Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses gating a public-access trail in Coventry subdivision amid concerns about DART access and HOA authority
Summary
Council studied a request for a gate/fence in the Coventry/Mercer Crossing common-area trail that is subject to a public pedestrian access easement; staff and council debated HOA responsibility, pedestrian access to two DART stops, maintenance, and next steps requiring HOA initiation of a licensing agreement.
Councilmembers and planning staff on May 21 discussed a resident-initiated proposal to allow fencing and a gate within a common-area trail in the Coventry subdivision (Mercer Crossing). Deputydirector of planning Marcos Narvaez explained the trail is located on parcels platted with public pedestrian access easements (PD 99) that connect single-family areas, multifamily complexes and two nearby DART stops.
Item sponsor Councilmember Omar Roman described repeated incidents of dog waste and unsuccessful efforts to get multifamily property managers to address the problem. Roman said the Mercer Residential West HOA indicated willingness to install a gate but staff and legal counsel told council the HOA must initiate any licensing agreement and secure property-owner consent before the city can approve fencing in an easement.
"This is more of a private matter," Narvaez said, explaining the city's role is limited to consenting to a fence if property owners and the HOA request license terms. Council members emphasized equity and access concerns: several members noted gating the trail could cut off a shortcut to two DART stops for apartment residents and urged staff to consult DART ridership data before approving any permanent closure of the route.
Council discussed potential fencing materials and maintenance, and sought clarity on whether sidewalks and trails in the area are city-maintained (they are not; the HOA maintains them though the easement is public). Council did not take action and directed staff to help facilitate next steps, including asking the HOA to submit a formal application, coordinating with legal staff on a licensing agreement, and seeking data from DART about pedestrian usage to inform any future council decision.
The exchange highlighted competing priorities: single-family residents seeking to limit unwanted access and maintain neighborhood cleanliness versus multifamily residents' access to transit. Council members requested additional fact-based information before moving forward rather than making an immediate decision.
Next steps: HOAs were advised to initiate formal requests; staff to consult DART and prepare follow-up materials or a memorandum to council.
