Riverview Est/FP-AG 961210' I
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM CAPTION:
December 10, 1996
ITEM # ~_
Consider approval of Riverview Estates, Final Plat, to allow the
development of a 66-1ot residential subdivision on approximately 19.32
acres of property, located south of Sandy Lake Road, approximately 728.42
feet east of Riverchase Drive.
Gary L. Sleb ~
TITLe: Director of Planning~nd Community Services
STAFF RECOI~NDS: ApproWal ~ Denial
STAFF COMMENTS:
Date of P&Z Meetinq: November 21, 1996
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (5-0) with Commissioners Jones,
Wheeler, Cruse, DeFilippo and McCaffrey voting in favor. Commissioners
Mabry and Lowry were absent.
Approval subject to the following conditions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Council waiver of Section VIII - Preliminary Plat and Plans - of
the Subdivision Ordinance, and waiver of the requirement for
approval of a preliminary plat, as found in Section IX - Final
Plat and Plans.
The 15' side building line shown on Lots 1, 13, 14 and 26 of
Block B being shown as a building and fence setback line.
Payment of $1,285-per-lot park fee.
Compliance with Engineering Department recommendations as
follows:
(a) Need to show median and provide note "To be maintained by
H.O.A.".
(b) Lot 31 should be included in variance for deletion of alley.
VED
BUDGET AMT.$
FINANCIAL COMMENTS
Agenda Request Form - Revised'6/96
Sp~llCh~k & Saw docmn~~Pu~ "gold:nmd" lmt~ in pri~-
FIN.
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
Document Name ~m~.pz
CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
RIVERVIEW ESTATES, FINAL PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: November 21, 1996
C.C. HEARING DATE: December 10, 1996
LOCATION:
Along the south side of Sandy Lake Road, approx. 728.42 feet east
of Riverchase Drive.
SIZE OF AREA:
19.32acres - 66 lots
CURRENT ZONING:
SF-9 (Single Family-9)
REQUEST:
Final Plat approval
APPLICANT:
Owner:
Johnny Thompson
1780 East Beltline
Coppell, TX 75019
(972) 462-1660
Representative:
CCM Engineering
1120 Empire Central Place, #308
Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 630-5200
HISTORY:
City Council approved a Preliminary Plat for this property on
October 8, 1991. It expired nine months later, in July of 1992.
Three years thereafter, on November 14, 1995, Council approved
a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance granting a 6-month
extension of the previously approved Preliminary Plat. That
extension expired in mid-May, 1996.
TRANSPORTATION:
Sandy Lake Road is a 2-lane road shown on the thoroughfare plan
as a C4D/6, 4-lane divided thoroughfare to be built in a 100'-wide
right-of-way.
Item// 13
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
East -
West -
vacant, "R" Retail zoning
Eagle Point at Riverchase, "SF-7" Single-Family-7 zoning
vacant, "R" Retail zoning
Eagle Point at Riverchase, "SF-7" Single-Family-7 zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be in the
floodplain.
DISCUSSION:
The layout of the streets, lots and alleys within this proposed subdivision
is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. If submitted as a Preliminary Plat, the planning staff would
recommend approval subject to engineering comments and subject to
modifications on the 4 corner lots in Block B, so that the lots in Blocks
A and C which face side yards across a street will not face fences close
to the street right-of-way line.
However, the applicant has submitted a Final Plat, even though it is five
months after the expiration of a Council extension of a 3-year-old
preliminary plat. In granting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance last
year to allow a 6-month extension of the Preliminary Plat, Council was
specific about its intentions. After the motion was made and seconded,
Councilmember Tunnell asked: "If it doesn't come back in six months,
does it have to start over as a Preliminary?". The mayor answered: "It's
dead. It's dead. The six months will begin today. It starts ticking
today." Council then voted unanimously to approve the motion. That
was on November 14, 1995.
The validity of the Preliminary Plat is highly relevant, because with no
extension, development is subject to current roadway impact and park
fees. The difference in what the City collects in fees today, over what it
would have collected in 1991, is roughly $130,000.
Staff has seen several instances where a prospective developer has
attempted to plat property, discovered how costly the flood reclamation
will be, and delayed or even abandoned the project. In this case, the
applicant had ample opportunity to proceed with flood plain studies during
1992 and 1993, resubmit a preliminary plat and final plat, and develop the
project prior to the enactment of the current fee structure.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires approval of a preliminary plat prior
to approval of a final plat. The Planning Commission is not authorized
to vary the terms of the ordinance. There is not an approved and valid
preliminary plat on file. Therefore, without Council action to waive
Subdivision Ordinance requirements, the Commission is obligated to
Item// 13
disapprove this f'mal plat submission. The ordinance further states that,
if the Commission disapproves the final plat, the plat will not be sent to
the City Council for consideration and directs the Commission either to
approve or disapprove the plat within 30 days of its filing (meaning no
later than November 21, 1996).
If the Commission believes that Council should waive the current roadway
impact and park fees, the Commission can approve the final plat subject
to Council granting a variance of the Subdivision Ordinance requirements
to allow further extension of the validity of the now invalid Preliminary
Plat.
