MacPlaza1 Speed-CS 960215CASE NO:
CITY OF COPPF~LL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
S-1103R, SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 15, 1996
C.C. HEARING DATE: March 12, 1996
LOCATION:
West side of MacArthur Boulevard; approximately 888' north of
Beltline Road
SIZE OF AREA:
Total site area: .70523 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
C (Commercial)
REQUEST:
C-S.U.P. (Commercial, Special Use Permit)
APPLICANT:
Owner:
Ron Wilson
15317 Midway Rd.
Dallas, TX 75244
(214) 661-1204
Engineer:
Hennessey Engineering, Inc.
1409 Third Ave.
Carrollton, TX 75006
(214) 245-9478
HISTORY:
TRANSPORTATION:
In 1994 the City reclassified the zoning of this property from MF-
2 Multi-Family Residential to O Office. A lawsuit resulted. In
connection with a settlement agreement not yet approved by the
court, the City changed the zoning to C Commercial in late 1995.
Agents for the owner are in the process of preparing a preliminary
plat of the property between MacArthur Boulevard and the electric
transmission line, north of Riverchase Drive. On January 18,
1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission held this case under
~. visement for a month and requested the applicant to provide
the Commission details with regards to building elevations and
proposed signage.
MacArthur Boulevard is a 4-lane divided thoroughfare built in a
110'-wide right-of-way shown on the thoroughfare plan as a P6D,
6-lane divided thoroughfare.
Item # I0
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
East -
West
vacant; "C" Commercial
vacant; "C" Commercial
Jefferson at Riverchase Apartments; "MF-2' Multi-Family
vacant; "C~ Commercial
TP&L transmission line r.o.w.; 'A" Agriculture
COMP~NSIVE PLAN:
The 1987 Comprehensive Plan shows Office.
DISCUSSION:
This proposal is the lead project of a probable 5-site development
involving two automobile-related uses, a drive-in restaurant and a self-
storage facility. All four of the known prospective land purchasers
require special use permits prior to site improvements.
It is possible to construct these types of facilities without adverse effects
on community image. It requires very careful attention to landscaping,
skillful coordination of building materials and architectural design, and
restraint in the use of signage. The site plan review process required by
a special use permit affords the City the mechanism by which it can
orchestrate an urban design solution which will set the tone for future
commercial development on MacArthur Boulevard and elsewhere as well.
MacArthur Boulevard is a divided thoroughfare with a bermed median
planted with street trees. There are no overhead power lines on either
side to clutter the appemm~ce. The majority of the existing development
along MacArthur is residential in character with landscaped masonry walls
and, in some eases, housing facing the street. While all major
thoroughfares within the city are considered primary image zones, in
terms of visual appearance, this street has more at risk and more to
protect.
The applicant has been very cooperative in making revisions to improve
the site plan and its visual impact on the street. An earlier submission on
a smaller property resulted in negotiation for a larger tract and a much
improved site layout. The land planner reversed the building on the site
to present a simple, unencumbered brick wall to the street side. The
applicant has agreed to coordinate brick type and color with that of
adjoining properties.
Several highly important details remain unresolved, however. Staff has
not seen a landscape plan for the entire subdivision and, therefore, does
not know if the landscaping for this site is consistent with that of the
others. The applicant has not provided building material selections nor
information concerning color and type of attached signs. Without further
information regarding site development on adjoining properties, staff
Item # 10
cannot assess properly the location of the fire lane. If, for example,
traffic is to be one-way on any part of a cross-easement, it may be better
for the fire lane to be located on a cross-easement which is two-way its
entire length. While staff is satisfied that this applicant is attempting to
accomplish known city development objectives regarding this property, the
lack of a cohesive plan for all that is take place around it makes it difficult
to evaluate the proposal thoroughly, without rather specific conditions as
listed below.
In reviewing the revised site plan, staff noticed a number of
inconsistencies between the drawings submitted by the applicant and the
overall master plan for MacArthur Plaza. The following are some of the
discrepancies confirmed by staff during the review process:
1) The color rendering submitted by the applicant shows the eastern
elevation displaying the company logo and name and signage above the
bay doors on the south elevation. The black and white drawing presented
by Plano Sign depicts the eastern elevation with company logo and name
with 'Oil Change & Tune Up' beneath it. The building elevations on the
Preliminary Plat Site Plan are different again from the above elevation
descriptions. Company logo and 'Oil Change & Tune Up' do not appear
on the eastern elevation nor does the signage above each of the bay door
on the south side. Additional signage is shown on the western and
nonhero elevations.
2) The landscape plan shown on the Preliminary Site Plan does not match
the MacArthur Plaza Landscape Master Plan. Great inconsistencies were
observed from type and quantity of plant material used to configuration of
the landscape area.
3) Applicant is requesting the front accessway be retained despite staff
recommendation to eliminate it. The MacArthur Plaza Landscape Master
Plan shows front accessway eliminated, while both the MacArthur Plaza
Preliminary Plat and Spee Dee Preliminary Site Plan are maintaining the
front accessway.
4) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restriction for Riverchase
specifies parking shall be located at the sides or rear of buildings.
However, where appropriate, parking may be allowed in front of the
building if setback and landscaping provisions are acceptable to the
Architectural Review Committee. The applicant would be well advised to
seek site plan approval by the Architectural Review Committee to ensure
that its front parking is permissible. If permissible landscaping against
the eastern elevation between the building and parking spaces would be
preferable to concrete.
In general, staff believes the submission to be incomplete and inconsistent.
There are still some outstanding site issues that must be coordinated and
Item # 10
resolved.
RECOMMF~A~ON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends that applicant coordinate all its plans and signage for
its site, as well as match the proposed Master Plan for MacAn~r Plaza
and that the public hearing be held open until April 18, 1996 to allow
ample time to accomplish that end.
1) Approve the Special Use Permit
2) Disapprove the Special Use Permit
3) Modify the Special Use Permit
ATrACttMF~NTS:
1) Prdiminary Site Plan
2) Attached Company Logo and Name by Piano Sign
3) Architectural Rendering
4) Engineering Comments
Item# 10