Park 'N Fly-CS 930715 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE #: Preliminary Plat. Park 'n Fly Addition
P & Z HEARING DATE: July 15, 1993
C. C. HEARING DATE: August 10, 1993
LOCATION:
Northeast comer of Royal Lane & Gateway Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA:
16.07 acres
CURRENT
ZONING:
LI, Light Industrial
REQUEST:
Approval of a preliminary plat (Park 'n Fly Addition) to construct a 2338 space parking
lot with van service building and two story brick building with guard tower.
APPLICANT:
Bill Thompson (Owner) Park 'n Fly Inc. (prospective purchaser)
8333 Douglas Ave. Suite 207 Paran Place
Suite 1510 2060 Mount Paran Road, N.W.
Dallas, TX. 75225 Atlanta, GA. 30327
HISTORY:
There has been no recent platting history on this parcel.
TRANSPORTATION:
Royal Lane is designated as a P6D, six lane divided thoroughfare contained within a 100-
110' right-of-way. Gateway Boulevard is a C4V, four-lane undivided road, contained
within 70' of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
ITl~ 6
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 here.
ANALYS IS:
Although this request is based on platting the property to create a legal building site,
there are several other factors which merit consideration before acting on the application.
Among them:
Highest and Best Use of Land - The proposal before you would allow a 16 acre parking
lot which would contain in excess of two-thousand parking spaces. The Comprehensive
Plan proposes highway oriented commercial uses here, and defines that use as hotel,
restaurant, and office. In addition, the Plan goes on to state that "...designed to create
an attractive appearance from 1-635 and an impressive "Gateway" into the community."
It is fair to state that a parking lot does not create an impressive gateway into Coppell.
For many years, the current owner of this tract had visions of a hotel use here which
would certainly be more desirable and track better with the Comprehensive Plan.
Thoroughfare Plan - When the current thoroughfare plan was updated in early 1991, a
portion of the document was devoted to design of the intersection of Royal Lane and
Gateway Boulevard. Specific attention was drawn to this intersection by the current
owner of the property, and the illustration in the Thoroughfare Plan (Figure D, 8A and
B - See Attachment) was created based on a hotel being built at the intersection. The
proposed plat is approved, changes to Gateway Boulevard and Royal Lane should be
addressed and constructed per the Thoroughfare Plan.
Landscaping - A landscaping plan is required before a final plat can be approved.
Although the applicant has submitted a plan along Royal Lane, the proposal only partially
fulfills our landscaping requirements and more detailed plans are needed. Basically, the
requirements of gection 34 (landscaping) must be followed, and the plans must reflect
a minimum of 10% of the gross parking area be devoted to living landscaping. The
guidelines go on to state that 1 tree shall be planted for each 400 square feet of landscape
area; planter islands shall be a minimum size of ten by twenty feet; a 10 foot perimeter
landscape area along parking lots shall be established, with initial plantings no less than
30 inches high. A 15 foot buffered landscape area must be provided along both Royal
Lane and Gateway Boulevard. The perimeter landscaping shall contain at least 1 tree for
every 50 lineal feet of perimeter area. Although the applicant has indicated additional
plantings (see point 4 of July 2 letter, attached) the landscaping plan needs substantial
revision.
Tax Generation - A cursory look at taxes generated by this site reveals that because of
its agricultural exemption, a total of $23.65 was collected in city taxes last year.
Without the ag exemption, taxes would have been in the neighborhood of $6,150. If the
use changes, and assuming an improved value of $300,000, city taxes generated would
be in the neighborhood of roughly $10,000 per year. If the ag exemption ends, roll-back
taxes from 1987 through 1991 will be collected, and that figure is approximately
$62,000. To summarize, there is no question that more taxes will be collected if the
property is developed. A question remains, however, whether a $10,000 per year tax
collection reflects true ultimate value and development of the property.
Aesthetics - Because of the location of this property and the fact that 635 is higher than
the proposed parking lot, it is questionable if the proposed use will convey to travelers
the image we are trying to establish and maintain in Coppell. Our Streetscape Plan takes
pains to promote aesthetic sensitivity along our major thoroughfares. Our recently
approved landscape guidelines were adopted because of community concerns that we
were not addressing this element of good planning. In staff's opinion, the landscaping
proposed here is not in keeping with what we want for Coppell nor does it meet the
minimum standards outlined in the Ordinance. In addition, the applicant is requesting
that the existing billboards on the property be retained for advertising purposes. Why
a billboard is needed on-site to advertise a 16 acre parking lot escapes rational thought,
and staff sees no reason to retain either board. Brick pavers are also required along the
driveway, but are not shown on the landscape plan.
Technical Elements - Initially, the applicant had requested an asphalt lot, with parking
spaces 8.5 feet wide. Both requests are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations. In the letter dated July 2, 1993 (attached) the applicant has
modified the number of 8.5 wide spaces he requests (although the total number of small
spaces remains unclear), and states that a concrete parking lot is now acceptable. He has
also clarified additional concerns of staff relative to our 80% masonry construction
guideline, drainage, fire lanes and hydrant locations, among others. He still asks for
elimination of sidewalks along Royal Lane and Gateway, and 5 inches of concrete vs.
the 6 inches required by Code. We also have concern that the water and sanitary sewer
system needs to be looped, and drainage issues need to be discussed with neighboring
land owners (see Engineering comments, attached).
Weighing All These Factors - Staff is hard put to recommend approval of this plat for
a variety of reasons. It is clear that this use is not in keeping with the Comprehensive
Plan; it raises questions regarding drainage, fire protection, and circulation concerns
which are only given lip service by the July 2 letter (they "agree" to things, but do not
specifically address the issues) which leaves a great deal of interpretation and latitude
regarding how the problems are to be ultimately resolved; they have not addressed
provisions of the landscaping section of the Zoning Ordinance; they are requesting an
undefined number of "compact" parking spaces which the Planning Commission can not
approve; they are asking to retain two on-site billboards which staff cannot support;
improvements to the circulation system as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan are not
resolved; there are water and sewer issues raised by staff which remain unanswered.
In conclusion then, and although staff believes this use is not in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan, we have to look at this request in the spirit in which it was
submitted--that is, as a subdivision plat, requiting a landscaping plan. Looking at it from
that perspective, the proposal lacks required information necessary for proper review-the
landscaping plan is inadequate, issues regarding water and sewer concerns are
unanswered, definitive answers to questions regarding the Thoroughfare Plan are
unresolved, drainage requirements are unmet, among others. Because of these concerns,
staff recommends denial of the preliminary plat.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the plat
2) Deny the plat
3) Modify the plat
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Preliminary Plat
2) Landscape Plan
3) Engineering Comment - Dated July 6, 1993
4) Applicant Letter - Dated July 7, 1993
5) Thoroughfare Design (Figure D)
6) Letter from Prospective Purchaser - Date July 22, 1993
pkrd.stf