Gateway BP(1.1)-AG 900410 (2) .--_~~~
......... ~. N/A -
. ...,.'---
CITY OF ¢OPPELL
PLAN~ING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
P & Z HEARING DATE: March 15, 1990
LOCATION: Vicinity of Beltline, Southwestern and Royal Lane
REQUEST: Amendment of the Master Thoroughfare Plan
APPLICANT:
Santa Fe Pacific Prentiss Properties Thompson Interest
5429 LBJ Freeway 1509 LBJ Freeway 8333 Douglas
Suite #600 Dallas, TX. 75234 Dallas, TX. 75225
Dallas, TX. 75240-2609
HISTORY: Please see attached THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT report.
ITEM 5
AMEI~STF
TI'IOROU~IF,~E ,~-'I~I~I~T
(March 15, 1990, Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing)
BACKGROUND:
The attached letter was delivered to me on December 27, 1989, requesting
consideration to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan. As you will note,
the letter was signed by Thompson Interests, Prentiss Properties and Santa
Fe Pacific. Each of these property owners control land directly affected
by the size of the public thoroughfare which runs through their respective
property. Because of a pending Barton-Aschman thoroughfare study, I
suggested that this request be held until recommendations by the
consultant were firmed up. Although Barton-Aschman is not yet in
position to finalize its report, substantial progress has been made which
prompts the applicants to ask for consideration of this thoroughfare
amendment at the March 15 Planning Commission meeting.
CURRENT PLAN:
As depicted by the Thoroughfare Plan, one roadway under consideration for
amendment, and commonly known as Southwestern Drive/Gateway Boulevard, is
currently proposed to be a six-lane divided thoroughfare. The 1987
adopted Comprehensive Plan recommends a six-lane divided road built within
110 feet of right-of-way with three 11 foot lanes (33 feet) separated by a
seventeen foot landscaped median, and an additional 33 foot pavement
width. The approved Plan recommended a six-lane divided thoroughfare and
was projected to extend from its intersection with Royal Lane on the west
across Coppell to the city limits line on the east. Beyond our eastern
boundary, Beltline Road continues through Carrollton/Farmers Branch and
Dallas as a six-lane divided roadway.
Beltline is currently being constructed as a six-lane divided highway from
MacArthur Boulevard to our eastern city limits. It is projected to extend
west from MacArthur Boulevard to Denton Tap as a six-lane divided
thoroughfare, where it then progresses south to I.H. 635 as a six-lane
divided roadway, which is currently in place.
The other proposed amendment is a re-alignment of Cotton Road west of
Freeport Parkway, and the deletion of Southwestern Drive west of
Freeport. Staff has reviewed this request and has no objection to
realigning Cotton Road, deleting Southwestern west of Freeport Parkway.
We have additional comments regarding Southwestern/Gateway. These
comments appear below.
- i -
REASON BEHIND REQDEST:
Late last year Prentiss Properties approached the Planning Commission
with a request to amend the Thoroughfare Plan as it relates to alignment.
Prentiss' objective was to move the six-lane divided roadway from the
interior of the property to its northern boundary. In undertaking that
task, the consultant Prentiss hired to justify the relocation (DeShazo,
Starek & Tang), suggested that not only could the road be relocated
without adversely affecting the flow of traffic, but the thoroughfare
could be reduced in size from six lanes to four, based on projected future
traffic demands. The above mentioned letter asking for thoroughfare
amendment consideration was precipitated by that study.
Within the last few weeks, Barton-Aschman has developed some preliminary
recommendations which address the width of Southwestern/Gateway. As
understood by the thoroughfare amendment petitioner, Barton-Aschman's
analysis suggests that Southwestern/Gateway might be reduced to a
four-lane divided thoroughfare through the Prentiss property, reduced to a
four-lane undivided thoroughfare through Santa Fe's property, and not
affect the carrying capacity nor demand on this thoroughfare to at least
the year 2010. Although the conclusions reached by our consultant are
tentative at best (and Barton-Aschman is the first to point that out), two
of the three thoroughfare amendment petitioners have subdivision plats
which are being considered at the March 15 Planning Commission hearing,
and would like to see the road reduced in width. Prentiss Properties has
a final plat being considered which actually dedicates 110 feet of R.O.W.
to accommodate either a four or six lane divided thoroughfare. If the
Planning Commission approves this plat, and subsequently revises the
thoroughfare plan to require only a four-lane divided street through the
property, the 110 foot R.O.W. could be replatted to 85-90 feet, and the
developer would construct the four-lane divided roadway. Because the
submission shows a 110 foot dedicated R.O.W., action by the Planning
Commission to amend the current Thoroughfare Plan at the March 15 hearing
is not critical to Prentiss.
