Riverchase (4)-AG 910924 (2)SUBMITTED BY: ~
EVALUATION OF ITEM;
STAFF RJ~P.: Gary L. $ieb, plnn,,in~ Directmr
OTHER ILEP::
DATE:
Date of p{~,.,~.~o & Zo~n_o Meeting: August zg, 1~1 (SimeOn! Called Hem~8)
De~{,~ of Plenuix~ & ~{,,_o Commie.s: Apl~oval (5-0) with the fonowix~ c~,~oms:
1. no aneys on golf course lots
2. Riverchase Drive must be completed aH the way tln~m~h
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY- ~
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
REVIEWED BY CM:
P & Z NEARING
C. C. HEARING
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
RIVERCHASE ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: August 29, 1991
DATE: September 24, 1991
LOCATION:
Approximately 2110 feet south of Sandy Lake Road, along the
west side of Riverchase Drive.
SIZE OF AREA: 47.015 Acres
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat of Riverchase Estates.
APPLICANT:
Neath & Knight Properties
16660 Dallas Parkway
Suite 1400
Dallas, Texas 75248
(214) 248-9190
Dowdey & Assoc. (Engineer)
Mr. Bill Anderson
16250 Dallas Parkway
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75248
(214) 931-0694
HISTORY:
In September of 1990 a portion .of this 47 acre tract (27.5
acres) was preliminary platted into an 84 lot subdivision.
Because of the nine month expiration period, that plat is
now null and void.
TRANSPORTATION:
Riverchase Boulevard is proposed to be a four lane,
undivided roadway contained within a 70 foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
The surrounding area is currently vacant or contains
Riverchase Golf Course. Current zoning is (SF-9) on the
subject tract, (SF-12-SUP) (Golf Course) on the west, south
and north, and (SF-9) on the east.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Proposes low density, single-family development on
subject tract as well as on the surrounding land area.
the
ITEM 5
ANALYSIS:
Because the applicant was having some contract
difficulties in June, he asked to postpone taking action on
this request until July. In July, there are still several
problems with this plat that had yet to be resolved.
Primary among them was the obligation this developer had to
the overall development of the entire Riverchase
development. Who would pay for the linear park, for
example, how much, when, what does the park plan look like,
etc., etc. With regard to Riverchase Boulevard, how is the
road extended to its ultimate length, who is responsible
for the road on golf course property, etc.? These and
other issues needed to be addressed before staff could make
a recommendation on this plat. The accompanying letter
discusses many of our concerns. We will elaborate on staff
position in the briefing session.
As an aside, we would point out that the preliminary plat
approved last September on a comparably sized site
contained 84 lots, this plat show 92 on the same land area,
a slightly increased density overall.
ALTERNATIVES: t) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
ATTACI{MENTS:
1) Preliminary Plat
2) Louis Lebowitz Letter of August 2, 1991
RCHASE.STF
8214 WESTCHESTER, SUITE
DALLAS, TEXAS 75225
214:363,5615
AUgUSt 2, 1991
ViA FAX NO. 393-0948
Mr. Gary L. Sled
Dlrector of Planning & Community Services
City of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Gary:
Pursuant to our work session ye~terdag, following is a s~mmary of
how we ~ou]d propose dealing with the landscaping and maintenance
of the linear park, as well as the other issues raised at the work
session.
As discussed, we would propose to turn the linear park into a green
space area. This area would be seeded, as necessary, and mowed on
a regular basis. We would propose to do this in conjunction with
the development of the fxrst parcel of the property in question,
which, actually, abuts the linear park. Thereafter, the
maintenance of the linear park would be assumed by the existing
homeowners' association.
With respect to the second access road to Belt Line Road (Fairway
Drive), which was originally contemplated to be located east of Mac
Arthur Boulevard, we believe that this issue should be addressed at
the time that the parcel abutting this proposed street is
developed.
with respect to the other commitments originally made by Terra to
the City in 1985, concerning this development, the general decline
in real estate values over the last five years, and the reality of
the market today, make it difficult, if not impossible, for any new
developer to assume these commitments, to the extent that they
exceed current zoning, landscaping, and other requirements of the
--- C,.,. ~'1 il.,:,v P.03 *SLJ_DALLAS (
City:. According, with the exception of the foregoing, we would,
respectfully, request that no special requirements be imposed upon
thls development.
sincerely,
SLJ COMPANY, TRUSTEE
By:
H. Lebo~itz, Director
LHL/Js