Valley R Plaza 2-CS 930916CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: Replat (3rd) of Valley Ranch Plaza. Pads B -F
P & Z HEARING DATE: September 16, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: October 12, 1993
LOCATION: Near the southwest corner of MacArthur Blvd. and Beldine Road.
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT
ZONING:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
3.75 acres, affecting five pad sites
LI
To replat several pad sites in an area originally platted several years ago.
United Commercial Realty
(Developer)
7001 Preston Road, Suite 222
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 526 -6262
Winklemann and Assoc.
(Engineer)
12800 Hillcrest Rd.
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75230
(214) 490 -70090
A Wendy's restaurant was zoned and replatted just south of this parcel
approximately one year ago.
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a six -lane divided thoroughfare which has been built
to standard, contained within a 110 foot right -of -way. Beltline Road is
proposed to be a six lane thoroughfare similar to MacArthur, but is
currently not improved, although a 125 foot right -of -way has been
procured at the northern boundary of this replat.
Item 8
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - vacant; LI
South - Wendy's restaurant; LI SUP
East - Valley Ranch Center (shopping center); LI
West -vacant; C
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan indicates a mixed use area with no apartments.
ANALYSIS: One of the problems with attempting to influence development on
properties which have been platted in the past when market conditions
were different from today, is the fact that we are placed in a position of
sometimes reviewing less than optimum development proposals. Such is
the case with this replat. Not only are the pad sites very "tight ", but the
fact that this is the third attempt to plat this property for specific users
today which were not (apparently) considered at the initial platting time,
suggests minimal planning, at best. That coupled with the fact that
parking proposed for site F barely complies with our parking requirements
adds to our concern regarding overbuilding of the individual pad sites. In
addition, it has been observed that the Wendy's facility has created a
traffic problem in the area (visibility over the bridge, ingress and egress
from Valley Ranch Center and the Wendy's site, stacking of traffic on
MacArthur during heavy use periods, etc.), and the complexity of the
easements, cross easements, firelane adjustments, access problems to the
back pads, and a challenge to the replatting issue itself (see attached
letter), gives us concern that this replat is not in the best interest of our
citizens. Safety alone gives staff pause to recommend favorably on the
request.
In an attempt to reduce staff concerns, the applicant has agreed to submit
a traffic study which (presumably) will conclude that there is no safety
problem with the proposed replat. Because we received this report as the
staff recommendation was being written (hence, no time to review it prior
to the docket being distributed to Commission) we will reserve comment
on the merits of the report until the public hearing. However, if we have
problems with the conclusions reached, we will be recommending that the
replat be denied until all staff concerns have been favorable addressed.
In addition, Engineering has specific concerns including:
1. the fire lane on the south side of Pad E does not match up
with the lane on Pad H;
2. fire lanes should be 25 feet in width;
3. a deceleration lane (10 -12 feet in width) should be shown
and constructed on the west side of MacArthur Blvd
(between pads D and F);
4. Floodplain Administrator note needs to be shown on the
plat;
5. all outstanding fees should be paid before plat recording;
6. interior water and sewer lines are private lines maintained
by the property owners - -the City needs a maintenance
agreement;
7. drainage and grading plans need to be submitted; and
8. escrow in the amount of $32,164. 80 needs to be paid prior
to Council consideration of the plat (201 feet on Beltline x
$160 /foot).
Because of the complexity of this request, the challenge from an abutting
property owner regarding the validity of the replat, staff concerns
expressed above, and the lack of our technical review of the traffic study,
staff recommends denial of this replat until such time that all our concerns
have been addressed.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the plat
2) Deny the plat
3) Modify the
ATTACHMENTS: 1) replat document
2) traffic study
3) suggested preliminary landscape plan
4) letter of challenge to replat
stf