The Santa Fe request is a different matter. This applicant has taken the
tentative recommendations of our consultant at face value and requests a
preliminary plat approval showing 65 feet of street dedication where,
today, 110 feet of width is required to conform to the approved
Thoroughfare Plan. If Commission elects to not recommend approval of a
Thoroughfare Plan amendment at the hearing, this preliminary plat will
necessitate a denial recommendation. The applicant is fully aware of this
possibility, and has elected to 'roll the dice" on this request. If, on
the other hand, Commission recommends an amendment to the Thoroughfare
Plan, this plat could be approved as submitted, although staff would
recommend dedication of 70 feet of R.O.W.
-2-
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff is attempting to address the ti~e concerns of these applicants'
requests for amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan, and this is the major
reason we are submitting this amendment to you now. There are, however,
several points which need to be considered at this time. Among them:
· the conclusions of our consultant have not been finalized
the conclusions are based on extended 2010 traffic volumes
· the consultant's analysis is based on a thoroughfare system which
shows Sandy Lake Road as six-lane, Bethel Road as six-lane, which
may or may not occur
the traffic generation figures project an approximate 80% build out
on currently vacant land
any action taken by Commission must be approved by Council before
a development can occur - we can not guarantee that Council will
follow any definitive recommendation of Commission
One final staff comment. City staff has been diligently working with
these developers for over three months· Our collective goal - both the
developer and staff - has been to bring these developments on line as soon
as possible. To that end staff has attempted to accommodate all requests
for meetings, clarification of issues, interpretation of regulations, and
any other issues which have been brought to our attention. We continue to
maintain that attitude and pledge to assist in bringing these development
issues to a speedy conclusion, predicated on Planning Commission
recommendat ions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On March 15, 1§90, the Planning Commission voted to recommend re-alignment
of Cotton Road west of Freeport Parkway, deletion of Southwestern as it
extends west of Freeport. In addition, by that same vote (4-2), the
Commission recommends to Council that Southwestern/Gateway be downgraded
to a four-lane divided thoroughfare, containing a minimum 90 feet of
R.O.W. from Denton Tap/Beltline to Royal Lane.
-3-
December 15, 1989
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning and Community Services
The City of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Revision to Major Thoroughfare Plan
Gateway Boulevard/Southwestern Drive/Cotton Road
Dear Mr. Sieb:
By this letter, the below named Coppell landowners formally request
adjustment in sizing of that future roadway now known as Gateway
Boulevard, running from Royal Lane (Parkway Boulevard) on the west to
Belt Line Road (Denton Tap/Main Street) on the east.
In conjunction with the requested adjustment in sizing of Gateway
Boulevard, we request realignment of Cotton Road, west of Freeport
Parkway, and elimination of Southwestern Drive, west of Freeport
Parkway.
We acknowledge and support a current request submitted to the City of
Coppell, by Prentiss Properties Limited, Inc., to realign Gateway
Boulevard from Freeport Parkway, on the west, to Beltllne Road (Denton
lap/Main Street), on the east, northward to partially align with the
present Southwestern Drive.
Our joint request to adjust the sizing of Gateway Boulevard from the
current P6D to a combination of C4U, from Royal Lane to Freeport
Parkway, and C4D, from Freeport Parkway to Beltline Road, is based upon
our separate and combined analysis of:
1. Current and future land use potential
2. Ultimate roadway traffic flow
3. Potential traffic hazard of current sizing
Our request is supported by the Thoroughfare Alignment Study and
Roadway Sizing Study, dated December 8, 1989, by De Shazo, Starek and
Tang, Inc., previously submitted to your office.
