Loading...
Park Place/PP-CS 891208The City With A Beautiful Future December 8, 1989 P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 214-462-0022 Mr. Richard M. Dooley Jackson and Walker 901 Main Street Suite #6000 Dallas, Texas 75202 RE: PARK PLACE ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Dear Richard, I apologize for this late response to your letter of November 17, 1989, requesting information regarding Mr. Allen's subdivision plat. I am just now becoming familiar with the "system" here, but believe the attached minutes of the November 16, 1989, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting reflect the Commission's stated concerns with the Univest plat. The November 16, 1989 action was, of course, rescinded when the Planning Commission met on November 28, 1989, and approved a plat which modified density, setbacks, circulation patterns, etc. I believe this most recent Commission action makes your request for plat denial information academic, but have included it here so that you might close the loop on this request. It was good renewing our friendship, Richard, and I look forward to working with you on mutually beneficial planning projects in the future. and ~ommunity Services GLS/lsg enclosure DOOLEY WRITER'S D~RECT DiAL NO.: 214/953-5980 JACKSON & WALKER AttORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 901 MA~N STREET SUITE 6000 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 (214) 953-6000 November 17, 1989 Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Services City of Coppell P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Park Place Addition Preliminary Plat Dear Gary: Mr. Michael R. Allen of Univest Development Company has advised me that the above referenced plat was denied for the second time by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Coppell (the "Commission") at the Commission's hearing on November 16, 1989. We represent both Mr. Allen and Univest Development Company. Please consider this letter a formal request on behalf of both Mr. Allen and Univest Development Company to the City of Coppell and/or the Commission for a written explanation of the reasons for the denial of the above referenced plat by the Commission. We will look forward to receipt of the explanation. requested written ~_~ve~y truly yours, Richard M. Dooley RMD/dj s 5226S (68) cc: Mr. Michael R. Allen Mr. Lawrence M. Jackson Minutes of November 16, 1989 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 Mr. Steve Stolte of Centex Development was present to represent this item before the Commission. Mr. Stolte stated that another major reason for the corrected plat is that a GTE line runs along this property, and would have to be relocated if this corrected plat were not approved. Following discussion Commissioner Redford moved to abandon the previously filed plat, and to approve the corrected plat with the condition that · note is placed on the plat that the home owner is responsible for mowing the grass on the other side of the alley. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Green, Gross, Redford, Scott, Tunnel1 and Weaver voting in favor of the motion. Item 10: Consider the abandonment of a final plat for Gateway Park at Coppell Addition, and the approval of an amended plat re-named Park West Commerce Center, located at the southwest corner of Beltline Road and Southwestern Boulevard, at the request of Prentis-Copley. P&Z Coordinator Taryon Bowman stated that they have asked the applicant to come in with a transportation plan before considering this plat. Therefore, the item is technically removed from the agenda; however, the Commission should officially deny the plat due to the 30 day rule. Following discussion Commissioner Scott moved to deny the preliminary plat and to abandon the final plat for Park West Addition. Commissioner Tunnel1 seconded the motion; motion carried (7-0) with Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Green, Gross, Redford, Scott, Tunnell and Weaver voting in favor of the motion. Item 11: Consider a preliminary plat for the Park Place Addition, located near the northeast corner of Heartz Road and Sandy Lake Road, at the request of Univest Development Company. Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services, introduced the item to the Commission. Mr. Sieb stated that this plat was unanimously denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission without prejudice on October 19, 1989, for the following four reasons: Minutes of November 16, 1989 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 1.) Access to abutting property north and east of this tract; 2.) Compatibility of this plat with adjacent potential development; 3.) Concern of several Commissioners regarding the density on the property; and 4.) Variances and significance of those variances. Mr. Sieb further stated that the applicant has brought this plat forward with no variances, at his re~aest, and a total of 90 lots. The applicant plans to go before the Board of Adjustments to request those variances previously listed on the plat. In answer to questions by the Commission, Mr Sieb stated that the Board of Adjustments may grant the variances for reasons of hardship, based on the following three conditions: 1.) 2.) 3.) Request for variance can not be self imposed; Can not be considered for financial reasons alone; Must be some sort of unique condition which makes that variance applicable. (For example, a topographic problem, or desire to preserve some historic structure). The Commission recessed for a short five minute break at this time. Mr. Mike Allen of Univest Development Company was present to represent this item before the Commission. Mr. Allen stated that this property is within the (TC) Town Center zoning classification, which is a cumulative zoning and; therefore, he feels would allow any residential zoning. Mr. Allen also presented a slide show with examples of the types of lots and homes they would have in this subdivision. It was suggested by the Commission that perhaps a (PD) Planned Development would work better in this location. Some of the Commissioners were also concerned that the density is too great; and that this will be a precedent setting case. It was also brought up that this property is surrounded by (SF-12) and; therefore, (SF-9) may not be completely compatible. Following discussion Commissioner Gross moved to approve the preliminary plat for Park Place Addition with the following conditions: that one lot be deleted in the area of Block E, Lots 2-8, and deleting one lot in the area of Block F, Lots 1-6, and including that the adjacent homeowners area next to lot E-1 be shown as part of lot one, so that the owner of that lot would have the responsibility to maintain it. Chairman Munsch seconded the motion; motion failed (2-5) with Chairman Munsch Minutes of November 16, 1989 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 and Commissioner Gross voting in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Green, Redford, Scott, Tunnell and Weaver voting against the motion. Commissioner Redford then moved to deny the preliminary plat for Park Place Addition. Commissioner Tunnell seconded the motion; motion carried (4-3) with Commissioners Redford, Scott, Tunnel1 and Weaver voting in favor of the motion, and Chairman Munsch and Commissioners Green and Gross voting against the motion. Item 12: Consider a preliminary plat for the Oak Bend Addition, located near the southeast corner of Thweatt Road and State Road, at the request of Mr. Jerry Lacy. P&Z Coordinator Taryon Bowman introduced the item to the Commission. Ms. Bowman stated that the zoning change for this case was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission; however, it was then approved by the City Council. Ms. Bowman stated that staff would request the Commission to require the applicant to place the stipulations cited by Council on this plat. Those stipulations are as follows: 1.) The minimum house size to be 1600 square feet; 2.) Any buildings constructed in the Light Industrial area located at the northwest corner of this property be restricted to 35 feet in height. 3.) That the three lanes of State Road be constructed in its entirety. 4.) That along State Road a masonry fence be constructed to be used as a buffer between this property and the property to the west of it. 5.) That a notice of noise potential from airport over flights be issued to all purchasers of lots within this development. 6.) That the developer pay their pro-rata share for improvements to Thweatt Road. Ms. Bowman then stated that staff is concerned with the masonry wall along State Road that Council is requiring. The applicant has also requested that they not be required to establish a Homeowners Maintenance Agreement. Staff feels that variance should he denied, as they feel the maintenance agreement is necessary for the wall to be built.