Loading...
Coppell Cross L4-CS 991118CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE: COPPELL CROSSING ADDITION LOT 4, BLOCK 1, FINAL PLAT and SITE PLAN P & Z HEARING DATE: C.C. HEARING DATE: November 18, 1999 December 14, 1999 LOCATION: Northwest comer of MacArthur Boulevard and the D.A.R.T. right-of-way. SIZE OF AREA: Approximately 1.5 acres of property, containing one 11,570 sq. ft. building. CURRENT ZONING: REQUEST: C (Commercial) Final Plat and Site Plan approval. APPLICANT: Engineer: Dunnaway and Associates Chris Lam (for Mitch Vexler) 2351 West N.W. Highway, Suite 3280 Dallas, Texas 75220 (214) 654-0123 Fax: (214) 654-0122 Architect: David Cannon 6709 Creekside Plano, TX. 75023 (972) 618-8891 Fax: (972) 618-2409 HISTORY: There has been considerable development history on the property surrounding this request including site plan approvals as well as platting activity. An issue similar to the one staff opposes here was resolved by the Board of Adjustment in January of this year. That issue related to the amount of landscaping required by ordinance and the reduced amount the applicant proposed to provide. In that case, the Board granted relief. Item # 7 TRANSPORTATION: MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D, shown as a six-lane divided thoroughfare on our Thoroughfare Plan. It is currently an improved four-lane divided roadway contained within a 110-foot SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- mini-warehousing; PD-15 lC South-retail; "C", Commercial East - franchise restaurant; "C', Commercial West - TU electric transmission line; "A", Agricultural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for retail uses. DISCUSSION: This site plan needs a great deal of alteration before it complies with our development standards. This is somewhat surprising in that the architect for this project was also involved in earlier construction plans for portions of this property and is acutely aware of our development standards. Specifically, in an earlier case, this applicant garnered Board of Adjustment approval of a landscape alteration, and a 7200 square foot reduction in required perimeter landscaping was granted. The 7200 square foot reduction was, however, relocated elsewhere on the site. This request simply does not recognize our minimum landscape requirements, period. Specifically, setback requirements, landscaping buffers, and calculations relative to overall landscape planting need major alteration. For example, the parking area adjacent to MacArthur Blvd. at the northern property line needs a landscaped planting island; the northern landscape buffer is required to have a minimum width of 10 feet; a 30' high hedge or berm is required to screen these parking spaces; the same requirements apply to the western property line; typically a site of this size requires approximately 25 to 30% landscaping, this site is far short of that percentage. The size of the proposed building has grown from the one approved by Council (from 10,500 square feet to 11,500 feet), and reducing its size will assist in meeting our requirements, including setbacks, yard areas, landscaping etc. In addition, you might recall that we also had a misunderstanding regarding signage in this general area. Although the applicant has provided a "Shopping Center Sign Criteria" outline, staff would remind that all sign requirements must meet City standards regardless of site Item # 7 specific criteria. Therefore, another concern of staff relates to clarifying that all signage must comply with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, regardless