Loading...
Corners Coppell-CS030121T H E C 1 T Y O F COPPELL ~~ q ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~" a January 21, 2003 Jared Jackson J.P. Brothers, Inc. 10203 Corkwood Drive, Suite 110 Dallas, TX 75238 RE: Case No. PD-97R-R, Corners of Coppell (Amended letter) Dear Mr. Jackson: This letter is to inform you that on January 16, 2003, the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission denied Case No. PD-97R-R, Comers of Coppell, zoning change request from PD-97-R (Planned Development-97-Retail) to PD-97R-R (Planned Development-97 Revised-Retail), to allow a 5,970 squaze-foot retail building with a dry cleaners, on approximately .802 of an acre of property located at the southeast comer of MacArthur Blvd. and Sandy Lake Road. Briefly, the reasons for denial relate to lack of response from the applicant and issues relating to orientation. size and design of this building. For your information, the submittal deadline for our March meeting is I' noon, Monday, February 17`s. You have the right to appeal this decision to City Council within 15 days. If you decide to proceed for your request, we will need a letter stating that fact on or before 12 noon Friday, January 31~`, so that your plans can be forwarded to Council for consideration on February 11`x. Please be advised that given the Commission's recommendation for denial, a'/< vote of Council is needed to approve your request. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (972) 304-3678 Sincerely, ~C~lC1~~, ~1diYlt7~J Mazcie Diamond Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development Cc John Z. Ma, MA International Building Inspection File 255 PARKWAY t P O RO% al8 t CO PPE LL T% ~SOi9 t TEL 972/462 0022 i FAX 9~2. 304 3673 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: PD-97R-R, Corners of Coppell Summa>~ of Revisions and Revised Staff Recommendation for January 16,.2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting On November 22, 2002, the applicant was sent a letter explaining that to be considered for the January 16's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, resubmittal was due on December 16, 2002. On December 18, 2002, staff received correspondence from the applicant's attorney, Art Anderson, which included a letter from Joseph Edwards of Jenkens and Gilchrist, representing the owner of the adjacent shopping center, which stated the intent to grant limited access [o the pad site. In a telephone conversation between staff and the applicant's attorney it was reiterated that issues relating to the orientation and architecture of the building and Cechnical issues relating to the plat still needed to be addressed. On December 27, 2002, staff sent another letter to the applicant, and his consultants, stating that given the resubmittal date for consideration at the January 16'~ Planning and Zoning Commission meeting had passed, the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is February 20, 2003, and detailed the submission requirements to be considered at that meeting. Staff also requested written correspondence prior to January 8, 2003, requesting that Planning and Zoning Commission either deny or continue this request until the February 20, 2003, meeting date. No additional correspondence has been received from the applicant or his consultant,; therefore, staff recommends that this request be denied, which will allow for a new application to be submitted by the owner, if desired. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff recommends that this request be denied. NOTE: ATTACHED IS THE COMPLETE STAFF REPORT ON THIS REQUEST Item # 4 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: PD-97R-R, Corners of Copgell P & Z HEARING DATE: January 16, 2002 (originally heard on October 17`~ and held under advisement with the hearing left open, heard on November 21, 2002 and held under advisement, again with the hearing left open.) STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director LOCATION: Southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Sandy Lake Road. SIZE OF AREA: Approximately .802 of an acre of property. CURREN"F ZONING: PD-97-R (Planned Development-97-Retail). REQUEST: PD-97R-R (Planned Development-97 Revised-Retai]) to allow for the development of a 5,970 square-foot retail building with a dry cleaners. APPLICANT: Applicant: Engineer: Jared Jackson John Z. Ma J.P. Brothers Inc. MA International 10203 Corkwood Dr., Ste 110 506 Melrose Drive Dallas, Texas 75238 Richardson, Texas 75080 (214)341-2656 (972)644-24539 FAX: (214) 341-2982 FAX: (972) 644-2414 HISTORY: In 1985 the City Council approved a zoning change from a Multi Family-2 district and a Retail district to PD-97 for retail uses on this property and the adjoining 120,000 square-foot shopping center on 11.6 acres of land. The Final Plat for the Comers of Coppell Addition was approved in 1986, which encompasses the subject Item # 4 Page 1 of 7 property as Lot 2. No mutual access or fire lanes to serve Lot 2 were recorded as part of this Final Plat; however, the current applicant has provided staff a copy of a "Reciprocal Easement Agreement" which provides for non-location specific cross access between Lot 2 and the remainder of the shopping center. The owners, at the time of the agreement, were Southland Corp (7-11) and Corners of Coppell Joint Venture. It appeazs that the shopping center changed ownership between 1986 and 1992. In 1992, the current owner, Blue Chip Partners, replatted the Comers of Coppell into three lots to allow for the marketing of the individual lots (building and parking) for offtce uses. Lot 2 was not included in this replatting activity nor was any provision for mutual access between these two lots. TRANSPORTATION: Sandy Lake Road has recently been improved to a four-lane divided thoroughfare within 110 feet of right-of--way. MacArthur is constmcted as a four-lane divided thoroughfare with sufficient right- of-way to accommodate asix-lane divided roadway. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North - Retail; C (Commercial) South -Vacant Shopping Center; PD-97-Retail West -Single Family-Woodridge, Section 5; PD-145 East - Vacant Shopping Center; PD-97-Retail COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for neighborhood retail uses DISCUSSION: This tract of property is anout-parcel (Lot 2) from the existing vacant shopping center at the corner of Sandy Lake Road and MacArthur Blvd. The applicant desires to construct a 5,970 square-foot retail center, facing MacArthur Blvd, to house a dry cleaners and other retail uses. While the existing PD, established in 1986, permits the proposed retail uses, there are major site plan issues, which need to be resolved prior to formal action being taken on this request. The most significant issue with this request is access to, and fire protection of, this site. As discussed in the HISTORY section, during the previous platting and development activities on the abutting parcel (the shopping center), there were no mutual access or fire lanes platted to serve this corner Item # 4 Page 2 of 7 tract (Lot 2). However, a "Reciprocal Easement Agreement", which provides for cross access between Lot 2 and the remainder of the shopping center was filed with the County by the previous owners (Southland Corp. and Comers of Coppell Joint Venture). While this requires that these two property owners provide ` ....mutual, reciprocal, and non-exclusive easement, .. both pedestrian and vehicular", ....between parcels one and two, the instrument does not provide for the specific location, timing, or paving requirements to provide this access. The current applicant is indicating that a fire lane/mutual access easement will be provided from the subject tract to the existing driveway on Sandy Lake Road. The provision of this fire lane/access easement will require: • Approval from the owner of the shopping center to allow for the establishment of a fire lane/access easement at this specific location and the filing of such off-site easement with Dallas County; • the owner of the shopping center allowing the applicant to pave this 24'- wide driveway from the subject parcel to the existing paving on the shopping center; • per request of the Fire Marshal, a letter is required from a professional engineer stating that the existing bridge from the shopping center to Sandy Lake Road is capable of supporting fully-loaded fire apparatus; and • the extension of the fire lane along the west side of the building. These access issues are not merely for the convenience of the patrons of the proposed retail center; these aze also fire lanes, which need to be provided for the health, safety and welfare of the occupants. At a minimum, a letter from the shopping center owner committing to work with the owners of Lot 2 to provide the access and to allow for the paving of the fire lane is needed prior to staff making a forma] recommendation on this request. The applicant has revised the location of the building to allow for the Ere lane requirements to be met on-site. Specifically all points of the building are within 150 feet of a fire lane, if platted as indicated on the site plan. Therefore, the structural integrity of the existing bridge structure on to Sandy Lake Road is no longer relevant for the development of this tract. However, staff still has concerns with the functioning of this property from one access point on MacArthur, approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of Sandy Lake Road. During peak traffic times, this one driveway will essentially be inaccessible. This property may only be accessed from northbound MacArthur Boulevard. In the event that a customer desires to travel southbound on MacArthur, then a U-turn at the intersection with Sandy Lake will be required. Therefore, based on safety and traffic issues, the Engineering Department is requiring verification that a second point of access along MacArthur Blvd. can be achieved via private reciprocal access agreement as noted on the site plan. Item # 4 Page 3 of 7 On November 14, 2002, staff received a letter from the property owner of the shopping center, who is a party to the Reciprocal Easement Agreement. This letter reiterates the fact that this "Reciprocal Easement Agreement" is a private agreement, which the City does not have any legal remedies to enforce. This agreement is to benefit the "customers, employees and tenants" of this retail area, and not the general public. The owner expresses the concern that, at this time, given the shopping center is vacant, and the security of the buildings and the grounds is a major issue, providing access to the remainder of the site will pose health and safety issues to this property and the area, as a whole. In addition, the following technical issues also need to be addressed: 1) The dumpster needs to be relocated outside of the required ]0-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. The applicant has relocated the dumpster out of the landscape area; however, its current location requires accessing this dumpster from the adjoining property. As of this date, staff has no assurance from the abutting property owner that this would be permitted. 2) The signage criteria needs to match from the site plan sheet to the elevation sheet and be revised to limit the logo to a maximum of 20% of the area of any sign. (Corrected) 3) The notation of Corners of Coppell, Volume 86197, Page 5563 on the proposed fire lane needs to be removed because it appears as if the fire lane has already been established.