CC approval on 6/8/04AGENDA REQUEST FORM
COFFELL
DEPT: Planning
DATE: June 8, 2004
ITEM #: 8
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. PD-201-TH-2, Riverchase Townhomes, Lots 1-49, zoning change request from LI
(Light Industrial) to PD-201-TH-2 (Planned Development-201, Townhouse-2) to allow the construction of 48
single-family attached homes and common area on 4.42 acres of property located along the east side of MacArthur
Boulevard, approximately 1,400 feet north of Riverchase Drive, and consider approval of an amendment to the
Land Use Plan of the 1996 Comprehensive Master Plan from Light Industrial/Showroom to Residential High
Density. APPROVED BY Motion to close the Public Hearing &
GOAL(S):
IL
CITY COUNC
ON ABOVE DATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: May 20, 2004
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approved (6-0) with Commissioners
Halsey, Foreman and Reese voting in favor. None opposed.
Approve subject to conditions 4 and 13
below
M - Faught
S - Raines
Vote 5-1
Tunnell voted against
York Absent
McCaffrey, Milosevich, Kittrell,
Approval of both the zoning change request and Comprehensive Master Plan amendment are recommended,
subject to the following conditions:
2) m ........... . _~ .... ~. .... ,n ...... A;*; .... c*~-~ r~.. r', ............ : .... (CONDITION MET)
Lan .... r .............. v ...... r~ ....
Landscape Plan. (CONDITION MET)
4) Lot ~M-9 must conform to the provisions of Sec. 33-1-8-C of the Zoning Ordinance.
(CONDITION MET)
(CONDITION MET)
(CONDITION MET)
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: ~ IPD-201-TH-2 I-AR
COPPELL
AGENDA REQUEST NARRATIVE
PD-201-TH-2. RIVERCHASE TOWNHOMES. LOTS 1-49
(CONTINUED CONDITIONS)
10) .... ;~- ^c .....:~ net ~'.~ .....T ~ ..... mn~ (CONDITION MET)
,,~ ...............c,_ ..... /x,~^,u~- :- ~ ............ n ....~ (CONDITION MET)
12) ~: ....... :+~ ~--: ....: .......... (CONDITION MET)
13) Provide re~-yard fencing ~o~d project, preferable decorative metal with brick colums matching
brick of buil~ngs.
14) ~: ....... c,k~ ~ ....... ao,,~a0fee, (CONDITION MET)
(CONDITION MET)
add~ ............... ~-,~ ............ (CONDITION MET)
17) Parl:1ng a!eng u~*~ c~ Cc=~ ~. ~ ~:~:,~ .... ~ .....s;~~ ~ ............(CONDITION MET)
Staff recommends approval of both requests.
Agenda Narrative Form - Revised 1/99
CASE NO.:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PD-201-TH-2 Riverchase Townhomes
Lots 1-49
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
May 20, 2004
June 8, 2004
STAFF REP.:
Gary L. Sieb, Planning Director
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 1,400
feet north of Rivemhase Drive.
4.42 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING:
LI (Light industrial)
REQUEST:
PD-201-TH-2 (Planned Development-201-Townhouse-2), Planned
Development district for the construction of 48-single-family
attached homes and common area.
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Jason Rose
1200 College Pkwy.
Suite 417
Lewisville, TX. 75077
(214) 454-7895
Fax: (972) 420-0324
Them has been no recent history on this parcel although several
inquiries have been received regarding appropriate use for the
property.
TRANSPORTATION:
Page I of 5
MacArthur Blvd. is a shown as a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare
contained within a 11 O-foot right-of-way. It has been improved as a
four-lane divided thoroughfare.
Item #4
SURROUNDiNG LAND USE & ZONiNG:
North - public baseball fields; SF-7 zoning
South - single-family residences; SF-9
East- power line right-of-way; O (Office) zoning
West - public baseball fields and single-family residences: SF-7 and SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property
as suitable for light manufacturing uses.