Gary L. Sieb ~
Page Two
December 15, 1989
Our requested revisions are illustrated on the attached exhtblts. If
you have any questions or request further Information, please contact
Mr. Pat Acker with Albert H. Halff Associates at 739-0094.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Thompson Interests Prentlss Properties Limited, Inc.
William G."Thompson Michael R. Tucker
' Vice President
Santa Fe~ac~t,F/~ealtyy~orptratton
/. /..,
~T. Weldon Davis
Vice President of Development
TWD/trr
Attachments
.... .~l .l I _~,
'. ll~:l.l .''~l . l~3~ --. :~ ~ ~. , l
....... liT__l/ '~~B' " ~ '
- _ v...-~e~. ~,~ ~:~*' ' ~ -'~
-' - ..~';z,.~~ ~ _..~- ~,7~~ ~ %~ _
- m(. - ~'~ ~ '0~-::. .
:1:1.~i, .,,.,.l,,,.~ ,.~l~~~.._,, .
/ ll
C I T Y 0 F C 0 P P E L L
.............................
Minutes of March lS , 1990 ~~4~~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Coppell met in
pre-session at 6:30 p.m. and in regular session at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday,
March 15, 1990, in the Coppell Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard,
Coppell, Texas 75019. The following members were present:
Chairman Joe Munsch
Commissioner Robert Green
Commissioner Melvin Gross
Commissioner George Redford
Commissioner Robert Scott
Commissioner Marsha Tunnell
Commissioner Peyton Weaver was absent.
Also present were Director of Planning and Community Services Gary L.
Slab, P&Z Coordinator Taryon Bowman, Civil Engineer Shohre Danesh~and and
Administrative Secretary Lends Glidewell.
Chairman Munsch called the meeting to order and everyone was asked to
stand while Commissioner Gross gave the invocation.
Item 4: Approval of Minutes of February 15, 1990
Commissioner Scott moved to approve the minutes of February 15,
1990. Commissioner Redford seconded the motion; motion carried
(6-0) with Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Green, Gross,
Redford, Scott and Tunnel1 voting in favor of the motion.
Item 5: Consideration of an amendment to the City of Coppell
Thoroughfare Plan regarding Southwestern Drive/Gateway
(proposed) Boulevard. Request is to downgrade plan from 6-lane
divided to 4-lane divided/undivided thoroughfare, and R.O.W.
from 110 feet to 90 feet or less.
Director of Planning Gary L. Sieb introduced the item to the
Commission. Mr. Sieb stated that this request co,es from three
property owners: Prentis Properties, Santa Fe Realty and
Thompson Properties, all located within this area. Mr. Sieb
stated that the applicants request is to have the Thoroughfare
Plan amended in two respects: 1) down graded from a six-lane
divided to a four-lane divided from Denton Tap Road to Freeport
Parkway. The right-of-way width with the four-lane divided
would be 85-90 feet. 2) from Freeport Parkway to Royal Lane the
request on the Santa Fe and Thompson portions is that it be down
graded from a six-lane divided, requiring 110 feet, to a
four-lane undivided, which would normally be a 75 foot
right-of-way, however, staff is asking to have an 80 foot
Minutes of March 15, 1990
Planning & Zoning Co~mission
Page 2
right-of-way. In addition, the applicants request suggested
realignment of Cotton Road, eliminating Southwestern, both west
of Freeport Parkway. Staff has no objections to the
realignment/deletion request. Mr. Sieb further stated that the
Focus Group is studying all the thoroughfares west of Denton Tap
Road. He then stated that K.R. Marshall of Barton-Aschman was
at the meeting to answer any technical questions. In closing,
Mr. Sieb stated that the outcome of this amendment will directly
affect two of the plats to be considered later on the agenda.
Civil Engineer Shohre Daneshmand stated that the Public Works
Department is recommending the four-lane divided thoroughfare.
Mr. K.R. Marshall of Barton-Aschman was present to represent
this item before the Comission. Mr. Marshall started that they
basically did a more detailed technical analysis of the traffic
in the area, and have determined that a six-lane thoroughfare is
not necessary in this area.