(Corrected) 4) The recording information on the abutting properties needs to be corrected to reflect the Corners of Coppell, Lots 1R, 3R&4R, Block 1, Replat, filed in Vol. 92191, Pg. 1015. (Corrected) 5) The landscape setback line on the east property line needs to be revised to be 10 feet instead of 15 feet. (Corrected) 6) The following variances are being requested as part of the Landscape Plan: • Reduction of the landscape buffer area along the north property from 15 to 10 feet. • Relocation of the required 10 feet of landscaping along the southern property line to be located adjacent to the building. • Fulfillment of the 2,492-square feet of landscape shortage off-site by planting, irrigating and maintaining 15 feet of landscaping within the drainage easement adjacent to Sandy Lake Road. Item # 4 Page 4 of 7 (The Parks and Recreation Department will not approve of trees in this drainage easement; therefore, the Landscape Plan will need to be revised to remove those trees and address deficiency in landscaping.) The Landscape Plan indicates that the sloped area adjacent to the north property line will be planted, irrigated and maintained by the applicant. This area is proposed to contain grass and three Bald Cypress trees. The Parks and Recreation Department does not object to the proposed planting in this drainage easement, as long as the property owner maintains this area. 7) This project will require Tree Mitigation, as well as a Tree Removal Permit. On October 17, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that an effort be made to preserve trees on the site; this apparently has not been accomplished. Finally, staff is also concerned with the aesthetics of this proposed building, given its visibility from one of the City's Primary Image Zones. The existin shopping center faces onto Sandy Lake Road. As currently designed, the proposed building will face on MacArthur Boulevard. There are two major issues with the siting of this building. First, this building will be fronting towards the existing single-family homes on MacArthur Boulevard instead of commercially-zoned and developed properties along Sandy Lake Road. Second, when traveling westbound on Sandy Lake, only the rear and side of this building will be visible. Understanding constraints imposed due to the shape of the property, additional architectural enhancements were requested to be added to the north and west elevations of the building to make it more aesthetic from Sandy Lake Road. A logical option may be to either double front this building or to reduce the size and orient the front towards Sandy Lake Road. To address this issue, the applicant has revised the landscape plan to include eight Austrian Pines along the cast property line to obscure the view of the rear elevation from Sandy Lake Road. Therefore, the applicant has chosen to hide the building instead of enhancing it. No revised site plans or elevations have been submitted for review. Most of these issues with the site plan and the landscape plan can be dealt with on a technical level with a revised submittal However, the issues concerning access and fire protection of this site need to be completely resolved prior to proceeding with a recommendation of this request. Item # 4 Page 5 of 7 To summarize, the applicant has resolved the Tire lane issue; however, there remains major safety issues relating to access to this site from the public thoroughfares, from abutting properties, accessing the dumpster and finally, the concern with the siting of the building in relation to adjacent developments. Staff cannot support this request to amend this PD to allow for the proposed 5,970 square-foot retail building on this tract of property until such time that these issues are resolved. On November 22, 2002, the applicant was sent a letter explaining that to be considered for the January 16'" Planning and Zoning Commission meeting resubmittal was due on December 16, 2002. On December 18, 2002, staff received correspondence from the applicant's attorney, Art ,4nderson, which included a letter from Joseph Edwards of Jenkens and Gilchrist, representing the owner of the adjacent shopping center, which stated the intent to grant limited access to the pad site. In a telephone conversation between staff and the applicant's attorney it was reiterated that issues relating to the orientation and architecture of the building and technical issues relating to the plat still needed to be addressed On December 27, 2002, staff sent another letter to the applicant, and his consultants, stating that given the resubmittal date for consideration at the January 16`h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting had passed, the next availahle Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is February 2Q 2003, and detailed the submission requirements to be considered at that meeting. Staff also requested written correspondence prior to January 8, 2003, requesting that Planning and Zoning Commission either deny or continue this request until the February 20, 2003, meeting date. No additional correspondence has been received from the applicant or his consultant,; therefore, staff recommends that this request be denied, which will allow for a new application to be submitted by the owner, if desired RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff is recommending that this request BE HELD TINDER ADVISEMENT TO NOVEMBER 21~`, with the public hearing lefr open, to assure that the issues relating to access and fire lanes be resolved prior to proceeding with a recommendation on this case. Staff is recommending that this request BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO DECEMBER 19'h, with the Public Hearing left open, to assure that the issues relating to access and building orientation are resolved prior to proceeding with a recommendation on this case. Item # 4 Page 6 of ~ Staff recommends that this request be denied. 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: 3~'~ v......e ~\ :.~ az; il\ T .... A..,..,..e Dl c\ 'r.,.., c...~.,e,,. ., ,... Item # 4 Page 7 of 7