DISCUSSION:
This tract of ground has been a development challenge ever since the
Riverchase subdivisions were constructed in the early 1990's. It is
long, narrow, adjacent to a very wide utility easement, and is next door
to MacArthur Park, an active recreational facility. After struggling for
years to determine an appropriate use for this long, thin parcel of land,
this proposal makes a lot of sense. It is, however, not without some
problems expressed by members of the Development Review
Committee, which are covered below. Nonetheless, this request
warrants support, provided concerns expressed by DRC are
acknowledged.
Historically, the only potential use staff' has reviewed for this property
has been mini warehousing. However, with the number of such uses in
Coppell, it is difficult to justify adding more, and after doing their
analysis, these potential users have come to that conclusion and
pursued projects elsewhere. We now have an architect who has
constructed a townhouse subdivision in Arlington similar to what is
proposed here. Planning staff visited the Arlington site, and we can
support this request provided a number of conditions are recognized
and clearly stated in the Planned Development.
As stated above, during staff review, there was some apprehension
raised with this request. Our Parks Department has concerns regarding
potential noise and lighting complaints being lodged by residents of
this project against our MacArthur Park sports complex immediately
north of this property. Parking concerns were raised, as well as
questions regarding the length and size of the cul-de-sac, fire
protection, screening, landscaping, street alignment, and other issues.
Most of these issues have been addressed by the applicant, and those
remaining--primarily Parks concerns and the screening question--can
be discussed and resolved at the public hearing, either through
acknowledgement or plan modification.
Page 2 of 5
Item #4
Regarding Park's reservations, MacArthur Park is open from 6:30 a.m.
until sunset. We have an agreement with the Coppell Baseball
Association allowing ball field lights to stay on as late as 11 p.m.,
seven days a week. Our Parks Department wants the developer to
acknowledge these facts by placing a note on the PD plan and
subdivision plat so stating. The applicant has agreed, and we have
made that a condition of approval.
Cul-de-sac length was another concern. Because of its narrow width,
and developed land on both sides, this applicant has no other choice
than to propose an extra long street. Although not encouraged, a cul-
de-sac can exceed the 600-foot maximum length, provided additional
fire prevention rudiments are applie~in this case sprinkled buildings,
additional "hammer-head" fire lanes, proper turning radii, minimum
clearance over fire lanes, and no parking zones. That is a condition for
Fire Department support of this proposal, and the applicant has agreed.
However, the cul-de-sac as indicated on the site plan is substandard, in
that the diameter appears to be less than 80 feet, where 100-foot
diameter is required. There is also a question as to the purpose and
intent of the fire lane shown on a diagonal between Lots 11 and 12 and
35 and 36.
Major concerns of the Engineering Department were assurances that
the proposed street align with Bethel School Road and intersect with
MacArthur Boulevard at a 90% angle. The revised PD plan reflects
such a design. The location of guest parking spaces was also
problematic. As site planned, those parking spaces intrude into our
public right-of-way. An easement agreement with the City will need to
be procured to allow this parking configuration to remain. We can
support such an agreement.
Other concerns to surface in staff review included setbacks, screening,
landscape requirements and other development standards having to be
customized for this specific site. They are discussed below.
In reviewing the specifics of this request, 48 two-story townhouse units
are being proposed. Each will contain from 1100- to 1200-square feet,
with an optional 220-square-foot ground floor master bedroom. The
structures are built in four-unit modules and offer brick facades with
stone detailing. Overall density for the project is 11 units per acre,
slightly less than TH-2 zoning allows. Several units are very close to
the right-of-way, in some cases only a foot or so off, but in a PD,
reduced setbacks can be approved. Because only comers of some
buildings are affected, there is no interference with sight distances,
there is a parkway of approximately 12 feet to "buffer" these reduced
Page 3 of 5
Item #4
setbacks, and we anticipate traffic volumes to be minimal in this cul-
de-sac subdivision, we can support this anomaly. Landscaping
generally follows our minimum requirements, and the developer
recognizes the $1,285 park development fee required for each
townhouse unit.
