Lake Park-CS 931118 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: Replat of Lake Park Addition, Block E, Lots
10-14, 17, 19-22, and 24-25
P & Z HEARING DATE: November 18, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: December 14, 1993
LOCATION: West of MacArthur Boulevard, along DeForest Rd. and Lake Park Drive.
SIZE OF AREA: Tract 1 contains five lots containing 1.77 acres of land; Tract 2 is one lot
containing approximately 9,800 square feet; Tract 3 shows four lots
containing 39,728 square feet; Tract 4 consists of two lots containing
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 thru 22, Block E, and lots 24 and 25, Block E.
APPLICANT: Univest Properties Corp. Dowdey, Anderson and Assoc.
(Owner of some lots) (Engineer)
Glen Hinckley Bill Anderson
12201 Merit Drive 16250 Dallas Parkway, Suite 100
Dallas, Tx. 75251 Dallas, Tx. 75211
(214) 991-4600 (214) 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 this replat went to Council on
October 12, several neighbors included in the plat were concerned with
it, and the applicant asked the Council to deny the request, to reconsider
at a later date.
Item 11
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a six-lane divided thoroughfare serving this
property.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - flood plain; C
South - single family; PD SF-7
Fast - single family; PD SF-7
West - single family; PD SF-7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan shows single family uses as most appropriate for this
ANALYSIS: As stated in the "History' portion of this request, Planning Commission
recommended approval of a replat on September 16 which included three lots (numbers 15, 18,
and 23) which are not shown on the reapplication. It is our understanding that the leave outs
have resulted from the applicant asking a selling price that the three leave-out owners feel is
inappropriate and/or excessive. Although the applicant had wished to amend his application
(leaving out the three lots), and have the Council reconsider the revised plat, a recommendation
must be procured from Commission before this case can be scheduled before Council. Hence,
this replat application.
As you will recall from the September staff analysis, when the original re-platting was done on
this parcel in 1990 (which altered the circulation plan and reconfigured some of the lots), the
high bank of the flood control area was improperly shown on the plat. This replat extends
individual lots to the high bank of the revised flood area, thus increasing the buildable area of
the replatted property. Since this replat adds area to individual lots, and since the property
owners affected must sign the replat document, it would appear that staff could again recommend
approval of the proposal.
However, we are troubled by a number of concerns:
1. several lots are now excluded from the replat; they should be included
2 access to and maintenance of the areas behind the lots not included in the replat are
troublesome--how is maintenance done? how does one get to the property?
3. it does not make good replatting sense to replat only a portion of the property when,
in fact, all property owners share in the problem created by the applicant
4. a self inflicted hardship does not mandate the City to approve what in essence is bad
platting procedure
Staff would recommend denial of the replat, suggest all lots be included in the replat document.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the replat 2) Deny the replat
3) Modify the replat
ATrACHMENTS: 1) Replat document
lak'prk.ble