Enclaves/PP-AG 950110CITY COUNCIL HEET~N~:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
January 10, 1995
ITEM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consideration and approval of The Enclaves on the Parkway, Preliminary
Plat, to allow the development of 21 single family lots on 5.843 acres
of property located on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, east of
the Parks of Coppell and west of the Parkview Addition (across from
Kid Cou~), at the reques~ of Dowdey, Anderson & Associates, Inc.
SUBMITTED~B~. Gary~~L. Sled
TITLE: Director o~ning & Comm. Services
STAFF COMMENTS:
Date of P&Z Meetinq: December 15, 1994
Decision of Commission: Approval (6-1) with Commissioners Lowry,
Wheeler, Tunnell, Redford, Sturges and Stewart voting in favor.
Commissioner Thompson opposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ~ Denial
EXPLANATION:
Please see attachment for conditions of approval .
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
AMT. EST. $
+/- BUD:$
FINANCIAL REVIEW:~
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 1/94
AGENDA REQUEST NARRATIVE
THE ENCLAVES ON THE P~RI~Y~ PRELImiNaRY PL~T
Conditions for approval:
Care needs to be taken to insure the Homeowners Association
Agreement clearly spells out the obligations of the homeowners,
such agreement needs to be submitted to the City for review;
the property currently under 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;
there needs to be landscaping and access easement between Lots 15
and 16; and
costs associated with City/Developer participation needs
resolution.
Agenda Narrative- Revised 1/94
Sp~HCI~ck and Save Ek~czanm~t- I~mm~cr to attach narratlv~ to ordinal A~zla Rm~t. ~
CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
THE ENCLAVES ON THE PARKWAY,
PREL INARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: December 15, 1994 (originally heard on Oct. 20, 1994)
C. C. HEARING DATE: January 10, 1995
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 (see History)
(Prospective Purchaser)
5001 LBJ Frwy, 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. 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.
TRANSPORTATION:
Parkway Blvd. is an improved C4D, four-lane undivided street
contained within 70 feet of r.o.w.
Item 8
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:
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 g2--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 #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.
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.
After the Commission plat denial of October 20, Wilbow Peck
submitted the attached October 29, 1994 letter to the Director of
Planning suggesting a course of action to resolve staff and Commi~ion
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 resulting in
additional land which could be transferred (through dedication or
purchase) to abutting property owners. 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 attached correspondence is suggesting that
for an expenditure of approximately $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 has taken 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 being the case, staff would recommend approval of the
preliminary plat subject to the typical homeowners agreement being
submitted to the city for review, the land shown as RTC property be
included in the preliminary plat application, and conditions mentioned
in departmental comments attached be met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the preliminary plat
2) Deny the preliminary plat
3) Modify the preliminary plat
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Preliminary Plat/Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan
3) Tree Survey
4) Wilbow Peck October 28,1994 letter
WPC - PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. ;ary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
Dire ;tor of Planning and Community Services
City 3f Coppell
255 3arkway Blvd.
Coppell, Texas 75019
Subject:
Preliminary Plat - Enclaves on the Parkway
Dear Gary:
In view of the action that was taking by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October
20, and following our discussions subsequent to that meeting, I believe the best course
of action is to recast the entire scenario so that all parties involved have a clearer
understanding of all of the issues.
Based on the feedback that we received from yourself, Ken Griffin, commission members,
and other city staff members, we believe that the land plan presented last week was
acceptable in practical terms but was denied based upon the adjacent canal and the
problem that it currently pose for the city.
The proposal outlined herein is meant to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Allow the platting and development of the subject tract
according to the plan that was presented on October 20.
To allocate the burden of improving and maintaining the
adjacent canal on an equable basis.
3. To contribute towards the construction of a final link of the city park system.
To eliminate the unsightly and dangerous condition that the canal currently
presents.
Based on the plan that was presented on October 20, I would like to propose the
following for the consideration by the city:
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Two
That the adjacent 2.729 acre tract which consists of the canal
area that is currently owned by the RTC be conveyed to
either the Homeowner's Association for Enclaves on the
Parkway or to a separate private entity that is unrelated to the
city.
That the city enter into an agreement for the construction and
maintenance of improvements along the canal on the
following basis:
Ao
For those areas marked as "A" on the attached
exhibit, Enclaves on the Parkway would
construction a six foot sidewalk, irrigation,
establish grass and plant trees. A milsap stone
"hard edge' would also be constructed which
would extend approximately 18' below the water
surface and 18' above the water surface (three
foot wall).
