AFE Oil-CS 950119 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: S-1090 - GAS WELL DRILLING
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 1995
C. C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 1995
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Thweatt and Coppell Roads, approx. 1,000
feet north of Thweatt Road and 1,300 feet west of Coppell Road.
SIZE OF AREA: One acre out of a 43.89 acre tract of land
CURRENT LI (Light Industrial)
ZONING:
REQUEST: LI-S.U.P. (Light Industrial, Special Use Permit)
APPLICANT: WDS Resources, Inc.
Messrs. Sanford and Jason Dvorin
(Applicant)
5025 Arapaho Rd., Suite 350
Dallas, Tx. 75248
661-8885
HISTORY: There has been no recent development history on the subject tract.
TRANSPORTATION: Thweatt Road is planned to be a four-lane divided roadway in a
six-lane row (C4D/6) contained within a 110 foot width; Coppell
Road is projected to be a C2U two lane undivided street within 60-
65 feet of row. Today both roads are two lane, asphalt,
unimproved streets.
Item 7
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - undeveloped; LI
South - undeveloped; LI
East - undeveloped, LI
West - undeveloped; LI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows Planned Development of
light industrial users hers.
ANALYSIS: This case has generated a great deal of dialogue regarding the use, appearance,
feasibility, compatibility, noise generation, smell, and a host of other issues
related to its potential presence in the community. The applicant has attempted
to meet with residents of Oakbend and Village at Cottonwood Creek subdivisions
to discuss these issues, but has been met with a lack of neighborhood input. The
majority of comments received by staff from property owners in these
subdivisions have not been supportive of this proposed use.
Basically, the applicant is proposing to drill a gas well on the interior one acre
parcel shown on the site plan in hopes of striking natural gas and selling it to
Lone Star or some other user. To that end the applicant has provided staff with
a number of exhibits including a site plan, a letter outlining the function of a
similar well, a photograph of what the finished product might look like, a
geological report on Barnett Shale which runs through this area of Coppell, and
an estimated tax return to the school district ($249,884 over ten years), the City
($108,283 over ten years), and County ($74,477 over the same time period).
This is a difficult request to evaluate, and several concerns immediately come to
mind. Aesthetically, even with the landscaping, berm, and an agreement to paint
the holding tanks any color desired, we are still left with an unusual structural
form whose aesthetic integrity is debatable. Secondly, it is difficult to evaluate
what the presence of this use will have on the remainder of the 40-some odd acre
parcel's potential for planned industrial development. There are users out there
who will not locate next to a producing gas well with reasons ranging from the
appearance of the well to the possibility of explosion. Third, there is no
guarantee that the gas produced by this well (if it does produce) will be purchased
by Lone Star. If Lone Star does not enter into a purchase agreement with the
applicant, we are troubled with what the ultimate use for the well might be.
Fourth, and this is related to our second concern, if gas is discovered and it is
economical to produce, will this area of the City turn into a gas production field;
if so, is that appropriate and does it compliment the Master Plan. We have
serious reservations that it does not. Five, we come to the "image" of Coppell
and what we envision for the future of the community. Staff remembers the
debate which was created by the potential presence of a tile manufacturing facility
just off of LBJ Freeway, not too far south of this property and the ensuing
questions of whether that use was appropriate for the city. In that debate we
were dealing with a rather handsome building with all activity inside and the
community was still divided on the appropriateness of that use. The fact that it
was never built here makes that example moot with the exception that serious
reservations were raised in segments of the community regarding that
manufacturing use, and the same concerns are likely to be raised here. Finally,
although the tentative tax benefits look promising it needs to be stated that these
benefits were figures over a ten year period. On a yearly basis, the city benefits
to the tune of approximately $11,000 per year. An industrial-use building on a
parcel of the same size would generate taxes of comparable numbers.
Looking at the total picture, it appears the liabilities of this use outweigh the
positive benefits. Although the applicant could argue that the monetary
contribution to the community would begin with approval of this proposal and we
might wait years for industrial development to occur on the same parcel of land,
that is one of the few arguments which could be made for its approval.
Staff r~ommends denial of the Special Use Permit.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the S.U.P.
2) Deny the S.U.P.
3) Modify the S.U.P.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Plan with landscaping and perspective drawing
2) Photo of similar well
3) Information regarding Barnett Shale
4) Potential Tax Income
5) October 24 explanation letter from Sanford Dvorin
6) Engineering comments
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW C OMMITTE E
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
ITEM: S-lO90, ~g c~ge ~m ~ ~ ~~) ~ ~-S.U.P. (~
l~-S~c~ Use Pe~) ~ ~w ~e o~n of a ~ g~
weH on one ~ of a 43.~13 ~ ~t of pm~ ~d ~ ~e
~we~ comer of ~we~ ~ ~p~ ~, ~pm~O 1,~
fe~ ~ of ~we~ ~ ~ 1,3~ fe~ we~ of ~ ~ ~ ~e
~ of ~S Re~es, 1~.
DRC DA~: ~ce~r 29, 1~
CO,ACT: Ken ~, P.E., ~~ ~ M~er/~ Enter (39~1016)
COMME~ STA~S: ~' ~ oo~r ~u~, ov
1. Escrow will be required for Thweatt and Coppell Road.