Fairways-AG 920908ITEM CAPTION; ,
Consider approval of a preliminary ~t of Fairways @ R~verchase, located on the east side
of R~verchase Drive, 1850' south of Sandy Lake Road, at the request of Thompson Interests,
SUBMITTED BY: ~~
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
Date of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting:
~TAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
OTHER REP.:
DATE:
August 20, 1992
Decision of Planning & Zoning Comission: Approved (5-0) ~th the following conditions:
1) Floodplain be noted on the plat,
2) a screening wall be built architecturally compatible with a screening
wall, if possible, identical to the one to be constructed west of
Riverchase Drive. This condition be noted in addition to the
landscaping and easement notation already appearing on the plat,
3) waiver of alley requirements on golf course lots,
4) a 10' utility easement be provided along fronts of lots without alleys,
5) preliminary street names need to be shown,
(continued on next page)
Please see attached staff report for further det~t{s.
BUDGET AMT. ~/A Algr. F~ATED
AMT +/- BUDGET FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM:
6) more detail on entry into this subdivision, particularly with regard to
the pseudo security elements needs to be provided,
7) golf ball easements provision of the master agreement needs to be
shown on the face of the plat,
8) the final plat have specific detailed landscaping entrance design,
9) the final plat include the detail for the fence along the golf course,
which is to be of a wrought iron look and consistent with design of
other fencing in place or approved,
10) access be a secured access whether it be a limited or full time
secured,
11) streets and the maintenance and responsibility of the streets within the
development be the responsibility of the homeowners association, if
private streets are allowed,
12) sufficient funds be provided in order to ensure that maintenance be
escrowed initially by the developer and contributed to and retained
on an annual basis by the homeowners association,
13) staff get an opinion from the City Attorney regarding this plat before
it goes forward to the City Council
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
FAIRWAYS ~_, RIVERCHASE - PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEAR1NG DATE: August 20, 1992
C. C. HEARING DATE: September 8, 1992
LOCATION:
On the east side of Riverchase Drive, 1850' south of Sandy Lake
Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 33.742 Acres. containing 98 single-family lots.
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat.
APPLICANT:
Thompson Interests, Inc.
(Owner)
Mr. William Thompson
8333 Douglas Avenue
Suite #1510
Dallas, TX 75225
214-369-5200
Nathan Maier Engineers
(Engineer)
Mr. Mike Daniel
8800 N. Central Expressway
Suite #300 n
Dallas, TX 75225
214-739-4741
HISTORY:
This property was rezoned from SF-0 to SF-9 in January of 1991.
TRANSPORTATION:
Riverchase Drive is currently under construction as a four-lane
undivided thoroughfare, and will serve as the primary access to this
project.
ITEM 8
SURROUNDiNG LAND USE & ZONING:
North - golf course & vacant residential; SF-12 (SUP) & SF-7
South - golf course; SF-12 (SUP)
East - golf course; SF-12 (SUP)
West - vacant single-family; PD-SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows single-family development and an
elementary school site.
ANALYSIS:
This preliminary plat is the result of a down-zone from SF-0 to SF-9
approximately 18 months ago. Staff supports this request with the
following conditions:
1) Floodplain be noted on the plat
2) a screening wall identical to the one to be constructed west of
Riverchase Drive be noted in addition to the landscaping and
easement notation already appearing on the plat
3) waiver of alley requirements on golf course lots
4) a 10' utility easement be provided along fronts of lots without
alleys
5) preliminary street names need to be shown
6) more detail on entry into this subdivision, particularly with
regard to the pseudo security elements needs to be provided
7) golf ball easements provision of the master agreement needs
to be shown on the face of the plat (see wording attached)
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
3) Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat
fairwys.stf
Golf Easement. For the benefit of Declarant, Club Owner and the Club
Property, Declarant hereby imposes the following covenants, conditions and restrictions
on all portions of the Property that are contiguous or adjacent to the Club Property:
(a) Golf will be played on the Club Property and there is a likelihood that golf
balls struck by players will enter upon portions of the Property adjacent or contiguous to
the Club Property. Declarant reserves an easement in the entire airspace above, and upon
such portions of the Property and Common Areas. The easement reserved is appurtenant
to the Club Property. The easement shall permit the flight of golf balls through the air
over the property and the entry of golf balls upon and/or across the Property and any
improvements constructed, or to be constructed, upon the Property, as an incident to the
reasonable use of the Club Property as a golf course. The easement shall not permit the
entry upon contiguous or adjacent portions of the Property by an individual, except
permitted entry onto Common Areas, for any purpose, including but not limited to the
retrieval of golf balls. Nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to limit the
construction of improvements on the Property, or any use or enjoyment of the Property.
