Shadydale Lot 2C-CS000316 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Stuart O'Neal Office Buildint,, Site Plan
P & Z HEARING DATE: March 16, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: April 11, 2000
LOCATION: Along the north side of W. Sandy Lake Road, approximately
1,100' wes~ of N. Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Approximately .5 acre tract of property; Office Building 4,342 sf
CURRENT ZONING: SF-12 (Single Family-12) Proposed Zoning: C (Commercial)
REQUEST: Site Plan approval.
APPLICANT: Representative: Architect:
Leanna Watson Comerswne Architectural Services Inc.
500 S. Denton Tap Rd., 10719 Piano Road, Suite 100
Suite 110 Dallas, TX 75238
Coppell, TX 75019 (972) 669-1900
(972) 393-9679 FAX: (972) 669-2565
FAX: (972) 393-2155
HISTORY: The property has been zoned $F-12 for over 25 years. The
Shady&fie Acres subdivision has been recorded for 50 years
or more. On September 17, 1998, the Plarming Commission
denied a PD for 14 single-family lots on 4.15 acres out of this
subdivision. On December 8, 1998, City Council granted a
PD to allow the development of 13 residential lots on 4.16
acres of property located along the south side of Willow
Lane, between Oak Trail and Shadydale Lane.
TRANSPORTATION: Sandy Lake Road is a two-lane asphalt wad within a variable-width
right-of-way, shown on the thowughfare plan as a C4D four-lane
divided collector street to be built within a 110'- wide right-of-way.
Item# 5
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- residential; "SF-12" Single Family-12
South- vacant; "R" Retail
Bast - r~q~dl; "C" Commercial
West - resi~ntial; "SF-12" Single Family-12
COMPREttENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the pwperty as suitable for
low density residential.
DISCUSSION: Without proper commercial zoning in place staff can not
recommend approval of a non-residential, office facility in
a residential district. However, if the Commission does
approve the zoning change request from Single Family-12
to Commercial staff recommends following the site plan
review discussion and staffs conditions of approval listed
below.
The applicant is proposing a single-story office structure
measuring 4,342 square feet. As a non-residential use
abutting to single-family residences, the applicant is
proposing to screen the commercial use with a 6'-high brick
masomy wall along the western and northern property lines.
There will be no screening wall treatment along the eastern
property since the adjacent property is zoned Commercial.
The applicant will be screening the 4 parking spaces along
the eastern property line with 30'-high dwarf burford holly
hedge. The site plan shows a total of 17 parking spaces, 2
parking spaces over the city minimum requirements.
The building elevations show a brick masonry structure in
earthtone colors. The pwperty does not have enough street
frontage on Sandy Lake Road to merit a monument sign.
However, the submitted documents indicate that the
attached signs will consist of individually mounted channel
letter signs in white or beige. Due to this proximity to
single-family residences, the applicant is limiting the height
of the parking lot light fixtures to 20', and the parking lights
will be turned off at 11:00 p.m. daily. The building
elevations also indicate a hip roof with composition
shingles. The dumpster will be located at the southeast
comer of the building and it will be screened with a 6'-high
brick masonry screening wall. Staff requests that the
elevations specify the color and building material of the
dumpster gates. Also, furnished on the plans are notations
that no outside storage will be permitted on premise and
that all utility meters will not be visible except from areas
Item # 5
clearly intended as service areas where the public is
generally excluded.
The submitted site plan does indicate that the applicant is
exceeding the minimum landscaping requirements.
However, the required non-vehicular landscaping is
incorrectly shown on the landscape data. The required
amount is 2,615.7 sfinstead of the 1,765 sf reported. The
total required landscaping is correctly shown. The
proposed plant material conforms to the city plant palette.
The Leisure Services Depmhuent has reviewed the
proposed tree survey and has indicated that the applicant
owes $9,200 to the Coppell Reforestation Fund. Also, a
tree removal permit must be executed prior to the removal
of any protected trees on site.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COlVIMISSION:
Without proper commercial zoning in place staff can not
recommend appwval of a non-residential, office facility in
a residential district. However, if the Commission does
approve the zoning change request fi.om Single Family-12
to Commercial staff recommends the following conditions
being met:
1) Specify the color and building material of the dumpster
gates on the building elevations.
2) Revise landscape data to reflect 2,615.7 sf of required
non-vehicular open space.
3) The applicant owes $9,200 to the Coppell Reforestation
Fund. (See Leisure Services DeparUnent comments)
4) A tree removal permit must be executed prior to the
removal of any protected trees on site. (See Leisure
Services Department comments.)
