MacArthur Vista-CS000720 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: MacARTHUR VISTA CENTER, SITE PLAN and
MINOR PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: July 20, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: August 8, 2000
LOCATION: Along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 476
feet north of DeForest Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 1.42 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: SF-12
REQUEST: Site Plan and Minor Plat approval for a 9911 square foot
retail/professional office building.
APPLICANT: Univest Properties Engineer: Dowdy/Anderson
Alan Hinckley Bill Anderson
12201 Merit Drive 5225 Village Creek Drive
Suite 170 Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75251 Piano, Texas 75093
(972) 991-4600 (972) 931-0694
Fax: (972) 991-7500 Fax: (972) 931-9538
HISTORY: This property was recently considered for rezoning from R to SF-
12 through a called public hearing. On June 13, 2000, the City
Council changed the zoning on this property to SF-12. Upon
adoption of the amending zoning change ordinance on July 11, the
Council continued deliberation on a portion of that ordinance (the
1.4 acre property we are discussing here) until the July 25 meeting.
Item # 12
TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Boulevard is a P6D thoroughfare currently built as a
four-lane divided street contained within a 110 foot r.o.w.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- single family residential; PD SF-9
South - single family residential; PD SF-7
East - single-family residential; SF-12
West - single-family residential; PD SF-9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
single family development.
DISCUSSION: Although currently vacant, this property has had recent public hearing
activity. In May of this year, the Planning Commission authorized a
public hearing to determine proper zoning for this land. At time of the
hearing the property reflected a retail zoning classification. The
Comprehensive Master Plan showed the land as being best suited for
residential development, hence the called hearing to determine proper
zoning. Planning Commission recommended SF-12 zoning on the parcel
and that recommendation went forward to City Council in June. The
Council agreed with the Planning Commission and changed the zoning to
SF-12 at the June 13 meeting.
Staff began a review of an application to develop the property with a
retail/office use on June 19, discovered there was a required fee not
submitted with the application, and notified the applicant of the
discrepancy. On June 21 staff accepted a corrected application and our
review process began. Although staff contended that the recent zoning
change (from R to SF-12) would not accommodate an office/retail user,
the applicant requested a review of his project.
During the zoning hearing before Council, the applicant stated that he had
a long-standing agreement with the City allowing him to develop his
property with uses permitted in Retail zoning. He contended that any
rezoning of the tract would be unlawful, and he had a legal right to
develop with R uses. It is our position that the zoning has changed from
"R" Retail to SF-12, that the Council action was properly executed, and
that the use contemplated by the applicant is not allowed by the zoning
classification placed on the property.
That being the case, both the site plan and plat do not reflect uses allowed
by zoning. However, our City Attorney is researching this issue in
Item # 12
greater detail, and until a recommendation has been conveyed by the
Attorney's office, staff is not in a position to offer a position on this case.
Once our attorney has completed his research, we will formulate a staff
recommendation for Commission and Council.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Because of the extensive research being undertaken by our legal counsel at
this time, staff is not in a position to offer a recommendation regarding this
request. Staff recommends this case be taken under advisement until the
August 17, 2000 meeting with the hearing left open. With regard to the
minor plat, staff recommends denial for reasons outlined above, including
the fact that, as presented, this plat does not conform to the zoning
recommended by the City Council.
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) Site Plan/Architectural Plan/Elevations
2) Landscape Plan
3) Plat Document
Item # 12