planting requirements. The applicant
is proposing a dramatic landscaped entry accen~ with brick pavement
enhancements. The perimeter landscape buffers will contain 100 trees
adding to the visual quality of the apartment complex.
Relative to the plat itself, there are several concerns which are outlined by
the Engineering, Leisure Services, and Fire Departments' Development
Review Committee comments of October 31, 1996. Those comments are
included here for your information. Many of staff concerns are
satisfactorily resolved, however, there are still a number of outstanding
issues which will require some discussion, including the off-street
parking requirement not being met, the safety issue as it relates to
traffic generation and movement, and the construction of Fairways
Drive.
The applicant is short 82 off-street parking spaces and will be requesting
a parking variance similar to one that was granted to the Jefferson at
Riverchase apartments located on MacArthur Boulevard. The Board of
Adjustment will, of course, determine whether the parking variance is
justified. As explained by legal counsel at the Nov. 21, 1996 meeting,
Planning Commission can not approve a development which does not
comply with all code provisions. Any plat approval would have to
reflect code requirements, including parking.
Additional traffic flow that will be generated by this proposed apartment
complex is of concern. Riverchase Drive is a four-lane undivided
collector street designed to carry and distribute traffic to MacArthur
Boulevard and Sandy Lake Road. The intersection of MacArthur and
Riverchase is particularly congested. Residents of this proposed
apartment complex wanting to travel southbound on MacArthur Boulevard
during peak hours will have trouble msldng the left-turn at this
Item #5
intersection. Residents may have to use Sandy Lake Road as an alternate
route. The thoroughfare plan calls for a future Fairway Drive to the be
built to the east of this development connecting Riverchase Drive and
Beltline Road. When this occurs, the accessibility to Beltline Road will
be greatly improved alleviating some of the traffic concerns for this area.
(See Engineering comments for specific traffic and other development
related comments.)
The Fire Code requires that all portions of all buildings to be within a 150
feet hose lay distance from both a fire lane and a fire hydrant. The current
site plan does not specify fire hydrant locations. If the applicant cannot
meet this requirement, his only recourse would be to request a variance
from City Council. The Fire Department would not support a variance
request.
Finally, the Leisure Services Department comments warrant additional
explanation. If the developer is required to eonstn~ct the City's Hike and
Bike Trail, the cost will be deducted from the $1285 per unit park land
dedication fee. The Hike and Bike Trail Master Plan suggests that the
probable best Wail routing for this particular trail is on the south side of
the D.A.R.T. right-of-way. Also for your information, the Cottonbelt
trail continues westward beyond Coppell's city limits to Grapevine,
Southlake, Colleyville, Hurst, and North Richland Hills. It is located on
the south side of the rail line and adjacent to Highway 26. The City of
Grapevine is leasing 25' of the 100' D.A.R.T. right-of-way and has of
begun the initial phase of its trail design.
Planning and Zoning Commission denied thk plat at the November 21,
1996 meeting for a variety of reasons including, not providing the
required off-street parking, traffic generation and safety issues, etc.
Assuming the applicant can meet our parkin~ requirements, the major
concern includes traffic safety and movement. There are continuing
discussions between the applicant, the land seller (Republic Properties)
and the City, attempting to resolve the Fairway Drive issue. In
addition, staff understands the applicant is in process of meeting with
area citizens to address the community's concerns with this project.
That being the case, and our desire to allow the developer and citizens
to attempt resolution of their differences, staff will refrain from
finalizing our recommendation until all issues have had an opportunity
to be resolved through this meeting process.
We will offer a staff recommendation at the public meeting.
RECOME4F~NDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Planning staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
Item # 5
conditions being met:
1. A parking variance being granted by the Board of Adjustments.
2. List all botanical and common names for all plant materials.
3. Compliance with Fire Department's comments.
4. No requirement of a Hike and Bike trail easement or construction of same, as was
alluded to during the DRC discussions.
5. Submission of an irrigation plan.
6. Correct the spelling of "subdivision" under the caption notif]gng, that
property is in a flood hazard area.
7. Compliance with Engineering comments.
Until some consensus is reached between the developer ~md the Riverelmse homeowners,
as well as a mutually acceptable development agreement for F~-'ways Drive is achieved
between the City, the Riverchase land-owner, ~md the developer, st~f will refrain from
making a recommendation at this time. We will be prepared at the public meeting to offer
our staff recommendation.
ALTERNATIVF_~:
1) Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat.
2) Recommend disapproval of the Preliminary Plat.
3) Recommend modification of the Preliminary Plat.
ATTACttMF~NTS:
1) Preliminary Plat
2) Site Plan
3) Landscape Master Plan
4) Building Elevations
5) Hike and Bike Trail Master Plan
6) Departmental Comments
Item # 5