Enclaves-CS 941020 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
approp,'iate 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 wail (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 title 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