Park 'N Fly-CS 940217 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE:. 'Park N-Fly Addition -'-Prcliminary.p!at
P & Z HEARING DATE: February 17, 1994 /.
C. C. HEARING DATE: March 8, 1994
LOCATION: Along the northeast corner of Royal Lane and Cotton Road
SIZE OF AREA: 16.07 acres
CURRENT
ZONIlqG: LI, Light Industrial
REQUEST: Approval of a preliminary plat to construct a 1,941 space parking
lot with a van service building and a two-story brick building with
guard tower.
APPLICANT: Bill Thompson Park 'N Fly, Inc.
(Owner) (Prospective Purchaser)
8333 Douglas Ave. Suite 207 Paran Place
Suite 1510 2060 Mount Paran Road, N.W.
Dallas, Tx. 75225 Atlanta, Ga. 30327
(404) 264-1000
HISTORY: There has been quite a bit of history on this parcel since this proposal was
initially submitted in July, 1993. On July 15, the Planning Commission
denied the plat because it did not meet our minimum platting
requirements. There were questions regarding minimal landscaping
guidelines, questions regarding the thoroughfare plan, there were
drainage, water, and sewer issues that had not been resolved, among
-. .. others. On August 6, a Mr. Frederick Clemente (President of Park 'n
Fly) addressed a letter to the Mayor expressing disappointment in the
" Item 14
Planning Commission's action (the "slanderous" letter), and indicated that
the company was putting this project on the back burner until a later date.
The request has been resubmitted at this date for reconsideration. At the
December Planning Commission meeting, this plat was denied because
the applicant did not meet the requirements of the landscaping section
of the Zoning Ordinance, a requirement for plat approval. In a letter
from the city attorney, the Commission was advised that the applicant
could approach the Board of Adjustment and request a variance from
the landscaping requirements. Staff recommended the Commi~ion
deny the plat, instruct the applicant that a variance might be
requested of the Board, and then resubmit the request to planning.
When the motion was made, Commission instructed staff to resubmit
this request for the February hearing, hence, this resubmittai.
TRANSPORTATION:
Royal Lane is designated as a P6D, six lane divided thoroughfare
contained within a 100-110 foot right-of-way. Gateway Blvd. is a C4U,
four-lane undivided road contained within 70 feet of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North - postal facility; LI
South - vacant; city of Irving
East - vacant; LI
West - vacant; LI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Suggests highway oriented commercial as most appropriate
land use for this site.
ANALYSIS: In July of 1993, staff pointed out several concerns with this request
including questions regarding whether the proposal was reflecting the
highest and best use of the property based on the Comprehensive Plan
suggestions; the fact that the Thoroughfare Plan had been revised in 1991
to upgrade roads around this site in anticipation of a high-rise hotel
locating on the site (as suggested by the land owner); landscaping did not
meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code; there was a question
regarding the practical tax revenue which would be generated by the site
if improved with the parking lot; aesthetic concerns were expressed based
on the "gateway" location into the City, the request to retain the non-
conforming billboards, and absence of required brick pavers; technical
clements regarding an initially planned asphalt parking lot, drainage
concerns, lack of sidewalks, and extension of sewer/water lines.
Staff elaborated on each of the items in some detail and came to the
conclusion that the plat should be denied for all of the stated reasons, but
specifically because the applicant did not abide by the zoning and
subdivision codes relative to platting. Of major concern was the fact that
the application did not follow mandated landscaping requirements which
clearly spelled out that a minimum of 10% of a parking lot area must be
landscaped.
Although the plat before you today is a vast improvement over the July
submittal, several of staff's earlier concerns remain--the billboard's are
still retained, we still question whether this proposal fits the use definition
of the Master Plan, there is no indication on the plat of the size of the
request, a note needs to be included indicating that the fire lanes will be
constructed of 6 inches of concrete, and there are a host of "nit-picky"
corrections which need to be made to the submittal. In addition, this
owner must contact the owner to his east (Catellus), and obtain permission
to drain on to that property, parking lot surface elevations need to be
provided, guidelines contained within the Streetscape standards need to be
honored, and escrow will be required for the portion of the property
adjacent to Gateway Blvd.