Perhaps the most troubling element of this proposal for planning staff
is the absence of uniform fencing around the rear of the townhouses.
The applicant has proposed a condition that IF individual homeowners
provide fencing, then it shall be of decorative metal. Troubling to us is
the fact that we have no guarantee all owners will construct the
fencing, and some providing the fencing and others not results in a less
than desirable overall appearance of the project. Because the rear
yards are so visible from the public right-of-way from both directions
along MacArthur, we feel the fencing should be included with overall
development of the project. The applicant disagrees.
To sum up, we feel this project merits approval subject to several
conditions which are elaborated on below.
Finally, if the zoning change is approved, the Comprehensive Master
Plan needs to be change to reflect a residential use for this property as
opposed to the industrial use currently shown.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this PD request, subject to the following
conditions:
1) Clearly show fire hydrant locations on all plans.
2) Place notes on all plans that reflect conditions of the Parks
Department review (attached).
3) Landscape screen around parking lots must contain a hedge at
least 30-inches tall at planting; revise Landscape Plan.
4) Lot #49 must conform to the provisions of Sec. 33-1-8-C of the
Zoning Ordinance.
5) Lot widths are 10.4 feet wider than required, not 16.5 feet.
Change note 4 on Site Plan.
Page 4 of 5
Item #4
ALTERNATIVES
1)
2)
3)
4)
6) Average building area is 1,900-square feet, not 2,000 feet.
Change Site Data Table on Site Plan.
7) Red Tip Photinias are not an approved plant material. Change
on Site Plan and Landscape Plan.
8) Symbol at entrance of project on Landscape Plan is not
identified in Legend.
9) River Rock location not clear on Unit Cluster enlarged plan.
10) Location of grass is not shown on Landscape Plan.
11) Change "Guest" room to "Guest/Mother-in-law" room on floor
plans.
12) Compliance with Engineering comments (attached).
13) Provide rear-yard fencing around project, preferable decorative
metal with brick columns matching brick of buildings.
14) The diameter of the cul-de-sac needs to be 100-feet.
15) Clarify the purpose of the fire lane shown on a diagonal
between Lots 11 and 12 and 35 and 36.
Recommend approval of the request
Recommend disapproval of the request
Recommend modification of the request
Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Departmental comments (Parks Department, Engineering)
Page 5 of 5
Item #4
COPPELL
Project ID PD-04-0013
Address S Macarthur BIvd
CITY OF COPPELL
2nd DRC REPORT
Project Name
COPPELL
Riverchase Townhomes
Proem Type
Application Date
Case Manager
Project Description
Re-Zoning PD
4/21/04
Gary Sieb
Zoning change request from LI (Light Industrial) to PD-201-TH-2 (Planned Development-201, Townhouse-2) to allow the
construction of 52 single-family attached homes on 4.42 acres of property located along the east side of Mac. Arthur
Boulevard, approximately 1,400 feet north of Riverchase Ddve
Agency
Parks and Recreation
Engineering
1 of 1
Comments
1. Park Development fee of $1285.00 per unit.
2. Park hours are 6:30 a.m. until sunset.
3. The City of Coppell has an agreement with the Coppell Baseball Association that allows the
ball field lights to stay on no later than 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week.
4. Developers, and future residents of this development need to be aware of existing ballfield
lights that shine towards the townhomes, as well as noise that will come from games.
Site Plan ~
1. All off-street parking shall be on a HOA owned and maintained lot.
2. The Engineering Dept. has concerns about the parking provided on Lot 1-X being too close
to MacArthur Blvd.
3. Brick pavers are no longer allowed in public streets, use stamped and stained concrete
instead.
· See additional comments on Preliminary Plat case for this development