Following discussion Commissioner Gross moved to ~mend the
Thoroughfare Plan per the applicants request, and from a
six-lane divided thoroughfare to a four-lane divided
thoroughfare. Commissioner Tunnell seconded the motion: motion
carried (4-2) with Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Gross,
Redford and Tunnell voting in favor of the motion, and
Commissioners Green and Scott voting against the motion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 6: Consider a zoning change, Case #ZC-524, from (R) Retail to
(SF-9) Single Family-9, located at 316 W. Bethel Road, at the
request of Julianna Otis.
P&Z Coordinator Taryon Bowman introduced the item to the
Commission. Ms. Bowmen stated that at the last Planning and
Zoning meeting the Commission informed Mrs. Otis it would not be
necessary for her to attend this meeting. She stated that this
zoning change is being requested in order to allow the boarding
of horses on the property. Ms. Bowman then stated that the
Historic Committee had met, and this request doe~ fit in with
their intentions for the area.
Chairman Munsch opened the public hearing and asked for persons
wishing to speak in opposition to this request. There were
none. He then asked for persons wishing to speak in favor of
the request. Again there were none. The public hearing was
then declared closed.
M~MO
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
FROM: Ga~~b, Director of Planning & Conuaunity Services
SUBJECT: THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT - SOUTHWESTERN/GATEWAY (PROPOSED
NAME CflANGH) - MEDIAN ISSUE
DATE: April 4, 1990
Alan, you had asked me to review Mr. Davis' letter of March 28 and
addressed to the Mayor (attached), regarding the median issue, collaborate
with Public Works, and respond to the issues raised.
Opening with a general con~nent, Coppell is at an exciting Juncture in its
development, and needs to decide the kind of City it wishes to become.
There is no question that economic development is important to the health
of this connnunity, and our City ~elcomes that growth. Mr. Davis' co~ents
relative to that issue are well taken. A complimentary element to proper
cos~unity growth is the preservation, enhancement, recognition, and
encourageaent of the physical order of the City - and a very important
element of that objective is the aesthetic quality of our community. It
has been historically sho~n that communities which place a high value on
the physical quality of its growth benefit with expanded economic
development opportunities. A major component of physical quality is, of
course, the aesthetic contribution. It is my position (also Public
Works, incidentally), that a divided, landscaped median which enhances the
physical attractiveness of this community far outweighs any perceived
liabilities outlined in Mr. Davis' correspondence.
With regard to the specific issues raised in Mr. Davis' correspondence, I
direct your attention to the attached ~e_-~o from Public Works and the
comments contained therein.
In summary, City staff recognizes the issues raised in the correspondence,
feels the concerns expressed regarding maintenance problems, cost factors,
and physical deterioration are exaggerated, and strongly encourages
Council to support a solid, aesthetic program throughout the community.
To that end, staff supports a four-lane divided thoroughfare with
landscaped median through this property identical to that already agreed
to on the identically zoned property to the inmediate east.
If you need additional comments relative to this issue, or if points made
here need elaboration/clarification, please notify me at your convenience.
GLS/lsg
Attacha~nt
G~A~O
COPP~tJ. PUBLIC WORES ii': -
..................
April ~ 1~0 ~ 1,~ ......
TO: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning & C~.~ity Services
FROM: Steven G. Goram, Director of Public Wo~'
RE: Thoroughfare Plan - Gateway Boulevard;
Letter to Mayor
Staff has reviewed the letter submitted from T. Weldon Davis dated
March 28, 1990 referencing Gateway Boulevard.
In response to a comment made concerning median openings, left turn
lanes can be modified to accommodate tractor trailer traffic. It
is true that the median would restrict curb cuts and driveway
placements along Gateway Boulevard because of the median opening
requirement of the City of Coppell. However, there are also
restrictions for driveway and curb cuts, separate from median
opening restrictions, therefore total flexibility still could not
be achieved.
The Streetscape Plan for the City of Coppell is a guideline for
landscaping/streetscape treatment. Staff would expect the median
landscape to follow the guidelines identified under secondary image
zones. The landscaping scheme would consist of Bradford Pear as
the accent tree with Cedar Elm being the dominant tree of the
landscaping.