Bo
The City of Coppell would provide for
construction of a milsap stone wall along those
areas marked as 'B', as well as establish grass
and do any further improvements that the city
deems necessary or desirable.
Enclaves on the Parkway would provide excavation work and design work for con-
struction at it's own expense.
A separate issue which could be addressed conveniently is that of the
area between the existing Pecan Hollow and Parkview subdivisions
(marked as "C"). The City of Coppell (through funds that are currently
allocated in the public works drainage budget), could construct a storm
sewer and establish grass in that area marked as "C".
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Three
Based on preliminary discussions with Mr. Ken Griffin, it appears that there are separate
funds that are segregated under the public works budget which would take care of the
improvements contemplated in area 'C". It is my understanding that these funds are
sourced separately from the $600,000 CIP budget.
After all of the construction is complete, we would propose that the city agree to maintain
all of the water body and all of those areas marked as 'B' and 'C". The Homeowners
Association for Enclaves on the Parkway would maintain everything in area 'A', including
the milsap stone wall and those other areas that would normally be included such as the
landscaping and screening along Parkway Boulevard and the common area that is
proposed in the center island of proposed Woodard Drive.
The table below summarizes how the costs would be allocated, based on cost estimates
provided by Dowdy, Anderson that are consistent with previous submittals.
IN $ (DEVELOPER) (CITY) (CITY)
"A' "B" 'C'
MILSAP STONE 43,200 50,000 0
6' SIDEWALK 12,720 0 0
5' METAL FENCING 20,840 0 0
CHANNEL EXCAVATION 16,200 0 0
DISPOSAL OF VEGETATION 14,700 0 0
HYDRO MULCH 3,358 0 0
IRRIGATION 9,540 0 0
2' CALIPER TREES 3,400 0 0
60' STORM SEWER 0 0 45,150
ENGIN EERING/SU RVEY/MGMT 17,396 0 0
TOTAL 141,354 50,000 / 45,150"
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
Mr. Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P.
October 28, 1994
Page Four
We respectfully request that the city continue to consider our request that the park fee
of $26,985 be either waived in view of the improvements that we would be making in area
'A', or that we make actual payment to the city and have these funds allocated directly
for payment of the improvement in area 'A'. While there is no question that these
improvements help the marketability of the subdivision, they also provide a vital link in the
walkway which connects a large part of the city to the park. As discussed last week, we
are not earning any premium for these improvements, and the cost of making these
improvements is offset by the higher lot prices that we can achieve. We would be forced
to consider lesser improvements to area "A" if the city would prefer to demand that the
park fee be paid and not applied to the improvements.
We would like to proceed on the basis outlined above and respectfully request your
support in processing this proposal in the most efficient and practical manner possible.
If there are items that we need to address pertaining to the lot layout and street
configuration itself, please let me know and we will reconfigure our plat in order to meet
all technical requirements and will have these revisions submitted immediately.
Thank you for the time that you have taken with this project to date and I look forward to
reaching a mutually beneficial resolution.
Kind regards,
David R. Blom
President
DRB~dr
cc: Mr. Ken Griffin, w/attachments
Mr. Jim Witt, w/attachments
(214) 840-0953 3960 BROADWAY, SUITE 125, LB 19 GARLAND, TEXAS 75043
x,~$9.2
x46! .4
$0
457.6
x459.1
x459.2
x4 3
463.5
463.3
x 463.5
x464,3
x463. t
EA C'
x464.g
CITY OF COPPELL
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AREA "C"
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
ADJACENT TO
The Enclaves on the Parkway
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
MILSAP STONE: 15" above water surface, 18" below water surface, 12" ga.se
($40.00 per l,f.)
