Enclaves-AG 941129 AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: November zg, 1994 ITEM # _~__
ITEM CAPTION:
Discussion and consideration of potential single-family development on
approximately 6 acres of land on the south side of Parkway Boulevard,
east of Kid Country.
SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb ~
TITLE: Director of Planning & Community Services INITIALS
STAFF COMMENTS:
This item comes to Council as an outgrowth of an earlier worksh6p
session. The potential developer of the tract under consideration
will be available to offer a presentation and address any concerns of
the Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval Denial
EXPLANATION:
/
BUDGET /~MT.$~/~ AMT. EST.$ +/- BUD:$
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
FINANCIAL REVIEW: ~ CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ~
Agenda Request Form - Revised 1/94
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Enclaves on the Parkway
BACKGROUND
In October (see October 7 memo from Planning Director to Finance Director for background,
attached), the Planning Director brought to the Council's attention a request of a developer to
possibly enter into a public-private pannership to relieve a long-standing drainage problem for
the City.
Specif'~cally, the property across the street from Kid Country (which had recently been rezoned
from MF-2 to SF-7) was going through the platting process, and the land developer had
suggested a means whereby the drainage channel south of the Parkway Boulevard bridge might
be improved--similar to the constructed channel west of the property--thus relieving the
community of an eyesore, eliminate a breeding ground for mosquitos and various vermin, and
tremendously decrease the number of citizen complaints focused on the drainage area.
You were briefed on the developer's request for partial city-funded clean-up efforts which
included an estimated $40-50,000 monetary contribution. Although no official Council action
was taken, staff was advised to work with the land owner to encourage development which
would benefit the community at large.
CURRENT STATUS
Shortly after the Council briefing, Planning Commission considered a preliminary plat on the
property (staff report attached), and because of technical problems, denied the application.
Subsequent to Planning Commission action, Wilbow Peck Corporation, Inc., the proposed
developer of the property, submitted a letter to the Planning Director outlining more specifically
their proposal, and a copy of that correspondence was included in an October FYI Council
packet (October 28 enclosure).
Basically, Wilbow Peck, an Australian development corporation which is building single-family
subdivisions in the metroplex, proposes to:
-construct a 21 lot single-family subdivision on the subject property
-be responsible for obtaining the RTC land through which the drainage area meanders
-construct a sidewalk, irrigate and landscape the area adjacent to the canal
-build a milsap stone wall along the west and north side of the canal
-be responsible for maintenance of the west and north side of the canal
-provide excavation work and design for the entire project
The City would be responsible for our monetary contribution to build the east and south sides
of' the canal wall (projected to be $40-50,000), resolve the drainage problem east of the canal
(which Engineering is investigating), and maintain the same overall area.
As shown in the October 28 correspondence, Wilbow Peck has done some preliminary financial
analysis which suggests a partnership contribution of approximately $141,000 developer funding,
$95,000 City funding. It must be emphasized that these figures are preliminary in nature, and
more refined numbers will be presented at the November 29 Council meeting. In addition, the
$45,000 figure shown for storm sewer would typically be allocated out of our storm drainage
account, and would resolve a problem which was not created by this developer, and has no
direct benefit to him.
SUMMARY
Staff is looking for Council direction to proceed with an agreement which would allow this
development to occur. Issues which need resolution include:
-specifics of this project which make it beneficial for the City to proceed
-refined cost figures to better understand expense allocation
-more detailed drainage expense figures
-resolution of the ownership of the canal areas
-possible "outside" financial contribution to the project
-any long term financial/maintenance obligations which might face the City
-other concerns which might result from this discussion
As staff has investigated and reviewed this proposal, we are struck by the potential this plan has
of resolving a long-standing community drainage problem. In addition we applaud development
of the single-family subdivision. We are supportive of entering into a potential public-private
partnership which serves to assist both the developer and the City at large. Of crucial
importance to the developer in development of the residential subdivision is, of course, the
resolution of the drainage problem. Of paramount interest to the City is the assurance any
financial contribution benefits the city as a whole and is not focused only on an individual
development. We feel this partnership benefits the entire city because is resolves a drainage
problem, puts into productive use a vacant piece of real estate, promotes a use which is
supportive of and complimentary to the land uses around it, assists in encouraging our linkage
greenbelt concept, implements a component part of the Parks Master Plan, and results in quality
development with enormous public exposure.
wilbodev
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 7, 1994
To: A_.l~ohnson, Finance Director
Fro~lL. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services
Subjeqtt: Consideration of Expenditure Out of $600,000 Fund Balance Designated for C.I.P.
Alan, as I discussed with you briefly yesterday, a situation has recently arisen which prompts
this memo of Fund Balance consideration.
