Enclaves/FP-CS 941007BACKGROUND
DEVELOPMENT
Enclaves on the Parkway
In ,Oetobet~ (see October 7 memo from Planning Director to Finance Director for background,
attached), the Planning Director b.~;~.uqg~t, to ~ Council's attent~n a request of a developer to
possibly enter into a ~blic-Pri~t~ ~~il~ to relieve a long-standing drainage problem for
the City.
$~ifically, She property !~ross the street fro~~n.~t~ (which had recently ~n rezoned
from MF-2 io SF-7) was ~ng th~th~ .iP~~ ~d the l~d ~4~ ~ad
su~t~ m~s wh~y~he ~~~~U~~ay ~u~ m~ht
~P~--simil~ to the const~ct~ ch~nel west o[ the pro.ny--thus renewng me
community of an eyesore, eliminate a breeding ground for mosquitos and various vermin, and
tremendously decrease the number of citizen complaints focused on the drainage area.
You were briefed~ on the d~r's requ~t.~fo~, partial city, funded clean:up effort, which
included an estimated ~50'~'m°netary conm'butio~. A_Ithough ~p~i~.~il aefiqn
was taken, staff was advised to wor}g with the 1~ owne~ to encourage developme~ which
would benefit the community at large. I~' ~ 6
~ aft~ the Council brief, g3Planning Com!ai~on eonaidend a p~~ ~ on the
property (staff report attached), and because of techni problems, ~i~~' 't~.
SubS~uent to Planning Co~ffi~~on, WiY~nv ~Peck C~, ~nc., the pr.o. posed
develOper of the propertY, ~b~~r to the Planning Direc~r mitlinin~l more ~ally
their ~, and a copy of that correspondence was included in an Oc~':F3Jl Council
packet (October 28~enclosure).
Basically, Wilbow Peck, an Australian development corporation which is building single-family
subdivisions in the metroplex, proposes to:
-construct a 21 lot ~in~-famil~ }ubdiviajon on the subject property
-be responsible for~'~'n~l ~ ~TC la~,d~tthrough which the drainage area meanders
-con~ a sidewalk, i~'~e and land~ the area adjacent tO the canal
-build a' inilsap stone wltll along the west and north side of the canal
-be responsible for maintenan~f the west ~d north side off the canal
-provide exCavation ~,,ork and'~Signffor the ~'nti~~ Pr°J~ct
canal
As shown in the October 28 correspondence, Wilbow Peck has done some preliminary financial
analysis which suggests a partnership contribution of approximately $141,000 developer funding,
$95,000 City funding. It must be emphasized that these figures are preliminary in nature, and
more refined numbers will be presented at the November 28 Council meeting. In additign, the
$45,000 figure shown for storm sewer would typically be allocated out of our storm drainage
accosnt, and would resolve a problem which was not created by this developer, and has no
direct benefit to him.
SUMMARY
Staff is looking for Council direction to proceed with an agreement which would allow this
development to occur, issues~ which need resolution include:
-specifics of this proje4;t which make it beneficial for the City to proceed
-refined cost figurds to' better understand expense allocation
-more detailed drainage expense figures
-resolution of the ownership of the canal areas
-possible "outside" financial contribution to the project
-any long term financial/maintenance obligations which might face the City
-other concern~ which might result from this discussion
As staff has investigated and reviewed this proposal, we are struck by the potential this plan has
of resolving a long-standing community drainage problem. In addition we applaud development
of the single-family subdivision. We are supportive of entering into a potential public-p6vate
partnershil~ which serves to assist both the developer and the City at large. Of c~cial
import~nce to the., develol~r in development of the residential subdivision is, of course, the
re~olut~on of the c~rain~ge P. roblem. Of paramount inter~t to~ the JEit~, is the assurance a~y
fi[tanci~ con'tribu~ion b~ne~ts ~e ~ity as a mho, le and is'not fqcused~ only on an ~individual~
d~'velq~l~me-,nt We fetl this partnership benefits the entire city beqtl~s; is resolves a drainage
probl~.,~p"uis into p*roductive use a vacant pieca of realn,,estatt,~l~romotes a use which is
supportive qlf and_complimentary to the land uses arout!d it,~lssists in encouraging our linage
greenbelt c°ncep[~implements a component part of the Parks Master Plan, ~ resultsg quali~
development With enormous public exposure. ~
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:
CURRENT
ZONING:
5.84 acres (out of drainage channel) for a 21 lot single-family
subdivision
SF-7
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat
APPLICANT:
Siepiela Interests
(Prospective Purchaser)
5001 LBJ Fpa, y, Suite 830
Dallas, Tx. 75244
960-2777
Dowdy, Anderson and Assoc.
(Engineer)
16250 Dallas Pkwy.
Dallas, Tx. 75248
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
appropriate 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 wall (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
Z
smmmsmmmmmmsm
SENT BY: 10- 6-94 ;10:88A~1 ;RTC - LEGAL DIVISION-, 214 898 0948;# 1/ 5
RKSOLUTIS~ TItUST C(BIIN~ATION
I~L ~
~ 17th Str~, ~Sth Floor
Denver, Colo~do 802~2
FAX:
This message is intended for the use of th~ individual or enllty Io which it is addressed and may
contain infornmlion that is PRIVJI.g-OllD and C~L. If you are not thc intended
recipient or tbs ~mployee or agent ra~lmmible for dalivom~ the measage ~o the inamded
re~i~t and ~e received this infarmmion in error, you are hereby nolifa~ that any
dissemination or copying of this commanie~ion is prohibit. ~ notify us immediately by
tel~ and return the original m~ ~o us nt the almve Mdmaa vi~ the U.S. Pomti S~rvice.
Thank you_.
DATE; Oc~ 6, 1994 N~ OF PAGF_,S (incl. cover 1~8e): 5
SF_,NT TO: Gary Sieb
FAX NO.: ('214) 393-0948
FROM:
MF, SSAGE:
Dnvid W. Miller