a) Area adjacent to The Enclaves:
1080 LF ~ $40.O0/LF = $43,200.00
b) Area adjacent to Parkview Addition:
715 LF ~ $40.00/LF = S28,600.00
C) Area adjacent to Pecan HoLlow Addition:
53:5 LF ~ $40.00/LF = $21,400.00
Six foot wide sidewalk adjacent to The Enclaves:
1060 LF ~ $12.00/LF = S12.720.00
Five foot high decorative metal fence:
1042 LF ~ S20,O0/LF = $20,840.00
Channel Excavation (48' wide top, 3:1 side slopes, $' deep):
8100 CY ~ $2.00/CY = $16,200.00
Disposal of unusable vegetation:
4200 CY / 10 CY / truck x $3$.00/truck = $14,700.00
HYDROMULCH FINISHED SURFACE:
a) Adjacent to The Enclaves:
30 ftx 1060 ftx $0.04/SF -- $I272.00
b) Adjacent to Parlcview Addition / Pecan Hollow Addition:
[(30 ftx 1165 ft) + (40 ftx 430 ft)] x $O.04/sf = $2086.00
I of 2
Irrigation adjacent to The Enclaves:
30 ftx 1060 ft x $0.30/sf = $9540.00
2~ caliper trees @ 65 ft O.C. adjacent to The Enclaves:
1060 LF/65 ft + 1 tree - 17 Trees ~ $200.00 ea, -- $3400.00
Sixty (60) inch storm sewer (between Parkview Addition and Pecan Hollow Addition):
430 LF ~ $105.00; $45,150.00
I0.
Engineering, Surveying, Construction Managemont, Landscape Architect:
173,958 x 0. I0; $17,396.00
TOTAL ALL ITEM~:
$236,~04.00
2 of 2
seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-0 with Mayor Pro Tern Robertson and
Councilmembers Alexander, Watson, Reitman, and Sheehan voting in favor of the motion.
19.
Consideration and approval of The Enclaves on the Parkway, Preliminary
Plat, to allow the development of 21 single family lots on 5.843 acres of
property located on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, east of the Parks
of Coppell and west of the Parkview Addition (across from Kid Country), at
the request of Dowdey, Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, made a presentation to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Robertson moved to approve The Enclaves on the Parkway, Preliminary Plat,
to allow the development of 21 single family lots on 5.843 acres of property located on the south
side of Parkway Boulevard, east of the Parks of Coppell and west of the Parkview Addition
(across from Kid Country), with the following conditions: 1) care needs to be taken to insure
the Homeowners Association Agreement clearly spells out the obligations of the homeowners,
such agreement needs to be submitted to the City for review; 2) the property currently under
ownership of the TRC would need to be transferred to the Wilbow Corp. group prior to any
agreement being struck between the developer and the City regarding maintenance, ownership,
or improvement to the canal area; 3) there needs to be landscaping and access easement between
Lots 15 and 16; and 4) costs associated with City/Developer participation needs resolution; and
the City Manager is instructed to negotiate an agreement with the Enclaves on the Parkway and
return that agreement when the Council considers the final plat. Councilmember Alexander
seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-0 with Mayor Pro Tern Robertson and
Councilmembers Alexander, Watson, Reitman, and Sheehan voting in favor of the motion.
20.
Consideration and approval of Primrose School of Coppell, Preliminary Plat,
Lot 1, Block 1, to allow the operation of a day care center on 2.814 acres of
property located at the southwest comer of Parkway Boulevard and He. am
Road, just east of City Hall, at the request of Dowdey Anderson & Associates,
Inc.
Gary $ieb, Director of Planning and Community Services made a presentation to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Robertson moved to approve Primrose School of Coppell, Preliminary Plat, Lot
1, Block 1, to allow the operation of a day care center on 2.814 acres of property located at the
southwest corner of Parkway Boulevard and Heartz Road, just east of City Hall with the
following conditions: 1) the maximum signage is 75 square feet; 2) lot 1 needs to show a 30'
future right-of-way for the "ring road"; 3) landscape and irrigation plans shall follow streetscape
guidelines; 4) utility easements need to be provided; 5) a decorative metal fence will be on the
east, south and west side of the property; 6) the western playground needs to be moved back 3
feet to the east; 7) landscaping needs to be provided along the west side yard; 8) the building
CM011095
Page9 ofll
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
January 10, 1995
ITEM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consideration and approval of The Enclaves on the Parkway. Preliminary
Plat, to allow the development of 21 single family lots on ~r843 acres
of property located on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, east of
the Parks of Coppell and west of the Parkview Addition (across from
Kid Coup), at the request of Dowdey, Anderson & Associates, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Sieb . /~
TITLE: Director of Plan~ices INITIALS~
Date of P&Z Meet~na~ ~ Dece~r 15~4 ~
Decision of Co~ss~on:~-l) with Co~issioners ~,
Wheeler, Tunnell, Redford, Sturges and Stewart voting in .favor.
Commissioner Thompson opposed. I. ~,0~ ~~ ~% ~ ~~ ....
Please see attachment for conditions of approval "~:~;~- ~',:'~
BUDGET AMT.$ ~1~
FINANCIAL COMMBNTB:
FIITANCIAL REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: