Loading...
Riverchase-1/PP-CS 940519CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE: Riverchase Club Addition, Preliminary Plat P & Z HEARING DATE: May 19, 1994 - Last Preliminary Plat hearing, March 24, 1994 C. C. HEARING DATE: June 14, 1994 LOCATION: Northwest corner of Beltline Road and MacArthur Blvd. SIZE OF AREA: 13.84 acres, with 280 apartment units CURRENT ZONING: MF-2 REQUEST: Approval of preliminary plat showing 280 units in 15 buildings APPLICANT: RPG Estates, Ltd. (Owner--now sold) 8440 Walnut Hill Lane 8th Floor Dallas, Tx. 75231 373-6666 C.E.D. Const. (Developer--owner) 2200 Lucien Way Suite 450 Maitland, Fl. 32751 (407) 660-1110 N. D. Maier (Engineer) 8800 N. Central Suite 300 Dallas, Tx. 75231 739-4741 HISTORY: There has been no recent platting activity on the subject tract. This l~lat was denied by the Planning Commission on Dec. 16, 1993 for a variety of reasons, among them the need for a traffic study which will be addressed in detail under "Analysis". This plat was again denied at the January 20th Commission meeting because it did not meet the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. It was also denied at the called Commission hearing on March 14 because final comments had not been procured from all City departments which evaluate plats, but was rescheduled for the March 24th public Item 15 meeting. On March 24 the plat was again denied because of several technical concerns. A final plat was submitted on April 21 and denied because a preliminary plat had not yet been approved. TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D, divided four-lane thoroughfare,contained within a 110 foot r.o.w.; Beltline Road is projected to be another P6D, but currently is a two lane, undivided, asphalt road. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North o vacant; MF-2 South - developing commercial; C East - vacant, golf course and developing single-family; R, SF-12 SUP, and PD-SF-7 West vacant and developing single-family; TH-1 and SF-9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows this parcel to develop with Office and Commercial uses. ANALYSIS: Although there are arguments which could be made regarding the construction of apartments at this location (because of the Comprehensive Plan document), the land is currently zoned MF-2, and the owner has the right to develop the land as shown and allowed through zoning. (The Commission on March 14th and after almost 18 months of study, recommended that this land be rezoned to reflect the uses shown on the Master Plan; namely, Office and Retail.) Based on our requirements for subdividing land, this proposal basically abides by most of our platting rules. There are several additional comments to be made: a deceleration lane needs to be provided by the applicant for south-bound MacArthur Blvd. to aid in entering the site. Right-of-way needs to be shown on the plat and the lane needs to be completed before a c.o. is issued for the development a minimum 5 foot sidewalk must be constructed along MacArthur Blvd. re-evaluation of the drainage system needs to be undertaken prior to submittal of the final plat assurances that there is no gated/secured entrance to this proposal all covered parking must be interior to the site, needs to be shown on the plan, and is no closer than 20 feet from the rear property line. With regard to the type of unit proposed here (low income, not to exceed $27,000 annually), and the fact that we are evaluating two other low income requests in the immediate area, staff is concerned with the possible negative impact these developments could have on a city the size of ours, and the concentrated area in which they are being proposed. To that end, the Council will discuss this issue at its December meeting and may reflect its collective concern with a letter to the State. It is our further understanding that the State must "sign-off" on these low income projects before funding can occur. Although the type of unit being proposed is not part of the platting process, this data is conveyed to you for your information. Addenda: At the December meeting, Council directed a committee to draft a letter to the State expressing concern with the potential concentration of moderate income housing in the City. We have also learned that the CED group has closed on this land and their ownership has been reflected above. For this hearing, (January 20, 1994), the applicant has submitted two plats, Riverchase Club Apts. (the original plat submission), and Riverchase Club Two (assuming the r.o.w, along Riverchase Blvd. was not abandoned). At the January 11 City Council meeting, Council elected to not abandon the Riverchase r.o.w. Because of that action, the site plan reflected by the original plat submittal does not comply with our subdivision regulations--it does not show the dedication of Riverchase Blvd.--and, therefore warrants a denial from the Commission. It is our further understanding that the applicant would, therefore, have us conduct a detailed review of the new plat in your packet, Riverchase Club Two. As you will recall, there were several concerns expressed at the Dec. Commission meeting, including drainage, EMF's, appropriate use, safety, open space, among others. One of the perceived major problems the community focused on was the lack of a definitive traffic study. The plat was denied and the applicant proceeded to hire a traffic consultant. We have reviewed that study, and the comments included from Engineering in the attached memo are provided for Commission's information. There have been meetings with the developer subsequent to submission of this study, and we continue to work with him to resolve the problems we see with his conclusions. Because of our traffic concerns, the applicant has requested until the end of business on Thursday, January 13, 1994, to respond to our comments. Because our docket must be prepared prior to that submission, and because we are having a continuing dialog with the developer regarding several issues outlined in Engineering's memo, we will reserve final comments until the public hearing. Beyond the traffic issue, there are other concerns which are not reflected by the Riverchase Club Two plat. Among them: a twenty to thirty foot water line easement should be shown generally parallel to the western property line the extension of Riverchase Drive needs to be included with Phase One development right-of-way dimension of St. Louis Railroad needs to be shown school district boundary line needs to be indicated on the plat In summary, Riverchase Club Apartments plat warrants a denial from Commission for a variety of reasons including the fact that Riverchase Blvd. r.o.w, is not recognized by this plat. The Riverchase Club Two plat has several omissions (see above) and many public safety issues discussed warrant additional dialogue at the public hearing. We have now received the most recent iteration of this plat (Riverchase Club, Block I and Block 2), and the applicant has now met most of the platting conditions stated above. However, there are at least four issues that are left open: 1. We have previously asked for a thirty foot easement for water line improvements which the applicant is now reluctant to show on the plat. 2. Concern has been expressed that Riverchase Drive ends without a turn around that could make it dangerous and unwieldy for school busses to maneuver when picking up and dropping off school children. It would be desirable to obtain at least a temporary turn-around until the eventual extension or termination of Riverchase Drive is resolved, and that turn around should be shown on the plat. 3. The plat most recently submitted still shows some three story buildings, and they need to be shown as no greater than two stories in height. 4. Engineering comments attached. The plat submitted for the May 19, 1994 hearing eliminates much of the information provided on previous plats, and is based on a letter from our City Attorney (attached) which suggested plat modification. Although the Attorney's comments are well taken, it is prudent to obtain as much information as possible prior to making a recommendation on a zoning case or plat so there are no questions or misunderstandings at a later date (when building permit application is made, for example). Nonetheless, the plat before you includes an on-site turn around at the west end of Riverchase Drive. The buildings are shown as they have always been placed on the plat, we presume height conforms to zoning requirements, andthe water main easement --to be located parallel to the T.U. r.o.w.-- discussed in prior hearings will be obtained at a future date. There are still questions relative to building location, health concerns relative to the EMF issue, the drainage along the utility r.o.w., a continuing concern about the railroad, dwelling units, and need for or lack of fencing, Engineering's comments (attached),among others. If these concerns can be addressed to the satisfaction of the Commission, approval would be in order. If they can not, denial is appropriate. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the Preliminary Plat 2) Deny the Preliminary Plat 3) Modify Preliminary Plat ATI'ACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat Document 2) Landscape Plan 3) Engineering Comments For the May 19, 1994 hearing, attachments are a revised plat document, a preliminary landscape plan, the Attorney's May 3, 1994 letter, and Engineering's comments.