Thompson, Johnny-CS 911219 ~,~ .... CITY OF COPPELL
· PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
P & Z HEARING DATE: December 19, 1991
C. C. HEARING DATE: January 14, 1992
LOCATION: Along the north side of Beltline Road, and along the west
side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
SIZE OF AREA: 10.059 Acres
REQUEST: Approval of a Special Use Permit for a restaurant (with a
private club) and recreational activities, on land being
rezoned to (LI) Light Industrial.
APPLICANT: Johnny E. Thompson, Michael J. Daum, Surveyor
Adrian F. Moore, and P.O. Box 210856
Steve Kimbrel, Owners Dallas, Texas 75211
Coppell, Texas 75019 (214) 330-9823
(214) 462-1660
HISTORY: There has been no recent zoning history on this parcel of
land.
TRANSPORTATION:
Beltline Road, located to the south of this property, is an
improved, major thoroughfare consisting of a six-lane
divided roadway contained within a 100 foot right-of-way.
There are no other streets in close proximity to this
property.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North E East - Elm Fork of the Trinity River, City of
Carrollton park and vacant land
South - existing Longbranch facility, zoned (A)
West - Redi-mixed concrete facility, zoned (LI); Golf
Course , zoned (SF-12-SUP)
ITEH 5
~'he Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use on this property,
with no multi-family allowed.
ANALYSIS: SEE ATTACHED
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the zoning change 2} Deny the zoning change
3) Modify the zoning change
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Plan
2) Floor Plan
3) Architectural Drawings
4) Architectural Drawings
5) Architectural Drawings
6) December 9, 1991 Letter from DART
7) December 9, 1991 Letter from Michael J. Daum
8) Opinion from Mr. Chapa
9) Opinion from Ms. Eisenstein
S1057STF
ANALYSIS: Looking at this zoning request in its most basic form -
land "use - the proposal does not create .any major
concerns· It is at the eastern boundary of the City, has
the Elm Fork of the Trinity River as a natural buffer on
the north and east, an active batching plant and golf
course on its western boundary, and a railroad track and
si'x-lane divided thoroughfare on the south. The
Comprehensive Plan has shown mixed use here for the last
five years . and specifically prohibits multi-family
development..
At a more subtle level, however, there are several issues
which, taken by themselves, are not particularly
problematic. Taken collectively, however, and if not
resolved individually, these issues can accumulate and
cause concern· Specifically, assurance must be made that
the following issues are adequately addressed:
· the flood plain question
· square footage of restaurant devoted to different
activities
· architectural compatibility
access
· safety
· parking requirements
· aesthetics
· precedent-setting nature of proposal
The flood plain
As seen on the site plan attached (ATTACHMENT #1),
approximately 40% of this 10 acre parcel is in the Trinity
River flood plain. All uses proposed for this site -
restaurant/club, storage, future volleyball/basketball
.courts, and bandstand - are above the flood plain line.
Seven volleyball sand pits and eight horse shoe pits are
designated to be constructed in flood plain. Because of
the minimal development required to create these uses,
~L~J~ staff has no objective to their location as shown. In --) addition, parking lots are allowed in floodplain and the
- spaces subject to flooding are in addition to the ones
~-~[""required for this use. Thus, if flooding does occur, there
~-~i4= are still more than required parking spaces remaining to
accommodate the proposed use.
Floor plan
The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment of 1991 (in
which the private club provision was modified to more
clearly address restaurant uses) clearly states that food
service must account for at least 60% of the restaurant
revenue. In analyzing the floor plan (ATTACHMENT #2} of
proposal, of the 9000 totaf~luare feet of building
floor area, only 3600 square feet (including food
preparation area), is devoted to restaurant, 5400 square
feet is dedicated to club facilities. The applicant should
clearly explain the method by which the City can be assured
that this proposal is unquestioningly a restaurant, not a
bar, tavern, or private country club primarily focused on
selling alcoholic beverages. Although the zoning ordinance
allows the City to audit restaurants books at any time,
attention needs to be placed on the applicants
responsibility to meet the 60% requirement.
