Pecan Valley/FP-CS 921130The City With A Beautiful Future
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
214-462-0022
Dr. Thomas F. Siems, Ph.D.
2716 Monet Place
Dallas, Tx. 75287
November 30, 1992
Dear Dr. Siems:
In response to your letter of November 12 expressing concern with access easements in the Pecan
Valley subdivision, perhaps it would be helpful to put into perspective why we required the
easements initially, respond to your easement abandonment rationale point-by-point, and offer
what the City considers a solution to this perceived problem.
When Pecan Valley was zoned and platted approximately 18 months ago, we expressed concern
that the property immediately to the south of the project not be land-locked from this parcel,
hence the easement requirement. What we were attempting to accomplish was the provision of
access to this south property without having direct access to Sandy Lake Road, a future four-lane
divided thoroughfare in a six-lane right-of-way. At the time of our deliberations, the developer
of Pecan Valley was negotiating with the south property owner, and the access easement seemed
the best way to process the subdivision plat in an expeditious manner, yet provide good
circulation when/if the developer could acquire the property. It was not until the last 3-4 months
that we were advised a church had acquired the property, long after the existing subdivision had
been approved and all infrastructure was put in place.
I believe the above explanation addresses your comment regarding the practicality of
constructing the road at ali, although I would add that the church has approached me and
expressed interest in having the access easement honored so the church might have access from
both Sandy Lake Road and Beaver Run. Because we view church users as major generators of
traffic, we could not support the church's interest in exploring that option and have gone on
record as being non-supportive of the extension. I have just recently learned that the church has
dropped its desire for the access easement, so it appears that concern has been resolved.
A second reason you cite for abandoning the access easement relates to safety. Had the southern
land developed as envisioned when the zoning case was initially reviewed, the provision of a
street with no access to Sandy Lake Road was highly desirable, and would, perhaps, provided
a higher degree of safety than an open street to Sandy Lake.
As to your value of property statement, Coppell prides itself in creating a residential atmosphere
which encourages high quality development. When Pecan Valley was zoned, statements were
made that housing costs would range from the $160's to over $200,000 with no mention that any
easement would require removal before a high-end home would be built. It is my understanding
that homes approaching $250,000 have been built in the existing subdivision and under the
current subdivision platting requirements.
I only make these comments, Dr. Siems, to give you a little history as to why we had concern
with the initial subdivision, and to offer you an explanation of reasons for requiring the easements
in the first place.
To specifically address your concern, the most desirable way to resolve your difficulty is to replat
by removing the access easement notation. Replatting is initiated at the Planning Commission
level, and proceeds through the City Council. The entire process takes approximately 60 days
to complete, requires a minimal filing fee, and may require a public presentation during the
public hearing process. In conversation with the developer of Pecan Valley it is my
understanding that the engineer for the initial project is willing to do whatever is necessary to
remove the easement. That ranges from a replat (the 60 day process) to an instrument which
removes the easement (strongly discouraged by our legal counsel). As this letter is being written,
we are contacting our city attorney to obtain a definitive answer to this question. Once we have
received legal advise, we will proceed in the direction suggested by our attorney.
Finally then, it is possible to remove the easement, we have no objection to removing it, it
remains for the City Attorney to give us direction on how to proceed.
I believe I have answered the concerns expressed by your November 12 letter. If I can clarify
anything or offer additional information regarding this subject, please contact me at your
convenience.
I~rectorlof Planning and Community Services