CC approval on 9/18/90AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION: CASE t: ZC-SZ7
PUBLIC I~ARING: To consider approval of a zoning change from (O) Office, (R) Retail~ (MF-1)
Multi-Family-l, (MF-Z) Multi-Family-Z, and (SF-0) Single-Family-O, to (MF-Z) Multi-Family-Z, (SF-?)
located east of MacArthur
~f Beltline
S~l~-F~mily-?, ~ (~) S~_e-.~m. il!~-.~ .
Road (commo~y ~e~
SUBMI~ED BY:
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
Date of Pl~nninE & ~ning Comm~on Meets:
~Development', at STAFF
OTHER REP.:
DATE:
September 13, 1990
Decision of plannin~ & Zoning Commission:
Please see attached staff report fer further detail~
BUDGET AMT.
AMT +/- BUDGET
COMMENTS:
N/A
AMT. ESTIMATED
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM 5/~0
REVIEWED BY CM:
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: ZC-527
September 13, 1990
September 18, 1990
LOCATION:
East of MacArthur Boulevard and north of Beltline Road
(commonly referred to as the "Riverchase" Development).
SIZE OF AREA: There are approximately 215 acres affected by this zoning
change.
REQUEST:
Zoning change from (0) Office, (R) Retail, (MF-1)
Multi-Family-l, (MF-2) Multi-Family-2, and (SF-0) Single
Family-O, to (MF-2) Multi-Family-2, (SF-7) Single-Family-7
and (SF-9) Single-Family-9.
APPLICANT:
Mr. Bill Thompson
(Prospective Purchaser)
Thompson Interests
8333 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1510
Dallas, Texas 75225-5811
(214) 369-5200
Mr. Mike Daniels
(Engineer)
8800 N. Central Expwy.
Suite #300
Dallas, Texas 75231
(214) 739-4741
HISTORY:
This area has a long zoning and financial background.
Originally zoned as the Riverchase Development, the project
fell on difficult times and with the exception of the golf
course and some drainage improvements, is vacant today.
TRANSPORTATION:
The Major Thoroughfare Plan shows MacArthur Boulevard as a
six-lane divided roadway with 100-110 foot ri§hr-of-way;
Riverchase Boulevard as a four-lane undivided street
contained within a 65-70 foot right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
All eight parcels are basically surrounded by golf course
or undeveloped land. Zoning to the west is vacant (MF-1);
to the north is Sandy Lake Road and vacant (R) zoning; to
the east is the (SUP) for Riverchase Golf Course, and to
the south, north of Beltline Road is vacant (MF) and (R)
zoning.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed use
apartment and single-family development.
office, retail,
ANALYSIS:
This is a request to alter zonin§ on approximately 215
acres of land commonly referred to as the Riverchase
Development, and ori§inally zoned with conditions back in
1985. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the requested
zoning application is through the table below:
LOCATION:
Tr. 1
Tr. 2
Tr. 3
Tr. 4
Tr. 5
Tr. 6
Tr. 7
Tr. 8
Tr. 9
CURRENT ZONING (ACREAGE): PROPOSED ZONING:
MF-1 (40.56) SF-7 (48.09 acres,
R (7.53) of which 13.2
acres is in
TP&L easement)
MF-2 (18.59) $F-7 (18.59)
MF-2 (25.44) SF-7 (25.44)
R (6.22) SF-7 (6.22)
O (21.02) MF-2 (21.02)
SF-0 (47.02) SF-9 (47.02)
$F-0 (33.74) SF-9 (33.74)
( There is no Tract 7 rezoninG requested
O (6.65) MF-2
R (8.95) MF-2
(6.65)
(8.95)
To sum up, this application is reducing MF zoning from 84.6
acres to 36.63 acres, increasing SF zoning from 80.76 to
179.1 acres, and eliminating all R and O classifications.
Potential densities are bein§ reduced overall from
something in excess of 2053 dwelling units to 1345, or a
net reduction of over 700 dwelling units (708).
