Coppell Health-CS 881205c',kO:,¥: : a~',._l~ ......,,.-:,J,~r~. P&Z CoorCi~ator
S~.BJECT': ~c.s~i~ai Si~e P'rc,~osai - Town Center
~E: ~_et~er to Baiiey from Alier,, il-18-G8
Per your re~ues'~, ~his metro is lr~ resoc, nse to yc, up reques'~ to
a't~rn~ to ~ovep ail areas pep~inen~ ~o ~ne ~i~y of Dop~eii
its ~t%er~,t to the er~fc, rcer~en~ of it5 rules, regular lor~,
or~ inar, ces. Ssaff is a~are ~a~ certain noa~ er~ent s r~ay
grar~te~; however~ we ~rc, vide the foiiowing - comrner~ts ~sed
exlstin~ E.:ty c, pair~ar~ces ano policies.
Staff is er~t~uslastic about the ~ro~osed hospital facili~v, as we
are a~'~.e c,f ~ne lt~ac'~ l~ may have on ~ne future deveioprner~$
the c::,:-r, oeii Tc, wr, Center. I met with Mr. Grant Hensley, Director
of A~--cr.i~ecturai Design, for t~e ~e~iDlex Co., earlier trois weeK.
Mr. ~e,'~sley, preser~ed a proposal for a doo~opvs office facility,
ioca~ec, sou~heas~ c,f the existing Towr, Center. Municipal Cere~er.
He ex~iair~eO that his ciient, would like to construct ar, office
buiiciir, g or, the subjec~ si~e. I exolair~ed to nlm the basic
subo ivlsior, re~ula% ions ir~cluding the const ~-uct i or, of
s~reets, ano sea,ac, ks which ape to l~posed on bu~ l~ir, gs !oca'~eo
wi~nlr~ %be 'Fowr~ Cer~ter znr~ir, g.
Sit, ce 't~a'~ z~'~ee~ lr~g wl~h ~p. Hensiey~ i have been resear~nl~,~ City
r-ecoros, in ar~ a~ter~ot to recover ar~y ir, formation about the
· PuSupe oevelc, Drden~ of Towr, Cen~er. A~ tqis time, the search
not com~iete, ar, d I am con%lnuing to ~earc~ 'F'or an approved site
5ia¥', for '~be Towr, Cente'p.
On oage 2 of the subject letter, Mr. Mike Ailen, of U~ives~
Cor~c, ratior~, states treat PCJV ~roooses to donate the road p.o.
to prc, vi~e ar~ ingress and egress to both Der~ton Tap and Hertz
Roao. Due to ~he.location of the ~rc,~osed office faclllty~
will be require~ by the SubOivislon ordlr~ance ~ha~ at the leas~,
access to one of these roadways be in place ~rior ~o t~e
cor~struc~ic, r~ of tree facility.
Mr. Alien sta~es ~hat ~he si~e plan a~tache~ to ~he su~jec~
letter "re~r-eser, ts the cut.erst evolutior, 0f ~ar~y ger~eratior~ of
~Jrevlous ~iar,~". Sir, ce this is also my urJ0e'rs'~ar!oin~, s'taff
wc, ui~ like to rec-o~n~nend that Consl~e~atio~', be given to reokll~-ir~g
the oeveic,~er tc, su~rnit ~ne lates~ site ~lar, ~eir, g to, %me
Plar, r, lr,~ an~ Zor, lr,~ Co~n~mission arid tree City Councii for review
i) The zcr~i'r'~ ~hange for To~n Cen:er z¢,r~lr, g wa:~ a~rc, ved ir~
July of 198~. T~e Oc,~.~remensive Zonln~ Ordinance
tt'~e Subolvisior~ O~dir~ance has been a~,]ended several
tl~'~es t:~epe~y~ ~ausir~;~ several of the ~lty~s pc, iicles tc,
2) Private Streets - Staff believes tna~ this issue sr, c, ul~
De reviewe~ by the Deveio~rner, t Review ~ornr~ittee ar, d
cor~sl~eration and review by the Plant, lng and Zoning
Co~,~i~ssion. Staff ~elieves that this issue may ~ot ~ave
beer~ a~res~ed during the approval ppc, cess Pack ir~
Due to ~e irnoc, r~ar~'e of peguiatir~g the streets by way
of rnalr, ter, ance~ 'fire ar, a police control, staff asks fc,~'
further con~lOeratior, of t~is ~atter.
3) ~_ir~ear Park SVs~e~ - P~io~ to any a'tte~npt $o dedicate
any lake ar,~ lan~scaping systems to the City to be
~alr, tained by ~e City, staff reques'~s
consideration and review by the Develo~er, t Review
Com~ i ~ tee.
4) Parking -- In order to ~etepmlne wne~er variances
De Rran~ed for s~ared parking s~aces, staff should
review ~ne er, tire site Dian, before making ar~y
recom~endatior~s to the Planning an~ Zoning Com~i~sic, n
and City Council.
