Lakewood Estates-AG 940111AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITYCOU~C[LMI~ETING _lan,,ary 11: 1004.
ITEM
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration and approval of the Replat of Lake Park Addition, .,17,19-22,24-25, located
west of MacArthur Boulevard, along DeForest Road and Lake Park Drive, at the request of Glen Hinckley.
STAFF REP.: Gary L_ Rich
~r Of PimnninE & Collie. SOA'V~CE~
OTHER REP.:
DATE:
EVALUATION OF ITEM:
Date of P&Z Meeting: De~ember 16, 1993
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (5-0-1) with Commissioners Alexander, Wheeler, Meador, Redford
and Hildebrand voting in favor. Commissioner Thompson abstained due to possible conflict of interest.
Chairman Tunnell was absent. The following condition applies:
(1) The Maintenance and Access Agreement be implemented
BUDGET AMT.
AMT. +/- BUDGET
COMMENTS:
FINANCIAL REVIEW BY
LEGAL REVIEW BY:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM REVISED 2/93
REVIEWED BY ~
CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Replat of Lake Park Addition, Block E- Lots 10-
14,17,19-22;24-25
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C. C. HEARING DATE:
December 16, 1993
January 11, 1994
LOCATION:
West of MacArthur Boulevard, along Deforest Road and Take
Park Drive
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT
ZONING:
Tract I contains five lots of 1.77 acres; 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.
PD SF-7
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
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
Univest Properties Corp
(Owner of some lots)
Glen Hinckley
12201 Merit Drive
Dalla% TX 75251
Dowdey, Anderson & Assoc.
(Engineer)
Bill Anderson
16250 Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75211
931-0694
On September 16, 1993, Planning Commission recommended approval of
a replat which included all the lots affected by a flood plain disc~lmncy
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.
TRANSPORTATION:
Item 6
MacArthur Blvd. is a six-lane divided thoroughfare serving this
property
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
past
West -
flood plain; C
single family; PD-SF-7
single family: PD-SF-7
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 weru not included in the replat had
no a__~x,~s_ to the unplatted property behind them for maintenance. An
instalment was presented (by the applican0 to the Commission at the
public heating which, in essence, stated that the propen'y 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 la~
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 instalment presented at the
November hearing. He has slated that the instrument is, in essence, a
contract between individuals,and the city should not be a patty 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 from the public right-of-way to the unreplatted
sections of the leave out tracts. _Be-c~__use 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.
1) Approve the Replat
2) Deny the Replat
3) Modify the Replat
ATFACHMEHTS: 1) Replat Document
x
? /,' ?.iI