Perhaps most damaging to this proposal, however, is the fact that the plat
still does not conform to the landscaping standards stated above and in the
first review of this project. Although the applicant is to be recognized for
showing landscaping in the parking lot, it does not conform to the
minimum standards that staff conveyed to the owner in the form of a
revised plan prior to submittal of this request and, as submitted, contains
only 4.5 percent vegetation. Based on the fact that the application does
not meet our code requirements, staff must recommend that this plat be
once again denied--it does not meet our required minimums.
As stated in the History section of this staff report, the applicant
appeared before the Board of Adjustment on February 3, 1994, and
addressed the landscaping concerns (a snmmary of the variance
request is included as an attachment). At that meeting two plans
were discussed, one which met our landscaping requirements, one
which did not (both are included with this packet information). After
considerable discpssion, the Board granted the following variances:
reduced the landscaping requirement from 10% to
approximately 6% which included additional center island
landscaping as well as terminal island landscaping (see plan)
reduced the number of trees in the interior to 127 (from the
required 163) and mandated that 36 additional trees be placed
in the exterior areas
3
eliminated the minimum 2 inch caliper tree size on the interior,
but retained the provision that no tree less than 7 feet in height
at initial planting be allowed, and all other trees meet the
landscape guidelines
granted a variance in parking space size to 9 feet by 18 feet; no
more than 20% of spaces could be compact car size (8.5 feet by
15.5 feet)
allowed a security fence (generally 6 foot, black or green vinyl
coated chain link) along LBJ and Royal Lane frontages,
generally 5 feet in front of the parking curbs.
Staff still has concerns regarding this proposal including the billboard
issue, it is questionable whether this application meets the land use
envisioned in the Master Plan, it is not clear on the face of the plat
where required lrwe hydrants (3 or 4) are located, f'u,e lanes must show
6 inches of concrete, drainage issues must be resolved, setbacks need
to be clearly set by plat, the landscape plan submitted to Commission
is different than the one submitted to the Board of Adjustment, and
escrow will be needed for the portion of the property adjacent to
Gateway Blvd. In addition, it should be stated that the current owner
of the property had represented during the update of our
Thoroughfare Plan in May of 1991 that he would pursue the
installation of a traffic signal at Royal/Gateway, and negotiate with
the State to include an on-ramp from Royal to LBJ. (see attached
letters dated October 12, 1990, and November 19, 1990). Now that
the use may change here, staff is confused regarding what follow
thorough will occur with change in ownership.
At the Board of Adjustment meeting representations were made that
suggested this site will eventually be utilized for a high-rise hotel. The
Thoroughfare Plan was amended to accommodate that use, hence, the
comments regarding the Thoroughfare Plan. If the new owner plans
to eventually build a hotel here, it would be prudent to determine
some sort of time frame for development based on the owners track
record, similar projects undertaken elsewhere, etc.
Finally, there is still a question in staff's mind regarding the use of
this property as a parking lot unless there is some assurance that it is
only a temporary use. The Board of Adjustment spent considerable
time modifying the applicant's variance request to make the lot more
appealing, yet the landscape plan submitted here is different from the
one eventually approved by the Board. The Commission should make
its recommendation based on a comfort level with what is proposed
now, and what will ultimately occur on the ground. The billboard
question should be addressed, the appearance of the structures needs
4
to be clear (remember, at the first hearing elevations and photographs
of existing facilities were provided), recommended setbacks need to be
specified on the plat document, the difference in the landscape plan
needs to be rectified,as well as the other issues raised at the previous
hearings. If there is any question regarding the clarity of the
proposal, it should be denied, if not, approval would be in order.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the Preliminary Plat
2) Deny the Preliminary Plat
3) Modify the Preliminary Plat
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Variance Synopsis
2) Preliminary Plat
3) Landscape Plan
4) Marshall letter of October 12, 1990
5) Thompson letter of November 19, 1990
6) Landscape required by ordinance
7) Landscape variance request