=~) C.:,p~eil Municipal UtlliSy Dis~ric~ - A~ tqis tirae
~as r,o cor,]r~ents re~ardin~ the MUD, however, i wa~ie
to locate a ~e~o~r~du~ ~o t~e ~or~ir,~ fiie wnic~
reference~ the ML~D. (Piease see atta~.he~ memo
file oared June 15, 1988).
6) ~isceliar, eous - ~ontair,ed ~ltnlr~ the zc,~',ing file is a
let'te~ ~o Ji;~ Eliu~, Oity Manage'p, frc,~ JT Dur, Kir~ &
A~socla~es. (Piease fir,~ attached letter dateo jur~e i8,
198~)- There are s~eclfio areas containe0 wltnir, this
iet'~er to the City Manager which may need to be
revieweO Dy ~he City Attorney.
shareo parking, an~ ordinance requipe~ents, staff requests ~a'~ a
meetir:g be held ir~ order to ~upt~er discuss these items.
if ~'ou need additiona~ information, please let me know.
Route to~' Chu
Boyd
CARTER ~ BURGESS. INC.
ENGINEERS' PLANNERS
t[.q~ 3une 15~ 1982
File ~/~/:e¢/' Meeting with 3im Elium~
City ManageG
Bill Bell City of Coppell
On 3une 15~ I met with Sim Elium to deliver a letter that we had prepared at the
request of Univest. The letter is dated 3une 8~ 1982~ and the following comments relate to
specific questions contained in the referenced letter.
I explained to 3ira that I wanted to deliver the letter which outlines several questions
necessary for us to continue with more detailed feasibility studies relative to Univest's plans
?
for development of the subject project. 3ira stated that if possible he would like to go over
each of the questions with me at the present time and would attempt to reconcile all the
questions that he could.
Vie then began reviewing each question~ and the following comments relate to the
questions as numbered in the referenced letter:
1. Regarding the levee: 3ira stated that he would require a minimum-of ~:1 side
slopes on the levee (berm); ~at the height of the berm should provide 2' of freeboard above
the 100 year water surface elevation. This rationale is based upon the same rationale that
they use in establishing finished floor elevations for buildings within or adjacent to
floodplains~ i.e, the slab being a minimum of 2' above the 100 year water surface. The top
width of the berm should be 100" or g½' _+; this width being required to accommodate a full
mower cutting width which would be used to maintain the levee. As a requirement to the
levee being dedicated to the City, Elium would require a dedication of a I0' access easement
contiguous with the toe of the base of the levee on both sides o! the levee. On the floodway
side, this should not present any problem. On the development side of the leveed possibly
this 10' easement could be contiguous with and contain the alley which would be completely
accep:able to Elium. C&B No. 8135701
C&B No. 8211702
-Meeting with 3ira Elium, C~v Manager,
City of Coppell
:June 15, 1982
Page 2
2. Regarding sidewalks: On residential streets, it is the builder of the house that is
ultimately responsible for construction of the sidewalks. For collectors or major
thoroughfares, the City looks to the developer as being responsible for the construction of
the sidewalks at the time of street construction.
3. Regarding landscape subdivision entries: The City has no policy concerning this.
It is entirely up to the developer. He may utilize street right-of-way for this purpose as long
as it is properly coordinated with the City and does not cause any interference with the
public utilities, services or sight restrictions. The City would reserve the right o! approval;
however, they have no specific requirements or stipulations to be imposed on the
construction of subdivision entries. ~
g. (1) Regarding Parkway Boulevard: Elium stated that he would require the
option contained in Item A, i.e., build one-hall of the divided thoroughfare with an outside
and a median curb. Also, where the Parkway Boulevard is to be a collector size street and
not a divided thoroughfare, Elium stated that he would require that 2~' of pavement be
constructed. He was not very receptive to the c~nstruction o! an extruded temporary
asphalt curb. He did state,.however, that possible use of precast parking barriers doweled
into the inside edge of the pavement could be used. Th~ other alternative would be to go
ahead and construct a monolithic curb at the inside pavement edge with the idea that this
pavement would be cut and the curb removed when the pavement is widened. I think the
possible use o! the precast curb would be one that we could support. We could place a
segment with 7' spacing between each segment and the developer would have the right to
salvage and reuse the precast curbs on future work or in parking areas, etc. While we were
discussing the street section, 3ira stated that he was recommending to all the developers to
construct the crown as a "rooftop" section in lieu of a parabolic crown with the slopes being
3/16" per toot. We spoke to the right-of-way width, and Elium stated that the 60' right-of-
way for the undivided collector streets would be required and that he would recommend that
.Meeting with 3ira Elium, City Manager,
. City of Coppell
3une 15, 1982
Page 3
we dedicate gO' for the median divided thoroughfare in lieu of the 7t~' contained in the letter.
Also, as a matter of future reference and design criteria, the widths spoken of are face to
face widths, i.e., the divided thoroughfare would be 24' face to face and the undivided
thoroughfare would be ~' wide face to face. Residential streets will be 2g' wide in a 50'
ROW.