of private sign criteria. Finally, it is difficult for staff to understand how a building "grows" by over 1,000 square feet when an approved plan clearly stated gross square footage of building. All these concerns were discussed at the Development Review Committee meeting with this applicant. He has elected to ignore these issues. Because major alteration of this request must be made before it complies with our development guidelines, and the reluctance of this applicant to abide by our development codes, denial would be in order here. That being the case, the plat is also unacceptable until a site plan, meeting the provisions of our Codes and Ordinances and reflected on the plat is submitted. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff recommends denial of the PLAT based upon comments stated above. We further recommend denial of the SITE PLAN in that it does not meet minimum required standards of the City, also stated above, including landscaping requirements, among others. Further, either the building is too large or the site is too small. In that the land area can not be enlarged, the building needs to be reduced in square footage to meet the development requirements of Coppell. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request 2) Recommend denial of the request 3) Modify the request 4) Take under advisement for additional information ATTACHMENTS: 1) Overall Site Plan 2) Lot 4 Site Plan 3) Landscape Plan 4) Irrigation Plan 5) Floor Plan 6) Elevations 7) Shopping Center Sign Criteria (Private) 8) Departmental Comments Item # 7 T~¢ ~U ~ph or sh~ ~de the letter b~ ~te, ~gos ~ ~ tO Si~e m~t ~ ap~o~ ~ ~SC ~ ~m~te to h~T cf IGS~ ~ si~. ~ ~es of I~tter~ ~ ~ h~Y- 4. ~ 0~' Is fhr mn~ d~ t~o~ f~ the ~. ~s m~ ~ ~te ~, ~t~ ~ eol~ m~ be a~ bY ~et~cr - J ' ~c ~c ~r/~:t¢ ~7-~ :'~0' p~l~ss or ~8-ZGp ~tte or ~- Haas C~t~le 3ac~rc~d p~c ~or tO ~ b~ack S. T~at rJY choo~ s~1c, to ~ ~pP:~ ~)' ~o~. Coastr~cfio~ of L~'td ~ c~n~ 6. ttlomt~,a~on 4S,:O W~Ie Neon. ~e LCIIm ~ uc~s Or 4' ~ KIb. tw ~'~e St~ 13~m ar IS~ ct~ m~S ~ l~er. N~ color u ~lre P:~ ~.S~ d~Cts w~e c~. ~; ~ s~ p~ ~ ~ s~o~ 3O to, 1!. :2. 13. 14. Il. 17. :~ to' up to 2~'~ be 1/i'~ StFJe · ~ Keht~ ~cad~ · C~t~ b~ on s~ M a~ Z6" f~ mp ~ do~. C} Tenam ~! ~o~ ~l d~s at ~ t~a~on ~ ~ ~ T~rs ~e fl~ md ~e md ~ ~ a ~r~c ~e Tc~t ~ ~Y ~o~s~le for ~mp~ce ~ these ~t~ ~o No~ ~e ~ p~e~ 19. ~mcn~nn Veflflraflon 20. ~ f~ ~ n~ ~r~or~ C:ot~ ~ ~ ~ ~ront or .~'~3tC~ Or ~0~ CO~tQts ~[C~TtCfl[ or fluff ~a~oo ~4esc~t ~ ~er ~ed or ~ted ~ ~zed p~s ~e u~pJ, st~ ~ ~ec~a ~ ~uufacl~ers Or 1QsIaUcTs S~ not ~ ~i~l~ ~cepc fo: te~ ~ ~o~nung au~h~lO~ Tenet s~ ~ r~ m ~de~c~y ~s ~e~f ~ ~g one (J) sl~ ~cb ~ b~ a~cA~ ~dy tu the e~b :~a when the pu~ ~ rmc~qe ~s ! S'. ~ t~ ~a ~b~ f~ ea~ frGmaie t~q rea~n s~:~ ~t ~C~e the TEA~t ~ c~e ~ffc~ ~ ~ts ~:nrj uf~ the ~ ~s ~e ~b~ to ~ha~ ~s~Uon ap~ ............. nv 1 o ~999 . , o ENGINEERING COMM ITEM: Coi~#ell Crossing Addition, Lot 4, Block 1, Final Plat and Site Plan Review, to allow the development of a 1L$70 square foot office/showroom facility on approximately 1.5 acres of property located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and the D.A.R.T. right-of-way, at the request of Dunaway Associates, Inc. DRC DATE: October 28, 1999 and November 4, 1999 CONTACT: Mike Martin, P.E., Assistant City Engineer (972-304-3679) COMMENT DD ~'Y Y~,4'YI~ YA The building should be located on the lot such that no portion of the building or building walkway interferes with the drainage/sanitary sewer easement along the south side of the building.