Loading...
Vista Ridge Project CM memoTO: Gary Sieb, Director of Planning & Community Services FROM: Alan Ratliff, City Manager ~- DATE: February 14, 1990 SUBJECT: VISTA RIDGE PROJECT In regard to our discussions about the Lomas & Nettleton/Vista Ridge Project, I am submitting this information to provide some insight into the many complex issues and history of the Lewisville and Lomas & Nettleton negotiations. You may share with the Planning and Zoning Commission and others as you feel appropriate. The Vista Ridge Project has been an item of community discussion and our personal involvement for the last two (2) years. Shortly after I was employed by the City of Coppell, I became aware that the City of Lewisville had, in my opinion illegally, annexed certain properties which were within Coppell's extra-territorial jurisdiction. They had; however, secured ratification of that annexation from the Texas Legislature, as well as a written Agreement with the City of Coppell that appeared to be a token gesture to appease Coppell's concerns. It appeared to me that this matter should be re-opened for further discussions. We found that the Coppell/Lewisville/Lomas & Nettleton Agreement did not contain a specific time schedule for one (1) important element: acquisition of the R.O.W. MacArthur Boulevard. That road was very important to the City of Lewisville and to Lomas & Nettleton because of the Vista Ridge Mall. MacArthur Boulevard will provide access to the Vista Ridge Mall and the Vista Ridge Project for the citizens of Valley Ranch and the citizens of Coppell. We were concerned that much needed sales taxes would be diverted from Coppell to the City of Lewisville and the intersection of Sandy Lake Road and MacArthur would need costly improvements and signalization. I approached the City Manager of the City of Lewisville and suggested that we re-open the discussion on our City limits and boundary. He asked that we allow them to review the matter. Almost immediately, we received notice that they had filed suit against the City of Coppell. Since that time we have spent many hours negotiating with the City of Lewisville and Lomas & Nettleton to settle this matter. Our objective was to realign our Vista Ridge Project February 14, 1990 Page Two boundaries and bring additional acres of valuable property into our City and to add to our tax base. After many months of negotiations and with the cooperation of Lomas & Nettleton, we were successful in obtaining an Agreement with the City of Lewisville to realign our boundaries (See attached Agreement Exhibit "A"). Jeff Hurt, attorney for Lomas & Nettleton, was very instrumental in working as an intermediary with both Cities to resolve many of the issues. The negotiations for the new boundary involved three (3) parties; the City of Coppell, the City of Lewisville and Lomas & Nettleton. Since the City of Lewisville had already granted zoning of the Lomas & Nettleton property and had accepted dedication of water and sewer lines, as well as road improvements, these items were major considerations to all parties. The following is a synopsis of those negotiations on these items. Water and Sewer Service. We attempted to negotiate some agreement with the City of Lewisville by which they would continue to provide water and sewer services to the Coppell land via a wholesale water and sewer agreement with Coppell. However, we wanted to be sure that Coppell residents were not discriminated against in any manner and that all citizens of our community were charged equally for these services. It became obvious after a short while that the attempts to negotiate the water and sewer service contract with the City of Lewisville was not possible. We, therefore, asked and required that Lomas & Nettleton find a method of providing water and sewer service with the City of Coppell system or the Coppell Municipal Utility District (MUD) system. Since all utility lines were in place this was a potentially very expensive problem to fix and it was only resolved December, 1989, when they were annexed into the Coppell MUD. The second primary consideration was the requirement by the City of Coppell that Lomas & Nettleton would pay all costs for building the MacArthur Boulevard connection. These costs include building a bridge over Denton Creek and paying for any costs associated with securing missing right-of-way South of Denton Creek owned by other parties. Only this past week has the City of Coppell secured the major part of that right-of-way via a written Agreement from Mr. Glen Hinckley. Lomas & Nettleton has agreed that they pay for all costs of the road structure for Mr. Hinckley in exchange for this right-of-way. Lomas & Nettleton is also preparing information needed to obtain the other pieces of R.O.W. and it is our intention to work with Lomas & Nettleton to secure this R.O.W. and construct MacArthur Boulevard. Vista Ridge Project February 14, 1990 Page Three Another major roadway which we insisted should be included in our negotiations was Denton Tap Road. These negotiatons included discussions with the Magnolia Development Company which owned the property on the West side of Denton Tap. They agreed in principle to being annexed into the Road Utility District (RUD) and partici- pating in cost of constructing the bridge over Denton Creek as well as the extension of Denton Tap, North to the new Coppell City limits. Before this Agreement was consumated, Magnolia Development Company entered into Chapter 11. This changed our plans substantially. Lomas & Nettleton/Vista Ridge representatives indicated they could not assume the responsibility for the total cost of the bridge structure and extension of Denton Tap. They indicated that they would have to have the participation and cooperation of whoever owned the property on the West side of Denton Tap. We have not been able to obtain an Agreement with the present owners for this project. Since this