The economic factors outlined in the letter identified as cost to
City (items 3, 4, 5, & 6) are considered subjective. Staff did
not have the opportunity to review data used to determine these
costs.
In requiring a C4D on Gateway Boulevard from Freeport Parkway to
Royal Lane a landscaped divided roadway from Denton Tap to Royal
Lane would exist, further enhancing the area landscape/streetscape
scheme; additionally, sufficient right-of-way would be available
in the future if additional traffic capacity was needed.
Mr. Davis is correct in that Barton-AschmanAssociates, the traffic
consultant, obtained bythe City to review and recommend revisions
to the Thoroughfare Plan has indicated a C4U would satisfy the
future traffic demand in the area referenced.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please advise.
SGG/sm
cc: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
ill ~ _,_: ./j .. ~ ~.,~/~.~
:..~. .z~--/~ ~/~.~- ~.. !.~
:- / ..: ,'.~_ ~'~. ~ '7~:
March 28, 1990 ~ (~ &~-'~. ~ . / ~
,ono~b~ .~ ~o~ ~ ~z.';~ ~/~~'
C~ty of Coppe11
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Gateway Boulevard
Dear ~ayor Nolle:
On March 12, 1990, ~ ma~l~d to you a packag~ outlining th~ r~ason~ng
behind our request that the City of Coppe11 amend the Thoroughfare Plan
to allow Gateway Boulevard to be constructed as a C4U road from Royal
Lane on the west to Freeport Parkway on the eas~. On ~arch 15, the
Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission voted to amend the Thoroughfare
Plan ~o require ~hat Gateway Boulevard be a C4D road w~th an oversized
r~ght of way.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., the traffic consultant re~a~ned by the ....
C~y to update the Coppell Hajor Thoroughfare Plan, reco~ended tha~
Gateway Boulevard b~ constructed as a C4D road from Belt L~n~ to Freeport
Parkway, and as a C4U road from Freepor~ Parkway to Royal Lane. Although
accepting the traffic flo~ recommendation of Barton-Aschman, the Planning
and Zoning Commission sta~ed tha~ the requirement for an oversized C4D,
rather than the r~commend~d C4U, for Gateway Boulevard from Freeport
Parkway to Royal Lane, was based on their desire for ~ ~re heavily
landscaped streetscape.
N~ will be submitting our preliminary plat to the C~y Council r~quest~ng
~hat Gateway Boulevard b~ C4U from Freeport Parkway ~o Royal Lan~. Our
continued concern ~s that forcing us ~o construct a d~vid~d thoroughfare,
where one ~s not technically required, ~s ~xtr~m~ly detrimental to th~
successful and timely development of our industrial property. ]f we fa~l
~o at~rac~ ~enan~s ~o our park because of ~he ~raffic problem caused by
~he medians, the ultimate loser ~s the C~y of Coppe11 and Coppe11's
residential tax payer.
The re~son for our request for ~n undivided thoroughfare Js s~mple. To
b~ most ~ff~ct~v~ ~n quickly attracting ~ndustr~al tenants to our park
and to the City of Coppe11, we must be totally market driven. ~e cannot
d~s~gn and attempt to develop buildings which adhere ~o th~ artificial
Honorable Mark Wolfe
March 28, 1990
Page Two
restraints of median openings. We must have total flexibility in where
we place curb cuts and driveways along Gateway Boulevard. Furthermore,
industrial tractor trailer vehlcles simply cannot maneuver around
medians, therefore they go over them.
Requiring a median to enhance landscaping is not the most effective
landscaping tool. The Coppell landscape/streetscape code is very lenient
in requirements for median landscaping by developers. If allowed to
install a C4U road with 65' R.O.W., as opposed to a C4D road with 90'
R.O.W., Santa Fe Pacific Realty wtll commit to provide more extensive
landscaping.
Several economic factors should also be taken into consideration when
considering the C4U-65' R.O.W. vs C4D-gO' R.O.W.
