Enclaves-CS 950216 (2) CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: THE ENCLAVES ON THE PARKWAY,
FINAL PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 16, 1995
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 14, 1995
LOCATION: South side of Parkway Boulevard, east of Parks of Coppell and
west of Parkrview Addition (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 final plat
APPLICANT: Siepiela Interests (see History) 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. On
October 20, this plat was denied for technical reasons, and at that
time we were advised that ownership had been transferred from
Siepiela Interests to Wilbow Peck, an Australian developer who is
active in the metroplex area. On January 10, 1995, the City
Council approved the preliminary plat.
TRANSPORTATION: Parkway Blvd. is,,~an improved C4~, four-lane 4~divided street
contained within 71fffeet of
r.o.w.
Item 9
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
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows single-family development as most
appropriate here.
ANALYSIS: This request fits our overall plan for the area, density is appropriate
considering the surrounding unit count, the landscaping and entry features
are compatible with existing development, and problems with the drainage
canal have been resolved. The plat being considered contains 5.8 acres
for residential use, and a 2.74 acre parcel which wraps around the east
and south side of the proposal and within which the canal is located.
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. The submittal has addressed that
problem.
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 approximately $40,000)
- the City maintains the open space on the east and south sides of
the constructed canal
- the City construct a storm drainage system between Alex Drive
and the Pecan Hollow subdivision.
With regard to the first condition--City takes title to the drainage area--we
will not take title, but a separate developer entity will assume that
ownership.
Condition #2--the $40,000 monetary contribution is acceptable to the City.
Condition #3--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.
Condition #4--the City will construct the storm drain.
In sum, provided that the four issues discussed above--drainage area
ownership, monetary contribution to wall construction, maintenance of a
portion of the area, drainage solution--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.
After the Commission plat denial of October 20, Wilbow Peck submitted
an October 29, 1994 letter to the Director of Planning suggesting a
course of action to resolve staff and Commission concerns, and allow the
plat to proceed through the review system. Basically, Wilbow Peck is
willing to assume more of the financial burden of improving the canal
system, work with the RTC to transfer ownership to Wilbow Peck rather
than the City, assist in completing the pedestrian link from Kid Country
to the library/school site, and eliminate the unsightly unimproved drainage
system currently existing.
For an expenditure not to exceed $50,000 to the City, for design,
engineering and construction of the walled canal, the drainage system
would be completed (on both sides of the existing ditch) for the greenway
south of Parkway Blvd. over to Heartz Road. Also, the drainage system
dividing the Parkview and Pecan Hollow Subdivisions would be improved
with a concrete pipe below grade. This improvement would cost an
additional $50,000 and would be allocated out of existing drainage
improvement funds. Additional city participation in the project would be
in the form of maintenance of the area outside the Wilbow Peck
subdivision, and possible waiver of the $1285 per lot park land dedication
fee. In sum, the correspondence suggested that for an expenditure of less
than $100,000 dollars, the City would benefit from a total outlay of over
$235,000. It could be debated whether benefit is only to the City, of
course, but the overall principal makes good development sense.
The Council took an active role in reviewing this proposal, and on
Tuesday, November 29, 1994, suggested that during the platting process
care be taken to insure the Homeowners Association Agreement clearly
spelled out the obligations of the homeowners. In addition, Council noted
that waiver of park fees was not being favorably considered. Our city
attorney also pointed out that the property currently under the ownership
of the RTC would need to be transferred to the Wilbow Peck group prior
to any agreement being struck between the developer and the city
regarding maintenance, ownership, or improvement to the canal area.
That action is in process.
That being the case, staff would recommend approval of the final plat
subject to the typical homeowners agreement being submitted to the city
for review, the land shown as RTC property be included in the plat
application, and conditions mentioned in departmental comments attached
be met.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the final plat
2) Deny the final plat
3) Modify the final plat
AT'I'ACHMENTS: I) Final Plat/Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan