Loading...
Kimbel Addition-CS 921217 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE#: ZC-546 P & Z HEARING DATE: December 17, 1992 C. C. HEARING DATE: January 14, 1993 LOCATION: Located south of Village Parkway, north of Sandy Lake Road, along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard. SIZE OF AREA: 1 Lot containing 14,700 square feet (105' along MacArthur Boulevard, 140 feet deep). REQUEST: Approval of zoning change from (C) Commercial to (O) Office, for construction of an approximate 9,450 square foot, 4 plus story "Office Suites Building". APPLICANT: Mr. Mike Cooner (Owner) Mr. Fred Cawyer (Architect) 580 S. Denton Tap Road 6318 Glenmoor Drive Suite //290 Garland, Texas 75043 Coppell, Texas 75019 (214) 226-1038 (214) 462-8389 HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on this parcel. TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Boulevard is the only access to this tract, and is an improved P6D contained within a 100 foot right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- Vacant; "C" zoning South - Stop-n-Go store & strip center; "C" zoning East Vacant; "C" zoning West - Vacant; "C" zoning .: ~,,~ ITEM 7 · %, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows commercial use as most appropriate here. ANALYSIS: Before making a staff recommendation regarding this application, a brief history of what precipitated the zoning case is in order. Originally, this request was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Adjustment on December 3 (see attachment), with the applicant asking to vary the height limitation in "C" zoning (going from a 35 foot maximum to his proposed 50 foot or so height), and the required setbacks in the sideyards (from the required 30 feet to 15 feet), and rear yard (from 20 feet to 10 feet). The staff recommendation prepared for the Board stated, in part, "...the site will accommodate a structure of around 3500-4000 square feet.", (the proposal shows a 9000 plus square foot building), and "such overbuilding...is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance...not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." Before the case was heard by the Board, the applicant pulled his request from the agenda, and has elected to request a change of zoning to accommodate his proposal. As stated above, under "C" zoning, and abiding by required setbacks, height limitations, coverage standards, parking requirements, and other development guidelines, the maximum building size approximates 3500 square feet in a typical two-story building. Under "O" zoning, the requested 9000 square foot building can be accommodated, but the potential site development is maximized. In fact, to build the structure proposed requires an elevator, a sprinkler system, and building code requirements generally reserved for high-rise construction. There are several concerns of staff (in addition to the overbuilding of the site problems) which warrant additional comment. Engineering is troubled by potential drainage problems created by such an ambitious project, and has expressed concern for the developed properties south and east of this proposal. Access is another problem, and the traffic generated by an 9000 square foot building with 100 feet of frontage on a major road, with no median cut to accommodate two way flow is potentially dangerous. Because this lot is so close to the intersection of Sandy Lake and MacArthur, traffic generated by the proposal would create further congestion in an already problematic area. (see Engineering's comments attached). In addition to these problems with the application, it can be argued that a one lot zoning request is a 'spot zoning~ request, especially when the Comprehensive Plan specifically indicates that commercial uses, not office uses, are most appropriate here. Also by reviewing the application documents carefully, one will observe a notation on sheet 3A of the zoning exhibit attachment which indicates "future connection to phase two building". That note suggests future plans call for a second building which will only exacerbate the problems stated in this staff recommendation. To sum up our position regarding the request, staff is concerned with: - our perceived "overbuilding" of this site drainage and its impact on neighboring properties building code requirements which make this project questionable economically access problems and circulation difficulties - spot zoning - non-conformance to the Comprehensive Plan - the precedent-setting nature of granting this request - potential negative impacts on adjacent properties - this proposal may be only the first of two proposals generating staff concern Because of all these problems with this application--it's just the wrong use on too little land at the wrong location--staff recommends this request be denied. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zoning change 2) Deny the zoning change 3) Modify the zoning change ATrACHMENTS: 1) Board of Adjustment information (6 pages) 2) Engineering Comments (1 page) 3) Zoning Exhibit (7 pages) ze546.stf November 25, 1992 TO: Board of Adjustment Member FROM: Greg Jones, Acting Building Official SUBJECT: Agenda Item Number 6 PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a request for variance from Section 24-2 and Sections 24-3.1(B) & (C) of the City's Zoning Ordinance which concerns height limitations as well as side and rear yard setbacks in commercially zoned districts. This variance is being requested by Mr. Mike Cooner, for the property located at 10g N. MacArthur EXPLANATION: Mr. Cooner is requesting a variance w Section 24-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinaace regulating commercial zoned dis~xicts, which allows a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet or ~,vo and one-haft (2~) stories high. Mr. Cooner is also requesting