Sonic Addition-CS 990715 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Sonic Addition, Replat of Lot 1R, Block A and
Minor Plat
P & Z HEARING DATE: July 15, 1999
C.C. HEARING DATE: August 10, 1999
LOCATION: 201 N. Denton Tap Road.
SIZE OF AREA: Incorporating approximately 5,422 square feet of land into an
existing .658-acre site.
CURRENT ZONING: C-S.U.P. and C (Commercial, Special Use Permit and
Commercial).
REQUEST: C-S.U.P. (Commercial, Special Use Permit).
APPLICANT: Owner: Engineer:
MHJ Enterprises Bentley Engineering
P. O. Box 22775 702 Gatewood Dr.
Oklahoma City, OK. 73123 Garland, TX. 75043
(405) 722-9390 (972) 2404821
Fax: (405) 720-9113 Fax: (972) 240-0922
HISTORY: There has been no recent plating activity on the subject parcel
although the original Sonic restaurant was constructed
approximately five years ago.
TRANSPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfare built to
standard in a 110-120 foot right of way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- vacant; "C" Commercial
South - vacant; PD- 178 for commercial developmem
East - retail; 'TC', Town Center
West -residential; PD-129, SF-9
Item# 6
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
neighborhood retail uses.
DISCUSSION: This is a companion piece to the request to enlarge the existing Sonic
Drive In restaurant on Denton Tap Road. As such, and assuming the
zoning request is approved, tlxis minor plat meets all our requirements
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends approval of thi.~ minor plat as the applicant has met all
requirements for approval.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request.
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
ATTACHMENTS: I) Minor Plat Document
Item # 6
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE NO.: S-1077R, Sonic Restaurant ~ ~1~ ~.~'
·
C.C. HEARING DATE: August 10, 1999
S~E OF ~: ~r~ ~~ly ~,4~
ei~ .6~8-ac~ si~, ~ .78 ~.
CURRENT ZONING: C-S.U.P. nnd C (Commercial, Special Use Permit and
Commercial).
REQUEST: C-S.U.P. (Co--iai, Special Use Permit).
APPLICANT: Owner: Architect:
MHJ Enterprises Waimcott and Associates
P. O. Box 22775 4815 Keller Springs Rd.
Oklahoma City, OK. 73123 Addison, TX. 75001
(405) 722-9390 (972) 44%9119
Fax: (405) 720-9113 Fax: (972)447-9110
HISTORY: There has been no recent development history on the subject trnct,
although the original Sonic drive-in was consmum~ approximately
five years ago.
TRANSIPORTATION: Denton Tap Road is a P6D, six-lane divided thoroughfnre built to
standard in a 110-120 foot right of why.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- vacant; 'C". Cotnnm'cial
South- vacant; PD-178 for commercial development
Enst - retail; "TC" Town Center
West -residential: PD-129, SF-9
Item# $
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
neighborhood retail uses.
DISCUSSION: If thi.~ request is granted, the existing Sonic drive-in restaurant would
add 13 additional parking spaces to thc site (9 with menu boards), as
well as expand to the north approximately 35 feet. For the most pan,
staff supports this application, but requests some modification of the
existing site to bring it more into compliance with our existing codes.
For example, we now require a minimllm of 10 feet of lalldscaping along
the border of any development--this site has, at best, five to eight feet of
landscaping along the south and west property lines; the monument sign
cmrently on site far exceeds our sign criteria; thc dumpster location will
become dangerous once Town Center Blvd. is constructed; additional
parking will be needed for restaurant staff when the road is built and the
existing parallel parking is removed from Town Center Boulevard West;
the existing landscape hedge on the south property line needs
modification to provide our required sight distance view corridor.
The applicant has agreed to modify the monument sign, and move the
dumpster to the location shown on the plan. In addition, he has provided
4 on-site parking spaces for staff, and altered the landscape plan to
comply with sight distance concerns. The one remaining issue relates to
landscaping required by the Zoning Ordinance. Because this site was
developed prior to our existing landscaping requirements, it is short of
required plant material. Based on staff calculations, required
landscaping totals approximately 13,400 square feet. They are providing
roughly 10,000 square feet for a shortage of 3,400. Although meeting
today's total landscape requirement would be difficult to accomplish
given the existing on-site development, additional modification to the site
plan could bring this development closer to conformance. Specifically,
by closing the southeastern entrance to the property an additional 350
square feet of lsn0scape could be added to the required open space. The
applicant is resistant to make this modification, however, citing
convenient access to the property as a main concern. At any rate, the
applicant acknowledges that he is short of required landscaping, and will
appear before the Board of Adjustment and seek relief from this
requirement. Assumin~ Board action is forthcoming, there are still
several discrepancies in the landscaping calculations that need
clarification. For example, one fi~ure shows the total site area to be
34,000 square feet, and another shows 36,240. In addition, the
dimensions used to calculate perimeter landscaping do not track with the
dimensions on the site plan. Although staff supports this request, these
calculations need revision.
Because this use was developed under a different set of development
guidelines, and the fact that the applicant is attempting to abide by all
Item# 5
other revisions to the Code since his initial application, (signage,
dum?ster location, sight distance requirements, etc.), staff can support
this request provided the Board of Adjustment acts on his landscape
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following
-landscaping requirements be met or Board of Adjustment
-revision to the total square footage shown on the plans
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request.
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommemi modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTARS: 1) S.U.P. F, xhibR
2) Elevations, Si~n, and Site Plan
3) Landscape P~an
Item# $