Lake Park-CS 931216 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE//: Replat of Lake Park Addition. Block E. Lots 10-14.17.19-22,24-25
P & Z HEARING DATE: December 16, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: January 11, 1994
LOCATION: West of MacArthur Boulevard, along Deforest Road and Lake
Park Drive
SIZE OF AREA: Tract I contains five lots of 1.77acres; Tract 2 is one lot
containing approximately 9,800 square feet; Tract 3 shows four
lots with a total of 39,728 square feet; Tract 4 consists of two lots
with 19,127 square feet.
CURRENT
ZONING: PD SF-7
REQUEST: Replat property to add land to lots 10-14, Block E; lot 17, Block
E; lots 19-22, Block E; lots 24-25, Block E
APPLICANT: Univest Properties Corp Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc.
(Owner of some lots) (Engineer)
Glen Hincldey Bill Anderson
12201 Merit Drive 16250 Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75251 Dallas, TX 75211
991-4600 931-0694
HISTORY: On September 16, 1993, Planning Commission recommended approval of
a replat which included all the lots affected by a flood plain discrepancy
with the exception of lot 16. By the time the replat was forwarded to
Council on October 12, several neighbors included within the plat had
concerns which had not been resolved, and the applicant asked to have the
plat denied. Council denied the request. On November 18, the applicant
resubmitted the plat, and this time four lots were left off the replat
document. Because of a problem with access to maintain land areas
behind the four lots, Commission denied the plat. It is now being
reconsidered in the same form as the November 18 submittal.
Item 6
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a six-lane divided thoroughfare serving this
property
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - flood plain; C
South - single family; PD-SF-7
East - single family: PD-SF-7
West single family; PD-SF-7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows single family uses as most appropriate for
this area
ANALYSIS: This is the same plat that was submitted for the November Planning
Commission hearing (see History section, above). At that meeting, staff
expressed concern that the lots which were not included in the replat had
no access to the unplatted property behind them for maintenance. An
instrument was presented (by the applicant) to the Commission at the
public hearing which, in essence, stated that the property owner included
in the replat adjacent to the unplatted property would agree to maintain
that unplatted land behind his neighbors lot. Staff had not seen the
exhibit, and although the applicant asked to have the plat approved
conditioned upon the exhibit/instrument being accepted by the city, staff
urged Commission to deny the plat, forward the instrument to our legal
counsel and, based on legal's opinion, take appropriate action at a later
public meeting. Commission denied the plat and directed staff to forward
the instrument to legal counsel for review. Our attorney has
recommended that we not endorse the instrument presented at the
November heating. He has stated that the instrument is, in essence, a
contract between individuals,and the city should not be a party to such an
agreement. He went on to state that approval of the plat would be
appropriate if there is a lawful means to maintain the unplatted parcels,
such as an easement fr6m the public right-of-way to the unreplatted
sections of the leave out tracts. Because we have not received anything
that addresses this possible solution to the problem, staff will recommend
denial unless a lawful means is introduced to maintain the leaveouts such
as access easements, and they are so noted on the face of the plat
document.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the Replat
2) Deny the Replat
3) Modify the Replat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Replat Document