If the Commission thinks that Council should not waive the current fees,
but believes that Council should have the opportunity to do so, the
Commission can approve the final plat subject to Council's waiving the
preliminary plat submission requirements and subject to previously
suggested modifications on the four corner lots of Block B. The plat then
would go to Council for it to do whatever it wants to do about the fees.
The planning staff thinks that the City should deal straightforwardly with
the fee issue. The amount of park fees collectible in 1991 was $150 per
lot. The amount today is $1,285 per lot. The difference times 66 lots is
almost $75,000. There were no roadway impact fees in 1991. Roadway
impact fees today are $855 per lot. That figure times 66 lots is about
$56,000. The planning staff sees no solid justification for the City to
sacrifice nearly $75,000 in park fees from this development. The
planning staff sees no solid justification for the City sacrificing the
roadway impact fees; and sees no reason whatsoever for waiving the
roadway impact fees on this residential development without the ability to
collect, for the retail portion of the property fronting Sandy Lake Road,
the amount that would have been collected under the previous policy.
(The previous policy required street assessments ultimately for over 1000
feet of frontage along Sandy Lake Road, but the City replaced that policy
with its current roadway impact fees). And, most particularly, the
planning staff sees no justification in waiving fees for 66 lots when only
61 lots were approved in 1991.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Planning staff recommends giving the applicant full recourse and access
to the City Council by approving the plat subject to the following 4
conditions:
1)
Council waiver of Section VIII - Preliminary Plat and Plans - of
the Subdivision Ordinance, and waiver of the requirement for
approval of a preliminary plat, as found in Section IX - Final Plat
and Plans.
Item// 13
2)
3)
4)
The 15' side building line shown on Lots 1, 13, 14 and 26 of
Block B being shown as a building and fence setback line.
Payment in full of all fees, including the current $1,285-per-lot
park fee and the current $855-per-lot roadway impact fee.
Compliance with Engineering Department recommendations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend disapproval of the Final Plat
2) Recommend approval of the Final Plat
3) Recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to conditions.
ATrACHMENTS: 1) Final Plat
2) Departmental Comments
Item # 13
ENGINEERING COMMENTS I~ ! ~, ~. ~ "
ITEM: Riverview Estates, ~Tmd Plat,. to allow the development of vt 66-lot
residential subdivision on approximately 19.32 acres of properly,
located along the south side of Sandy Lalce Road, approximately
728.42 feet east of Riverclmse Drive, at the request of CCM
Engineering.
DRC DATE: October 31, 1996 and November 7, 1996
CONTACT: kFd~e Martin, E.I.T., Assistant City Engineer 004-3679)
COMMENT STATUS: PP~L!M!NAR Y ~FINAL
Need to show median and provide note "To be maintained by H.O.A.".
Lot 31 should be included in variance for deletion of alley.
Riverview Estates, l~nal Plat
October $1, 1996
R. D. $1ayton, Superintendent of Leisure Services
214/304-3554 FAX 214/304-3547
The developer will be responsible to participate in the City of Coppell's parkland dedication
ordinance fee of $1,285 per dwelling unit.
'I~ELECTRIC
CITY OF COPPELL
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
October 31, 1996
SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW ESTATES
FINAL PLAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
EASEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC FACILITIES. A
PLAT WITH EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE DEVELOPER.
LOAD INFORMATION (SIZE OF A/C, HEAT LOAD) WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE
DEVELOPER BEFORE EASEMENTS CAN BE DETERMINED.
PLEASE CALL ME AT 972-888-1307 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
TIM BRANCHEAU
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 10, 1996
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of Riverview Estates, Final Plat, to allow the
development of a 66-1ot residential subdivision on approximately 19.32
acres of property, located south of Sandy Lake Road, approximately 728.42
feet east of Riverchase Drive.
SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb
TITLE: Director of Planning and Community Services
STAFF RECOMMENDS: Approval ~ Denial
STAFF COMMENTS:
Date of P&Z Meetinq: November 21, 1996
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (5-0) with Commissioners Jones,
Wheeler, Cruse, DeFilippo and McCaffrey voting in favor. Commissioners
Mabry and Lowry were absent.
Approval subject to the following conditions: :,,¥~,<i~ ~. A<"~,~ · ~'~'
1) Council waiver of Section VIII - Preliminary Plat and Plans ' of
the Subdivision Ordinance, and waiver of the requirement for
approval of a preliminary plat, as found in, Section~IX - Fina%
Plat and Plans ~':~' ~:~ ~ ~ A~ ~7~L,~,~
2) The 15' side building line shown on Lots 1, 13, 14 ana ~ oz .... ,.~ '
Block B being shown as a building and fence setback line.
3) Payment of $1,285-per-lot park fee.
4) Compliance with Engineering Department recommendations as
follows:
(a) Need to show median and provide note "To be maintained by
H.O.A.".
(b) Lot 31 should be included in variance for deletion of alley.
BUDGET AMT.$
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
AMT. EST.$
+/- BUD:$
DIR. INITIALS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 6~96
Sl~llC'~ck & Sav~ datum:hr- Pul 'gokkna~[" I~,=r ~. pdn~t-
FIN. REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
Documcn~ Name r~wfp.~z
200