River Ridge Add-AG 931109AGENDA REQUEST FORM
Cfl'Y CO[,J]~CIL ]~l¥-14~-l'llqG ~nv~mh~- O, lOOn ITEM NUMBER /'~'
Consideration and appr~o.va eliminary Plat, immted at the southwest corner of
Sandy Lake Road and Riverchase~ixe,_al--~,-~uest of CCM Engineering.
SUBMITFI~ BY: ~--
STAFF REP.: Gary I,_ .gi~h
Director of pl~..~_ & Comm.
OTHER REP.:
DATE~
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
Date of Planning and Zoning Commission: October 21, 1993
Decision of Planning and Zoning Commission: Approval (7-0)
AMT. +/- BUDGET
COMMENTS:
AMT. ESTIMATED ~
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM REVISED 2/93
REVIEWED BY 'CM'~~'
CASE
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
River Ridge A~ldition Preliminary_ Pla$
September 16, 1993 (Original date) October 21, 1993 (reset date)
October 12, 1993 (plat denied, reset for November 9, 1993)
LOCATION:
South of Sandy Lake Road, west of Riverchase Drive.
SIZE OF AREA: 18.578 acre
CURRENT SF-7
ZONING:
Preliminary plat reflecting 61 lots (3.3 du/ac.)
APPLICANT:
R.B.R. Properties, Inc.
(owner)
P. O. Box 796303
Dallas, TX 75379
(214) 788-0797
C.C.M. Engineering Corp.
(Engineer)
1120 Emp'tre Central Place
Suite 308
Dalla% TX 75247
(214) 630-5200
HISTORY:
In the early history of Coppell 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.
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; SF-12, S.U.P.
Fz.~t - 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 first 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
Riverehase, the northern 400 feet or so contains no wall. For continuity
of development, an extension of the screening wall with landscaping seems
Finally, there are several engineering concerns that must be addressed
including:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
drainage plans and contour information needs to be
provided;
widths of lots 16 and 17, Block A, appear narrow;
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;
a floodplain development permit is required;
the floodplain needs to be dimensioned;
minimum finished floors need to be shown for lots 1-18,
Block A;
a 15' landscape easement adjacent to Riverchase Boulevard
needs to be shown;
Floodplain Administrator's signature block needs to be
added to plat;
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
escrow for Sandy Lake frontage (approximately $1,600) is
If the developer addresses these issues to the satisfaction of staff, approval
would be in order.
At the September 16 Planning Commission meeting this case was denied.
Since that time, the applicant has added landscaped screening at the ends
of his cul-de-sacs (he will have exhibits to depict the landscaping at the
public hearing), he has agreed to create a homeowners association to
maintain these areas, and has addressed Engineering's concerns. He has
also agreed to build a brick screening wall along Riverchase Blvd. and is
currently working with the city and TU Electric to obtain an easement to
construct the Riverchaso wall.
A final concern of staff relates to the 'buildability' of several of the lots.
We understand that exhibits will be shown at the public
hearing demonstrating the lot dimensions will accommodate houses. That
being the case, staff would recommend approval of the plat.
1) Approve the plat
2) Deny the plat
3) Modify the plat
ATrACHMF2qTS: 1) preliminary plat document