Although it could be argued that eliminating O and R zoning
and reducing MF zoning is not necessarily an altruistic
move on the developer's part - the demand for these zonings
is practically nonexistent in Coppell - it still must be
recognized that there is an overall reduction in intensity
of use proposed. It could also be argued that PD zoning
would be much more appropriate because of the large land
area involved and the Greater assurance that projects will
be built as described in public hearings through the
Planned Development zoning instrument. There is no
question that a ?D would garner more enthusiastic staff
support. However, if certain conditions volunteered when
Riverchase was originally zoned are honored here - and
those conditions are discussed below - staff could support
this request. It must be recognized that the overall
reduction in intensity of the development makes a strong
case for approving this application.
It is apparent that this community is proud of its physical
appearance and endeavors to protect existing and contribute
to the enhancement of future development. To that end,
several conditions of a§reement struck when the original
Riverchase development was zoned merit attention when
considering this rezoning request.
The applicant has been up-front with his concerns regarding
these commitments and outlines his position in the letter
of August 29, 1990 (attached). Although staff can
understand the position taken in the correspondence, the
vast majority of issues raised relate to the overall
aesthetics of the property - flat, very little natural
vegetation, reclaimed floodplain, etc. - and the fact that
the major visual image of this project will come from
MacArthur Boulevard, whereby one will literally look over
the Riverchase development - landscaping, screening walls,
specimen plantings, and an imaginative treatment of the
T?&L and D?&L right-of-way is mandatory. Therefore, staff
only partially supports modification to the 1985
development commitment.
Specifically, staff concerns focus on the request to
eliminate commitments relative to screening walls and
landscaping as specifically addressed in the 1985
commitment letter to then City Manager, Ron Ragland. A
copy of that commitment letter is attached for your
information. Staff comments regarding the '85 commitments
follow:
1. Greenbelt, linear park, exercise stations in DP&L and
TP&L easements - It seems only prudent that a nearly
400 foot wide, 5000 foot long, generally unattractive
land form would warrant special treatment, if for no
other reason, than to protect the investment of the
developer. Whether treatment should include
greenbelt, parks, bicycle trails, or exercise stations
is debatable, but recognition of this potentially
negative element must be admitted and dealt with.
Staff would recommend careful consideration in
treatment of this expansive parcel of ground, and the
procurement of development commitments not unlike
those currently established.
2. MacArthur screening walls - the applicant is
suggesting you release him from this commitment
because the Streetscape Ordinance will require it
anyway. Two points need to be kept in mind. One, the
Streetscape Plan outlines minimum primary City image
zone guidelines, and two, an open-ended stipulation
which basically says "let's not worry about this now"
is not responsible community-wide planning. It is
only fair to advise the applicant of the City's
expectation regarding this issue, including provision
of screening walls.
3. Loop street landscaping - Riverchase Drive was not
specifically recognized by the Streetscape Plan, and
although certain landscaping criteria can be met at
platting, it is strongly suggested that the developer
be advised (at minimum) that examples shown in the
Streetscape Plan be followed.
4. Landscaped Beltline - Beltline Road is recognized as
being one of the most important entryways into Coppell
travelling from the east. Indeed, an even stronger
recognition could be made today than in 1985 when
special landscaping treatment was volunteered here.
Staff would strongly recommend that this commitment be
honored.
5. Railroad R.O.W. and Beltline Road - Plate 8,
Streetscape Plan suggests how this edge treatment
should be handled. Again, staff would recommend that
this commitment be honored.
6. Landscaping along south side, Sandy Lake Road - staff
would make the same comments here as stated in
commitment 2 and 3 above, although we would recognize
that through subdivision review we will have the
opportunity to insure this commitment is implemented.
7. Access (second) from Beltline across St. Louis &
Southwestern Railroad - Because the C4U roadway is
included on the thoroughfare plan, staff concurs that
acquisition of appropriate right-of-way can wait until
the platting process.
In summary then, staff believes this request merits a
favorable recommendation. Prior commitments volunteered in
1985 should be required. However, commitments number 2, 3,
6 and 7 can be addressed to some degree through subdivision
platting. In order of staff importance, condition no. 1
merits most consideration, commitment no. 4 is almost as
important, commitment no. 5 the lesser condition. Although
PD zoning would be staff's preferred recommendation here,
it is recognized that straight zoning with developer
agreements regarding prior commitments discussed above can
make this proposal a positive and desirable contribution to
the growth of Coppell. Staff recommends approval of this
zoning request with inclusion of
commitments and requirements of
agencies.
the above described
affected reviewing
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the zoning change
2) Deny the zoning change
3) Modify the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Overall Zoning Exhibit
2) Letter Authorizing Re-Zoning Request
3) Tract-by-Tract Legal Description, on Blue Line Prints
4) Original 1985 Riverchase Development Commitment Letter
5} August 29, 1990 Letter Requesting Waiver of 1985
Commitments
ZC527STF
acceptable; (3) identify if soundproofing is possible to achieve
adequate noise reductions at the most sensitive locations; and (4)
identify how far east of the flight track residents might require
soundproofing. Additionally, Pelton Marsh Kinsello recommended
that the City of Coppell request (1) a description of how peak
noise levels will affect sleep and speech communication at specific
locations; (2) locations of 60 and 65 Ldn contours; (3) complete
copy of INM computer input; and (4) hourly flight forecasts on
runway 16/34 E. No action was taken on this preliminary report at
this time.
Item 12
Approval of settlement of the condemnation case with Mr.
Kimbrel to acquire right-of-way for MacArthur Boulevard
and approval of an agreement with Lomas Realty U.S.A. to
reimburse City for all cost expended by the City in
settling the case and acquiring the necessary right-of-
way.
City Manager Alan D. Ratliff made the presentation to the Council.
Mr. Ratliff indicated that this is the final piece of right-of-way
that is needed to finish construction of MacArthur into the Vista
Ridge project. Since the cost of the right-of-way exceeded the
amount approved, that amount which is to be reimbursed by Lomas
Realty Corporation, Staff felt that this item should be brought
back for Council approval. Following discussion on this item,
Councilman Morton moved that the expenditure of $105,000 for the
purchase of right-of-way expenditure be approved and the acceptance
of reimbursement from Lomas & Nettleton in the same amount be
acknowledged. Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon seconded. The motion
carried 6-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon and Councilmen Weaver,
Morton, Cowman, Robertson and Nelson voting in favor of the motion.
Item 13
To consider approval of a zoning change, Case #~PD-113,
from (SF-12) Single-Family-12 to (PD-SF-9) Planned
Development Single-Family-9, located north of Sandy Lake
Road; along and adjacent to Lodge Road, at the request of
Mr. Ron Fraze, International Gateway.
Director of Planning and Community Services Gary Sieb made the
presentation to the Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission
has recommended unanimous approval of this zoning change with
conditions. Mr. Ron Fraze, representing the applicant, was also
present to discuss this item. Mayor Wolfe declared the Public
Hearing open and asked for those persons who wished to speak in
favor of the proposed zoning change. There were none. He then
asked for those persons who wished to speak against the proposed
zoning change. Again, there were none. Mayor Wolfe declared the
Public Hearing closed. Following discussion, Councilman Nelson
moved that the zoning change be approved as submitted. Councilman
Weaver seconded. The motion carried 5-1 with Mayor Pro Tem
Smothermon and Councilmen Weaver, Cowman, Robertson and Nelson
voting in favor of the motion and Councilman Morton voting against
the motion.
Item 14
To consider approval of a zoning change from (0) office,
(R) Retail, (MF-1) Multi-Family-l, (MF-2) Multi-Family
2,and (SF-0) Single-Family-O, to (MF-2) Multi-Family-2,
to (SF-7) Single-Family-7 and (SF-9) Single-Family-9,
located east of MacArthur Boulevard and north of Beltline
Road (commonly referred to as the "Riverchase
Development"), at the request of Mr. Bill Thompson.