As you know, we have been through a rigorous exercise in rezoning several parcels of property
in the City over the last several months, one being the old ABQ tract east of city hall. A
continuing problem with development of that tract is the fact that the drainage area on its east
and south border has never been recognized by the city or property owner for maintenance.
Indeed, the area is currently owned by the RTC--whom we all recognize has not performed
proper maintenance in the canal for at least as long as I have lived here--and from time to time
city forces have taken it upon themselves to clean out the canal.
I am now processing a preliminary plat for single family development on the 5.8 acre parcel
adjacent to the canal and also negotiating with the RTC to transfer ownership of the canal itself
to the city. We have an opportunity to capitalize on improving the canal (similar to the
subdivision to the west with sidewalk, retaining walls, etc.), sharing cost of improvements with
the developer, hence the reason for this memo.
I request that the Finance Committee consider an expenditure not to exceed $40,000 to assist the
city in correcting a long standing problem with drainage improvements in this canal.
Specifically, the RTC is willing to transfer ownership of the canal area to the city. The
developer adjacent to the canal is willing to pick up half the cost of building the retaining wall,
will prepare the entire drainage site for construction of the retaining wall, provide the
engineering drawings, put in the sidewalk we need to connect to Andrew Brown Park, and
maintain the open space adjacent to his east and south property lines. The city would be
responsible for our $40,000 construction contribution and maintenance of the east and south side
of the canal.
In my mind this is a "win-win" situation for everyone. The city resolves a long standing
problem with drainage, an adjacent developer picks up the majority of engineering and
construction cost, the citizens adjacent to the canal should be delighted to resolve a nuisance to
the community, an eyesore becomes a pleasant walkway, and the city made it all happen!
At any rate this is my request and I would appreciate you passing it on the Committee. I will
be available to answer any questions or address any other issues you might feel need to be
explored--just let me know.
cc: Jim Witt
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: THE ENCLAVES ON THE PARKWAY,
PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: October 20, 1994
C. C. HEARING DATE: November 8, 1994
LOCATION: South side of Parkway Boulevard, across from Kid Country
SIZE OF AREA: 5.84 acres (out of drainage channel) for a 21 lot single-family
subdivision
CURRENT
ZONING: SF-7
REQUEST: Approval of a preliminary plat
APPLICANT: Siepiela Interests Dowdy, Anderson and Assoc.
(Prospective Purchaser) (Engineer)
5001 LBJ Frwy, Suite 830 16250 Dallas Pkwy.
Dallas, Tx. 75244 Dallas, Tx. 75248
960-2777 931-0694
HISTORY: This property was recently denied preliminary plat approval due to the
fact that the submitted plat showed apartment development, and the
property had been recently rezoned from MF to SF.
TRANSPORTATION: Parkway Blvd. is an improved C4D, four-lane undivided street
contained within 70 feet of r.o.w.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - Kid Country park; TC
South - developed single-family; PD SF-9
East ~ developed single-family; TH-2
West - developing single-family; SF-7
Item 16
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows single-family development as most
appropriate here.
ANALYSIS: Although this request fits our overall plan for the area, density is
appropriate considering the surrounding unit count, and the landscaping
and entry features are compatible with existing development, there is still
a problem with the drainage canal. The plat being considered contains 5.8
acres. Not included in this plat is the 2.74 acre parcel which wraps
around the east and south side of the proposal. Recalling earlier
discussions regarding development of this land, a major staff concern
related to who owned, had responsibility for, and maintained this problem
piece of drainage property. From the submittal, it appears that problem
remains. We are, however, engaged in conversations with the applicant
and the RTC attempting to rectify this drainage issue.
The applicant has offered to build the canal wall (similar to the one
immediately west of this parcel--the Centex development) on his east and
south property line. He has also offered to contribute all engineering
costs as well as grading for the drainage area, construct a sidewalk with
access to the bridge underpass, provide irrigation, plant material, and
maintain the open space adjacent to his east and south property line,
provided:
-the City takes title to the entire drainage field
-the City contributes monetary assistance to build the east and
south sides of the canal wall (estimated to be less than $40,000)
-the City maintains the open space on the east and south sides of
the constructed canal
With regard to the first condition--City takes rifle to the drainage area--we
are now in discussions with the RTC in Denver regarding ownership of
the 2.7 acre parcel. The RTC has indicated an interest in deeding the
land to the City and has submitted a quick-claim instrument to the City
which is being reviewed by our legal counsel.
Condition two--the $40,000 monetary contribution--has been submitted to
the Finance Committee for review (see attached memo), comment, and
recommendation to the entire Council. I will update progress here as
information becomes available.
Condition three--City maintenance of the east and south sides of the
improved canal wall--has generated conversations with the Director of
Public Works who has indicated a willingness to maintain that area.