1. Delayed Development of Tax Base: Potential tax base
created by industrial development of our Gateway Business
Park Phase I is in excess of $147,000,000. Annual ad
valorem property tax revenue to the City of Coppell, from
this park, would exceed $828,000, assuming no tax
increases; and annual ad valorem property tax revenue to
Coppell ISD would exceed $1,3B3,000, also assuming no tax
increases. Inventory tax revenue would be in addition to
the quoted amounts. By requiring a medianed thoroughfare,
the City is creating a ma~or obstacle to the timely
development of our property; thereby drastically delaying
the development of this valuable tax base.
2. Loss of Tax Base: The required R.O.W. for the recommended
C4U road is 65'. The designated thoroughfare is a C4D road
with a 90' R.O.W. This oversized roadway results in the
loss to developer, and to the City, of 65,000 square feet
of land and 41,000 square feet of developable building
area. Based upon this lost tax base, the City loses annual
tax revenue of $7,118.O0 and Coppell ISD loses annual tax
revenue of $11,884.00.
3. Cost to City: Any additional median landscaping and
sprinklering would have to be funded by the City at an
approximate cost of $50,000.00 or $5,000/year amortized
over ten years.
4. Cost to City: Medians are maintained by the City.
Approximate annual cost of landscape and sprinkler
maintenance, including replacement of truck damaged
landscaping and sprinkler heads, is $16,750.00.
Honorable Mark Wolfe
March 28, 1990
Page Three
5. Cost to City: Medlans are maintained by the City.
Approximate annual water bill for sprinkler Irrigation of
median, including water loss caused by sprinkler heads
broken by trucks is $4,500.00.
6. Cost to City: Irrigation of medians means additional water
penetrating under concrete roadway causlng damage and
failure of roads. Approximate annual cost to repair and
replace roads, based upon a ten year cycle, is $11,200.00.
The costs quoted in items 2 - 6 above are calculated on the approximate
2,600 linear feet of Gateway Boulevard running through Gateway Business
Park. Combining lost tax revenue and potential costs to the City, the
requirement to provide a C4D road with 90' R.O.W., as opposed to a C4U
road with a 65' R.O.W., will cost the City approximately $44,568.00
annually. This equates to an annual cost to the City, per mile of
roadway, of in excess of $90,000.00.
Through prudent review of the factors involved, I think you will agree
that the proper decision for the City and citizens of Coppell is to size
Gateway Boulevard as a C4U road with a 65' R.O.W.
Another factor discussed in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
was restricting the Gateway-Royal interchange to block certain turns.
This is further detrimental to the development of both the property owned
by Santa Fe Pacific Realty and the property owned by Thompson Interests,
therefore it is detrimental to the development of tax base for the City
of Coppell. The four way interchange is already in place and is
workable. The addition of traffic lights, as traffic volume dictates,
will resolve any intersection problems.
I will be contacting you to request an appointment to discuss Gateway
Boulevard prior to the April 10th City Council meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely .,/
'T. Heldon Davis
Vice President of Development
TWD/lsf
Enclosures
FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY
VERSUS
FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY
GATEWAY BOULEVARD FROM ROYAL LANE TO FREEPORT BOULEVARD
I. REASON FOR/AGAINST DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED ROADWAYS
A. REASONS FOR UNDIVIDED ROADWAY
1. Unrestricted access for vehicles
2. Lower construction cost for developer
3. Lower maintenance cost for city
4. Recommended by clty's traffic consultant
(exceeds all requirements for projected future
traffic volume)
5. Better use of landscaping (subjective)
B. REASONS FOR DIVIDED ROAOWAY
1. Landscaping (subjective)
2. Protected turning movement (detrimental to
industrial use)
3. Higher traffic volume capacity (not needed)
4. Limited access (detrimental to industrial use)
C. REASONS AGAINST DIVIDED ROADWAY
1. Restricted access turning in and out of driveway
2. Higher construction cost to developer
3. Higher maintenance cost to city
4. Restricts development of industrial property
5. Traffic hazard - median landscaping blocks vtston
D. REASONS AGAINST UNDIVIDED ROADHAY
H. COSTS TO CITYRELATED TO DIVIDED ROADWAY (ANNUAL)
A. Lost ad valorem tax $ 7,118.00
B. Median landscaping & sprinklertng 5,000.00
C. Median landscape & maintenance 16,750.00
D. Medtan landscape irrigation 4,500.00
E. Paving repairs 11,200.00
Total $44,568.00
Plus ad valorem taxes deferred because of delayed development
schedule.
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK
ULTIMATE TAX BASF. YDEVELOPED VALUE
PHASE 1-104ACRES DEVELOPED
Basic Industrial - 52 Acres @ 50'/. Coverage @ $27.00 = $ 30,579,120
High End Industrial - 52 Acres @ 507. Coverage @ $35.00 = 39,639,600
PHASE H-90ACRES DEVELOPED
R&O/Htgh Tech - 35 Acres @ 40% Coverage @ $45.00 = 27,442,800
Office/Hotel - 55 Acres @ 35% Coverage @ $60.00 = 50,311,800
TOTAL DEVELOPED VALUE (3,713,490 SQ. FT.): $147,973,320
DEVELOPED VALUE TAX BASE: $147,973,320
DEVELOPED VALUE TAX REVENUE TO CITY:
$147,973,320 - lO0 x $.56 = $ 828,650
x lO years
10 YEAR TAX REVENUE TO CITY: $ 8,286,500
(ASSUMING NO TAX INCREASES)
DEVELOPED VALUE TAX REVENUE TO ISD:
$147,973,320 - 100 x $.935 = $ 1,383,550
x l0 Years
10 YEAR TAX REVENUE TO ISD: $ 13,835,500
(ASSUMING NO TAX INCREASES)
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK
GATEWAY BOULEVARD
SFPR FRONTAGE ALONG GATEWAY BOULEVARD IS 2,600'
RECOMMENDED GATEWAY BOULEVARD - C4D Road
DESIGNATED R.O.W. FOR RECOMMENDED C4D: 90'
R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR C4U: 6~'
DEVELOPABLE LAND LOST: 25'
(REQUIRED R.O.W. FOR C4D IS 80')
POTENTIAL TAX BASE LOST TO CITY AND ISD
BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL UNDEVELOPABLE R.O.W.:
Building Area = 3,250 L.F. x 12.5' 41,000 SQ. FT.
Building Value = 50% @ $27.00/50~ @ $35.00 $31.00
Taxable Value of Undevelopable Area = $ 1,271,000
CITY TAX LOST DUE TO UNDEVELOPABLE AREA:
$1,271,000 - 100 x $.56 = $ 7,118/YR
x lO Years
10 YEAR TAX LOSS TO CITY: $ ? 1,180
(ASSUMING NO TAX INCREASES)
ISD TAX COST DUE TO UNDEVELOPABLE AREA:
$1,271,000- 100 x $.935 = $ 11,884/YR
x 10 Years
10 YEAR TAX LOSS TO ISD: $ 118,840
(ASSUMING NO TAX INCREASES)
° .NCREASED ACCESS FLEXIBILITY WITH N"'"IEDIAN IN GATEWAY BLVD. WILL MAKE GATEW"-~USINESS PARK SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
· . 'AT. TRACTIVE TO LARGE CORPORATIONS . ,CH CAN ADD TO THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS COPPELL. AND INCREASE ITS
ATTRaCtiVENESS OVER OTHER CITIES' INDUSTRIAL PARKS.
Maximum flexibility of entrances Any size boilding type can ~ I~1 ~S do not ~ve
and drives al~w major ~ndustr~s ~com~t~. ~tm~ ddv~ ~t
~ and corporations to con.der ~te z
....... r · - .... ~- ~ I~ib~ ~ ~n~ ...... . .-.; . .
' ~ :~ I ~ ~c. ~.:~~ ,, ~
-. .......... ....
· : ......... ................................
.... ', ', liJ~~ Treks coming from ~t. / _:
"~,"~,. ~ --.. --:=, ~ dirKtions ~ve llexibili~ to turn :g
................ " -- into entries from eider li~ of G~iy. ' ....................
OATE~AY BLVD.- UNDIVIDED
MAXi~U~ ,ACCESS FLEXIBILITY
No median I)reak po$$il~le
Placement of median breaks to I \ \
meet the raquirementsof ~ ~ _~ .~ ..................
. ~.~- . ~ ~ : - __=_. .......... ~ ............
- ~, ~ ~ ,~ · , . / - ;.