Prior to discussion on this item, Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon asked to
be excused due to a conflict of interest on this item. An
Affidavit stating this conflict of interest has previously been
Page 4 of 9
filed with the City Secretary's office. Director of Planning and
Community Services Gary Sieb made the presentation to the Council.
Mr. Sieb indicated it is Staff's recommendation that the Commitment
letter presented by a previous developer in 1985 be honored,
specifically items # 1, 4 and 5 from that letter. Mr. Nathan
Maier, representing Mr. Bill Thompson, was also present to discuss
this item with the Council. Mr. Maier indicated that the applicant
is requesting that tract 1 be denied without prejudice due to a
zoning change which will be submitted to the City the following
day. Mr. Maier also stated that the Flood Control District will
maintain all the lakes, the swells, the green belt areas and any
drainage problems, with the tax rate being set at a non-adjustable
rate of $.029 per $100 valuation. The average house cost will be
cost will be approximately $250,000+. Mayor Wolfe declared the
public hearing open and asked for those persons who wished to speak
against the proposed zoning change. There were none. He then
asked for those persons who wished to speak in favor of the
proposed zoning change. Again, there were none. The public
hearing was then declared closed. Following discussion by the
Council, Councilman Cowman moved that the zoning change be approved
as requested, with items 1, 4 and 5 of the original 1985 document
being honored, and that tract #1 be denied without prejudice.
Councilman Robertson seconded. The motion carried 5-0 with
Councilmen Weaver, Morton, Cowman, Robertson and Nelson voting in
favor of the motion, with Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon having been
excused from voting due to a conflict of interest, as earlier
stated. Mayor Pro Tem Smothermon rejoined the Council at this
point.
Item 15
To consider approval of a zoning change, Case #ZC-528,
from (2F-9) Two Family-9 to (SF-7) Single-Family-7,
located along the east side of Coppell Road,
approximately 1/4 mile south of Sandy Lake Road, at the
request of G. Development Company.
Director of Planning and Community Services Gary Sieb made the
presentation to the Council. Mr. Sieb informed Council that the
applicant is not required to request a zoning change, as the type
of development that is proposed could be built on the 2F-9 zoning
under current ordinances. However, the applicant is requesting
zoning to SF-7 to assure the City that the final product will be as
indicated. The total housing would drop approximately 1/2 of what
could be developed under current zoning regulations. Mr. Dennis
Jerkey, Mr. Brad Myer and Mr. Steve G were also present to discuss
this item with the Council. Mr. Jerkey indicated that the average
lot size would 8,500 square feet and that the applicant is offering
to do landscaping along Coppell Road with a divided entrance from
Coppell Road into the subdivision. Mayor Wolfe declared the public
hearing open and asked for those persons who wished to speak
against the proposed zoning change. Those persons speaking were as
follows: Mr. Max Lindsay, 222 Hillcrest Loop; Mrs. Barbara
Schmidt, 125 Whispering Hills; Mrs. Barbara Bailey, 232 Plantation;
Mrs. Jeanne Strange, 129 Whispering Hills; Mr. John Larsen, 100
Fieldcrest Loop; Mr. Joe Lavoro, 202 Richmond Court; Mr. Richard
Alderete, 149 Whispering Hills; Mrs. Pat Thompson, 140 Fieldcrest
Loop; Mr. Bob Kryzak, 137 Whispering Hills; and Mr. Monty Bailey,
206 Richmond Court. The citizens speaking against generally were
opposed due to possible drainage problems, increased traffic,
lowering of home values and density of housing. Mayor Wolfe then
asked for those persons who wished to speak in favor of the
proposed zoning change. There were none. The public hearing was
then declared closed. Following a lengthy discussion of this item,
Councilman Morton moved that action on this item be postponed to
the October 9, 1990 City Council meeting with a request to the
applicant to meet with the citizens and work with Staff on a
possible compromise for this development area. Councilman
Robertson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0 with Mayor Pro Tem
Smothermon and Councilmen Weaver, Morton, Cowman, Robertson and
Nelson voting in favor of the motion.
Page 5 of 9