occurrence, we have been working to find a way to ensure that the Denton Tap bridge and road are built as was originally planned. Recently (January 4, 1990), we obtained a Resolution from the RUD which provides that this property would be annexed into the RUD and the road and bridge constructed as had been planned (see attached Rud Resolution, December, 1989). Of course, this will depend upon the property owner's cooperation and State approval of the RUD participation. During our negotiations with Lomas & Nettleton, they expressed their concern about the zoning or rezoning of the property. I have stated and reiterated on many occasions that we could not negotiate the zoning and the decision would be made by the Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. I expressed my opinion that the Multi-Family zoning might be of concern to City of Coppell officials and Lomas & Nettleton/Vista Ridge representatives, on their own volition, suggested they would reduce the Multi-Family zoning by some sixteen (16) acres. You will note in attached copy of the March 6, 1989, draft of the Agreement with the City of Coppell and Vista Ridge the reference to zoning. This Agreement has not been executed by the City of Coppell since the complications surrounding the financial failures of both Magnolia Development Company and Lomas & Nettleton have impaired our actions. This has not, however, stopped our continued efforts to resolve all the issues and all parties have been working in good faith to complete the negotiations and move forward with the project. Vista Ridge Project February 14, 1990 Page Four During these negotiations we believe Lomas & Nettleton and their agents, Charles Emery, Senior Vice President & National Director of Development, Tom Tanner, Vice President & Vista Ridge Project Manager, and Jeff Hurt, attorney for Lomas & Nettleton, have demonstrated a high degree of integrity, professionalism and commitment to successfully complete this project. We believe they have demonstrated their desire to build a quality development and to work with the City of Coppell to meet our requirements. They recently hosted a meeting of the Coppell Economic Development Board and not only shared their development plans, but provided us with information related to their efforts to attract major corporations to the area. In an additional show of cooperation, Mr. Emery, who is also Chariman of the Lewisville Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, arranged for Dr. Stearman to present the Texas A&M Project to their Board. Even though funding of the project was not obtained, we appreciate his efforts to assist Coppell in this project. In summary, the courtesy and spirit of cooperation that they have extended to this office and to others within the City of Coppell are appreciated. ADR:ep Attachments MEMO TO: Alan D. Ratlif~,/~ity Manager FROM: Gary L Sic ctor of Planning & Community Services SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOMAS & NETTLETON ZONING CASE #ZC-526 DATE: February 13, 1990 Alan, based on your request for information regarding the Lomas & Nettleton zoning case - the Vista Ridge development - I'd like to convey the following information, particularly as it relates to the Multi-Family area: - when this property was located in Lewisville, it is my understanding that of the area annexed into Coppell, approximately 82 useable acres were zoned for (MF-2) development; the zoning request before us contains 70 useable MF acres. - at 22 du/acre (MF-2 density) there is a potential 1,536 unit count. Based on C.I.S.D. enrollment figures of .18 students per apartment unit, a potential 276 students could be generated by this project. - the 276 students would, typically, be spread over 12 grades, hence, the impact of vastly overcrowded enrollment of an individual school would not be experienced. - the MF zoning does allow single-family development if the market is "soft" for apartments (which Coppell is currently experiencing). Thus, a lower density and less intensive use is possible even with the MF zoning. I will address any additional issues you feel are pertinent at your request. Incidentally, this case goes to the Planning Commission this Thursday, February 15, 1990. GLS/lsg 526 TIMBER CREEK SQUARE u~ FOREST- BROOK z DR. · ~' GROVE ROAD < ~OO~O .M. 3040 O ~XAS mSmUME~~ ~ ' MF-2 SUBJECT ZONING EXHIBIT ~ VI~A RIDG[ ~ o ~ ~ ~ [EWISVILLE, TEXAS aC~LE ,. tier ~ LOMAS & NETTLETON REAL ESTATE GROHP O~AUM ENC._.~EF~O COI~<~flA110~ II February 15, 1990 ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT - VISTA RIDGE ZONING CASE (ZC-526) ZONING COMPARISON LEWISVILLE COPPELL NOTES Tract 1 G~ HC C: more rest.in uses, cov.,yards, const. GB LI C: more restrict, in yards, const. 3 GB C C: more restrict, in lot req., const. 4 MF-2 MF-2 C: more restrict, in density 5 nI HC C: more restrict, in lot req., uses 6 LI LI C: more restrict, in lot req., const. 7 LI C C: more restrict, in use, yards, const. 8 MF-2 HC C: more restrict, in use, intensity LEWISVILLE LEWISVILLE COPPELL COPPELL COPPELL GB = General Business LI : Light Industrial HC = LI = C = LC uses [retail shops] GB uses mixed use, office commer-retail uses retail uses auto repair garages bottling plants comm-retail light industrial uses warehousing USES dry cleaning plants coal yards hotels warehousing newspaper printing offices man. plants newspaper prlnting kennels covered auto pkg. garage printing plants paint production restaurants man./ind, uses auto rental kennels storage yards man./ind, uses open storage on back 2/3 HT. 180' st. width 220' no max [for O or I) 35' FT.YD. 0 0 60' 60' 30' SIDE YD. 0 0 30' I0' 30' REAR, YD. 0 0 20' I0' 20' LOT AREA none specified none specified 10,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. 0 CON$IRUCTION none specified none specified 80% masonry 80% masonry 80% masonry COVERAGE no max. specified no max. specified 50% 50% (plus !0% pkg.struct) 40%