Access, amount of maintenance required, costs, total area to be
maintained, degree of maintenance, etc., still needs to be determined, but
for now the important element to consider is our willingness to perform
maintenance in this area.
In sum, provided that the three issues discussed above--drainage area
ownership, monetary contribution to wall construction, maintenance of a
portion of the area--can be worked out to the satisfaction of the
City/developer, the applicant follows through with his volunteered input
(maintenance of his side of the canal, construction of sidewalk, etc.),
minor platting alterations are made to the plat (see Engineering's
comments), and refinement of the landscaping plan to conform to our
standards (plant materials, botanical names, wall details, compatibility
with what is existing adjacent, sidewalk provision, etc.), staff would
recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
3) Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat
2) Preliminary site plan, landscape drawings
3) Finance memo
4) Departmental comments
SCALE -.
1" = ,300' DELTA
RADIUS = 2156.00'
TANG[,N.T. = 46.45'
· : ' NG i,~' '~2'. '
...... ~ : i ' : ; ' .' '
:' .... o~1~ ~ · '~D~::.,: 4~5.~-
' ~;~' ,~ ~,.' ~ T~NT = -~.~1'
: ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ ' ~NG~ = 110.0~:
'~ ~ J ' ........ ~ ~ ~ ; RAD~S:,'= 665.~0'
~J ~ J ~-' / ' "~ ~=.~,~'--.
--:.::...-.,..,-~,,:;:..~ ..: - ... :.'.'~ .....
TAN~NT BEARING ~NG~
T1 S~6'25"E 22.59'
': ...;~
~ ...... ~ T2 N~'52'32"W 62.55'
T3 N~'57'16"E 102.81'
T4 N~'59'~"E 124.31'
T5 N88'51'31"[ 150.07'
T6 N86'55'17"E 47, 53'
.......
.... T8 N05'57'~ "E 95. 82'
] T9 N~2'~"W 1~.55'
'~: ' TIO N02'~'12"E 124.02'
/ : ......... ' ': { ......... ~ ~::: Tll NO3'~'37"E 115.98'
......... [ -.: ' : ~ T12 NO310'34"E 125.82'
....... ~ . ~, T13 NO313'47"W 2.55'
-:-,~2.~ - ...:~
~ . ~ : :- ..... .
. ~'~ ~ 'L. :
WPC - PARKWAY DEVELOPM,-NT CORPORATION
"' NOV FJ94
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning and Community Services
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Blvd.
Coppell, Texas 75019
Subject: Preliminary Plat - Enclaves on the Parkway
Dear Gary:
In view of the action that was taking by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October
20, and following our discussions subsequent to that meeting, I believe the best course
of action is to recast the entire scenario so that all parties involved have a clearer
understanding of all of the issues.
Based on the feedback that we received from yourself, Ken Griffin, commission members,
and other city staff members, we believe that the land plan presented last week was
acceptable in practical terms but was denied based upon the adjacent canal and the
problem that it currently pose for the city.
The proposal outlined herein is meant to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Allow the platting and development of the subject tract
according to the plan that was presented on October 20.
2. To allocate the burden of improving and maintaining the
adjacent canal on an equable basis.
3. To contribute towards the construction of a final link of the city park system.
4. To eliminate the unsightly and dangerous condition that the canal currently
presents.
Based on the plan that was presented on October 20, I would like to propose the
following for the consideration by the city:
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Two
1. That the adjacent 2.729 acre tract which consists of the canal
area that is currently owned by the RTC be conveyed to
either the Homeowner's Association for Enclaves on the
Parkway or to a separate private entity that is unrelated to the
city.
2. That the city enter into an agreement for the construction and
maintenance of improvements along the canal on the
following basis:
A. For those areas marked as "A" on the attached
exhibit, Enclaves on the Parkway would
construction a six foot sidewalk, irrigation,
establish grass and plant trees. A milsap stone
"hard edge" would also be constructed which
would extend approximately 18" below the water
surface and 18" above the water surface (three
foot wall).
B. The City of Coppell would provide for
construction of a milsap stone wall along those
areas marked as "B", as well as establish grass
and do any further improvements that the city
deems necessary or desirable.
Enclaves on the Parkway would provide excavation work and design work for con-
struction at it's own expense.
3. A separate issue which could be addressed conveniently is that of the
area between the existing Pecan Hollow and Parkview subdivisions
(marked as "C"). The City of Coppell (through funds that are currently
allocated in the public works drainage budget), could construct a storm
sewer and establish grass in that area marked as "C".
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Three
Based on preliminary discussions with Mr. Ken Griffin, it appears that there are separate
funds that are segregated under the public works budget which would take care of the
improvements contemplated in area "C". It is my understanding that these funds are
sourced separately from the $600,000 CIP budget.
After all of the construction is complete, we would propose that the city agree to maintain
all of the water body and all of those areas marked as "B" and "C". The Homeowners
Association for Enclaves on the Parkway would maintain everything in area "A", including
the milsap stone wall and those other areas that would normally be included such as the
landscaping and screening along Parkway Boulevard and the common area that is
proposed in the center island of proposed Woodard Drive.
The table below summarizes how the costs would be allocated, based on cost estimates
provided by Dowdy, Anderson that are consistent with previous submittals.
IN $ (DEVELOPER) (CITY) (CITY)
"A" "B" "C"
MILSAP STONE 43,200 50,000 0
6' SIDEWALK 12,720 0 0
5' METAL FENCING 20,840 0 0
CHANNEL EXCAVATION 16,200 0 0
DISPOSAL OF VEGETATION 14,700 0 0
HYDRO MULCH 3,358 0 0
IRRIGATION 9,540 0 0
2" CALIPER TREES 3,400 0 0
60" STORM SEWER 0 0 45,150
ENGINEERING/SURVEY/MGMT 17,396 0 0
TOTAL 141,354 50,000 45,150
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Four
We respectfully request that the city continue to consider our request that the park fee
of $26,985 be either waived in view of the improvements that we would be making in area
"A", or that we make actual payment to the city and have these funds allocated directly
for payment of the improvement in area "A". While there is no question that these
improvements help the marketability of the subdivision, they also provide a vital link in the
walkway which connects a large part of the city to the park. As discussed last week, we
are not earning any premium for these improvements, and the cost of making these
improvements is offset by the higher lot prices that we can achieve. We would be forced
to consider lesser improvements to area "A" if the city would prefer to demand that the
park fee be paid and not applied to the improvements.
We would like to proceed on the basis outlined above and respectfully request your
support in processing this proposal in the most efficient and practical manner possible.
If there are items that we need to address pertaining to the lot layout and street
configuration itself, please let me know and we will reconfigure our plat in order to meet
all technical requirements and will have these revisions submitted immediately.
Thank you for the time that you have taken with this project to date and I look forward to
reaching a mutually beneficial resolution.
Kind regards,
David R. Blom
President
DRB/ndr
cc: Mr. Ken Griffin, w/attachments
Mr. Jim Witt, w/attachments
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
44~.
x459.2
x461.
x 459 I
· x45g.2
457.6
x 463.1
x463.5
~3.1
'- CITY OF COPPELL
x 454.9
LINEAR PARK IMPROVEMENTS
AREAS "A" & "B"
449.
x459.2
x 451.4
60 x 459. 1
4
· x459.2
457.6
465.6
463.5
453.3 x464,3
x 465.5
"A C.
x 453.1
x463.5
3.1
~ x4E
CITY OF COPPELL
x454.9
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AREA "C"
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
ADJACENT TO
The Enclaves on the Parkway
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
1. MTI'.SAP STONE: 18" above water surface, 18" below water surface, 12" ~ase
($40.00 per l.f.)
a) Area adjacent to The Enclaves:
1080 LF ~ $40.00/LF = $43,200.00
b) Area adjacent to Park-view Addition:
715 LF ~ $40,00/LF = $28,600.00
c) Area adjacent to Pecan Hollow Addition:
535 LF ~ $40.00fLF = $2t,400.00
2. Six foot wide sidewalk adjacent to The Enclaves:
1060 LF ~ $12.00/LF = $12,720.00
3. Five foot high decorative metal fence:
1042 LF ~ $20.O0/LF = $20,840.00
4. Channel Excavation (48' ~ide top, 3:1 side slopes, 8' deep):
8100 CY ~ $2.00/CY = $16,200.00
5. Disposal of unusable vegetation:
4200 CY / 10 CY / truck x $35.00/truck = $14,700.00
6. IffYDRO~CH FINISHED SLrKFACE:
a) Adjacent to The Enclaves:
30 flx 1060 flx $0.04/SF -- $1272.00
b) Adjacent to PaHrview Addition / Pecan Hollow Addition:
[(30 fl x 1165 ft) + (40 ftx 430 ft)] x $O.04/sf -- $2086.00
1 of 2
7. Irrigation adjacent to The Enclaves:
30 fi x 1060 fl x $0.30/sf = $9540.00
8. 2' caliper trees ~ 65 fi O.C. adjacent to The Enclaves:
1060 LF/65 fi + 1 tree -- 17 Trees ~ $200.00 ea. -- $3400.00
9. Sixty (60) inch storm sewer (between Paxkview Addition and Pecan Hollow Addition):
430 LF ~ $105.00 ~ $45,150.00
10. Engineering, Surveying, Construction Management, Landscape Architect:
173,958 x 0. I0 = $17,396.00
TOTAL ALL ITEMS: $2;t6,504.00
2 of 2