Park 'N Fly-CS 931216 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE//: Park'N Fly Addition. Preliminary Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: December 16, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: January 11, 1994
LOCATION: Northeast comer of Royal Lane and Gateway Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: 16.07 acres
CURRENT
ZONING: 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 21
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.
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 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 elements
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.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the Preliminary Plat
2) Deny the Preliminary Plat
3) Modify the Preliminary Plat
A'I'TACHMENTS: 1) Preliminary Plat
2) Landscape Plan
.stf