OPTION A MEDIAN BREAKS TO MATCH DESIRED DRIVE LOCATIONS
/ 420' Minimum
/ Median length
. ~ Potential conflict pot~ls it u~rs _~ ......... -''
/ requ;re specific s~ze bu~l~[nqs. _ ..................... ~ ..............................
i : / ; il ~ ~ ..:..'. ·
.'.' '"? ..... - .... ~'" ' _.- ~1_ I '
(;.-~['E~AY BLVD. - DIVIDED OPTION B MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEDIAN BREAKS
[.[ M IT UD ACCESS F LEX ! Bi L[TY
GATEWAY BUSINESS PA.EK
DRAFT - April 10, 1990
PLAT CONDITIONS FOR PARK WEST COMMERCE CENTER, FINAL PLAT
1. Final construction plans and profiles for sewer, water and
storm sewers, shall be submitted and approved by July 10,
1990.
2. Covenants and restrictions shall be executed by the owners by
May 10, 1990.
3. The development shall comply with the Floodplain Management
Ordinance. Hydraulic studies must be submitted and approved
by July 10, 1990.
4. The 12" sanitary sewer out-fall is almost at capacity and the
installation of additional piping (capacity) will be
required. The developer may be required to participate in
the costs of such improvement in accordance with city
ordinances.
5. A minimum of 20 foot utility easements are required except 10
foot easements may be provided at locations to be approved by
staff.
6. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that ...
"all applicable development fees must be paid as each lot
develops ...".
7. PHASING:
a. Construction Plans: Construction plans for the
infrastructure of the entire 328 acre development will
be provided within ninety (90) days of approval of the
final plat by City Council. Providing drawings for the
entire development assures the City that the
infrastructure will be constructed in accordance with a
master plan. Any significant deviations from the master
plan will require complete review of the entire 328 acre
development.
b. Construction of Infrastructure: Utilities and roadways
will be constructed when needed to support development
of any new lot. Construction permits must be obtained
from the Public Works Department for such infrastructure
improvements and a letter of final acceptance of
infrastructure is required before a building permit can
be issued. However, if in the opinion of the Director
of Public Works it is warranted, the Director may
recommend to the Building Inspection Department that a
temporary building permit be issued with the
understanding that the final letter of acceptance will
be procurred within a reasonable time. Prior to
construction, the builder must obtain a building permit.
Before a structure is occupied, a certificate of
occupancy must be obtained. Any requirements for
infrastructure or building development in effect at ~he
time of construction must be followed unless otherwise
addressed in these conditions. During the replatting
phase, the infrastructure needs will be assessed.
Obtaining a building permit will trigger the
construction of any additional infrastructure necessary.
Finally, the additional infrastructure needed for the
construction of buildings on any replatted lot will need
to be fully installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for that lot.
c. Construction Permit Fees: The City currently requires
that 100% of the of the filing fee for the final plat be
escrowed prior to approval of the final plat (the
"inspection fee"). Additionally, the Subdivision
Ordinance requires the Developer to escrow an amount
equal to 1.5% of the cost of items to be constructed for
dedication to the City (the "Construction Permit Fee").
A variance to Section XVI, Paragraph E of the
Subdivision Ordinance is hereby granted to allow the
Developer to (i) pay inspection fees prior to the
approval of final replats in amounts equal to 100% of
the filing fee for each respective replat; and (ii) pay
the construction permit fees prior to obtaining
construction permits for improvements necessary for each
replat in amounts equal to 1.5% of the items to be
constructed for dedication to the City necessary for
each respective replat.
d. Southwestern Drive: Southwestern Drive shall be
constructed as a four lane divided thoroughfare.
Construction of Southwestern Drive shall be deferred
until such time that traffic on Southwestern Drive
exceeds 8000 trips per day or as determined by the City
Engineer. -
8. SIDEWALKS: Sidewalks shall be provided along Belt Line Road
in accordance with the City Subdivision Ordinance. Sidewalks
for the remainder of the development will be installed by the
property owners' association when deemed necessary by a
majority of property owners, or the City. The covenants and
restrictions shall be amended accordingly to require the
property owners' association to construct the sidewalks when
so advised.
-2-