Architecture
Included here are three drawings ATTACl/1/ENTS #3, 4, 5)
which depict the result of converting an existing
non-conforming building (steel as opposed to masonry) into
the restaurant proposed. Although this building would not
be allowed by today's ordinances, we have received legal
consul which determined that it can be used for the
proposed activity. The architectural compatibility of
Coppell's 'Old World' design style could certainly be
questioned with this building. However, because it
currently has non-conforming status, the fact that an
honest attempt has been made to improved the appearance of
the' building, and recognizing that the railroad
right-of-waywidth (100'], existing vegetative screen and.
the difference in grade from Beltline Road to the building
all help to minimize its presence, support a recommendation
for approving this design solution.
Access
Perhaps the most critical issue involves the right of
access to this tract and responsibility for maintaining
that access. The attached letter from DART (ATTACHMENT #6)
dated December 3, 1991, expresses concern that the access
to the tract be maintained, preferably by a public entity.
The City will not assume that responsibility, and Mr.
Daem's December 9, 1991 letter (A??ACI~MENT #7) - with
opinion by Mr. Chapa (ATTACHI4ENT #8), and Ms. Eisenstein
(ATTACHMENT #9) - states that the applicant is willing to
assume all maintenance and liability responsibilities. Our
primary concern regarding access relates to showing this
access as a fire lane so we can provide fire and police
protection. The plat show the access as $ fire lane and
complies with our recommendation.
Safety
Because of the location of this property, its proximity to
a bridge structure, the 50 m.p.h, speed limit here, and the
elevation of Beltline Road and the bridge, we have concern
with driver, pedestrian and customer protection. The
/~ppl~cant nas volunteered to i/'~all flashing lights (where
deemed appropriate by staff) along Beltline Road to caution
drivers of this proposed use at the applicants expense.
Such a system is not required to be constructed, but is an
added feature which assists in addressing the safety
issue.
Parkina Reauirements
Parking for restaurant use is determined to be one space
for each 100 square feet of floor area. As shown on the
plan 129 spaces are required by code, the applicant is
providing 202. The applicant is aware that expansion of
this use could require additional parking, and states that
adequate undeveloped land is readily available to expand
the parking facilities. We have already addressed the
parking spaces in flood plain, and would only repeat here
that adequate parking would still be available in the event
that flood waters covered those spaces in the flood plain.
Aesthetics
That beauty is in the eye of the beholder can not be
debated, and a judgement call has to be made regarding the
overall appearance of the proposal. It must be recognized
that an existing building is undergoing modification and
the question to be addressed is whether that modification
results in a facility which is an improvement to what's
already there. Although the design solution presented here
may not address all aesthetic issues which could be
identified, based on cost, current building appearance,
proposed design, distance from the public right-of-way, and
other considerations, staff has no objection to the
proposal.
Precedent-settina
A final consideration involves the question of ultimate
development and image this area will convey to the general
public about Coppell. With one private club already
present (the current Longbranch Saloon), will the
establislment of a second like-use create a 'honky-tonk'
district? If so, would that be detrimental to the City?
Is there some other use better suited to our long range
planning of the community?
Staff wrestled with these and other questions long and
hard, and ultimately came to the conclusion that if all the
above described issues were adequately addressed, these
questions could all be resolved to the benefit of Coppell.
Although this restaurant and club would be just across the
street from the existing Longbranch, the land around the
request is properly zoned, a six-lane divided thoroughfare
serves the area, there is virtually no residential
development nearby, and any danger of a negative precedent
being set seems minimal.
'. ~taff has very carefully evaluated this application not
only from the viewpoint of land use, but also from the
perspective that this proposal not create a dangerous
development pattern nor prejudice the ultimate use of this
relatively undeveloped potion of the City. We have
addressed at least eight specific issues that warranted
detailed analysis here, and conclude that this development
will not harm Coppell. It conforms to the Comprehensive
Plan, is relatively isolated, measures have been
volunteered by the developer to mitiqate potential safety
concerns, the applicant has exhibited a very cooperative
attitude, and architects, surveyors, enqineers, and real
estate brokers have all worked diligently to address every
issue articulated by staff.