5) A licensed/rrigator must sign the irrigation plan.
6) A replat submission will be required prior to securing a
building permit.
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.
Item#
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Plan and Landscaping Plan
2) Elevations
3) Existing Tree Survey
4) Irrigation Plan
5) ~ental Comments
It~n# 5
Isabelle Moro '~"R~i'~,evised DRC Com~ '~ for Stuart O'Neal Office Building ' ~ Page 1 1
From: Brad Reid
To: Isabelle Moro
D~(e: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Revised DRC Comments for Stuart O'Neal Office Building
The only additional comment I have on the revised plan is that the root zone for trees number 512 and 517
appear to be significantly impacted by the parking lot. Preservation credit will not be allowed for these two
trees. An additional122" of repamlion will be due because of this impact.
Thanks,
Brad
DaCW. Z~'
CITY OF COPPFJ. L
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: ZC-601, Stuart O'Neal Office Buildino
P & Z HEARING DATE: March 16, 2000
C.C. HEARING DATE: April 11, 2000
LOCATION: Along the north side of W. Sandy Lake Road, approximately
1,100' west of N. Denton Tap Road.
SIZ~ OF AREA: Approximately .5 acre tract of property; Office building 4,342 sf
CURRENT ZONING: SF-12 (Single Family-12)
REQUEST: C (Commercial)
APPLICANT: Representative: Architect:
Leanna Watson Cornerstone Architectural Services Inc.
500 S. Denton Tap Rd., 10719 Piano Road, Suite 100
Suite 110 Dallas, TX 75238
Coppell, TX 75019 (972) 669-1900
(972) 393-9679 FAX: (972) 669-2565
FAX: (972) 393-2155
HISTORY: The prolm'ty has been zoned SF-12 for over 25 years. The
Shadydale Acres subdivision has been recorded for 50 years
or more. On September 17, 1998, the Planning Commission
denied a PD for 14 single-family lots on 4.15 acres out of this
subdivision. On December 8, 1998, City Council granted a
PD to allow the development of 13 residential lots on 4.16
acres of property located along the south side of Willow
Lane, between Oak Trail and Shadydale Lane.
TRANSPORTATION: Sandy Lake Road is a two-lane asphalt road within a variable-width
fight-of-way, shown on the thoroughfare plan as a C4D four-lane
divided collector street to be built within a 110'- wide right-of-way.
It~n # 4
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- residential; "SF-12" Single Family-12
South - vacant; "R" Retail
East - retail; "C" Commercial
West - residential; "SF-12" Single Family-12
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the pwperty as suitable for
low density residential.
DISCUSSION: With this zoning change request, the applicant is proposing
to rezone a 0.5-acre parcel of land from Single Family-12 to
Commercial zoning to allow the construction of a 4,267
square foot office building.
Staff can not support the request because it departs from the
comprehensive master plan recommendation, which
suggests low density residential for this parcel of land.
Having a single lot located within the Shadydale Acres
residential subdivision zoned Commercial would encourage
inconsistent application and administration of the
recommendations of the comprehensive plan, as well as
encourage a rezoning that is obviously out of context with
the surrounding area.
An argument could be made that the property in question
fronts on Sandy Lake Road, a collector street to be built
into an undivided four-lane thoroughfare, and properties to
the east and south are zoned Commercial and Retail.
However, the applicant is trying to rezone a single-family
residential lot for commercial purposes. Fwm staff
perspective, this is a case of bad zoning. The request not
only contradicts the recommendations of the
comprehensive master plan, but it involves an individual
half-acre lot and if rezoned to commercial would be
incompatible and detrimental to the surrounding single-
family residences.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Sutff recommends denial of this zoning change request for a
variety of reasons. First of all, the rezoning is in conflict
with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Master
Plan. Secondly, the proposed commercial use is totally out
of context with the single-family residences in the Shady&de
Item#4
Acres subdivision. Thirdly, the rezoning proposal involves
a small, individual lot in a purely single-family residential
subdivision and the reclassification would be detrimental to
the adjacent single-family residences.
However, should the Planning and Zoning Commission be
inclined to approve the zoning change request the following
items on the Zoning Exhibit should be corrected:
1) Furnish zoning of property to the west.
2) Revise legal descri~on to reflect .5 acres of
property.
3) Show proposed zoning on the document.
4) Clarify what the dash line represents parallel to
the eastern property line.
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:
l) Zoning Exhibit
Item#4