RC Townhomes-CS040520CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Riverchase Townhomes Addition Lots 1-49
Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARiNG DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
STAFF REP.:
May 20, 2004
June 8, 2004
Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
LOCATION:
Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 1,400'
north of Riverchase Drive.
SIZE OF AREA:
4.42 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
REQUESF:
Preliminary Plat approval to construct 4g-single-family attached
homes on 4.42 acres of property and provide common-space area.
APPLICANT:
Jason R. Rose
1200 College Pkwy.
Suite 417
Lewisville, TX 75077
(214) 454-7895
Fax: (972) 420-0324
Engineer: Peebles and Assoc.
1321 Brown Trail
Suite E
Bedford, TX 76022
(817) 662-0118
Fax: (817) 662-0123
HISTORY:
There has been no recent development history on this parcel
although several inquiries have been received regarding appropriate
use for this property.
Page 1 of 3
Item #5
TRANSPORTATION:
MacArthur Blvd. is shown as a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
contained within a 11 O-foot right-of-way. It has been improved as a
four-lane divided thoroughfare.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - public baseball fields; SF-7 zoning
South - single-family residences; SF-9 zoning
East- power line right-of-way; O (Office) zoning
West - public baseball fields and single-family homes; SF-7 and SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property
as suitable for light manufacturing uses.
DISCUSSION:
This is the companion subdivision plat to the earlier-discussed
townhouse request. In general, it complies with our subdivision
regulations, but some alteration to the plat needs to be made prior to
approval.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Preliminary Plat, subject to the
following conditions:
1) Place notes on Plat that reflect conditions of Park Department
review (attached).
2) Note on plat that H.O.A. will maintain all common areas.
3) Establish a Homeo~vners Association to maintain all common areas in this
development.
4) Abide by Engineering comments related to this Plat document (attached).
5) The diameter of the cul-de-sac needs to be 100-feet.
6) Clarify the purpose of the fire lane shown on a diagonal between Lots 11
and 12 and 35 and 36.
7) Change total unit count to reflect 48 units, not 49.
AI,TERNATIVES 1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recormnend disapproval of the request
3) Recomanend modification of the request
Page 2 of 3
Item #5
ATTACIIMENTS:
1 ) Preliminary Plat
2) Departmental comments (Parks, Engineering)
Page 3 ot'3
Item #5
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-201-TH-2, Riverchase Townhomes
Lots 1-49
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C, HEARING DATE:
May 20, 2004
June 8,2004
STAFF REP.:
Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 1,400
feet north of Riverchase Drive.
4.42 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
REQUEST:
PD-201-TH-2 (Planned Development-201-Townhouse-2), Planned
Development district for the construction of 48-single-family
attached homes and common area.
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Jason Rose
1200 College Pkwy.
Suite 417
Lewisville, TX. 75077
(214) 454-7895
Fax: (972) 420-0324
There has been no recent history' on this parcel although several
inquiries have been received regarding appropriate use for the
property.
TRANSPORTATION:
Page 1 of 5
MacArthur Blvd. is a shown as a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
contained within a 110-foot right-of-way. It has been improved as a
four-lane divided thoroughfare.
Item #4
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - public baseball fields; SF-7 zoning
South - single-family residences; SF-9
East- power line right-of-way; O (Office) zoning
West - public baseball fields and single-family residences: SF-7 and SF-9
COMPREttENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property
as suitable for light manufacturing uses.
DISCUSSION:
This tract of ground has been a development challenge ever since the
Riverchase subdivisions were constructed in the early 1990's. It is
long, narrow', adjacent to a very wide utility easement, and is next door
to MacArthur Park, an active recreational facility. After struggling for
years to determine an appropriate use for this long, thin parcel of land,
this proposal makes a lot of sense. It is, however, not without some
problems expressed by members of the Development Review
Committee, which are covered below. Nonetheless, this request
warrants support, provided concerns expressed by DRC are
acknowledged.
Historically, the only potential use staff has reviewed for this property
has been mini warehousing. However, with the number of such uses in
Coppell, it is difficult to justify adding more, and after doing their
analysis, these potential users have come to that conclusion and
pursued projects elsewhere. We now have an architect who has
constructed a townhouse subdivision in Arlington similar to what is
proposed here. Planning staff visited the Arlington site, and we can
support this request provided a number of conditions are recognized
and clearly stated in the Planned Development.
As stated above, during staff review, there was some apprehension
raised with this request. Our Parks Department has concerns regarding
potential noise and lighting complaints being lodged by residents of
this project against our MacArthur Park sports complex immediately
north of this property. Parking concerns were raised, as well as
questions regarding the length and size of the cul-de-sac, fire
protection, screening, landscaping, street alignment, and other issues.
Most of these issues have been addressed by the applicant, and those
remaining--primarily Parks concerns and the screening question--can
be discussed and resolved at the public hearing, either through
acknowledgement or plan modification.
