Denton Tap L2R BA-CS000817 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: EVERYBODY FITS, SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARING DATE: August 17, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE.: September 12, 2000
LOCATION: North Texas Court; west of N. Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 4.5 acres of property, containing 73,000 square feet
on two floors (50,000 square feet on first floor).
CURRENT ZONqNG: C (Commercial)
REQUEST: Site Plan approval.
APPLICANT: Brian Kennedy' Mark Wainscott
Everybody Fits, LP Wainscott and Assoc., Architects
149 Cottonwood Drive 4815 Keller Springs
Coppell, Texas 75019 Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 393-1272 (972) 447-9119
Fax: (972) 393-1272 Fax: (972) 447-9110
HISTORY: There is a long histoo' on this parcel that started when it was planed
in June of 1998. The Board of Adjustment granted a special
exception and allowed 116 parking spaces. Shortly after Board
action, construction began on what v,,~ then known as the North
Texas Gyrnnastics facility, and over the next two years intermittent
construction proceeded on site. There were several interruptions in
building progress and for mans' months there was no construction at
all. The Ci~' became concerned v~fth the facility, and in the summer
of 2000 started condemnation proceedings to have the building
demolished. During these proceedings we were advised that the
building had been sold, the new ovmer ~ interested in completing
the sU'ucture, and this application to renew' the site plan was
submitted.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided concrete roadway built
to standard in a 1 I0 foot right of xs~a):.
Item # 9
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- developing retail center; "C", PD 178
South - Albertson's center; "C" Commercial
East - restaurant and groceR' store; "TC" Town Center
West - single family; SF- 12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the propert3-' as suitable for
neighborhood retail.
DISCUSSION: There are not a whole lot of technical comments to be made regarding this
application. Basically, as outlined in the History Section of this report, the
request here is to finish a project which has already been through the public
hearing process before the Planning Commission and City Council. What is
being considered is identical to what was already approved and v,~ being
constructed on site.
That being the case, staff has ve~' few comments to make. Our concerns are
basically detailed in nature, and relate to things like making sure all drax~4ngs
match from one sheet to the other. We do request submission of a color
board acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has
a~eed to provide the board and it will be shovm at the Commission hearing.
We have been advised by the new o,,,mer of this land that there ma~v be some
future alterations to what has alre-ady been approved (such as additional uses,
more parking, etc.), as he gets more into the project, but he recognizes that
any major change will require an amendment to this plan and additional
public hearings.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLAN~'NING AND ZONING CO1VLMISSION:
Because this application is attempting to finish a project that has already been
through the public hearing process, staff supports this request. Were it not for
the fact that this site plan v, as approved over two years ago, and the fact that
the Ordinance specifies a site plan is valid for only two years (Section 39-2-
4), construction could begin immediately. Because the Building Official has
interpreted the Ordinance to require a new site plan, we have this application
before us. Since it is identical to the earlier approved plan, staff recommends
approval of this re-submittal. Positive action on the part of the Planning
Commission and City Council will result in a finished project on a parcel of
land that has generated more negative comment over the last few months
than any other project in recent development histo~'. Staff' recommends
approval of this request as (re)submitted, with the addition of a color board to
be introduced at the Planning Commission meeting.
Item # 9
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Landscape Plan
2) Tree Survey
3) Site Plan
4) Floor Plan (first floor)
5) Floor Plan (second floor)
6) Elevations
Item # 9
· $1uaululo~ OiX[
Z~ d ~EtlJV
(I5t$IA5I~I 2VNJd/, A~IVNJIAlI'I51}Id :SllLV~IS ZN~OD
(6Z9£-PO£-gZ6) .tvvu!gust ,O!D ~ums!ssv "~rd 'u!~wtq V~l!14[ :J. DVIMOD
O00g '£ ~sngnv pun O00g 'Z
· saw!aossv pun lloogu!tJAt
fo lsanhaa atll W 'pvo~I dv.l. uolua{I 'Ar fo lsa~u 'aa!.ql 1.tnoD svxa. L ¥1.toN uo
,rtuado.td fo sa~av K'P .TlalVut!xo~ddn uo palnooI .taluao uo!waJoa.t/q~ods .toopu!
un fo uo!Ionalsuoo fo (uo!laldmoo) aql ~UOllV oI 'UVld al!$ 'si.rd apoqd.tana~ :I~II
S,I, N3IgIA[O D DNI~tS. NIDN~I
3f L I, IIA[IAtOD M~tlA~t~I .I, NS. IA[dO"ISAS(I