Based on the above, staff recommends approval subject to
the presented site plan (with minor corrections),
conditions, and the satisfactory resolution of all issues
mentioned above.
S1057.ANL
RESTAURANT 3600SF
Waiting Are~ 300~f ~ EJm'y. --~
~ , ~ CLU9 ~
· ,-~ -~-4. ...... ~-':~:-- -~- - ': E,,~
~" ' "~ ~'\' ~' " ~ BULDING TOTAL 9(X)OSF
1/8': 1'~O°
26 November t991A
2700 Fairmo 2/)0-
Coppell, Texas Dallas, Texas 75201
214 855 5272
,THE 'LONGBR ANCH c..,,.~.= Architects
' 27~ F~ount/2~
~'p~'ll, 4exas -'.' ..- Da~s, Tex~75201
21t 855 5272
~ ~ - . ,,. ~'~.~ .~...~,~ ....~ ... .-. .~:.,.. · ,. , ,, · ..
~ .'~-'""'~" , .' ,~ (,.~ ...~.... ,.. ~,~ ~ ~ ....... .. ~- . .
'~ ~'~ ~ ~' ,' .' . ' ' .' .-~ .... ~. . ~1 - .. ., .'..
. . .. ~.~, ~ ~ .~.~ ,~'~.~ ,-:~. . . ~..,.~ . ~.~'. ~ ....
~ . ., . ... ~ -; , , . ,..~ ,~ . ,~ .. ~ ~.. ~.. .
~ -. .. ~ -~ · , . '~ ~ .' ..... ..,.~ ~.~,~.. :: .
." d.'
, · .,. .. ~,',,. ,.~ ~. . '.-, ,~.~,~,, ......- ., .. ~ ,.~.,.
,:~' · .;' .~ :-,.',. A. 'z": L~ .' ~ .~ ,," ~ ..':'~ ~ ....
.... ~ .~ ~~. .
· ~ ,' · [z'=-: :~ ~ ,. ~ ... ~., ,>~~~~lP~Iz~I~ ~~R;'~.~' ' ~'.~' ' '~F .: .,~: - - '~ .~,
: .-.-..., .;.,-'~.,;,', · .. - .,.,~ ... _. ~ ; .~ ~. .. '.. ~ :.',.
... ,,<,, ... .:_ '
· _ ..~ ,,. ~ ~-~ _> :,'
-. % '..,, :,
~.,,'~>~.,~,~- , ......:::' :-~~,:~,, .~ ~ ~ --..~.
......... ........ , .............. ..............
~ '. ~~.,~ ~ ....
· ' .'~. ' ......... d.._~~..-..-- _ .... .. . ....
.. ~. .. .. ,. ~. ,'~.:'~~~~,~, ..,~., ....... .. . . ..... _~.~.~.,:.. .: :.... ~ ~, ,,, . ,
.'b.~=,~-;'~:,.-,< ,. ~ ..... ~.~ -"7 .... =' ~ .... - ..... '" ...... -'. ~?":.: '"~" '= ':~'~ ~ '~ ....
· ~ , · ~:~., . ..,. ~,.;. .~ .~. ~ .......... .,, . . . . .. .........,,~-.., .: . '.-'-.~ .> ~..
", · ~-~ ,~ ......... , ,':..e~.-4~ ,, .. ,. .~: . . ,. ., , .. ., . , : ~' '.~'~ - ~.~ ..~.,'- ~ , '."?'~"~'. - . "' ,~'~ ~" , · -' ~'. . ' .' ,,I' " .
.~.." '.~ '>':' '.'~' >':'~' <..: :'L '" · ': '"' .... , ,, ,. ~:- .... . .r · . .... "" . .' . ,"~. ,.-' ', · ' ' .... ' ........... "' .... ""~ ~' "'~ ~'~'"'"'" "~ " ':"' " : .....
. ... -.... ..?'..':~ .>T~:-, 'p, --~,?,~ ...: ~- .:~..<- · . .
,.,-. , ~ ..,- ..~ . ,: ~>, . ~: . ...., .. -~,~ =;.- ~ ,...~. .....~. .-:..~ ~. · .... ~:.' ..~ ...' :~-. .:....'~:. ,- .... ..' .:: ...>? i..I.~Q'-~ .
...~ ...,: .. :.-. ,:.~..:~:~..-~,. .' ..'...-. .' .. .... ~:.~' -..... .,.....,. ..
~ f.'-?.G~.:' .?..~>...~-~..I?.~ .. ,..'.. : .. ~ . . . . . . -
.~. -"~.:' ."= ..... :.. :~ .::~:'$r' ~.~ ' · ,.',... ".. ': .'~.~. '. '.' .' :: ' '- .. · '.- ...'.-" .
' .! ' ." ".,'..- ,'.'~ : ,~ '...." .,-.. .. .-" :.~ -..'" .: . . ' ..:' ~..- --: · - .' . . ' .... . · :':. :. .- . ~-'.. ?-' ..-..-' .... ":
: ::. ..............,- ..... .... ., . ..
, . ...... .:...:..:..: ....:,'.'.:
.. · . · .~ . . :,' .
:: · . . ~ ':.." - .,'"~'- ~ '
.: . ,.. . .. ..~'~ . -. ...:.
?' ,, .. :....~' ,. . .'.. .. , · .
S "' .= . ...
-.THE LONANC " '"'' :-."':":' "~,,0,,~,.. ,,,,C
"' C~nnin~ham"~ rchi~c ts
Coppell , Texas .. ~airmouni/~
, ' · D~as, %x~s'?520
2]~ 855
;.. 60t Pacific Avenue
-~.~"' '; 2'~4/748-3278
December 3, 1991
Mr. Gary Sieb
Director of Planning
City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Private Roadway Agreement with J. E. Thompson at Mile Post
605.14 in Coppell
Dear Mr. Sieb:
In response to our phone conversation, please be advised that the
license agreement between Mr. Thompson and the St. Louis
Southwestern Railway Co. ("Railroad") dated January 18, 1983 was
acquired by DART in the acquisition of January 1, 1991. The
30-day terminable agreement is for a private road crossing, not
for public use. The license was granted to Mr. Thompson to
access his property. Lattimore Materials Co. entered into a
license agreement with the Railroad on May 28, 1986 to use the
same road crossing to access their property.
Mr. Thompson and Lattimore Materials assume all property damage
and bodily injury liability for the road crossing and must upon
request provide evidence of insurance of their liability under
this agreement which satisfies DART's Risk Management staff.
To change the zoning of the property to be served by the roadway
and propose a business that would attract the public, changes the
use of the road crossing from private to public which DART finds
Unacceptable under this existing agreement. Both licenses,
therefore, would be subject to termination and the crossing
removed.
DART would consider the City's application for a public road
crossing license with the City of Coppell assuming all liability
and maintenance of the crossing. Plans for the road crossing
Mr. Carl Sieb
December 3, 1991
Page 2
would have to meet certain criteria established by the Railroad
as they have an operating agreement with DART and must approve
any plans which effect the right of way.
In summary, please understand that DART does not object to the
type of business that Mr. Thompson is proposing to the City. Our
objection is that Mr. Thompson's property does not provide for
public access under the current agreement with DART. We are
concerned that the proper improvements necessary for a public
crossing, the liability and maintenance of public right of way be
under the domain of a public authority.
Sincerely,
Jan Seidner
R/W Management Representative
JMS:
ff . 2)aura
December 9, 1991 ATTACHMENT ~7
Taryon PasCe~ovman
Plannins~/~oning Coordinator
CiCy'O~ppell
255 P/a~kway Boulevard
C~ell, Teus 75019
/RK.'DART Letter Concerning Private Roadway
Asreement.
Dear Taryon,
Enclosed are letters of additional opinions on the continued use of the
private roadway. Me have discussed the DART Procedure with DART Scarf. Our
insurance underwritins for DART Risk Hanasemenc is not prohibitive for us.
