Enclaves-CS 940120 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Stone Creek Addition (formerly The Marks
Apartments Addition), Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 20, 1994 (originally scheduled for Dec. 16. '93)
C. C. HEARING DATE: February 8, 1994 (originally scheduled for Jan. 11, '94)
LOCATION: Along Parkway Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet east of Heartz Road.
SIZE OF AREA: 5.843 acres of land, to be utilized for a 124 unit apartment complex
CURRENT MF-2
ZONING:
REQUF_3T: Approval of a preliminary plat to construct a 124 unit apartment
complex
APPLICANT: Jonas Properties Lane's Southwest Surveying
Glen Brovant (Owner) Jim Lane (Surveyor)
11615 Forest Central 3149 Highway #67, Suite F
Suite 100 Mesquite, TX 75150
Dallas, Tx. 75243 (21l) 681-4442
(214) 553-5531
HISTORY: There has been no recent plating history on this parcel. This ease was
initially scheduled for the Commission's December meeting, but was
rescheduled for January at the request of the applicant. It is staff's
understanding that the applicant was attempting to resolve several
issues, including staff's concern with the unplatted, open drainage
area which abuts this tract on the east and south side.
Item 11
TRANSPORTATION: Parkway Blvd. is a (C4D), four lane divided roadway built to
standard, in a 90-110 foot r.o.w.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -Kid Country and Park; TC
South - single family; PD
East - single family; TH-2
West - developing single family; SF-7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows single family uses as most appropriate for this
parcel
ANALYSIS: There are several technical elements of the platting requirements that have not
been met by this application including location of ail screening wails, topography, preliminary
landscape plans among others, and the plat can be denied because of these omissions.
Of considerable concern to staff, assuming these technical requirements can be met, however,
is the configuration of the plat itself which does not include the drainage areas on the east and
south side of the property. As proposed, these leave-outs become "no man's land~ with no clear
understanding regarding whose responsibility they become. We have learned through painful
experience that these channels have become a nuisance to the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of this community, and we have had poor response to the City's and citizen's requests
to clean up, mow and generally maintain these areas over the years. Additionally, it does not
make good subdividing sense to approve any plat which leaves such an area basically unattended.
We have been advised through the DRC process that the applicant can meet our 10% parking
lot landscaping requirement, that appropriate screening walls conforming to zoning will be
provided, and covered parking will be constructed. We have actually seen no plans addressing
these issues. Therefore, because of the sensitive nature of this request (centered in an
established single family community) staff is uncomfortable taking the developers word that these
requirements will be met. We need to see specific plans, not promises, before reacting to this
request in a positive manner. In addition, construction plans for off-site sanitary sewer will be
required, a median and left turn lane along Parkway Blvd. to aid circulation to this project needs
to be provided, and the Floodplain Administrator's signature block needs to be added to the plat.
Finally, a petition has been submitted by 133 homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods
suggesting that if the plat is approved:
1. a 10 foot masonry fence be placed around the complex (code mandates no
fence higher than 8 feet)
2 no three story buildings be ailowed (MF-2 ailows three story)
3. dumpster location be rethought
4. apartment developer be responsible for the drainage easement
A second petition signed by 121 homeowners has been submitted which recommends that the
plat be denied, and further petitions the Commission to authorize the calling of a public hearing
to consider rezoning this tract into "...single family which would blend in with existing
neighborhoods."
To recap. Because the plat does not technically meet the requirements of our platting rules,
because of the uncertainty of the maintenance of the drainage areas, and because of the outcry
from adjoining property owners that several changes need to be made to this potential
development before it can be positively considered by the community, staff would recommend
denial of the plat at this time.
Addenda to December staff analysis: The applicant has provided additional information
which addresses the majority of technical concerns outlined above-parking lot landscaping
meets code, the screening wall along the west property line is brick, covered parking is
being provided, the median cut has been agreed to. There is still considerable neighborhood
opposition to this plat, and the applicant has not answered to staff's satisfaction the issue
of the drainage area. Although the developer has expressed an interest in landscaping,
irrigating, and constructing a sidewalk in the drainage basin, and although he has offered
to clean-out the channel and maintain it in a condition which is better than today's
condition, staff can not recommend this action because this land area is not owned by the
applicant and we have serious reservations if such a proposal is legal, let alone a desirable
long term solution to a recurring maintenance problem for the city. We still firmly believe
that the approval of this plat basically ignores determining the responsibility for the
drainage channel, and that this channel should be included in the plat document. To allow
this "leave-out" to be created by the platting process whereby no one is clear as to who
owns, maintains, retains, or is ultimately responsible for the channel can not be supported
by staff, and we recommend that the plat be denied until these concerns are addressed
through the platting process.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
3) Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary plat
2) Preliminary Site plan
3) Petitions (2) submitted by community
4) Landscaping plan of drainage area