Loading...
Park 'N Fly-CS 990617 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE: Park 'N Fly Addition, Site Plan Amendment P & Z HEARING DATE: June 17, 1999 C.C. HEARING DATE: July 13, 1999 LOCATION: 800 Royal Lane. SIZE OF AREA: 16.07 acres CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial) REQUEST: Site Plan amendment to allow covered parking on 733 parking spaces. APPLICANT: Sun Ports International, Inc. Mr. Boris Gremont 8601 Sovereign Way Dallas, TX. 75247 (214) 905-9500 Fax: (214) 905-9514 HISTORY: No recent history on this tract, although the Bd. Of Adjustment granted a parking size variance and a landscaping variance among others back in the early ninety's. TRANSPORTATION: LBJ Freeway (IH 635) is a fully developed interstate freeway located along the southern boundary of this property. Royal Lane is a P6D, primary six-lane divided thoroughfare built to standard and contained within a 110-foot right-of-way. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- U. S. Postal Bulk Mail Center; LI, Light Industrial South -vacant and city limit line; LI, Light Industrial East - Haverty's Furniture Store; LI Light Industrial West -vacant D/FW Airport property; LI Light Industrial Item # 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property .as suitable for light industrial/showroom uses. DISCUSSION: This request is submitted to explore the possibility of placing a fabric awning over 733 (out of a total of 1873) parking spaces at the Park 'N Fly facility on Royal Lane and LBJ Freeway. Staff concerns focus on four areas: the lack of masonry columns to support the awning as specified by ordinance; the color/vertical height of the awning (if allowed); the front yard setbacks at Haverty's vs. the side yard setback on Park 'N Fly; and landscaping modifications. The ordinance states that any structure contain at least 80% masonry construction. Since the awning assembly is defined as a structure, code requires that the columns meet that percentage guideline. We have suggested to the applicant that he brick the columns (such as we accomplished at the Sonic drive-in, bank drive-thru's, and gasoline service station canopy areas), but the applicant is reluctant to comply, stating economic concerns. His recourse would be to visit the Board of Adjustment for relief. Our second concern relates to the color of the awning fabric--if the site plan amendment is approved. As submitted, the applicant has suggested a silver-gray fabric, and his exhibits reflect that color. We have been provide with a color chart that includes a number of available colored fabrics, and will present that exhibit during the public hearing. The applicant is agreeable to any color, and the hearing will assist us in determining which color would be most compatible with the existing facility. Also, upon visiting other locations in the area with awnings, we were struck with the fact that many of these facilities have broken the "sameness" of the awnings by varying the height from point to point. In this case, variety of height is very important as these structures are massive in length. Our third problem with this application relates to the addition of the awnings along the southeastern portion of the parking lot, and its effect on the adjacent front yard of the Haverty's Furniture Store, immediately to the east. Upon site visit, this concern appears to be minimal. Finally, there will be several trees re-located on the parking lot site if this request is supported. It is our understand that existing vegetation will be located closer to the property line on the south, east, and north sides to accommodate the canopy structure. Staff feels this relocation could be damaging to the plant material and assurance must be obtained that any plant that does not successfully transplant will be replaced with at least the same or larger species. If possible, the applicant should reconsider his request to relocate these plants. Although the applicant has suggested this relocation is necessary and not to do so will Item # 6 complicate security and circulation through the covered area, nonetheless we must be guaranteed that any relocation is properly addressed. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff can support a portion of this request, but recommends denial of any improvements that will alter/damage the existing landscaping plan (which, incidentally was granted variances from our landscaping standards through an earlier Board of Adjustment case). In addition, several conditions need to be specified including: -All structures meet code requirements, including the 80% masonry condition (unless Board relief is procured) -Final color of the awning fabric will be compatible with the existing improvements -There will be sufficient variation in the height of the awning structures; such variation to be specifically addressed by the applicant -If any existing landscape vegetation is damaged, it will be replaced by equal or larger plant material -The awning will have a hip roof -Departmental comments ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request. 2) Recommend disapproval of the request 3) Recommend modification of the request ATTACHMENTS: 1) Sun Ports, International Brochure 2) Letter dated May 7, 1999 from Boris Gremont, President of Sun Ports 3) Departmental Comments (Building Inspection and Fire) Item # 6 INTERNATIONAL, Inc. May 7, 1999 ' "- Gary Sieb City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Re: pre-application submittal for building permit - Park 'N Fly facility covered parking. Dear Mr. Sieb, Further to our meeting on Wednesday, May 5 1999, regarding the above subject, I am enclosing herewith the following information - A. Site plan detailing proposed area to be covered with parking structures, for which an amended site plan would be filed. B. Color photographs of an identical installation in Plano, Texas. Two photographs of interior view Two photographs of exterior view C. Fire certificate - Southwest Research Laboratory D. Cloth samples (4) I understand that the requirements of the city are for the columns to be encased in masom'y. We intend to ask the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the following grounds - 1) The masonry will be 24" to 30" and will create a visual hazard to drivers. 2) The safety and security of the parking public will be compromised as the visibility around the facility is reduced. In addition, this masonry pillar will create an ideal area for someone to shield themselves to stay out of view. 3) Night visibility will be reduced as the masonry pillars will create large shadows. P.O. Box 560168 · DALLAS, TExas 75356-0168 * 8601 SOVERE~G~q Row · DALLAS, TEXAS 75247 (800) 966-5005 (214) 905-9500 * Vtsn' our WESS~TE ^T www. sunports.com We believe that by approving the application for structures of this type, the visibility and appeal of the parking facility would be enhanced, and the view of the parking lot from the 635 freeway would be dramatically improved. The unique cloth has an expected life of 10-12 years and does not fade, tear, break down or unravel. Due to its construction, it allows rising heat to escape, and provides an ideal shelter from the heat and hail damage to automobiles. Please call me if any additional information is required before the May 17, 1999 presentation. Th j g you in anticipation. Boris Grerdont President & COO ~' M~y-28-99 10:15A _ P-03 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FIRE PREVENTION COMMENTS ITEM: PARK N FLY ADDITION, SITE PI. AN AMENDMENT DRC DATE: MAY 27, 1~ CONTACT: TRAY, S CRUMP, FIRE MARSHAL (972)$04-$$03 COMMENT m g :~ :~ s l 1. Shade structure can not be installed between fire lane and fire hydrants. Provide an open area at all fire hydrant locations. B Uildir ..'tnspection Comments Park N'.J=J.y _site .plan..amendment May 27, 1999 1. The~e .are several, l~l'obJems-with ordirmnce complience regarding 'this propo~J:t .c,o~on. '.T_he ~Js_that ~he. me~n~ry .corr~trt~ntion percentage is not met. The structure proposes no masonry at all. 2. Although the _roofing materJe! wy not be.spacJfJceJJ.y _prJ:xhJbJted by zoning f~J'dinance, there is a serious question regarding long term perfor .manta .of the prodz~G-t. materiaJ complaints, fading and degradation of the .material,._etc, also rt~ed ICJ3_O .evaluation and Jjstings .on .thin materinl. 3. The structures are proposed on the back of the project, however; on Gateway, .i~ _atso;.Js. adjacent..to,..-and -i~ Jirm .~zith :the ;frnyJt ..3j~ard :setback.of Haverty's. 4. Is th~,,_any ~emowal of existing _plAntJrlg ~Jal ~1~-the resutt of this project? .Are there modifications to the .entrance as .referenced by _the drawings?