(b) Neither Declarant nor Club Owner nor any invitee of Club Owner shall be
liable or responsible for claims, liabilities, losses, damages or costs arising out of personal
injury or property damage to any person or property caused by the permitted flight and
entry of golf balls, except the individual placing the golf ball in flight if undertaken with
a wanton or reckless disregard for the probability of serious injury or property damage.
golf ease
i
CITY ~J~6~IMEMORANDUM
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
FROM:' Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services
SUBJECT: Private Streets, Preliminary Plat of Fairways at Riverchase
DATE: September 4, 1992
The issue of private streets, and their applicability to the City of Coppell, will come to
the attention of Council relative to a preliminary plat of Fairways at Riverchase on
Tuesday evening, September 8, 1992.
Because I was attending a seminar when this subdivision plat was heard by Planning
Commission, and the fact that the applicant altered his position at that hearing relative to
private streets--I had understood the request for same would not be requested at the
Commission meeting--staff did not properly address this issue at that hearing.
I would like to take some time here to present staff position regarding this important,
potentially, city-wide issue. As a planner, I cannot emphasize too strongly a position
which does not support private streets. In my career, I have never worked in a public
sector position nor lived in a community which supported this concept. Philosophically,
it goes without saying that cities are established to offer the free access to all its citizens
to all areas of the community. One of the major attractions of Coppell, and one element
which makes it unique in the metroplex is its "neighborliness", its friendly nature, indeed,
its wholesome community-wide spirit (exemplified by the numbers of citizens who
volunteer for public Boards and Commissions, the efforts of Kid Country, etc.). This is
a very fragile attribute of the city and must be nurtured and encouraged. The introduction
of a private area, not accessible to all is a return to--if you will permit a little poetic
license here--the secured communities of the middle and dark ages of centuries gone by.
In eonYersations with the Las Colinas developers--the model this development is quoted
as saying it will emulate--I was advised that one must take a very careful look at how a
homeowners association will maintain the streets, provide the security suggested here, and
deal with any other number of problems including drainage issues, emergency service
response, etc. In addition I was advised that it has taken a full 15 years for the Las
Colinas Association to reach the point where escrow has built up to the point where the
Las Colinas Corporation has not had to underwrite street maintenance, infrastructure
repair, and other responsibilities normally conducted by the City. I was also advised that
typical assessments to maintain the Las Colinas system range from .41 to .60 per $100
valuation. This is in a development of over 1700 units overall ranging in price from
$225,000 to well over $2,000,000 per unit. The proposal before the Council contains 98
lots and will range in price from the high $100's to the mid $300's. I just don't see how
the economics will work here.
Beyond these arguments, there are procedural difficulties with this request--it is a
violation of our existing subdivision ordinance; there is a valid question regarding the
efficiency and ability of public services to respond to emergencies in such an area; there
is a question of the bona fide need for this request, among others.
I cannot emphasize too strongly staff opposition to this request for private streets,
regardless of the applicanfs agreement to provide break-away gates, and other
concessions. Coppell is not comprised of citizens who necessitate this type of
development; Coppell does not need the introduction of "exclusive" subdivisions and the
inherent discriminatory message this exclusivity conveys; the subdivision directly across
the street from this development approved less than a month ago saw no need for such
a gimmick; the approval of this request sets a dangerous precedent which will not serve
the best interests of all CoppelPs citizens.
Finally, Coppell is developing as the type of city which deserves more from its
development partners than this very questionable development concept which, in effect,
turns its back on what living in this community is all about. Staff would recommend
approval of this plat only with the provision that public, dedicated streets without guard
gates, are a part of the preliminary plat.
pvtst