We would continue Co have the responsibility of a private drive with the
necessary improvements, liability protection and maintenance to keep a revised
license agreement nsc a responsibility or liability Co the City Of Coppell.
We have previously provided our Transportation Study for our sics. Also Hr.
Xavier Chaps P.E. whose letter is provided did the structural report on the
structures and is involved with our sics entrance improvemen~s.
The necessary consultants are available for any quesClons. They will also be
available at the.plannins and zoninsmeeCing co assist members with any questions
a~ ~haC time.
Sincerely,
l.J. 'Nichael" Daum
ResisCered Professional Land Surveyor.
P.O. Box 210858 · Dallas, Texas 75211 · 214-330-9823
.fTACHMENT ~8
TRANS TEXAS
CONSULTANTS
December 6, 1991
Hr. R. J. Daum, R.P.L.S.
IPA
P.O. Box 210856
Dallas, Texas 75211
Dear Mr. Daum:
This is in regard to your clientts concerns about the
continuance of the private crossing license at the Beltline
Roa~ facility in Coppe11, Texas. _
Typically, it has been the policy of railroad companies to
grant private crossing licenses to property owners for access
to their property with provisions for cancellation of said
licenses upon 30 day notification. In the case of your
client, his only access to his property'is through a license
to cross the St. Louis and Southwestern Railroad property,
which property I understand has been acquired by DART. It is
likely that DART has also acquired other licenses that had
been issued previously to property owners by the former
operating railroad company. _
In my extensive experience with railroad operations, I had
never encountered a situation where a licensee had been
required to convert a private crossing to a public crossing,
parti~ularly where the access would be on1¥ to the
immediately adjacent property and would not continue beyond
to other properties. I have inquired to other railroad
officials on your behalf as to their policy on t~ese matters,
and every response revealed that requiring th~s conversion
was not a universal nor conventional practice.
! would suggest that DART should maintain a cons~stant policy
with your client as they do with all other licensees, for
which they maintain private crossing licenses and as other
railroad companies maintain with their licensees. If all
other licensees having private crossing licenses are not
being required to pursue conversion of their private
cros~ings to public crossings, then your client should not be
required to provide this benefit either.
It is my opinion that DART can not require your client to
provide a benefit to DART that is not required of all other
licensees in similar circumstances.
Please advise if I can be of further assistance in this
matter.
Your~ truly,
Xavier Chapa, P.E.
P. O. BOX 9419 AMARILLO. TEXAS 79105 {806} 379-8828
ATTACHMENT
492~ GREENVILLE AVE., SUITE 750
DAM.AS, TEXA~ 75206
TELEPHONE: 214,265-1233
FAX: 214-265-1332
Deoember 9 t 1991
Hr. R. J. DRum, R.P.L.S.
IPA
P.O. Box 210856
Dallas, TX 75211
Re'. Proposed Thompson East Additionv Coppell, Dallas County,
Texas (#Proposed Addition") located at 1850 Beltline
Road, Coppe11, Dallas, Texas (#Property#)
Dear Mr. DRum:
Pursuant to ~y review of the Preliminary Plat of the Proposed
Addition and according to the letter from Mr. Xavier Chaps, P.E.
addressed to you, the current access for the Property to a public
street [~llioh tn thll case is Beltline Road] is by way of a private
road which is evidenced (according to the information furnished to
ma) by a private crossing license w~th St. Lou~s and Southwestern
Railroad (the predecessor-in-interest to Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(NDART#)). I understand that DART hal taken the position that a
public crossing (for the benefit of the City of Coppe11)
necessary for this Property. ! must disagree with DART's position
(and agree with Mr. Chaps) that only a private crossin~ (which
understand currently exists) is necessary, not a public roadway
since the crossing merely serves this one piece of property.
Public access (whether it is a street o= a crossing) should benefit
the entire public (such as Beltline Road does) and not just one
piece of property, such as the Property in question.
questions or comments, p.lease feel free to
If you have any
contact me.
/
/~ _
GKg/cr
Enclosure