Page 2 of 5
Item #4
Regarding Park's reservations, MacArthur Park is open from 6:30 a.m.
until sunset. We have an agreement with the Coppell Baseball
Association allowing ball field lights to stay on as late as 1l p.m.,
seven days a week. Our Parks Department wants the developer to
acknowledge these facts by placing a note on the PD plan and
subdivision plat so stating. The applicant has agreed, and we have
made that a condition of approval.
Cul-de-sac length was another concern. Because of its narrow width,
and developed land on both sides, this applicant has no other choice
than to propose an extra long street. Although not encouraged, a cul-
de-sac can exceed the 600-foot maximum length, provided additional
fire prevention rudiments are applied--in this case sprinkled buildings,
additional "hammer-head" fire lanes, proper turning radii, minimum
clearance over fire lanesl and no parking zones. That is a condition for
Fire Department support of this proposal, and the applicant has agreed.
However, the cul-de-sac as indicated on the site plan is substandard, in
that the diameter appears to be less than 80 feet, where 100-foot
diameter is required. There is also a question as to the purpose and
intent of the fire lane shown on a diagonal between Lots 11 and 12 and
35 and 36.
Major concerns of the Engineering Department were assurances that
the proposed street align wit~thel School Road and intersect with
MacArthur Boulevard at <90%~angle. The revised PD plan reflects
such a design. The locaW6'fi of guest parking spaces was also
problematic. As site planned, those parking spaces intrude into our
public right-of-way. An easement agreement with the City will need to
be procured to allow this parking configuration to remain. We can
support such an agreement.
Other concerns to surface in staff review included setbacks, screening,
landscape requirements and other development standards having to be
customized for this specific site. They are discussed below.
In reviewing the specifics of this request, 48 two-story townhouse units
are being proposed. Each will contain from 1100- to 1200-square feet,
with an optional 220-square-foot ground floor master bedroom. The
structures are built in four-unit modules and offer brick facades with
stone detailing. Overall density for the project is 11 units per acre,
slightly less than TH-2 zoning allo~vs. Several units are very close to
the right-of-way, in some cases only a foot or so off, but in a PD,
reduced setbacks can be approved. Because only corners of some
buildings are affected, there is no interference with sight distances,
there is a parkway of approximately 12 feet to "buff'er" these reduced
Page 3 ot'5
Item #4
setbacks, and we anticipate traffic volumes to be minimal in this cul-
de-sac subdivision, we can support this anomaly. Landscaping
generally follows our minimum requirements, and the developer
recognizes the $1,285 park development fee required for each
townhouse unit.
Perhaps the most troubling element of this proposal for planning staff
is the absence of uniform fencing around the rear of the townhouses.
The applicant has proposed a condition that IF individual homeowners
provide fencing, then it shall be of decorative metal. Troubling to us is
the fact that we have no guarantee all owners will construct the
fencing, and some providing the fencing and others not results in a less
than desirable overall appearance of the project. Because the rear
yards are so visible from the public right-of-way from both directions
along MacArthur, we feel the fencing should be included with overall
development of the project. The applicant disagrees.
To sum up, we feel this project merits approval subject to several
conditions which are elaborated on below.
Finally, if the zoning change is approved, the Comprehensive Master
Plan needs to be change to reflect a residential use for this property as
opposed to the industrial use currently shown.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staffrecommends APPROVAL of this PD request, subject to the following
conditions:
1) Clearly show fire hydrant locations on all plans.
2) Place notes on all plans that reflect conditions of the Parks
Department review (attached).
3) Landscape screen around parking lots must contain a hedge at
least 30-inches tall at planting; revise Landscape Plan.
4) Lot #49 must conform to the provisions of Sec. 33-1-8-C of the
Zoning Ordinance.
5) Lot widths are 10.4 feet wider than required, not 16.5 feet.
Change note 4 on Site Plan.
Page 4 of 5
Item #4
6) Average building area is 1,900-square feet, not 2,000 feet.
Change Site Data Table on Site Plan.
7) Red Tip Photinias are not an approved plant material. Change
on Site Plan and Landscape Plan.
8) Symbol at entrance of project on Landscape Plan is not
identified in Legend.
9) River Rock location not clear on Unit Cluster enlarged plan.
10) Location of grass is not shown on Landscape Plan.
11) Change "Guest" mom to "Guest/Mother-in-law" room on floor
plans.
12) Compliance with Engineering comments (attached).
13) Provide rear-yard fencing around project, preferable decorative
metal with brick columns matching brick of buildings.
14) The diameter of the cul-de-sac needs to be 100-feet.
15) Clarify the purpose of the fire lane shown on a diagonal
between Lots 11 and 12 and 35 and 36.
ALTERNATIVES
1)
2)
3)
4)
Recommend approval of the request
Recoramend disapproval of the request
Recommend modification of the request
Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACi IMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Departmental comments (Parks Department, Engineering)
Page 5 of 5
Item #4