a variance to Section 24-3.1(B) of the City's Zoning Ordinance regulating commercial zoned districts, which does not permit a structure in the required side yard setback of thirty. (30) feet, and he is requesting a variance to Section 24- 3.1(C) of the City's Zoning Ordinance regulating commercial zoned districts, which does not permit a structure in the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Cooner is attempting to construct an office building on property, that is currently zoned commercial. By zoning ordinance application, the site will accommodate a structure of around 3500-4000 square feet. Mr. Cooner is requesting the variances in setbacks and height so he can design a building of around 8500 square feet. Staff feels that such over-building of a site is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance as well, it is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Copy of Sections 24-2, 24-3.1(B) & (C) 3. Drawings furnished at meeting 4. Location Map APPLICATION - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BOARD OF AD31JSTM~-N'T crry OF COPPF. I.I. I, the undersigned owner or ~ WN/_~//)qII~C: fff.~&?dC~ (option-holder, etc.): of the following described real propen3' located in the 'CID' of Coppell, Texas, hereby make application for a request for a variance from the terms of Section Zq -?- ,*,, C> 2, q-5 of the GiD' of Coppell Zomng Ordinance. LOCATION OF PROPERTY Street Address: [ 0 c~ ~. ~ ~(_ ~ ~T ~ ~i~ REQUEST: (ff there is additional information which you 'feel would be helpful to r. he Board in making a decision, be sure to include this irfformation in your request.) The attached checklist must be completed before your application will be considered by the Board. A non-refundable application fee of $50.00 is required ar the rime of application. A deposit of rift),, dollars ($50.00) is also required at the time of application. The deposit is charged for the variance sign that will be placed in your yard by ciD, staff. Staff will pick up the sign the day after the public hearing is held for the variance. The deposit will be returned to the applicant if the sign is returned undamaged. I have read this application form and understand that filing the application and paying the fees does nor guarantee an at~rmative action by the Board of Adjust-menu 1 further understand that at least four (4) afth'mative votes must be cast in order to receive a variance. Staff Member's Signature Date Receipt Number Signature of Applicant Print Name M~mg Ad~s T~ephone ~ome) T~ephone ~ay N~b~) BOARD OF ADJUSTMIiNT APPLICATION PACKET - Page CHECI~.IST - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCF BOARD OF ADJUSTME. NT To assist the Board of Adjustment in establishing the information necessary, to make a decision regarding the request for a variance, please complete the following cher. klisr: ls your land or your bui]cting different from others around you7 2. Is your land or building useful for any purpose without the variance requested? 3. What effect will the granting of this variance have on other property, on adjacent sneers or to people passing 4. I£ the variance is denied, how vaTl/the property, be used? 5. I-low ~s the properD/around you useS? ~lT,~ ~'g61CiT,1 p%P. I,OI~TC~. , ~rmo L~ your oph'fion w~ be effected by t.D.b r_b. an~e? 7. Will franc condfi:ions be affecreci by the requested change. 8. What evicience cio .you anticipate offering in support of your position? ""-' / Signature Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMI~qT APPLICATION PACi~ - Page 2 DRC Comments for the November 24, 1992 Development Review Committee Meeting tluntington Ridge .\ vari u~ce on the centerline radius should be requested. The area immedLatelv south of this properb' should be labeled. 3) All necessa~' utiliw and draLnage easements should be shown on the plat. The Plat Vacation for the Kimbel Addition 1) The various plats that have been submitted in the Kimbel Addition should be checked to insure that all easements vacated by this plat have been rededicated with other plats. The Zoning Change at the Northeast Corner of Sand)' Lake and MacArthur Blvd. 1) A site grading plan should be submitted. 2) A drainage plan should be submitted. 3) Information should be provided concerning the twenty foot access easement at the east side of this properb'. There are currently two parking spaces shown in the access easement. 4) l'm concerned about the users of this office complex and the traffic patterns that they will generate. My recommendation would be that this property be developed in conjunction with Lot 9 of the Kimbell Addition and that a common driveway be constructed at the median opening opposite Lot 9. Under the current traffic patterns, traffic coming from the north to access this site would need to make a U-turn at the MacArthur / Sandy Lake intersection. This is already a heavily congested intersection that will not lend itself to that type of traffic movement without creating further congestion. The access to the property needs to be very closely studied prior to approval of this office complex. dfc  / .~ ; ; ', .... -',,:,- . \°'~ '. 'i~ '.~ i' ~' .... ¢' 1'" <' ", '. \ ¢--' ' ' i~ ~ ~ ' \ : 0 ~ ' · ---.. ~ I '. ~[ \ ' I .... ~.-1...~t~- \- '! ......... ' .... / \ ~ ~ LAKEV[EW' ELEN~ i7 ~7 ~4s~. 1 3 ' SCHOOL ~ ~ ~1/~ ~ , ,~ , ~. . -:... _ : T.~ . _ 0 ' ~ - ' :~~ I '~~~ '" - ..... ~- ~ -- · - ~ % ~"~' .- - ~. - , , ~~~ '.---7.~ C ~~- ~.~ ~ ' : '~ - . · .i . ':-" -' ...... __ ' -i~~ .! "~'~ "'.'.' ''-~ I' . I ~ .~ ' ' .' ~ ' · ' ~~ ' ~::.7:'/ ~' ~ ~ I ':~ · ~', ~f ~ ~:~:,'~....:.- ~ ' . } ~,' ~,~ · .,~ . .... ~ . '; _ . ~ .':'- ~f~;: 4' ~' ~ . ~.~. .' ' ~ t ~ ' , ' ~ ,:~' ':2: .'":' ~ I I ]~-[....,:.... I~.I~.,~: ,, ...... ~:~.~..~..~. ~'=.~ ~:~ ~:.'~..'.~ ~ · -t X t ,,-] ... Fi.,.,.,,,,.. "'" I :I~..,~NT" ~.. ' I .~. i , ~ - ~ ~.~ } ''