#. (2) Elium concurrred that the City will pay their share of the development
costs for the construction of the streets adjacent to the proposed municipal center site and
other City property. He could not confirm that these funds would be available because he
has no assurance until funds are there; however, he does state that the City would accept
this obligation in an agreement with the developer.
4. (3) Elium stated that he did not believe the City would support a deferring of
perimeter street escrow monies, but they could be transferred to the expense of
construction of facilities that the City otherwise would have to fund, i.e., construction of
some of the streets adjacent to the City complex could be performed with the same funds
that would be otherwise escrowed for perimeter street work. This then would transfer the
City's future expenditures to funding the perimeter streets in lieu of the adjacent City
complex streets.- ALso, Ilium suggested that a deferral of escrow payments for the
referenced perimeter s-x~eets contained in the letter could also possibly be deferred by the
developer pledging equivalent value of land that the City otherwise would purchase as
assurance for the normally required escrow funds. The escrow capital then could be spent
elsewhere.
~. Regarding Mrs. Austin's adjacent property: Elium stated that nothing could be
answered concerning the specifics of this question at this time. He did suggest that the
matter r~ccds to be initiated by Univest arranging a meeting with Mrs. Austin and suggesting
to Mrs. Austin that Jim Elium meet with Univest and her at the meeting. Jim advised me
that Mrs. Austin has conferred with him in the past, and he would be more than glad to meet
Meeting with 3im Elium, :y Manager,
City of Coppell
3une 15, 1982
Page t4
with ~he two parties to discuss the arrangements that will need to be made relative to this
portion of Moore Road. ~
6. Regarding platting: The City will require a plat to dedicate all the streets
proposed for construction unencumbered by any contingencies.. He appreciated the concern
voiced in the question and did suggest that possibly a performance bond could be provided
from the developer to the lien holder to assure the lien holder that the streets would be
constructed, therefore allowing the lien holder to participate in the dedication of the right-
of-way.
7. Regarding signage: The signing requirements that pertain to the subdivision must
simply conform with the City sign ordinance. He suggested that the developers obtain a
copy of the sign ordinance relative to any billboard advertising.
g. Regarding the arrangements between the City and the MUD: Elium states that
there simply never has been a problem in this regardi that the City reviews the water and
sewer designs that would result in the construction of facilities to eventually be dedicated to
the MUD. The City review is independent of any MUD review, and the C_ity's review is made
to assure that it meets the. City~ normal standard for construction of these facilities. In
turn, the plans must also be submitted to the MUD and as long a_s they do not require any
requirements that would be less than the City requ~ements, r~hen there would be no problem.
Two separate reviews, however, must be made. I asked 3ira if any of the developers in the
recent past had had any problems in coordinating their work between the City and the MUD
and Elium stated simply that there have not been any problems at all.
I asked 3ira to further review the letter. I advised him that I would send him a copy o!
this memo with the understanding that if there are any exceptions in my records of our
meeting that he advise me. I also advised him that I felt sure that the developer and myself
would want to get back with him later to discuss any of the matters listed above that require
further elaboration on the part of the developer.
WCB:es ~"
cc: Mike Allen
~im Elium W'
J.TDUNKIN & ASSOCIATES INC~
urban planning / landscape architecture
June 18, 1982
Mr. Jim Elium, Manager
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Mr. Elium:
The following are summaries of comments made during the City
Council meeting at which time the zoning ordinance amendments
were approved. These comments concerned the Univest Town Center
proposal and probably should be incorporated into the amending
ordinance for the Univest request.
1. The preliminary ~i-~-~-)~~ plan and drawings for the
Town Center as submitted and discussed at various public
meetings and hearings are hereby approved and made a part of
this ordinance.
(a) Prior to start of construction, a preliminary plat and
plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council for the Town Center
District. The preliminary plat shall show the proposed
streets, easements, lots (if any), and other platting
features as required by the subdivision ordinance. The
plan shall show major use areas, and any revisions to i
the preliminary site plan/concept plan.
2. A landscape plan shall be submitted as required by the zoning
ordinance. This plan shall include all areas within any
dedicated right-of-way proposed on the preliminary plat.
3. Prior to any landscape installation in public space, an
agreement shall be filed in the City Secretary's office
setting forth responsibilities of maintenance of all street
rights-of-way within the Town Center district by the developer
and/or owners or City, for a period of ~(~. years.
13600 L B J freeway · 1540 eastgate plaza, suite 209 p.o. box 2766 · gael~nd,~exas 75041 · 214-2~0-7661
Page 2
4. The final plan shall be detailed sufficiently to indicate
areas such as paving types, fountains and other streetscape,
public and private use areas, in addition to the existing
site plan criteria in existence at the time of submission.
5. Building heights shall be restricted to three stories within
125' of the right-of-way of Central Boulevard (Main Street)
for the purpose of ensuring visibility and sight lines to
the City Hall complex.
6. All utilities normally placed overhead shall be placed
underground and shall be addressed at the time of subdivision
platting.
If there are any questions concerning these recommendations
please feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
d. T. Dunkin