Town Center L1B2-CS 960516CASE;
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TOWN CENTER SHOPPING CENTER. LOT 1,
BLOCK 2, PRELIMINARY PLAT
P & Z HEARING DATE: May 16, 1996
C.C. HEARING DATE: June 11, 1996
LOCATION:
At the northeast comer of Denton Tap and Sandy Lake Roads
SIZE OF AREA:
8.943 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
TC
REQUEST:
Approval of a Preliminary Plat to allow the development of a
shopping center
APPLICANT:
Owner:
Ewing Properties
16660 Dallas Pkwy//2200
Dallas TX 75248
214-250-3236
Fax 214-248-6701
Representative:
Dowdey Anderson & Assoc.
16250 Dallas Pkwy #100
Dallas TX 75248
214-931-0694
Fax 214-931-9538
HISTORY:
The majority of the property has been within the Town Center
zoning district since its inception. A 1-acre tract, currently the
subject of rezoning, is under purchase contract with the intention
of incorporating it into the shopping center development. There
has been no recent platting history on the property itself, although
several adjoining sites have been subdivided from the original
property holding. The Planning and Zoning Commission
disapproved the Preliminary Plat on April 18, 1996, due. to its
continuation of the public hearing on property contained within
the plat and anticipating changes in the site plan.
Item # 6
TRANSPORTATION:
Sandy Lake Road is a two-lane asphalt road within a variable-
width right-of-way (100' wide in front of the subject property),
shown on the thoroughfared plan as a C4D four-lane divided
collector street to be built within a 110'-wide right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North -
South -
East
West
Vacant, "TC" Town Center zoning
Town Oaks Centre shopping center, "C" Commercial zoning
Chaucer Estates residential subdivision, *PD-SF-7N Planned
Development zoning
Vacant, "TC" Town Center zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 1987 Comprehensive Plan shows the property as part
of Town Center. The proposed 1996 Comprehensive Plan
shows the property as suitable for neighborhood retail uses.
DISCUSSION:
The majority of this property is subject to contractual agreements between
the City and the landowner made in connection with the purchase of City
lands. Those agreements protect the landowner from subsequent changes
in city requirements. Nevertheless, the applicant is in general compliance
with current subdivision regulation.
In noting the differences between prior zoning and current zoning, it is
important to realize that under the prior zoning to which the majority of
this property is subject, a grocery store would not require a special use
permit. The one acre involved in Zoning Case 590 is not subject to those
agreements, but the development proposed for that area is related to retail
uses other than the grocery.
Another point worth noting is that last year the landowner agreed to abide
by landscaping requirements in place at that time. In terms of parking lot
landscaping and peripheral buffeting this is significant, but in terms of
tree preservation it is not. The landscaping requirements of the zoning
ordinance, then and now, permit the developer to apply for a building
permit and, upon issuance, to remove trees on the buildable area of the
property. The buildable area is defined as the area exclusive of the front,
rear and side yards required by the zoning district in which the property
is located. The Town Center District requires no front, rear or side
yards. Therefore, upon issuance of a building permit, the developer of
Town Center District property may remove all the trees on the property.
Since a special use permit is not required for any of the uses thus far
proposed, the site plan submitted in conjunction with platting is the only
site plan you will see for the shopping center in its entirety. You will
Item # 6
note the effort to save 65 trees within the parking areas and over 50 trees
at the northeast comer of the site. In addition, up to 30 trees along the
east property line may be saved, depending on the degree to which a
proposed hike and bike trail can be aligned in such a way as to avoid the
tree root systems. However, with the site plan changes designed to
accommodate the wishes of the owners of property adjoining on the east,
there will be a net gain of 34 trees next to Chaucer Estates and a
resulting net loss of 13 additional trees between the proposed buiMings
and the road frontages.
This tree preservation effort involves a reduction in parking below the
minimum zoning requirements, prior and present. It also involves
variation of the spacing of required parking islands. Board of Adjustment
approval of the variance of landscape requirements, based on the unique
features of this site, and a special exception to reduce the amount of
parking will be necessary prior to obtaining a building permit. /f
restaurant usage of the proposed buildings were eliminated altogether,
the parking shortfall would be only 8 spaces.
The proposed preliminary plat shows three lots, but the site plan submitted
in conjunction with the plat does not show landscape buffers on the
periphery of the vehicular use areas of each of the three proposed lots.
While the applicant might wish to seek a waiver of this requirement, the
Board of Adjustment has authority to grant a variance only when it can be
shown that circumstances unique to the property create a hardship. The
circumstances from which the applicant may desire relief are not inherent
in the land, but rather are created by the applicant's subdivision of the
land. Therefore, this is not a case for the Board of Adjustment.
The applicant has three choices: 1) plat the entirety of the property as a
single lot; 2) show 10'-wide landscaped buffers around the periphery of
vehicular use areas adjoining the interior property lines of each lot; or, 3)
request the landowner to renogiate the Second Amendment to Contract of
Sale between The Parks of Coppell Trust and City of Coppell dated April
21, 1995.
While staff does not want to penalize the developer with further
controversy or delay, the negotiations between the developer and
adjoining property owners can be characterized as resolving the private
interests of one prospective landowner versus the private interests of a
several other landowners, at the expense of the public interest. The City
is charged with the task of upholding the public interest and, therefore,
staff is reluctant to see further degradation of the natural landscape as
viewed from Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road.
Item # 6
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to:
1)
engineering comments, and revision of the site plan and
landscape plans to show preservation of a 28# oak located
approximately 45 feet east of the Wendy's site and a stand of
smaller oak trees located at the southeastern corner of the site
adjacent to Sandy Lake Road, as shown on the attached sketch.
(The recommendation with regard to the 28n oak is made with
reservations, since its root system may already be severely
damaged.)
2)
revision of the plat to show the property as a single platted lot, or
in lieu of that, revision of the site plan to show landscape buffers
between proposed interior lot lines and the periphery of vehicular
use areas, as agreed by the landowner,
3)
City Council granting a waiver of driveway spacing requirements
to permit the service driveway entrance at the southeast comer of
the property and the next driveway entrance west of it to be closer
together that otherwise permitted,
4)
The Board of Adjustment granting a special exception to permit a
reduction of parking requirements, and
5)
The Board of Adjustment granting a variance of interior vehicular
use area landscaping requirements to permit a reduction in the
number of landscape islands within parking areas for the purpose
of enlarging the size of the islands provided and, thereby, saving
more existing trees than otherwise possible.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat
2) Recommend disapproval of the Preliminary Plat
3) Recommend modification of the Preliminary Plat
4) Continue Hearing
ATtACHMeNTS:
1) Preliminary Plat
2) Site Plan
3) Landscape Plan
a) Informational letters of yarian~
5) Departmental Comments
6) Sketch of Suggested Site Plan Revisions
Item # 6
592 AC.
ANCFCOR --
58,800 er
.... 5o~.oo r.r.
$89~O~ 1 l'w
RE:TAIL
\ R P_...9, T.
h300
)6.00
AREA 1.997 'AC.
PR
"I=UTUR~' R.O.W. -
~-.C~SS ~IIVI~(:'~LEILATIo#